New Diesel

>>17021268
Good alternative to the VM Motori 428 doing the rounds in factory Colorados and Wranglers.
Love me some small diesel.

>>17021268
>500 lbs
>267 lb ft of torque
>diesel emissions garbage
I would never consider using this

>>17021361
>500 lbs
Perfectly acceptable for an industrial diesel motor and almost 2/3rds of the weight of the other popular 3.9L four cylinder diesels.
>267 lb ft of torque
Heaps, unless you're tractor pulling, in which case boost and fuel.
>diesel emissions garbage
That emissions crap is easily bypassed if you're not a lowest common denominator retard.
Typical uneducated gas motor elitist.

It's a hell of a lot better than other small diesel options and miles better than the 4BT anchor for any sort of 4x4 that's not full size.

If when my 4.0 V6 goes in my Ranger, this is something I would consider replacing it, depending on what else would be needed to be done with the drive train

But it's likely that won't be for at least another 50k miles

>>17021268
>Fuel System: Bosch Electronic
Been there, done that, not going back.

>>17021381
>pay for a brand new crate motor
>waste extra time and money to make it reliable and not implode from egr
>could've got something lighter,cheaper,more reliable

>>17021522
Sorry forgot more powerful too

>>17021522
>pay for a brand new crate motor That'll be good for over 300k miles
>spend 10 minites of your time and $20 of your money to make it reliable and not implode from egr
>could've got something lighter duty, shorter lived, less reliable
Typical uneducated gas motor elitist.

>>17021414
such a pussy, don't call yourself a mechanic of any sort please

>>17021414
Just curious, what injection system are you concerned about?

File: 2016-Chevrolet-Colorado-Duramax-TurboDiesel-02.jpg (157KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 800x533px

>>17021268
> Not posting the superior 2.8L Diesel
> 181HP & 369 lbs-ft torque

>>17021268
>>17021684
literally inferior to a 3.5l ecoboost

>>17021684
Already mentioned it in the first reply.

>>17021572
>he thinks new diesels do 300k
Ayy

>>17021268
>2.8
>turbo
>4cyl
>160hp

Bong here, where diesels are fucking everywhere. Why such a low power output? And why a 2.8 4cyl and not a 6cyl? That sounds very different to the shit we get

>>17022181
>he doesn't
The only thing that kills them prematurely is neglect and catastrophic failure. Otherwise there's no reason to not have a longer service life than diesels of old.
>>17022609
In short, duty cycle. 160hp my not sound like that much, but it'll achieve that output at WOT with a load all day long.