New Tacoma vs Colorado vs Ranger

[skrypj]

I was surprised that a bone stock Colorado with smaller tires has the same diff ratio as a loaded Colorado with 33s

I think 3.42 gears?

285/70R17 is roughly 32.7 x 11.20

315/70R17 is roughly 34.4 x 12.40

That is a bit odd. But at least in my experience with my F150 and the Ecoboost motor, big tires dont really bother it. I went to 315/70R17 KO2's on my truck and it was a pretty minimal drama, unlike going to 285/70's on my GX460.

Also, I was kind of surprised at how many RPM's it turned on the freeway. I figured with the 8 speed and the 3.42's it would have been lugging along in 8th, but at 70 mph it was spinning 2000 rpm or maybe slightly above. My old 6 speed F150 with 3.73's turns lower RPM's.

 

[rruff]

I went into the test drive expecting the 2.7L TurboMax in the ZR2 to move that truck around with ease. 430 ft-lbs with 33's and only weighing 5000 lbs, it should have a huge advantage, but I walked away kind of underwhelmed. It just didnt feel like it had much grunt and tended to downshift and go for RPM's.

I recall reading somewhere that the TurboMax was a dealer installed tune. Maybe it wasn't installed...?

 

[Todd n Natalie]

That is a bit odd. But at least in my experience with my F150 and the Ecoboost motor, big tires dont really bother it. I went to 315/70R17 KO2's on my truck and it was a pretty minimal drama, unlike going to 285/70's on my GX460.

Also, I was kind of surprised at how many RPM's it turned on the freeway. I figured with the 8 speed and the 3.42's it would have been lugging along in 8th, but at 70 mph it was spinning 2000 rpm or maybe slightly above. My old 6 speed F150 with 3.73's turns lower RPM's.

I'm running 35x11.5's on mine w/ 3:55 gears. Wanna say around 70 mph it hovers around 1,600 - 1,700 rpm in 10th gear?

 

[D45]

Alot of windows stickers do add and show like a $395 fee for a dealer installed HO programming

 

[D45]

So I test drove the ZR2 tonight. Pretty much fully loaded except for the bose sound system. It had the Convenience Package, Safety Package and Tech Package. Overall a very nice truck and the interior felt and looked nice. Its a little tight(we fit two car seats in there and its a squeeze) but otherwise felt good.

To put this in perspective, I am coming from a 2014 F150 Ecoboost Lariat with nearly every option. The ZR2 was as nice or nicer than my F150 inside. However, coming from an F150 that weighs 6400 lbs and is on 315/70R17 Territory MT's(same tire as the ZR2), I went into the test drive expecting the 2.7L TurboMax in the ZR2 to move that truck around with ease. 430 ft-lbs with 33's and only weighing 5000 lbs, it should have a huge advantage, but I walked away kind of underwhelmed.

Do you happen to have a vin or a link to this specific truck?

I can pull the carfax and try to see the window sticker to see if it had the HO I4 Turbo motor option

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

So I test drove the ZR2 tonight. Pretty much fully loaded except for the bose sound system. It had the Convenience Package, Safety Package and Tech Package. Overall a very nice truck and the interior felt and looked nice. Its a little tight(we fit two car seats in there and its a squeeze) but otherwise felt good.

To put this in perspective, I am coming from a 2014 F150 Ecoboost Lariat with nearly every option. The ZR2 was as nice or nicer than my F150 inside. However, coming from an F150 that weighs 6400 lbs and is on 315/70R17 Territory MT's(same tire as the ZR2), I went into the test drive expecting the 2.7L TurboMax in the ZR2 to move that truck around with ease. 430 ft-lbs with 33's and only weighing 5000 lbs, it should have a huge advantage, but I walked away kind of underwhelmed. It just didnt feel like it had much grunt and tended to downshift and go for RPM's.

With my F150, it always feels like there is a good amount of reserve torque on tap. Just roll a little farther into the throttle and just let the torque wave push you along with no gear hunting. I didnt get that sense from the ZR2. It was almost like driving my GX460 with the NA V8

I am hoping maybe it was just because it only had 35 miles and maybe the PCM was still learning. Or maybe they have a "break in" tune on it to keep the torque lower for the first thousand miles or something.

Modern transmissions are pretty clueless out of the box, especially if it already started learning someone else ahead of you.

 

[D45]

How well do the front and rear ZR2 lockers actually work?

 

[calicamper]

I'm running 35x11.5's on mine w/ 3:55 gears. Wanna say around 70 mph it hovers around 1,600 - 1,700 rpm in 10th gear?

Stock 285’s on my 3.73 Expedition 70mph is 1400ish RPM. Rarely EVER see anything over 3000 even when hustling it up the mountain loaded. The 3.5 in the full sized rigs is definitely tuned for work truck type use lots of grunt at sub 3500 rpm.

 

[Todd n Natalie]

Stock 285’s on my 3.73 Expedition 70mph is 1400ish RPM. Rarely EVER see anything over 3000 even when hustling it up the mountain loaded. The 3.5 in the full sized rigs is definitely tuned for work truck type use lots of grunt at sub 3500 rpm.

I was curious after I read this so I paid more attention. I was a little high on my guestimate.
68 MPH with 35's & 3:55's:



But, you're right if towing our RV it barely affects the RPM's. Lots of torque down low. That's what made me switch from a 5.0 to the 3.5. Thinking when these wear out I'm going down to a less aggressive 33. Leaning toward that new less aggressive Duratrac versions that just came out (rt?). If I'm realistic about my use case, I don't need Toyo AT3's... and honestly, they suck on our winter roads. My old Duratrac's were much better in these conditions. But got loud as they wore.

 

[calicamper]

I was curious after I read this so I paid more attention. I was a little high on my guestimate.
68 MPH with 35's & 3:55's:

View attachment 818644

But, you're right if towing our RV it barely affects the RPM's. Lots of torque down low. That's what made me switch from a 5.0 to the 3.5. Thinking when these wear out I'm going down to a less aggressive 33. Leaning toward that new less aggressive Duratrac versions that just came out (rt?). If I'm realistic about my use case, I don't need Toyo AT3's... and honestly, they suck on our winter roads. My old Duratrac's were much better in these conditions. But got loud as they wore.

I did the same tire evolution but I do think tires have dramatically improved over the last 15yrs. Running the modern BFG Trail Terrains so far best tire I’ve had on any of my awd/4x4’s regarding all around performance. Very little mileage impact, good pavement performance, great snow and wet performance. Durable enough to tackle dirt roads without getting trashed. Can’t complain really. Its not a heavy truck tire which I don’t need and its far from a basic highway tire which I definitely find inadequate.

 

[Todd n Natalie]

I did the same tire evolution but I do think tires have dramatically improved over the last 15yrs. Running the modern BFG Trail Terrains so far best tire I’ve had on any of my awd/4x4’s regarding all around performance. Very little mileage impact, good pavement performance, great snow and wet performance. Durable enough to tackle dirt roads without getting trashed. Can’t complain really. Its not a heavy truck tire which I don’t need and its far from a basic highway tire which I definitely find inadequate.

Yep. I just need to watch the rating as I tow a 7,500 travel trailer.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

I did the same tire evolution but I do think tires have dramatically improved over the last 15yrs. Running the modern BFG Trail Terrains so far best tire I’ve had on any of my awd/4x4’s regarding all around performance. Very little mileage impact, good pavement performance, great snow and wet performance. Durable enough to tackle dirt roads without getting trashed. Can’t complain really. Its not a heavy truck tire which I don’t need and its far from a basic highway tire which I definitely find inadequate.

I had the old Jeep Rubicon pattern BFG MT tires on my F-150 years ago and I loved them.

 

[TwinStick]

As the owner of a new ZR2, I can say, at the minimum, wait for a 2024 if you are considering one.

It has issues that should not be issues.

Roof caves in at carwash from the dryer air, really bad sounding noises.
Front fender flares are pulling out from body.
Fuel economy is 11-12 mpg. Has 1094 miles & towed a light utility trailer for 500 of those miles.
Fuel pukes out after you remove the nozzle at every fill up regardless of what gas station you use, even after waiting a full 2 minutes.
Waterproof tailgate storage cubby is not even close to waterproof, rendering it useless to me.

I think I can fix the tailgate cubby water issue myself. But on a $50k truck, I shouldn't have to.

 

[skrypj]

I recall reading somewhere that the TurboMax was a dealer installed tune. Maybe it wasn't installed...?

The ZR2 comes factory with the HO/TurboMax making 430 ft-lbs.

I'm running 35x11.5's on mine w/ 3:55 gears. Wanna say around 70 mph it hovers around 1,600 - 1,700 rpm in 10th gear?

I dont have a 10 speed, which was kind of my point. I have a much shorter top gear than the 10 speed as well as shorter axle ratio and I felt like the RPM's were kinda high on the ZR2.

Do you happen to have a vin or a link to this specific truck?

I can pull the carfax and try to see the window sticker to see if it had the HO I4 Turbo motor option

No I did not but ZR2's have only come with the 430 ft-lb motor. But even then, the 430 ft-lb motor only increase torque over the 390 ft-lb version above 2000 RPM. Below that they are the same. So even the 390 ft-lb tune should have felt pretty dang good in a 5000 lb truck. You don't get that sensation of rolling into the throttle and just ridding a wave of drama free torque like my F150 Ecoboost or the Gladiator Ecodiesels.

Modern transmissions are pretty clueless out of the box, especially if it already started learning someone else ahead of you.

The transmission shouldnt really need to do a whole lot when you are allegedly making 348 ft-lbs at 1500 rpm, and 390 at 2000. That should move a 5000 lb truck pretty effortlessly, which was not the case with my test drive. There was another guy on the Jeep Gladiator forum I joined that said the exact same thing about his ZR2 test drive.

Both of us agreed the EcoD in the Gladiator felt far stronger at low RPM. Even my F150 felt stronger despite weighing 1400 lbs more.

 

[D45]

Anyone experience thus huge problem

https://gmauthority.com/blog/2024/02/gm-to-replace-2023-chevy-colorado-engines-produced-with-cracked-blocks/