Nice, yeah trailering definitely takes a toll on MPG.

Nice those are some impressive numbers with that weight.

@@outlandishoverland I try to be as conservative as possible on accessory weight since it adds up fast and knocks down the mpg. Too much extra weight on a stock rig just puts more stress on undercarriage components, ring & pinion, etc. when off-roading. I like spending my time rolling the dirt and crawling the rocks, rather than doing trail repairs and or waiting around for someone to bring me a repair part, been there, done that -😑 My setup: KB Voodoo Fabrications Max-Modular Aluminum 10” high, 46” long, 40 pound bed rack. A 90 pound Roofnest Meadowlark Tent. Two 1 gallon gas Rotopax, a Krazy Beaver shovel, some tools, and super minimal on camping gear. I've learned over the years that I just don’t need a bunch of extra stuff that I usually wind up never even using. Seems like every trip I find something I don't really need to take for the next trip -😎

Thanks for the friendly advice. I almost always have my windows rolled down for difficult obstacles to hear and see better, but when going down the trail I sometimes have them up for dust also I have 360 cameras that utilize going down the trails.

@outlandishoverland Ya I bet those cameras help. I will be installing one in front before the next Moab trip.

Nice, not too bad considering they are 35s

Intresting 🤔

Nice 👍

It normally uses 87, I just like to fill on 91.

Took the badges off and painted it with spray paint.

in order to hit their hp/torque numbers, they are basically maxed out on their safe tune from factory. the work truck trim has the same motor, detuned and is able to hit 20c/23h because of the lower boost.

Not everyone's city driving is going to be identical. The third "navigational" device is a Garmin Tread that's used for off-roading. It has all the offroading trails on it and it's also has a built in Garmin Inreach in it (Sat phone) for emergencies since we are out in locations with no cell service.

Intresting 🤔

Weird as absolutely nothing has changed unless they did some transmission tuning changes 🤔

I saw a video where someone talked about a fuel injector recall or update? Perhaps they updated the fueling?

@@outlandishoverland I doubt it. What I've noticed that once I hit 1000 miles though it gets better than 17.

Yeah being on 33s, plus the elevation climbing, it's honestly really good.

Honestly it seems to be just about equal to, or slightly better, than the outgoing ZR2, and it does so with better horsepower, better torque at lower RPM, and with a turbo which helps with power in the mountains. Seems like a win all around! I wonder if it could have an "eco mode" to eek out a few mpg with a software update. I'd probably use that on some of the daily commutes with bumper-to-bumper traffic.

@@brayoungful And this generation ZR2 also comes with bigger tires from factory as well with everything you mentioned. There is no eco mode but you probably could get a Banks Pedal Monster to help with the throttle input to simulate and "eco mode".

It has a 21.4 gallon tank.

I wish but the EPA says otherwise

The 222 Colorado ZR2 Bison has a significantly smaller tire size and also lower ride height. Both play a factor in fuel economy, not really comparing apples to apples there. The 4 cylinder turbo as produces way more power and considering the MPG I got with the elevation conditions I had that's pretty good.

@@outlandishoverland i am running 34s i forgot to mention that....the 4 cylinder has 312 hp and the v6 has 308hp , that's not a difference in horsepower at all

@@mattandrickadventures8416 V6?

@@outlandishoverland yes

@@mattandrickadventures8416 Intresting, probably wouldn't do well at elevation, that's where the turbo exceeds at. At the end of the day if you are buying an offroading truck for fuel economy, that should be the least of your concerns 🤷

Sounds like a right foot problem 🤣

Intresting!

I don't know how you achieved that as with my Ranger on 35s the way I had it set up best I would do on highway is about 17

I can tell you didn't watch the whole video because the average was much higher. 😬 What I got versus the driving conditions I had and the fact that this truck comes factory with 33s the MPGs are fairly good.

Comparing apples to oranges there with diesel to gas. Diesel engines are always more fuel efficient and wish we still have them but EPA says otherwise. For a truck on 33s and the conditions and elevation I was driving in, it's pretty decent for a gas 4 cylinder.

@@outlandishoverland: There's nothing wrong with comparing Apples to Oranges is there? One is a 4 cylinder that weighs in at about 4500 LBS and gets around 21 MPG The other is a 6 cylinder that weighs in at about 7000 LBS and gets around 21 MPG (Which has twice the torque, almost twice the HP, and can tow twice as much) I had 34" tires on my Colorado 2.8 So the milage is not very good on the new Colorado and Canyons. I love the new looks... But truthfully the milage is one of the biggest issues with me going back to the new Colorado. Why when I can get so much more out of the 1500 3.0 or the 2500 HD? Yes a little more expensive... But not by that much. You get more out of a full size truck. The Canyon and Colorado are missing features that the full size can give you also. Is it worth the extra money???? I dunno yet.

@@StevenLNew I understand your points but you don't buy an offroad truck for fuel efficiency, I just wanted to showcase that the ratings are really low for what the EPA gave in my testing. Yes full size you get more out of it but also at a significant cost and the biggest drawback is their size. The places I go out to on trails a full size would never be able to make it that's why I enjoy more the midsize truck market.

Sure you can buy an off-road truck for fuel economy... I've done it twice now. My 2017 Colorado was running with 35" tires, 4:10 gears. I was getting great fuel economy. Which is my whole point of my reply in the 1st place. The new turbo 4 cylinder sucks for fuel economy. They could have done much better. IMO. Also note the Colorado and Canyon are not much smaller that the full size 1500s. Most people thought my Colorado was a silverado 1500 and I fits almost identical in my garage My post wasn't an argumentative post. I was just starting that the milage is what's keeping my from buying one. I love the new look... just don't like the engine options or the lack of engine options. The 6 cylinder turbo for instance would have been a great power plant and would probably have seen close to 30 mpgs. The 2.8 or the 3.0 diesel would also been a great power plant for these trucks. I have a 3.0 diesel in my Rubicon with 35" tires and I am still getting 27 mpg. With all the torque you can handle. Yet I don't like my jeep on long road trips. I prefer my old Colorado. My whole point is that GM dropped the ball on the power plant options. IMO Shoot they could have even put an LS option. And the price isn't that much of a difference. The canyon I want is at least $65K

I agree that the mpg is not the best on the 4-cylinder turbo. I have a ‘23 GMC 3500 crew cab 8-foot bed Duramax HD. On a December-January trip that was 5,000 miles (from one end of USA to the other and back), I averaged 20.5 mpg. Hand calculated for the first 2,500 miles and the truck showed the same 20.5 mpg so I didn’t hand calculate for the return trip. 20.5 mpg both ways. This is a truck on 33-inch Duratrac knobby tires. Truck empty with me in it weighs about 8,500 pounds and I carried about 1,000 pounds cargo on the trip. So the weight of the vehicle both ways was about 9,500 pounds. No other mods than the tires. Truck has all the EPA favored equipment. I have a Diamondback HD tonneau cover with cab guard. All cargo was under the tonneau cover. I was 99% hwy, on cruise control and limited the speed to 65 MPH maximum. If I don’t limit the max speed but drive speed limit PLUS 10% everywhere then I get 16 mpg on similarly long 5,000-mile trips, same tire, same setup.

Nice, you could even go a size down to like to 32s and get some light weight wheels and increase your MPG further.

@@outlandishoverland Hadn't thought of going to 32's, but good idea as well. I WAS looking at the lightest wheels I could get for a reasonable price. Below about 27-28lbs/ea seems to be the point where they start getting expensive, and these would be for the everyday tires so I wouldn't be bashing them over big rocks with low tire pressures so they needn't be super tough. Honestly, the vast majority of people don't need the knobbies on a daily basis unless they want maximum "Mall Crawler" bonus points (I don't, and in fact I might go full stealth and pull the "Colorado" and "ZR2" badging off), and I have room for extra tires and have a compressor and impact gun and torque wrenches, so swapping tires for a weekend of dedicated offroading in state or out of state would be pretty easy.

I'm picking mine up Saturday, can't wait!

Got to have better throttle input 🤣

Considering the conditions of climbing of elevation and being on 33s yeah that's pretty good...