Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Chevrolet Colorado

fst1fst1 L.A. Posts: 13
edited March 15 in Chevrolet
The Colorado looks like it could be a seriously competitive truck, but is switching from a traditional compact to a mid-size the right move?

Ed Hellwig
Road Test/Future Vehicles Editor
Edmunds.com
«13456734

Comments

  • machiavellimachiavelli Posts: 260
    I wonder how the 5 cylinder engine will go over? It seems a little "exotic" for the target market that's used to a pushrod V6. Will the Colorado get the 4.2L I-6 from the Trailblazer as an option? Or the 5.3L V8?
  • catamcatam Posts: 331
    That the 4 and 5 cyl engines will be the only ones available, at least initially. (I could be wrong). There are size and space considerations with either the v8 or the I-6.
    I do know that GM has worked on development of a turbo version of the I-5 for the Bel- air concept, so that may alleviate the power concerns of some initially.
    Clearly GM needs to step up and eventually offer either the i-6 or the v8 if they really want this truck to sell well.
  • machiavellimachiavelli Posts: 260
    I'd have to assume that the I-6 and even the V8 would fit, since they fit in the Trailblazer/Envoy. Plus, trucks aren't as tightly packaged under the hood as cars.

    On the flip side, a turbo 5 delivering over 300hp would seem to be plenty of power!
  • Has anyone heard of any reports on what they expect the gas mileage to be on the 5 cylinder? What about MSRP?
  • leew3leew3 Posts: 1
    Yes, moving to a midsize is the right move. The Dokota has been kicking Chev. and Fords rearend since it came out in '97. Hopefully they will install the I-6 270hp engine in it or chevrolet will be wasting their time. Maybe they could have a "SS" version with the I-6 to compete with the Dokota R/T. If Chevrolet does this right for a change and listen to what consumers want they could have a big winner. I know the I-6 will get better gas mileage than the 4.7 liter Dokota and will have more horsepower.
  • I wonder if anyone has links to sites with further Colorado info? I have been trying to follow the development of this vehicle, as well as the new Toyota Tacoma 4 door Prerunner. The new Toyota is said to be a Dakota-sized vehicle, too, with a new V6 and possibly a V8. The competition is great for those of us looking to buy a new vehicle. I believe the 4 door compact or midsize pickups might be a very functional vehicle, having SUV and pickup qualities. I do wish, however, that they got better gas mileage. Time will tell.
  • got1bgot1b Posts: 48
    I also would like more info. I like the size of the Dodge, but the quality just is not there. I can't waite to see what Toyota and Chevy come out with, but information is so sparse. Anything would be great!!!
  • These are the best sources of information on GM vehicles and pick-ups that I know of:


    http://www.gm-trucks.com/

    http://www.cheersandgears.com/

    http://www.off-road.com/chevy/

    http://www.pickuptruck.com/


    Hope that helps!


    – TB

  • GM is completely off their rocker. The 270hp I6 in the trailblazer and envoy sucks gas like no tomorrow. Why their spend the bucks to develop 1940's or earlier technology in an inline 6 is beyond me when they had the idea engine for these size vehicles in the 4.8L V-8 that they have already have in production. I drive a 01 Sonoma Highrider and have been waiting for the replacement truck but will have to consider something other than an inline 5 as being offered by GM. May Toyota will have something decent in the new Tacoma. Only problem with that is Toyota is so proud of their trucks that buying one at a decent price is next to impossible. I had hoped for better from GM but should have known better. They continue to have their head in rectual defilade.
  • Man.... If they couldn't make a weak truck worse.

    For some reason, despite the flaws of the S-series, I love them.

    2wd trucks to me, are useless. Give me a 4x4 and I'll be happy. Jeep's been kicking EVERYONES backside in that area since word go. Why? Two words: LIVE AXLE. Look at the CJ, YJ, XJ, and TJs... Fairly small 4x4s with live axles up front. Makes for awesome strength, better articulation, and easy upgrade. What does GM run? IFS. It's a pain to lift, a pain to maintain, and damn near impossible to fit big tires onto. Sure, you can buy subframe lifts, crank the torsion bars and then add shackles in the back, but you're only making a bad setup worse. There's a reason why 4-wheelers call it Inferior Front Suspension. There's limited flex, and too many things to break.

    Not to mention the weak drivetrain. The engine choices were positively miserable until 1988, and still are. Yes, you can fit a 350 into an S10 engine bay. It's tight, but it fits. Then there's the ever popular 700R4 that was in the S10s and many other GM vehicles... The NP207 found in early 4x4 models wasn't the best either. I still say the best transfer case found in the S-series was the NP231. The scaled down 10-bolt rear axle is a joke too. Some people say that the only good thing going for the S-series is the dimensions of the 2 door Blazer & Jimmy, with it being only 100 or so inches long, and 60 inches wide. Makes for a great turning radius and a very nimble trail machine, if you can get past its fatal flaws.

    I don't really care what GM does with the 2wd midsize/compact trucks, but if they really want to compete in the 4x4 market that's been dominated by Jeep and Old Toyotas, they should start by offering a Blazer package with live axles, front and rear coil suspension, a beefed up transmission and transfer case, and solid V8 power. Limited Slip diffs and/or lockers would be an added touch.

    But I'm not holding my breath for it.

    This is why I am modifying my 88 2door Blazer.
  • What is wrong with this picture? Getting rid of the S-10 models is completely outrageous!
    *pass the crack-pipe---puff-puff* Oh! wait its a good idea! Lets nolonger aim at all those folks that own an older model S10 and would like a newer model! lets take a whole new twist in the truck market and forget everything we have learned!!!
    Like another poster said"What about all those S10's out there?" Its NOT a dead breed of truck, even tho GM would like us to believe.Sure, go ahead and make the colorado but give us back the S10!!!
    I am a proud owner of a 1989 S15 Jimmy 4x4, but you know what? I won't be buying another GM product! I am most assuredly NOT a SoccerDad that needs a poser-mobile to go to and from the mall!!!! My next new vehical will be from a company that knows its roots and is keeping it simple-JEEP.
    GeneralMotors, you lost a fan today!
  • I for one know there is a HUGE market for 4wd vehicles. now Jeep has it right they've kept it simple, for the most part at least. now what I want to know is why GM, Ford, Dodge, and Toyota are doing catering to the grandmas and grandpas that want their smooth ride in a 4wd vehicle. it's a truck (or SUV) it's not supposed to be a car that can hall stuff, it's supposed to get you from point A to point B halling a load over the rocks, through the mud, up the hill, and through the woods.

    I would bet that if GM want's to compete with the Dakota, for one they need to put in a V8, not an I5. secondly they should put on a live front. that's when they will be able to compete with the Dakotas.

    as for not buying GM, I wont go as far as to say that. but I will say I'm not happy with the way the company is going, and I will deffinently look else where before deciding on a GM product or not.
  • I'll agree that ever since GM made their trucks "curvy", I wouldn't buy one. I own an '85 4x4 S10, and am horrified that GM would kill such a successful line of trucks.

    IFS is not my ideal setup(by a long shot), but my truck is surprisingly tough. I certainly could complain about the 10 bolt rear diff I have too, but I haven't blown it up yet, so I won't complain about that.

    Ford is conquering the market for 3/4 and bigger trucks, and why is that? a solid front axle is the key stone here. I'd like to see a Dana 30 (a D30 if nothing else) come stock under the front of an S-truck.

    Sounds like the new 2.8 is going to be about as good as the one in my truck. Give me a break, an I4, I wouldn't buy it, would you? An I5, well, we're up in displacement but I still wouldn't buy it, give me good a good ol' pushrod V8 thank you very much.

    I wouldn't be surprised if GM equipped the Colorado with a single speed transfer case, and in that case, you might as well go with independent rear suspension too. As long as we're hopping on the soccer mom band wagon, how about just calling the whole 4 wheel drive quits in leu of all wheel drive. not in my driveway!

    I'm about done ranting for now, although as more information abounds, i'm sure I'll find something else to complain about.
  • I keep hearing this bruhaha about how awful that Inline Engines are but think about these common sense points. Inline Engines last longer, a V Engine has gravity pulling on the pistons and transferring it to the rings which causes uneven wear and in the end decreased engine life. The Inline engines put all of the stress and strain on the bearing of the crank. Yes, you get more horsepower but less torque. How many little inline 4 cyclinder engines do you see running after hundreds of thousands of miles do you see? Which engines last longer in diesels? The V engines (International in Fords and the Detroit Diesel in GM's) or the inline Cummins in Dodge? I own a 51 Chevrolet with 150,000 miles on a 216 CI inline 6. It still runs fine (only 92 horsepower but a TON of torque). The only thing that I hope is that they put either cast iron sleeves or use a cast iron block in the engine. I am wary of all aluminum blocks.
  • fsmmcsifsmmcsi Posts: 792
    GM should offer the Canyon and Colorado with the 405HP small block V8, AWD, an extended cab, all of the deluxe features (plenty of sound insulation, Etc.) and a 6' bed. It would be an excellent alternative to an SUV, since all of the things which rattle and move around (or go flying in a wreck) would be outside the passenger area, but it would be short enough to fit in normal garage spaces. I would much prefer something like that to the Sierra Denali, which is simply too large, too heavy, and too inefficient.
  • glzr2glzr2 Posts: 70
    I traded in my blazer ZR2 for a Dakota Quad cab and I'm glad I did. Don't get me wrong, I loved my ZR2, the looks, engine, and offroad ability were great, but nothing beats having a four door pick-up with a V8. If Chevy were to throw a ZR2 package onto the 4door S10... I would think about it, but I would still opt for the Dakota. Why you ask... size. I couldn't get over how much more interior room the Dakota had compared to the S10 (I'm going by feel.. I don't know the dimensional difference) special in the back seat. I think Chevy needs to update the S10 and make it bigger and as far as the engine... I get the same gas mileage from the 4.7 V8 that I did with the 4.3 V6... so give me a V8.
  • THE COLORADO WAS ENGINEERED IN JAPAN!!!! DESIGNERS DON'T MAKE THE DECISIONS..BEAN COUNTERS DO. AS FOR DRUGS, WE DON'T HAVE THE TIME....TRYING TO MAKE SENSE OUT OF WHAT IS GOING ON IS ENOUGH!
  • glzr2glzr2 Posts: 70
    Wait a minute.... is the Colorado the truck rumored to be designed by Suzuki? Or is GM out-sourcing the Engineering to PATAC in China?
  • Bob Lutz, HELP!
    If your going to put a mid-size truck on the market be competative with the marketplace, It's a no brainer. Your engine engineers must be a bunch of wimps. Don't listen to them. Listen to your consumers, your long time customers.......Put at least the In-line 6 in the Colorado and Canyon.......Put a 6' bed on this truck. The ZR2 is a good package keep it on the new models. If your going to build a 4 door make the back seat big enough for adults, two bucket seats as an option I know would work.
  • My opinion, saying a design is bad or good before the product is personally evaluated is not a practical one. In-line engines have been around for over 100 years and have been some of the most durable engines ever built. And as we have seen with products from the past that consumer opinion is not based on sound engineering, but on emotions (whose engine is bigger) or initial cost -popularity is not always best. I prefer in-line engines that are properly designed due to reduction in parts, lower operating cost, more access to vital engine components (easier to fix), and longer life (over 300,000 miles) Marine and trucking companies have lived on in-line six engines for decades and why should a short version of five cylinders or even four be such a bad move? World War II was fought using in-lines and they went through hell-the JEEP was powered by a four cylinder and the GI's loved them. Look at any farm equipment, earth moving equipment, industrial generators, Navy (air-craft carriers!), Coast Guard, or Commercial cruise ships - you might be surprised to find in-line engines. What ever happened to the complaints on reliability, complexity, gas-mileage, how smooth an engine feels and serviceablity? Are these not factors when we purchase? And yes, they are longer and if you want a short front end on any vehicle you must make a "V" configuration. GM may actually make a "Professional grade" truck sooner than later based on industrial concepts as opposed to engine displacement or configuration. This is my opinion, try to keep the emotions out and the logic in-not always a simple task.
  • Well folks, here is an advance look at the Colorado/Canyon, the Isuzu D-Max
    www.isuzu-tis.com (select English at the bottom of the page, this is a Thai site, the same country the vehicle is built in).

    As KingQuad1 alluded to earlier, these trucks have been primarily engineered in Japan. As you look through the spec pages and interiors (yes, right-hand drive)please note the following:

    - Dimensions are smaller than the existing
    S-series/Sonoma if my metric oconversion calculations are right. All the scuttlebutt earlier had these trucks growing larger. True, the Shreveport plant may be able to put bigger cabs/beds on the chassis, but I'm not so sure of a bigger cab because of the interior.

    - The interior(though reversed), looks exactly like the one seen in all those Brenda Priddy/Hans Lehman Hidden Image spy photos of the Colorado Canyon. Hard to make a bigger cab when you are even using the same door hardware.
  • I can't for the life of me figure out this big thing about the I5, and I4 engines, both of these engines are going to out power the current 180HP2wd/190HP4wd 4.3V6 so what's the big deal?! From what I have heard the I4 will have 170HP and the I5 will have 215HP. I dramatic improvement over the piddely little 180hp2wd/190hp4wd that's currently available. Another tidbit of information the in line engines run smoother than you could ever imagine. The I6 had to have an anti-starter grind circuit installed because they were getting chewed up starters from those that couldn't tell the engine was running.

    A SS model would be cool though, like the old S-10 Typhoon with the turbo charged 4.3, man that was a real runner there. Oh well there are aftermarket companies that will come out with the go fast stuff we crave. Now if it didn't void the factory warranty....
  • brucec35brucec35 Posts: 246
    I currently drive a Tundra I'm very happy with, and since I don't really like the new styling tweaks they've tacked on, I would consider the new Colorado, since I like the slightly smaller than full size Tundra and find regular compacts too small. But I'm curious why they would take the new well-respected 275hp I-6 from the TrailBlazer and cut off a cylinder for the pickup? Seems like they would save money not having to re-engineer the engine, and it would have the power heavy users would require. 225 lb ft of torque will not cut it for towing and work use, which is what I use mine for. Yet another example of GM shooting itself in the foot if my information is correct. The truck would also have to have a 6 foot bed, minimum, or it wouldn't meet my needs. They make cute-utes for people who just want to commute in a truck.
  • Here is a paraphrase of some stuff I put on the Canyon board on why I think GM is doing what they are doing:


    - If similar in size to their platform mate, the Isuzu D-max,


    http://www.isuzu-tis.com


    these trucks will not be as big as expected. Heck, GM is now calling the present Sonoma a mid-size:


    http://www.gmc.com/sonoma


    Why make a mid-size when you can market your old compact as one (Revenge of Ron Zarella?!?). Maybe GM got some good intel on the Dakota being shrunk next generation and decided not to be behind the power curve. Probably GM also read the writing on the political wall (read: CAFE) and knew they needed to compensate for Yukons/Denalis, Escalades, Silverado 1500's and the like. Might be the reason GMC, quite a while after the Colarado was announced, finally announced the Canyon. Corporate might have forced them to have a small truck so all the CAFE averaging pressure isn't on Chevy.


    - The engine debate is also interesting. Again GM is going for fuel economy IMO. An exec practically said so when he was quoted as wanting to sell a lot of 2.8/5-speed combos. Owning both a vehicle with a 4.2L I-6 Vortec and one with the old 4.3 V-6 Vortec, I can attest for the new engine's smoothness and higher end power. But GM is putting in an I-5 version for mileage. Even with balance shafts it won't be as smooth. Plus, it has less torque than the 4.3. In the end it might come down to buyer's perceptions. Ford dealer's will be quick to learn "Yes, their's is nice, but OUR's has a V-6.

    The 3.5L will best the 4.3 Vortec by 25-35 HP (depending on which version (2wd/4wd)4.3L is compared to) but it does lose 20-25lb-ft of torque in the same comparision. Will buyers be more concerned with torque output and engine size/number of cylinders? Ford's top Ranger engine is a 4 liter four with 238lb-ft of torque.

    The 4.3 had this beat on both accounts. Of course, the Ranger out-sold it, so maybe the 3.5 will outsell it due to horsepower (8hp more). I'm not so sure though. With the I-6, GM out-muscled the 4.0 in the Explorer and even out HPed the

    V-8. The advantage was clearly GM's. In this case though, I don't think the advantages are as clear cut. Especially with Ford salesman asking True-Blue American pick-up buyers if they want a "Japanese-designed pickup with one of them smaller foreign style five-cylinder engines in it."

    Hopefully, GM's gambit to lower it's CAFE numbers with this truck will work, but it might be at the expense of the truck's marketability (read: fleet sales). To address the lack of a "new" six cylinder truck, GM could introduce a 4.2L I-6 powered limited option base version Silverado/Sierra when the 4.3L goes out of production, similiar to the old W/T C/Ks. Problem is GMC wouldn't want a version because it doesn't fit there "Professional Grade" upscale image. Of course, this helps CAFE numbers some more (nice since EPA just raised them) but lessens profitability on a per unit basis, which continues to make Wall Street nervous. Got to like it when Government "enviropolicy" rather than market forces effect product decisions.


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  • moparbadmoparbad Posts: 3,842
    GMC and Chevrolet both have previews on their sites as of 01/07.

    Autoweek does also.

    http://www.autonews.com/page.cms?pageId=253

    Looks to me that GM has a winner in the redesign of the S10/Sonoma.
  • sgtjimsgtjim Posts: 13
    Did Chevy retain the full gauge package in the Colorado and GMC Canyon as they had in the S-10 and Sonoma? I cannot tell from the pictures I have seen.
  • diploiddiploid Posts: 2,286
    I don't know what the uproar is all about - the Colorado is a beautiful new truck. I don't even have a need for a pickup and I feel like I want to own one of these already.
  • Glad to see I was not too wrong on the overall size not being changed much compared to the old S-10/Sonoma. The main area of increase is height (suspension) and wheelbase, but only by a few inches. The width is narrower then the existing models.

    I'm not sure if I like the looks. The fender flares look cheap, the interior and bed scream "Japanese" and the package seems to have a "lightness" to it I don't like. The Canyon seems looks very much like a Chevy, like GMC is embarrased by it or got it stuck down their throat and didn't have the budget to design "brand character" into it. The I-4 should do well, but I still feel the I-5 could be a liability in a V-6 world. But, the I-5 gets three extra MPG over the 4.3 and these trucks will help GM's CAFE numbers, a big reason they are making them.
  • I found a site that has information on the Colorado:


    http://www.gminsidenews.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=4&t=97&s=a45e1441ab7f15f45457926cf38c6f23


    This all the information GM has released, expect a small V-8 or a Turbo I-5 for the SS version in about 2-3 Years!

  • homerkchomerkc Posts: 113
    I was following links yesterday on the Colorado, and quite honestly, I don't remember WHERE I read this. I read that the ESTIMATED (pre EPA official) mileage from the 4 cyl. engine was 16 city 20 hwy! If I remember correctly, that is the mileage available from a 2wd TrailBlazer with the 6 cyl. engine. What I read must have been in error -- please, somebody, tell me it's wrong.

    If GM wants these trucks to make up some of the CAFE gap caused by selling Suburbans and HD pickups, they have to get 20 / 24 from the 4 cyl and 19 / 22 from the 5 -- minimum.

    If the 16 / 20 is correct, why would anyone buy small? The Silverado isn't far from that with a V8!
«13456734
This discussion has been closed.