Howdy, Stranger!

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





Chevrolet Colorado

2456751

Comments

  • 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!
  • jauto98jauto98 Posts: 77
    I believe the 16/20 mpg rating you stated is for the 5-cylinder, 220 HP motor. Look at www.gmc.com and look for the GMC Canyon link under vehicles. No word on the mileage rating of the 4-cylinder, would assume 19/26 mpg.
  • Why drop the six unless one of your goals is improved mileage? I read somewhere that GM expects a two to three MPG improvement over the engines the new I-4/5 are replacing (2.2/4.3). Look at annother way. Many people were predicting 15 more hp per each engine, simply based on reducing the rating of the 4.2 by one to two cylinders. True, having to run twin balance shafts at twice engine speed does cause some parisitic losses, however I think part of the power loss is due to GM tuning the engines for better fuel economy.

    I guess will see when the Feds at the EPA test them.
  • Well if the platform for the Colorado is the same as the Suzuki D-Max. Why not deliver something that US buyers would buy and offer the small diesel engine as in the D-Max?
  • moparbadmoparbad Posts: 3,842
    No diesel in Colorado due to US negative diesel perception. No diesel in Isuzu Dmax since GM does not want competition for Colorado so there will be no Dmax in US. Isuzu is suffering so much in US and even Japan that they may disappear totally as far as non-commercial vehicles are concerned.
    Personally I would jump at the chance to have a light truck with a diesel. Ford and GM already offer diesel in Ranger and S10 in markets outside of US so it would not be a problem to engineer, just a problem to sell.
  • Does anyone have any specs on the size of the cargo box in the crewcab version of the Colorado. Any data on approx. Gas mileage for the I5?
    When is this truck hitting the showrooms? June or Sept?
  • I've been hearing a lot about the new midsize truck that GM is going to build next year like options, suspension, and engine size, but no mention of price. Has anyone stumbled across a predicted MSPR for these new comers or is it going to be a huge secret. I hope it won't be exceding the 30K+ price tag of the four door S-10, which is way overpriced. You'd be better off going with a full size.
  • I have come across a WEB Site a few weeks ago that stated that apparently the Colorado/Canyon price will remain approx the same as the current S10/Somoma prices which would make Colorado/Canyon a little more palatable. I hope someone at GM is listening; your product is a tad overpriced. GM has good products but if you go to Dodge and Ford Website and use the Build your own vehicle you will see why the Dodge Quad Cabs and are multiplying like rabbits and the F150 is the best selling truck.

    PS any idea of what the Payload and Max towing capacity of the
    I5 200hp will be?
  • lennxlennx Posts: 73
    My wife was in for service on our van and sat in a Canyon. Her one word opinion - "cheap"
  • PS any idea of what the Payload and Max towing capacity of the
    I5 220hp will be?
  • aldan93aldan93 Posts: 202
    I work next to the engine facility were they make the I5, I was told it will pump out upwards of 240 HP, but with pollution controls ect... it will do slightly less! The great thing is that the darn things will avg 20 MPG! From what I'm hearing this is going to kill Ford Ranger, Dodge Dakota truck lines! GM is going to price these things very aggressive! It is a nice looking truck! The mid size SUV on the same platform is even nicer! This thing will tow 4500 lbs!
This discussion has been closed.