Howdy, Stranger!

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





Chevrolet Colorado

14546474850

Comments

  • the_big_althe_big_al Posts: 1,068
    Replace your Generals with a 31X10.50r 15. BFG All-Terrain is a good choice. The Goodyear one mentioned as well is also a good choice. You can do some research at tirerack.com by typing in the size. The 265/75 r15 is basically the same size as a 31x10.50 r15 so you wouldn't have to worry about speedo changes and such. The 31 is a flotation tire size and not a "P" series size. Meaning the 31 is geared more for offroad, but there are several tires out there that are also more "road" worthy. In the 265/75 15 there is not as much selection.
  • the_big_althe_big_al Posts: 1,068
    Question for hosts ... Does Indside Line have any plans to test a 3.7 I5 equipped Colorado to see if it makes the truck more competitive to a Tacoma or Frontier? It has a lot of ground to cover in the interior department, but also having a little more grunt under the hood would definately help.
  • the_big_althe_big_al Posts: 1,068
    I am currently looking to replace my '01 S-10 4.3 Ext Cab - which I must say has been an excellent vehicle (it is my second, 2nd Gen S-10 and both were excellent vehicles). Anyway, I looked forward to the Colorado with great anticipation and now that they have come out am a little curious as to how they are doing. The car mags have ragged on them for low quality interior and under powered motors and such and such... They also did that with the S-10, so I am not too concerned with their ratings. I am more concerned with "real world driving".

    Currently I drive about 40K miles a year so gas mileage is a big concern, but also power. I love the torque rich power my 4.3 has, but wish it had more horsepower, although it is more than adequate for the truck - I just always want more. The I-5 concerns me however as it totes having 220 HP, but only 225 FT lbs of Torque. Why is concerns my is the 4.3 has over 150 Ft lbs of torque so the lesser torque means less punch off the line and pulling hills. Plus the Colorado has to wiegh more so it is going to feel slower off the line and when passing on the Hwy. This is probably my biggest concern. I need to know how the engine performs in the real world.

    As far as interior fit and finish - if it is better than the S-10 than I will be satisfied. I like the way the S-10 is laid out and the build quality while hated by the car mags at the time I feel it is quite functional and built just fine.

    The interior space is also a little concerning. The S-10 has LARGE door windows and a LARGE rear window compared to the other models of it's time. This I really like. I love a lot of window space. While I have never actually been able to spend a whole lot of time in the Colorado, when I look at them, it seems as if the glass space is smaller than that of the S-10. If it is smaller I guess I could live with this.

    Anyway, thoughts and opinions are what I am looking for! Thx
  • the_big_althe_big_al Posts: 1,068
    Here is what I would say to your brake problem ... Run away from the Dealer. It has been my experience that they way overcharge for things. I wouldn't go to them unless it was for warranty work. I would find a good honest independent shop to look at the vehicle and give you a second opinion and price. I would also try to stay away from chain dealers like Brake's Plus and Midas (although there are several of those types of shops that are reputable and will give you an honest job with quality work. The problem I find with them is they hire people off the street with little or no experience and you tend to not get the quality you might be looking for.)

    Anyway, find a good mechanic that has been in business for awhile by asking friends and people at work and then stick with that shop if they give you good service. Also keep all reciepts and work done so that your warranty stays valid. And if it is warranty by all means make sure you take it to the dealer and work with them first. No sense in paying for something that should be covered. If it is not warranty work, take it to your trusty mechanic as it is also no sense in paying too much.

    And then as a last thought - as far as basic maintenance like oil changes and tire rotations, find a Wal-mart to do that. It is simple work and they don't charge a whole lot to do so. You can get out of there for less than 50 bucks (even less the next time around if you get there lifetime tire and wheel balance) for both the oil change and the tire rotation and balance. The next time you go in you will only have to pay for the oil change.

    And now one more last thought and I promise I am done :) - For other basic maintenance items you might be able to do a lot of them your self like the fuel filter. You might even be able to do the brakes on your own. This alone will save you tons of money in the long run. If you consider yourself fairly competent and hands on type of person, for the cost of taking your truck in one time to the brake shop, you can get all the tools you need to change the pads, pull off the rotors and have them turned, repack the bearings, change the fuel filter, spark plugs, air filter, and the like. There again, for a one time charge you have all you need and will only be out the cost of pads and turning the rotors (unless you can find a store like Autozone who will replace worn out pads when you buy their lifetime warranty pads. Why they warrant and will replace a worn out wear and tear item at no cost is beyond me, but they do it, so I will continue to pay only once for the pads.) This again is by far cheaper than taking it to a shop to do all the work.

    But you would have to be able to have the time to do all the work your self and sometimes time is money and it is just as easy to pay the money and let someone else get dirty... Anyway I am off my soap box now.

    Bottom line - don't overpay the Dealer for something a much more competent independent shop can do for less and with better quality. And don't pay someone else to do something that you know you can do.
  • the_big_althe_big_al Posts: 1,068
    Ummm.... are you thinking Ford Exploder (cough.... I mean Explorer???) Ford was blamed for that several years ago and they did go ahead and issue recalls for the tires (whether it was the actual tire or the fact that Ford said it was okay to run them at 23lbs of pressure and the tires just plain overheated because the tire was actually under-inflated and couldn't dissipate the heat I didn't get into all that.... But I don't think Chevy put "defective" tires on the Colorado - at least not that I have heard. You probably just got a bum tire. It happens. Not that Generals are the best tire brand to have, so I would say that they are more prone to a blow out as say a Michelin or BFG as the manufacturing process is not a tightly watched as a Michilen is and it is more likely that a bum tire makes it all the way through production, but it happens. It even happens with say a Michilen and your other more "premium" brands.

    Here is what I would do in your position - I would say good riddance and use the excuse to trash the other 3 General's and go get a set of BFG All Terrains in a 31X10.50. The Generals will be the first thing to go when I replace my S-10 with a Colorado. I won't even wait for them to wear out. I might actually drive from the dealership to the tire store... anyway that's just my opinion.
  • the_big_althe_big_al Posts: 1,068
    100K - wow if they ever invent a motor oil that will go that long..... I have never been comfortable going more than 3K on oil changes. I only have an '01 S-10 (which will be replaced by a Colorado in the near future), and after about 2500 miles I head for the lube shop. I also travel about 4000 miles a month so that means I am there about every 3 weeks or so. My advice is to go between 3-5K miles with regular oil depending on your driving habits and with Mobile One i would feel comfortable going 7K miles....
  • the_big_althe_big_al Posts: 1,068
    Here is my whole thought on the matter - I know that Isuzu and Gm were to be joint developing this truck and if it is indeed true that Isuzu flubbed up and didn't create an engine bay big enough to hold the I6 (which would have been awsome in the Colorado), than I am curious to see what might happen in the future. My whole feeling on the Colorado is that while it is a "good" truck, it doesn't compare to the new Tacoma and the new Frontier. It is outclassed by them the same way that the S-10 used to out class them. And this in only the first couple years of production. I am sure that GM knew that Toyota was readying and new Taco and that Nissan was going to introduce a brand new Frontier, so why not introduce a truck that has the horsepower rating and tow ratings to be able to compete. I remember reading that when the general public found out that the Colorado would actually have less towing capability than the S-10, GM made a statement something along the lines of "we dont expect Colorado owners to do much towing, but rather if they are going to tow alot, they will step up to the Silverado." Hogwash. I use my S-10 to tow A LOT! Mind you it's not a 5th wheel or even a camper, but I tow everything from U-hauls to trash trailers, to flat beds and the like. Most average about 2 ton by the time I am done loading them up. And I am able to do just fine. I wonder then in retrospect if indeed this Colorado was designed mostly by Isuzu for a market other than the American public. Let's face it - Americans love horsepower and they love big ratings. (We are also starting to care about gas mileage, but that still comes in third I think). Therefore when GM speced this truck out and it only had a 4000lb tow rating they had to come up with a plausible excuse as to why and this was the best they could come up with. As for me I do not want a Silverado as my needs do not require one and I do not like the bulk it presents. (eventually I will get one when my family grows, or my driveway does) I like the utility the S-10 provides while still keeping the size down. Anyway, on the whole the Colorado does not present itself as being a vehicle desinged by GM in this day of GM vehicles. It doesn't have the same quality of GM's other cars. Of the vehicles GM has redesigned in the last 2 years, I would say that the Colorado is the cheapest feeling I have seen. (aside from the Aveo - but then that was the market is was designed for and it only cost 13K loaded while a Colorado is almost 30K loaded) Look at the quality of the Malibu, or Impala, the new Corvette. The Pontiac G6, the new Buicks. Across the board we have seen an increase in quality from GM vehicles, except the Colorado. It is under powered when compared to the other trucks in it's class, it doesn't have the same quality interior, the exterior is not really a fresh design (it looks like a mini Silverado. This is not a bad thing as I like how it looks, but it just shows no real fresh thinking in how it looks) and the capabilites of it are limited by how it was designed. By the time GM is done revamping it's truck line at the end of the year, the Colorado will look outdated. Even the Trailblazer recieved an update, abeit a minor one to it's front face. I feel that GM would do well to take the truck back almost to square one and try again. Not completely back because it does possess several redeeming qualities. While I like the Colorado, I think it could have been done better.

    Here is what I would have done with it... I like it's exterior design, but knowing what look GM is headed for in the future in terms of how their trucks look, I would have designed it more along those lines and would have kept the turn signals under the headlamps. It still looks awkward at night. I would have either used the I6 motor from the Trailblazer, or knowing the success if the 4.3 and how durable it is and knowing that it came from the 5.7, why not take the 5.3 and creating a V6 derived from that? The old 5.7 produced in the nieghborhood of 250 horses with out modification, the 4.3 develops 190-200 depending on how it's configured. It also developed an astounding 250 ft lbs of torque. GM now gets over 300 out the 5.3 now, so instead of the meager 200 out of the 4.3, I would suspect that a 4.0 V6 derived from the 5.3 could make comparable numbers to Toyota's 245 hp in their 4.0 V6. Your torque ratings would also be in the high 200's I would suspect. I would make that an optional enginge and also offer a variant of the Ecoteck 2.2 liter that is used in the Cobalt and Ion. Yes the 2.2 (not the Ecotec) in the old S-10 was the same basic motor in the Cavalier and it sucked, but if you were modify the 2.4 Ecotech that is the midlevel engine in the Colbalt, you might get HP and torque numbers that are at least equal to if not better than the 2.8 that they are using now. You might also get better gas mileage out of them. The Ecotech from what I understand is an excellant motor and would probably do just fine as a base motor for a Colorado. The V6 motor derived from the 5.3 could be your upgrade and then if you so choose, the 5.3 (or even the 4.8 as it now produces 285 HP) could be a top end motor to be used on the crew cabs or even a hopped up SS version of the Colorado. Heck Chevy has SS everything except the Colorado and Aveo. Can you imagine a 300 horse V8 powered Colorado?? It would blow the doors of the Dodge not to mention the Taco and Fronty. Dodge has a V8 but it is no more powerful than Toyota's V6. Chevy did do it right when they offered the Colorado in all three body styles at 3 different suspension levels. They also did it right when they offered 2 or 4wd on everything but the sport suspension, but why not go a step further and offer an AWD sport package? I'm not sure I would offer a full size bed with the Crew Cab like Toyota does, but I would increase the interior room more than they did. It still doesn't feel any bigger inside than my current S-10 does. I would offer something more than outdated 15 in. wheels. At least offer 16 on the 4wd and high stance suspensions. The 17 and 18's they offer for the sport are a good choice. I don't think you need to go any bigger. 20's are just for show and on a midsize truck they don't leave enough room to get sufficient rubber around the wheel to give any kind of traction or suspision assistance. The Colorado is a good truck; I will probably end up owning one when I run my S-10 into the ground, but I feel that it could have been muck better designed. I hear rumors that the Colorado is slated for redesign/update around 2008. Maybe that is when they are going to address some of these issues... anyway these are my thoughts and this post is now way to long so I doubt anyone has even read all the way through this ....
  • the_big_althe_big_al Posts: 1,068
    that is good to hear about the Colorado (Canyon) I have been lookign and this is the top on my list for a replacement to my S-10 because I am a Chevy fan, but it seems that all I see on this forum is complaints and problems, so it is good to see some positves. I guess it is because when we humans have something go wrong we have to let the whole world know about it and when something is done right or we aren't having problems, we don't say enough...
  • the_big_althe_big_al Posts: 1,068
    that is good to hear about the Colorado (Canyon) I have been lookign and this is the top on my list for a replacement to my S-10 because I am a Chevy fan, but it seems that all I see on this forum is complaints and problems, so it is good to see some positves. I guess it is because when we humans have something go wrong we have to let the whole world know about it and when something is done right or we aren't having problems, we don't say enough...
  • the_big_althe_big_al Posts: 1,068
    hear hear.... All cars are going to have their problems whether Domestic or Foriegn. The drawback to these forums is all you hear about are the problems. Just problem after problem. Very rarely do you hear the good things.

    Anyway I will buy what ever best suits my needs whether it be American which I prefer, or Foreign. I have never owned a Honda or Toyota or Kia or Hyndai or Nissan, and have mostly owned GM's with a Ford and a Chrysler thrown in and in my experience every single vehicle exhibited to some degree some type of problem. But has that stopped me from buying American cars? No - and one brand new one and one 5 years old still sit in my driveway.

    Anyway, gripe as you will about American cars - or in this case the Colorado's being crap, but I highly doubt that is really the case. I would guess that the vehicle is about as reliable as any other vehicle out there...
  • the_big_althe_big_al Posts: 1,068
    The Michelins are excellent, but they might be pricy. I would suggest a Uniroyal Liberator from Wal-mart. I used to put these on several vehicles when I worked there and although they only have a 50K warranty (they used to have a 40K), I would regualrly see them last 60-70K and they provided excellant off-road traction, while being able to maintain fairly decent street presence.

    You might also look into BFG All-Terrains as those are awsome tires - but there again they can get pricey.
  • the_big_althe_big_al Posts: 1,068
    Don't feel bad braggin... there need to be more people on here championing the cause.. it seems as if there are not enough. The majority of the posts here have been complaints which doesn't surprise me. I would suspect that if you really did an in depth study however, that you would find that overall the Colorado is a fairly well to do vehicle and the majority of owner's experiences have been as yours has been. Sure the Colorado has some things that could have (should have been better), as I have noticed in the little time that I have been able to test drive and actually research. There is evidence of GM cost cutting, but I don't think that's really affected it's drivability or reliability. I probably would be driving one right now except my S-10 is in good shape and paid off so my practical sense is telling me it's better to not have a payment for as long as possible. The Colorado is a good truck and if more people bought one (and other GM vehicles like the Malibu and G6) maybe GM wouldn't be in the financial boat it is in now. But that could be a result of it's own mis-management and not a result of not being able to sell vehicles.
  • the_big_althe_big_al Posts: 1,068
    I have searched with out much success as to when GM plans on updating the Colorado. More specifically the engine. I am not completely sold on the I-5 motor and would like to see a little more HP and Torque - specifically torque. A little more on the grunt out of the motor would sell me on it no matter what it's cylinder configuration.

    Also is it possible that GM would do an interior update? They did an update to the S-10 interior 4 yrs after it '94 debut and that also would be a nice thing. While functional and it will not keep my from buying when it is time, I would like to see a little more effort put into the interior. That is where GM's cost cutting techniques shine through like high gloss fake wood trim (or in the Colorado's case - fake aluminum trim coupled with hard plastic dash and door panels. :D)

    But other than that what I have seen of the Colorado is good and I plan on getting one when my S-10 kicks the bucket when ever that happens.
  • the_big_althe_big_al Posts: 1,068
    No under-hood light standard - or even a change holder?? Those types of items should be standard! FWIW my 2004 Impala doesn't have a change holder. Actually, my '01 S-10 makes a better mobile office than than the Imp. It has two power outlets that are in easy reach, the Imp only has one and (2 if you count the cig lighter), but you have to pull out the ashtray and it looks dorky hanging open with a phone charger poking out. If you count the cig lighter in my S-10 it has 3. The two power outlets however are set lower by the center consol. There is no place in the Imp to place things like a PDA, receipts, pens, business cards or anything except in the fold down arm rest. The S-10 has a center cosole that has a tray that hold my box of business cards, my PDA, my phone, a roll of tape, and a couple of pens. Plus between the seats it has an arm rest/ storage box that holds my CD player faceplate case, extra fuses, keys, and all sorts of other stuff that I don't even know what is in there. Plus the glovebox which has all my important papers like registration, tire and battery warranties, oil change paperwork and such. So my S-10 has a lot of storage and conveniece - oh it also has 4 cup holders. Two in the center console and 1 in each door panel. The door panel also has a slot for maps and such. Compared to the Imp it makes for a much better work place.

    Anyway - I would hope that the Colorado would have things like that. Maybe not as standard (My S-10 is an LS - but doesn't have power windows or locks or cruise control), but as part of upgrading from say the base to the LS. If the Colorado doesn't even have a change holder or underhood light that is just more evidence of GM cost-cutting to me. Finding little things to cut out to make productions costs less, but still charging more for the vehicle. For that matter my S-10 doesn't have an underhood light. My '95 Sonoma did - but that was a loaded vehicle.

    Another item I have also noticed missing on Colorado and for some reason this is a biggie for me. I have not noticed on any Colorado an under hood heat/sound barrier mat on the hood. It's the insulation that goes under the hood to protect it from the heat of the motor and also to act as sound insulation. Both my Sonoma and my current S-10 had/have it. Someone correct me if I am wrong, but it seams that having this would help keep the hood cooler and therefore the paint would last longer on the top of the hood. As for sound insulation - I don't know if it makes much difference, but I would like to think it at least aids a little bit??
  • the_big_althe_big_al Posts: 1,068
    I was just going to say that Dodge was the only company that I know of that used liners in the back - I thought it was the best thing ever... kept you from seeing straight through the truck to the other side through the frame rails and bed mounts...
  • the_big_althe_big_al Posts: 1,068
    I wonder why the valve springs stick ?? These I5 and I4 motors are derivitives of the Trailblazer I6 and to my knowledge that motor is one tough motor?? And if so, wouldn't the I5 and I4 use the same basic parts minus a couple cylinders? I know there is more to engineering a motor than loping of a couple of cylinders, but I would think that valve springs would be something that wouldn't be a problem?? Who know... A few first generation bugs in a whole new engine isn't really something that I would worry about. I expect that in the future this will be fixed and the I5 could possibly become a pretty stout motor like the I6 is?? Here's hoping.....

    FWIW however - why didn't GM just take the 5.3 and lope off a couple cylinders there and use that motor?? They did that with the 5.7 and came up with the 4.3 which in my opinion is one of GM's best motors out there. If it's more power they were looking for, I'm sure they could have tuned a 4.0 V6 derived from the 5.3 to deliver the same if not better HP numbers than the I5 and definately more torque.... even the 4.3 made way more torque than the I5 does. And if mileage is a concern?? Well the I5 doesn't do much better than the 4.3 so I'm sure they could have done something with that too... If they can make an LS2 produce 30MPG with 400 horses, well than I think it would be possible to make a 250 horse V6 (at least that's what I would hope a 5.3 derived V6 would have) have palatable gas mileage as well.

    That my 2 cents worth
  • the_big_althe_big_al Posts: 1,068
    The 2.8 4 puts out about 175 HP --- more than the 4.3 did in it's early years, and nearly as much as the 4.3 in my truck. ALthough it doesn't have anywhere near the torque, but I think that would be reason enough to use the 2.8 instead of the Ecotec 2.2. While it's a good motor, I don't think that GM wanted to make the same mistake they did when they stuck the Cavalier 2.2 motor in the S-10... It was just plain gutless. I have not driven the 4 cylinder Colorado - just the 5 cylinder so I don't know how gutless the 4-banger is, but my personal opinion is that 4 bangers do not belong in these "mid-size" trucks, especially once they start getting bigger and weigh more. You couldn't convince me to buy a 4-bangin truck.
  • the_big_althe_big_al Posts: 1,068
    well... I don't think the truck is poorly built. You could have hit the frame in just the right spot. Most newer vehicles are designed to crumple to absorb the impact so as to not transfer that impact to its occupants and injure them.

    I had a '95 S-10 that was hit on the front corner at less than 20 MPH and it bent the frame. They were able to straighten it without any problem and I never had problems due to the accident afterwords. The impact was contained and light enough that it didn't even trigger the air bags. While the truck was not drivable (the at-fault-an 80's style S-10 Blazer-vehicle however was drivable- that's another story), it was fairly easily repaired.
  • the_big_althe_big_al Posts: 1,068
    Really?? Really and truely?? That would be cool. What are the torque specs? And does gas mileage suffer? I have been poking at getting a Colorado since they came out and have yet to plunk down and get one. Basicaly I am waiting for my S-10 to have the wheels fall off before I do since it is paid for. It has 100K on it now and hopefully I can get a whole lot more out of it but by the time the '07 comes out and it starts hitting the used lot's I might be ready for one. I would be highly interested if it had more power and torque. I have driven a couple with the current 3.5 and have not been disappointed but more power is always better! My '01 S-10 was a big improvment in terms of power than my '95 when the motor in the '01 had 190 HP compared to the 150 HP in the '95.
  • the_big_althe_big_al Posts: 1,068
    Actually, I think there is some truth to the rumor that the I5 is getting an increase in power... although it is although gettin an increase in size to a 3.7 242 HP and 242 foot lbs of torque....

    http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=115855

    Here is a report on the H3 getting the increase. I would assume that this would transfer over to the Colorado/Canyon pickups??
  • the_big_althe_big_al Posts: 1,068
    Generally speaking, squealing tires and not holding well on wet pavement is usually a tire, not a vehicular problem. The stock General Tires that came with the Colorado are not the greatest in the world. I would recomend replacing them. Also read through these forums, or check for TSB's. I have heard taht there have been complaints about the alignment issue especially on first model year trucks, but I don't know for sure.

    But I would lean more towards the tires being the culprit and not the vehicle. Unless the tires are worn in an uneven manner, than an vehicular alignment is the contributing to the problem.
  • the_big_althe_big_al Posts: 1,068
    Probably already been posted but the Chevy website has been updated and the 07 Colorado is there with 07 options. Among the changes is the engines. The 3.7 with 242 HP and 242 ft lbs torque. the 2.9 makes 185 HP and 190 torque. Should help the Colorado keep up with Nissan and Toyota at least in terms of power. Not too much changed with the interior or otherwise that I noticed. There are several new wheel options, but I haven't made it through the whole section yet.
This discussion has been closed.