Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Chevrolet Colorado

1356721

Comments

  • lonestartjlonestartj Member Posts: 25
    Whose talking 6,500 lbs? I'd never try to tow that much with less than at least a 1/2 ton full size, and really a 3/4 ton would be ideal. But why drop the rating below that of Toyota and Nissan for cyin' out loud?

    I don't buy the argument that the weight of the truck has that much to do with the ratings. Example: Toyota Tacoma, crew cab 4x4, curb weight, 3,705. Towing rating, 5,000 lbs. Colorado crew cab 4x4, curb weight, 4002. Towing rating, 4,000 lbs. My current S-10 ext. cab 2wd rates at 5,200 or close to it, curb weight, 3,200. No way the Toyota or my S-10 are beefier, have better brakes, etc. than the new Colorado, yet they have higher tow capacity. The Toy has a high center of gravity, my S-10 a lower center of gravity, both rate higher. Talk physics all you want, but this is GM's way to force people into full-sized.

    "Not everyone tows, maybe 20% of owners, how many need 6500lbs? maybe 10% why make a truck that has a harsh ride to be able to tow 6500lbs? to only appeal to %10 of most drivers?"

    How soft do you think the suspension is going to be on the new sport version, lowered w/17" rims? What percentage of drivers will that appeal to (above the age of 20 anyway)? If they can do that, you'd think they could offer a heavier duty spring package for towing.

    "trust me the drive train on these things are bullet proof!!!!!"

    Don't know how you can make that claim, since this is a new 1st year vehicle with a new 1st year motor. Let's wait and see on that, eh?
  • usdtlkegmusdtlkegm Member Posts: 1
    It just looks like once again GM is making a very disappointing vehicle. Rear drum brakes? OK everybody seems to be going back to rear drums but I don't like it. What's with the five cylinder though. It looks like GM is just trying to confuse people with their advertising. They brag up the fact that the Colorado/Canyon are now in the same larger size class as the Dakota, but then they compare power ratings to the likes of Ford and Toyota, who have smaller pickups. The increased power over the old 4.3 V6 is nice but the decrease in torque is unfathomable (unless of course you are GM). The 4.2 I6 would be great but I don't know if it would fit. Still a more powerful V6 or a small V8 would be more attracive; especially in the 4x4 models.
  • aldan93aldan93 Member Posts: 202
    Bud, I work for American Axle & Manufacturing, this drivetrain is bigger and more heavy-duty than Trailblazer GMT 360-370 platform, way bigger and beefier than S-10, I'm surprised as you are about the towing capacity, but like I said the softer car-like ride wins!
  • homerkchomerkc Member Posts: 113
    I know GM calls these trucks "mid-sized", but if you look at dimensions, it's S-10 sized. The last Iooked, it was similar inside and out. Personally, I hope the 4cyl moves it along, as I would like an economical, but only occasional hauler. Why, GM, not add a small diesel to the mix, and provide the torque needed??
  • aldan93aldan93 Member Posts: 202
    Beleive it or not GM is way behind the 8ball in diesal tech. you might see it in 5-6 years off though.
  • lonestartjlonestartj Member Posts: 25
    I'm all for softer ride, if the drive train is as beefy as you say, it'll be a great truck, even if a little under rated towing wise. Stiff ride is one reason I crossed off the Toyota Tacoma. Ever ridden in the backseat of a Taco crew cab? They might as well have put a wooden park bench back there.
  • aldan93aldan93 Member Posts: 202
    I think GM has nailed this truck! Its awesome looking, aftermarket will be huge for addons, it has killer looks if lowered, Both GMC and Chevy versions are in a league of their own! Engine? give it time, straight 5? well give it time.
  • aldan93aldan93 Member Posts: 202
    We should be seeing these in show rooms by the end of Sept. and definitely by Oct.
  • matt_2003matt_2003 Member Posts: 9
    In response to whoever commented on my last post "Why a V-8" There are some very important facts to consider when talking about power in a vehicle. In comparison, the Colorado is probably a much more aerodynamic truck than a Dakota. Also, the Dakota is not just a little more, it weighs about 500 pounds more, in quad cab format. This is substantial when you consider the argument on aerodynamics.

    Who wants to waste all their gas on a V-8? This I-5 engine sounds like it has V-6 power on 4 cylinder mileage. If this is true, I am sure that people will not be complaining that much about the suppossed lack of torque. Besides the old 4.3 Vortec engine was never very smooth, and made lots of noise inside the engine. Thus I think this is a good move on GM's part to launch with the current engine lineup, this can always be modified later.

    MT
  • gregburrowgregburrow Member Posts: 2
    Here are my opinions...

    As consumers we always want more - more space, more towing, more power, more fuel economy...

    To me the new Colorado delivers on all these but towing. Many new models do not get all the nice engines and suspensions the first year. I am hoping we will see a six cylinder, a diesel, and better towing numbers in later model years.

    Also, the Colorado will be very important to Chevy in order to meet CAFE requirements. Chevy cannot sell Suburbans, Tahoes, and Avalanches without balancing them out with high fuel efficiency Colorados.

    As for diesels, Chevy has access to many state of the art diesels through their partnership with Isuzu. But I would not expect to see any diesel available until ultra-low sulfur diesel is mandated in 2006.

    Greg
  • aldan93aldan93 Member Posts: 202
    Your wrong about the Cafe standards, Suburbans do not effect the Cafe standard or the fleet mileage, any vehicle that weighs over 6,000 lbs doesn't affect the fleet. So the H2 Hummer also has nothing to do with GM's fleet Cafe Avg. MPG.

    FYI
  • lonestartjlonestartj Member Posts: 25
    "Who wants to waste all their gas on a V-8? This I-5 engine sounds like it has V-6 power on 4 cylinder mileage. If this is true, I am sure that people will not be complaining that much about the suppossed lack of torque."

    Well, my theory is, why not give us more of a choice? If you want miserly MPG, that's why they're offering the 4-cylinder, right? Few people buy trucks for gas mileage anyway. It's more than a supposed lack of torque, it is less torque (than the 4.3). Hopefully, the crew cab 4x4 with 4.10's and I-5 will have plenty of power. Sure, it's a small truck, and I'm not saying pack the 5.3 v-8 in there, but the I-6 from the Trailblazer would be pretty sweet, would it not?
  • avemanaveman Member Posts: 122
    To get a vehicle to perform well it has to be set up right. To set up suspension for good ride and handling a switch from four to six cylinders is a stretch. From 4cyl to 8 cyl seems too much. To me, and I am not an engineer, The different requirements in weight, and size, for 4cly and 8cyl engines,mean they should not be in the same truck. It would be too much of a compromise.
  • matt_2003matt_2003 Member Posts: 9
    This topic is really very ironic if you think about it. People arguing about towing and how they think the Colorado will be so underpowered and what not. The old s-10's were all dog's in my opinion, from that sucky old 2.8V6, to the old 4.3V6, to the newer Vortec 4.3, and the base 2.2, they all sucked. I have driven or owned an s-10 equipped as such over the years and found them neither very fun to drive, or all that efficient. I also owned at one time a C1500 with a manual transmission, and the 4.3 Vortec engine, and found that it was slightly improved, don't know how that was considering it had only 10-15 more horsepower, could be that the rear end gears were 3.73:1 and that the s-10 was only ever offered with 3.08 and 3.42 gears.

    Back to the point, I think the base engine will very nice, especially compared with anything that Ford, Dodge, or Toyota peddles. And you must give GM credit for going out on a limb by doing something new with the I-5 engine. While it may have less torque, it does have my horsepower and thus should not have any problems with quickness. Especially when you consider that Chev will offer 4:10 gears, that should be more than sufficient for this size of vehicle.

    About towing, it should tow a 5000 pound trailer with no problems, even though it is rated at 4000. My C1500 actually had a rating of 2500 pounds due to the manual transmission, but I did end up towing some 4000-5000 pound trailers before and once it got up to speed it had no problems on the highway or whatever. If you want to tow anything more than 5000 get a full size, its safer that way from a physics standpoint and you will be able to do it much easier, considering better weight on full size, V8, or even diesel engine options, heavy duty transmissions, etc.

    Finally, why does Chevy have to offer the I-6 engine? I think this goes back to bragging rights and stupid issues of machismo, or being macho. You cannot pull up in your new truck with the I-5 and tell this to your buddies right? They will think you are a sissy or something? Ha ha, I just laugh at anybody who buys a vehicle strictly so they can look cool. To me, a vehicle must have a blend of looks, usefullness, and driveability, along with a competitive price versus value quotient. Its like picking a girlfriend, only a fool goes just for looks, or vice versa just personality, there has to be a balance here. I think Chevy achieves a good balance of power, looks, engineering on this vehicle.

    MT
  • steine13steine13 Member Posts: 2,818
    I've always thought the present S-10 to have pretty useless engines. There's nothing wrong with the 4.3 really, but it's way too much engine for the casual user, and if I were inclined to tow, I'd just step up to the fullsizers. Why a little truck and then get 17mpg???

    The present 4cyl is an embarassment IMO; build quality is all over the place, and for a 40-year-old design, they still have (or had, 5 yrs ago) issues with piston slap and the like.

    The new family of inline engines sounds really good -- powertrain is not just a strength of GM, it is probably the ONLY strength. Consider that BMW uses a GM product in their 7-series.

    Why am I even here? Well, I've got $2,500 in GM Card discounts, and in one or two years, I'm gonna have to do something with them. So the Colorado is an obvious choice, but I'm waiting until it'sbeen out for a while. At least they're making 2/4wd, 4/5cyl, and man/auto tranny available across the board. THAT is nice. Also, the size is nice, at least for my needs. If I want a big truck, I'll buy one.

    Now let's hope the thing holds together like, say, a Nissan... we'll look for Honda/Toyota quality and reliability further down the road. Living as I do in a GM town, I really wish they'd get it together. There's always the Pontiac Vibe and a switch to the Subaru Credit Card if they don't.

    Can someone tell me what's so important about tow rating and power? The darned S10s, once they are three years old, barely bring half of what a similar Tacoma goes for at auction. That's how shoddily many of them are built. And you worry about POWER??? The Tacoma is an old design, uncomfortable, no extra doors, ugly.... but it's built to last.

    At least we KNOW the Colorado is going to be an improvement.

    -Mathias
  • matt_2003matt_2003 Member Posts: 9
    I really liked your response and insights on the whole Colorado truck. You know, another problem with the 4.3 is noise. I constantly could here some noise coming from the lower end of the engine I believe. It sometimes sounded like a little ping, but it kept happenning. It would not matter what gasoline grade I used in the vehicle it still made that blasted noise.

    Why is towing so important to some people? Well a lot of people do tow things, but a lot of people that really need a good truck for towing loads, such as horses, contractors equipment, etc. normally step up to a tougher 3/4 or 1ton rig with a big block engine, or even better a turbodiesel, and better transmissions. If you are looking into smaller trucks, the argument about towing becomes rather silly. I used one of my pickups from the past, a 1995 Chev s-10, 2wd, for loading firewood in the bed. If you loaded that thing up, it would sink in the rear end, almost touching the stops, except I counteracted the problem somewhat by installing air shocks, and it would make a terrible groaning noise in the driveline, it got so bad that I was afraid to own the truck anymore and traded it in on a 1997 C1500, which had no problems pulling a trailer and at the same time loading stuff in the cargo box.

    Really I think that people overkill on their ideas about the towing thing. Small trucks are not built to tow heavy loads, over 5000, and should be used just for smaller stuff, IMO.

    I agree with you on the quality of Toyota trucks, though I think their design is bland, and they drive just terrible.

    Also, I do believe that GM does make good drivetrain materials, but not on a Tracker I used to own. I think the new model Tracker contains parts made by Suzuki, more than those made by GM. I had so many transmissions replaced in that thing, it was ridiculous. Though I believe it was not necessarily GM's fault, really the fault of bad design and cramped driveline put together by Suzuki.

    I also believe the Colorado will be an excellent truck, and that the engine choices will provide more than adequate performance without losing a good amount of mileage, plus the trucks look very nice.

    MT
  • lonestartjlonestartj Member Posts: 25
    The 4.3 in the S-10 is indeed offered w/the 3.73 gears, not just the 3.08 and the 3.42.

    "About towing, it should tow a 5000 pound trailer with no problems, even though it is rated at 4000."

    -Maybe, but who would want to explain their insurance company, after an accident, that sure, they were towing 5,000 lbs, even though it is rated for only 4,000? Not me. Not that I'd ever try to two that much with such small truck.

    No, for me, I just wonder why Chevy's competition (Nissan, Toyota, Dodge, and Ford) offers 5,000 rating, and Chevy only 4,000. I'm a big Chevy fan, love their small trucks, and I hate to see this. From everything I've seen, the Colorado is going to be awesome, but this is an issue for me.

    My boat weighs in at 3,200; throw some gear in the bed, a few people, and you're close to the limit. Maybe a full-sized would be better for me in that respect. Could I park it in my garage? No. It would get worse gas mileage, and would be a huge pain at the parking garage at work. Not to mention it will cost more.
  • matt_2003matt_2003 Member Posts: 9
    You are correct that the S-10 is indeed offered with 3.73 gears, though it really makes no difference, the 4.3 is ancient in design, and has a terrible power curve. In my experience the S-10 with the 4.3 would not take off that quick, but would get going about 2500RPM and then just die around 4000. The 5.7 liter engine that this was based off, had more power and a better lower down torque, but then again it is a V8.

    "My boat weighs in at 3,200; throw some gear in the bed, a few people, and you're close to the limit."

    All that I am trying to say is that the limit is very conservative from the manufacture's listing. As I stated above my 1997 C1500 only had a rating of 2500lbs, due to the manual transmission. I did on occassion pull a 4000lb wood trailer, plus about another 1500-2000lb's of wood in the bed. It sank somewhat in the rear, but I had good 6ply tires on it and the suspension was more than adequate. If you add both those numbers up, you will find that I was about 3500lbs over what the manufacture suggested. Did it hurt my truck, do not think so, it was running strong until the day I traded it in at 52K miles.

    "Maybe a full-sized would be better for me in that respect. Could I park it in my garage?"

    Why not, is your garage really a garage? I am sorry to say, but even with a 4X4, most conventional garages should be able to fit a full-size. I know people with Suburbans that put them in their standard garages, tight fit but still it works.

    "It would get worse gas mileage, and would be a huge pain at the parking garage at work. Not to mention it will cost more."

    Not necessarily, I have driven compact V6 trucks that seemed to get about the same mileage as a full-size, small block V8 truck. Again it involves the manner in which the vehicle is driven.

    Concerning the competition, you are correct that the others have higher tow ratings, but like anything comparing the Dodge Dakota to the Colorado, or the Ranger, or the Frontier is like apples to oranges. The Dakota is a decent truck, though its V8 is overplayed, and not really all that fun to drive as some would tell you, also the gas mileage is a miserable 14MPG all the time. The Frontier and Tacoma are nice looking, though they ride like a tank in 4X4 version, and the power on each is not very good either, only adequate. The Ford Ranger has decent power and ride, but it just feels cheap and shoddy inside and out. They begin to rust really quick from small chips, this coming from friends that own newer Rangers, and they have problems with the auto transmission.

    A lot of these things are true about the current S-10 as well. All I am saying is that I think the Colorado is the nicest looking truck on the compact market and seems to have a lot of nice features. If I buy it, I certainly will not be using it for towing much of anything, this hurts a vehicle after awhile, unless it is a full size that is meant to handle heavier loads.

    MT
  • lonestartjlonestartj Member Posts: 25
    "If I buy it, I certainly will not be using it for towing much of anything, this hurts a vehicle after awhile, unless it is a full size that is meant to handle heavier loads."

    You're right, and the lower the tow rating, the more it will hurt it I would think, which is why I'm bummed and will probably have to go full sized and miss out on this great vehicle. A lot of people who buy trucks actually use them for some towing, even the small trucks. It just would have been nice if Chevy had not left me out in the cold on this one.
    No big deal I guess, father in law is a Chevy salesman, says to wait for the 1/2 ton crew cab coming out after January with the 5.3 (they did away with the 1500 HD and are going to make a 1/2 ton to compete with the Ford Supercrew) Should cost a few bucks more, but looks like it will fit my needs perfectly.
  • Kirstie_HKirstie_H Administrator Posts: 11,146
    Since this vehicle is nearing showroom floors, we're going to be moving this discussion from the Future Vehicles board to Pickups in the next few days. If you can't find the discussion, just use the search box at the left and type in "Colorado" to find it!

    MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
    Need help navigating? kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
    Share your vehicle reviews

  • matt_2003matt_2003 Member Posts: 9
    You know there is an old saying you cannot have your cake and it too! This is one of those situations, you either buy the truck, with an understanding that you will not be able to use like a full-size, or you just step up to a full-size and have done with it.

    It really is as simple as that, and who really wants to use their new truck for towing, unless you really have to, because it does beat up components after some time.

    MT
  • lonestartjlonestartj Member Posts: 25
    and I agree to some extent. There are trade offs going either way, full sized or mini.
    But, I know lots of people who buy new trucks for the explicit purpose of towing. That's what they're built for, after all. Most trucks ought to be able to handle the weekend trip to the lake with the boat here and there, or pulling a pop up camper a few weekends a year, without missing a beat.
  • boikoboiko Member Posts: 82
    I hope this answers peoples questions as to how/why the Canyon and Colorado's tow limit was set.

    http://www.truckworld.com/Truck-Tests/04-chevy_colorado/sport/04-- - colorado_sport2.html

    ------------------------------
    "This rather weak tow rating is not the result of a weak pickup design. Rather a handcuffing of GM to meet the stringent EPA emissions standards.

    In order to keep emissions minimized under heavy load (towing), they had to lean out the fuel mapping. Engines keep cooler under heavy load by increasing the amount of fuel flowing into the cylinders, so leaning out the fuel mixture results in higher engine cylinder head and block temperatures.

    So, GM engineers reduced the maximum load/tow rating of the Colorado based entirely on fuel delivery and subsequent engine cooling, not on the actual strength or reliability of the powertrain."

    -mike-
  • matt_2003matt_2003 Member Posts: 9
    I recently read somewhere, Car and Driver had an article about the upcoming Colorado and stated that GM set the towing lower because it claims that many of its customers were not buying an S-10 to tow more than 4000lb trailers. If they did want to, GM stated that people would step up to a full size.

    Though the towing is limited somewhat, I still think there would not be a problem exceeding the limit, not by a lot, but at least some, and I am pretty sure the engine can handle the towing duties.

    MT
  • aldan93aldan93 Member Posts: 202
    I've got one thing to say about Toyota quality,

    go to the message board!!!

      Quality??? I think people are in denial when it comes to Toyota quality! They have same if not more problems as everyone else!!!
  • dorkenheimerdorkenheimer Member Posts: 3
    Saw one at the Texas state fair. Looks like about the right size, very comparable to the Sport Trac, but with a bigger bed. The questions are: (a) when do they start showing up at dealers? I'm wondering if the I-4 is enough, or (2) is the 5 a must?
  • lonestartjlonestartj Member Posts: 25
    I heard they'll be at the dealers in a few weeks, but who knows exactly when. The aren't making any I-4's until after the first of the year, I-5's only. Go to coloradofans.com and you'll find a wealth of information.
  • jae5jae5 Member Posts: 1,206
    I am totally in agreement with you and most of those in this discussion in terms of hp, torque and towing capacity. I currently own an S-10 with 4.3, 3.42 rear, ZQ8 and this was decent performer until the 3 yr mark, then performance started to taper off. In terms of the pinging noise, if you mean when the motor was first started, that was due to lifter leakdown. The 2.8/3.1 had the same problem (have a 3.1 in a Cutlass Supreme), along with the 4.3, vortec and non-vortec. I believe the Ford v6s had the same problem (pushrod, not the SOHC).

    My thing is, if towing is a big concern, full-size is the only way to go. If mileage is a concern, go 4cyl. If a V8 is wanted, either do a swap, go full-size or get a real mid-size like the Dakota. Mine is fine for me because I knew the most I was going to haul were engine blocks, transmissions, rear ends and the like; not a boat, trailer or something like that. If I was, I would have went with a full-size.

    Question: when did Chevy go to the 3.73? The shortest I could get at the time was a 3.42 (the 4.10 was only offered with the 4cyl, 5 speed).
  • matt_2003matt_2003 Member Posts: 9
    I am not sure exactly, but it really could have been just this year or last year that Chevy started offering 3.73 gears in the S-10, because for the longest time it was just 3.08, or 3.42 gears and only the 4.10's with the 4cyl engine. Which, from owning one of those in the past they could really use something closer to 5:1, kinda like the Tracker has.

    Also the sound I was talking about on my C1500 from a long time ago was a pinging noise while driving at speed and it got worse under load situations such as going up a hill. Always wondered if something was wrong with the clutch or transmission. Also, I wonder if Chevy has fixed the exhaust and catalytic problems they were having on the mid to late 90's trucks.

    MT
  • brianbmbrianbm Member Posts: 55
    The gent who commented on CAFE requirements may have hit something that's key to the rated limits. There's a lot of automotive pigs out there, somewhere GM has to have a fuel nibbler or two. I suspect that GMC intends to have the option of some very fast engine upgrades. The TrailBlazer's I-6 is obvious, and I'd really be surprised if the engine compartment can't accommodate it. A rebadged Isuzu diesel is likely after 2006 (how are the Duramaxes doing? Do we consider them a well-debugged product yet?) And do any of you who have studied the photos have an opinion as to whether the engine design was laid out with an eye to possible later installation of a turbocharger? For a "lifestyle" pickup that is going to be available from the start with a sort of factory chop, it'd make some sense .... as to the truck itself: the dimensions look more like a Frontier then like a Dakota. That may be o.k., it's all in the details. I think the initial market target is the Ranger (and the Nissan equivalent.) The Tacoma is getting a remake in a year or so; if marketing decides that the Colorado needs a shot of pizzaz to pre-empt Toyota's marketing, that's when the I-6 will suddenly appear. I'm interested in a crew cab Z71 for surfcasting; I can live without towing, but would like more space then most SUVs afford for gear. We don't have too long to wait, I think the official start of production was to be October 6. Mid-November sounds right for showroom models.
  • brianbmbrianbm Member Posts: 55
    The last time I looked, the only way to get a Silverado or Sierra 4x4 crew cab was with a 6.0 engine. Lonestarj, there will be a new crew with a 5.3 engine? Will it be available in a 4x4? ... any scoop on the Displacement on Demand engines? My driving profile on the road is freeway intensive, I'd benefit a good deal by that technology, if it's deployed and it works.
  • Kirstie_HKirstie_H Administrator Posts: 11,146
    A major magazine is hoping to interview prospective buyers who are a) anxiously awaiting the arrival of the Nissan Titan; and/or b) comparing pricing and incentive deals on GM and Ford pickups to decide which to buy. Please respond with your daytime contact information to jfallon@edmunds.com by October 8. Thanks!

    MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
    Need help navigating? kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
    Share your vehicle reviews

  • lonestartjlonestartj Member Posts: 25
    Yep, Chevy's got an all new crew cab coming out after January '04. Go to the Chevy website, and they've got a bunch of information on the Silverado page. It's going to be offered with only a 5.3 (no 4.8 or 6.0), 227 in. overall length (the same size as a Silverado extended cab, and 10" smaller than the 1500HD crew). 2wd or 4wd Z-71. Looks like their answer to the Phord Supercrew (finally!!) I started a thread over on the "future vehicles" page here, under "chevrolet" and "silverado". Check it out.
  • homerkchomerkc Member Posts: 113
    Reading all the posts on towing, fuel economy, etc., I can't help but think that GM has specific needs for this truck. They make most of their corporate profit (vehicles -other than GMAC) from selling Silverados, Tahoes, etc, and need to manage CAFE so that the profit keeps rolling in. They will do everything they can to convince buyers to take 4cyl trucks, so a like number of H2s or Escalades can be sold. It will be worth selling 4cyl Colorados at a loss to make $20K on an H2! Since I don't need to tow and just want an economical truck that can haul the occasional load that is too big or too messy for my wife's van, I will wait for GM to offer those deals and buy a Colorado for the price of a Cavalier.
  • jae5jae5 Member Posts: 1,206
    Does anyone know if there will be performance versions of the Colorado? I figure since Chevrolet is sticking "SS" badges on any and everything, the Colorado may have a shot. Or maybe a ZQ8 suspension option, or Extreme-type version? I know there won't be a Syclone-type version for the Canyon, but one can only dream. Haven't been able to dig up any info on this.
  • tommctommc Member Posts: 66
    Haven't seen a pricing on the new truck. I suspect the days of an economical Chevy pickup are gone forever. Have no doubt the initial run of the Colorado will be mega-option extended cab big engine autotrans versions, starting at
    +25K with no discounting to speak of. I'd guess the S10 crowd, which is a pretty large crowd at that, will be looking elsewhere. One thing positive that I can think of though, the truck is not being built in New Jersey. Had 9 S-series vehicles and the lemon of the bunch was from N.J.
  • cornellpremedcornellpremed Member Posts: 58
    I'm not really a truck enthusiast, so what's more important: payload capacity or towing strength?

    The former went up by 50% I heard.
  • coonhoundcoonhound Member Posts: 174
    I assume tow rating. if you scan this board you will observe a very active count prior to GM announcing the tow Spec. maximum of 4000 Lbs. Me too, I was hoping for at least the S10 maximum. So it's off to Dakota land.
  • terry231terry231 Member Posts: 2
    i ordered my new colorado on november 7th

    IT IS A COLOROADO Z85 LS EXTENDED CAB w/ I5
    4 SPEED AUTO, 3.73 REAR AXLE
    WITN SOME OTHER MINOR OPTIONS THE MSRP IS 27,560

    DELIVERY IS AROUND MID DECEMBER
  • ike3ike3 Member Posts: 81
    Searching materials, there has been no mention
    as to whether heated outside mirrors are avbl
    either standard or as an option. At least on
    U.S. models. Can anyone shed any light on this
    subject?
      Also, were rules changed regarding the airbag
    cutoff switch? On extended cab models, I thought
    the passenger side cutoff switch was still avbl.
    Now I see only on models that DON'T provide the
    skimpy rear seat. What's with that?
  • bigred54bigred54 Member Posts: 6
    I own a 1995 S-10 ext. cab, and I'm almost ready for a new truck. The Colorado will be one of my top choices, however I'm in no rush. When I got my S-10 in 95 it was a new model and I went through 4 recalls in the first 8 months. Though mostly minor safety items, I believe it is better to wait one year when a new model comes out, and get the truck when all the obvious defects have been corrected. A bonus to waiting would be a more competitive price and a bigger incentive from GM, that is the usual MO for a new hot model. And by next year there may be other options, as in a Honda Truck!
  • t_wrxt_wrx Member Posts: 3
    I took delivery on a Colorado (AWD, 4-Door, Z71 LS) on 11/25. I have driven it over 100 miles now and am fairly impressed. It looks like a 3/4 size Silverado, but it rides and handles MUCH better than a Silverado Z71. Even with the Z71's big tires, the ride is more "minivan-like" than truck-like. It handles and rides well, and the engine's performance is "peppy". (Remember, I am used to driving a modded Subaru WRX.) My initial fuel economy looks like about 20 MPG around town.
    I usually wait until the second year of production to buy a new model, but I was sold on the Colorado after the test drive. The Colorado is so new - GMAC has no insurance rating for it yet.

    Has anyone else bought a Colorado yet. How do you like it? Any problems or issues to address?
  • dindakdindak Member Posts: 6,632
    bigred : Honda truck, whoopee.

    t_wrx : Congrats. I think you are the first owner here. Keep us up to date on how you like it.
  • brianbmbrianbm Member Posts: 55
    That's a good first-owner report. 20 MPG in mixed driving is quite decent. Which engine, the 4 or 5 cylinder? ... I'll wait out the first year, but I am definitely interested. Since I do go offroad as a surfcaster, I'm looking to five cylinders and a locking differential, so my mileage will be a little poorer.
  • brianbmbrianbm Member Posts: 55
    I think the frame will accomodate the TrailBlazer I-6, and I expect to see it in the second or third year of production. A new Frontier comes out next year, a new Tacoma a year or so later, the I-6's introduction will be a good marketing gimmick. If the bigger DoD engines do well, mechanically and in the marketplace, the CAFE pressure on GMC/Chevy to sell the smaller engines may moderate a bit.
  • terexterex Member Posts: 26
    The Vortec 4200 inline 6 cylinder engine cannot fit the Colorado. The pickup chassis is different than the TrailBlazer's and there is no commonality between the two vehicles.

    As for the earlier question regarding the front passenger airbag shut-off switch, it is not available on extended cabs with the rear seats because the child seats are always supposed to be mounted in the rear. The rear seats in the extended cab provide the LATCH system and 3 point shoulder harnesses and will accomodate most child seats.

    L5 mileage estimates are: Crew Cab: 2wd 18/24, 4x4 17/22 (both with auto. transmission). Regular and extended cabs with manual 19/25 or 18/24 with automatic.
  • brianbmbrianbm Member Posts: 55
    so much for my analysis of the minds of Chevy marketing.... if the stated mileage is plausible, and the build quality is decent, I'll be driving one this time next year. Can't go and check out a showroom till after the holidays, and by then a sample should have shipped.
  • jae5jae5 Member Posts: 1,206
    I read an article on the Colorado/Canyon in Ward's Auto World I believe and it really didn't state as to why the vehicles weren't built on the same platform. It did mention the higher-ups felt there is already more than enough capacity, especially since the Rainier is coming on line (taking over for the Bravada). So it seems GM fills the Rainier is going to be in high demand, or they want to distinguish the trucks as being a little lower than the mid-sized UVs.

    The new chassis is suppose to be more rigid, like 250%, than the S-10/Sonoma, but again, no specifics were given. From an exploded view, it doesn't look as though the frame is boxed, or that any significant cross-bracing has been added.

    Also, the only details given in terms of engine choices were that, again, management feels the I-4 and I-5 will do the deed. To them there's no need to put in the I-6 since the I-5 makes as much if not more hp/torque than the competitors' sixes.
  • jae5jae5 Member Posts: 1,206
    Made an error in my last post. The article discussing the Colorado/Canyon chassis and engines was from Automotive Industries, not Ward's. The Ward's article only discussed possible incentives for the trucks. Sorry for the inconvenience. I subscribe to too many magazines.
This discussion has been closed.