Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Chevrolet Colorado
This discussion has been closed.
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
I must say we were not impressed. The first one we sat in had a manual trans with one of the cheapest "consoles" I have ever seen, must have been 8" square with two cupholder areas. The driver side cupholder looked like it would hardly fit a pop can and the one on the other side just slightly larger. Both were very close to the floor making for a long reach. I then noticed the "console" was completely loose, I lifted up on it and noticed it was not even attached with screws!! It had thin round plastic posts at each corner that "fit" into holes in the floor. I tried to push it back down to snap it back in place and no such luck, it kept popping back out. This I could not believe, if this is the way this truck is put together, and represenative of the quality of components used, no thanks.
The next thing we noticed was that there was no center armrest! Some models had one, some didn't. The ones without armrests had a "bulge" in the seat area where one would be - how cheap and inconvenient. The middle "seating" area must have been about large enough to fit a very small poodle - the center seatbelt anchors were about 8" apart! WHO do they think would fit in there? Certainly not a child of any size, and to make things worse there is no foot room at all as the shifter is in the way. Why did they even bother to put a seatbelt in the center?
We then looked at the front end - ugh!! Who came up with that design? Way too large, it looks like two bumpers out of place or something, not nearly as nice as the previous gen model.
About those wheelwells... could not believe that there is about a foot of room above the tire, this looked just awful as we could see most of the frame area (which was all dirty). That might be great for someone that is going to add large tires, but not for the majority of us that keep the stock tires. This is one of the worst designs I have seen. Were they trying to save an extra $5 on sheetmetal or something? What's with Chevrolet and their over-sized wheelwells?
No thanks. We like the new Dakota much better, no comparison in the design, interior quality and layout. It's safe to say that we will not be "downgrading" to the new Colorado model.
I was wondering what some of you current owners are getting in the "real world" as far as gas mileage? I am looking at two different options on trucks:1-3.5 I-5 crew cab z71 2wd with 3.73 or 3.42 gears.2-3.5 I-5 crew cab zq8 sport 2wd with 3.73 or 3.42 gears. I believe that the 3.42 would give a better mileage figure since it is not turning quiet as many rpm's as the 3.73 but, it may put more strain on the truck and actually loose some mileage to the 3.73. Please help me by posting your results. Thanks!
I understand that the ratings are: 18 city / 24 highway respectively.
Monday I bought a 2004 Colodado Z71 LS 1SF 2WD Crew Cab with leather seats, 6 disc changer, XM satellite radio, trailering package, and lights sensitive ISRV mirror with 3.73 rear axle ratio.
I was really happy with the price I got on the truck and what I got for my trade-in. I also got the $1,500 in rebates. (I got a decent rate elsewhere that made it better to take the $500 Crew cab rebate on top of the $1,000 as part of the truck fest.)
The truck rides really nice and has plenty of room inside for a small truck. I haven't noticed anything bad about build quality as of yet. Seems well put together to far.
Enjoying my truck! Later.
On the good side,
I am impressed with the mileage estimates and with gas just hitting 2+ bucks today, I'm glad a manufacturer finally created a truck that is substantially better than it competitors. Truck bed was excellent at 18 in deep, like the half drop 55 degree setting on the tailgate and a crew cab bed at over 5 feet. Auto locking axle, nice.
But overall, I'm not sure who GM was looking to impress with this truck. Considering it was a whole new design, it felt like there was nothing really great about it. It's missing the "gotta-have" feeling that a new design should... I will continue to hold on to my aging ranger, until the 05's come out. The 05' Tacoma and Frontier are looking like real winners, thats not to say a little work on the Colorado for 05' couldn't help it compete. If not, look for $5000 rebates on it next year. That's my 2 cents.
Anyone driven this manual shift? If so, I'd be interested on how the gearbox and clutch interact. Is it all just hype? Best, ez
1982 VW diesel pickup. 285k. Waiting (and waiting and waiting.......)
Now for the towing aspect of why the Chevy Colorado is rated at 4K pounds. It has nothing to do with drive train durability or heavy duty hitches. The limit has been defined by GM engineers and the fuel delivery map for the I5 motor. The engineers have leaned out the fuel mixture for best gas mileage not heaviest hauling capabilities. In other words tow more then 4K pounds and you may burn up your motor if you have a heavy foot.
So here is another question what would happen if say Superchip remapped GM's fuel delivery map?
The truck market is all about the macho factor, big numbers. They could just as easily put the trail blazer I-6 and gotten decent mileage and much better towing capacity and accelaration.
On the other sides, the Toyota folks didn't want me to test drive until I filled out their credit app. They also said they could probably "knock $1500 off, but I was getting Toyota Quality, you know".
I did get to drive the Dakota. It was okay, but I didn't think it handled as crisp as the GMC and it already had a buzz and a rattle. Dodge was more willing to deal(as long as they got the rebate $2k I think) but insulted me with a low ball trade on my Pontiac and didn't even want to see my other trade.
SO, I went for the GMC and after over 6000 miles in 3.5 months I'm quite happy. I think it performs as well as the V6 units and hauled 300-800 lbs in the bed without noticing any significant performance fall off. I do admit, I would really like to see the I6 in this baby.
IT takes a fully loaded V8 Dakota Quad to be at 1000 dollars more than the price you gave for your Colorado if it includes the 5 speed auto, leather, 4 wheel abs, six way power driver's seat, Infinity stereo with 6 disk in dash changer, soft tonneau, LSD, trailer-tow, mopar bed liner, rear window defrost, 60/40 bench, heavy duty service group, 265 tires, steering wheel mounted audio, and leather wrapped wheel, all at 32,960 including destination.
I see a SLT plus with 4 speed auto and V6, leather, 4 wheel abs, infinity system with 6 disk changer, electronic tranfer case, 6 way power driver's seat, LSD, trailer tow, rear defrost, alarm, heavy duty service group, skid plating, steering wheel mounted audio, and leather wrapped wheel for 32,095, or about 735 bucks more than the sticker you quoted for your truck.
The Scotch blood holds back my purchase.........ez
I actually COULD have saved money and bought a Dakota, but I wouldn't have gotten all the options. Overall when I went shopping the Canyon was more value for $ spent.
Fuel economy can be increased by installing a bed cover. This will impact highway driving the most. Also, the use of synthetic blended oils can aid in fuel consuption, but to a lesser degree.
Chevrolet claims, like most other manufacturers, that the Colorado will run on regular fuel, however, it will not run most efficiently on this type of fuel. In most areas of the country (excluding high altitude regions) 89 octane fuel will produce optimum cost/fuel efficiency. Regular or 87 octane fuel causes the onboard computer to retard the timing thus reducing optimum engine performance. This is true of virtually all new engine designs from all manufacturers.
I hope this information is helpful.
Also, the word is that the "Sport" Compact Truck crowd loves the Colorado and it was made as much for them as for off-roaders and day-workers. Anyone else heard anything about this?
Anyone know how you would know if a certain oil would meet that? Are you ignoring that? Or having service done at the dealer?
Thanks!
Paul
I'm sure that sounds whacky, but anybody have any ideas? Or had similar experience?
Thanks!
That is a pretty good description of the sound. I haven't had my truck in to have it checked out yet. I only have about 1200 miles on my truck in two months. Once I find a convenient time...
The only other problem I have had is the temperature display in the rear view mirror. It doesn't seem very accurate at all. Sometimes showing 15 or 20 degrees off of the actual temp outside.
Keep us posted if you take your truck in.
Thanks!
I currently drive an Envoy and there are a lot of differences to the Trailblazer. Is this true on the mini-trucks also?
Thanks
Paul P
I just returned from a trip to Montana. Overall I put almost 1600 miles on the Canyon and consumed almost 75 gallons of regular. Average mpg equaled 21.4 mpg.
Best mileage was Troutdale, OR to Post Falls, ID where I got 23.8 mpg (65 – 75 mph with some cross winds.)
Worst mileage was 18 mpg in mixed driving. (City, hauling stuff, a little 4WD, a little hwy.)
I ran 70-75 mph most of the time. (WA = 70 mph, ID & MT = 75 mph)
Hwy mileage seemed most affected by head winds and having to run the AC.
I had a Sierra with the 4.8l V-8. I don't recall ever getting better than 20 mpg hwy with it. Size wise the Canyon isn't as big, but with the crew cab we have plenty of room.
Thanks
I suggest a test drive and you'll be able to really tell the differences.
As far as fuel economy goes I get about 1 mile more per gallon than the factory specs on the highway. I suspect this is due to the 3.42 rear end and the tonneau cover. This is what I was hoping for. :-) I've tried regular, mid-grade and premium fuels. Regular fuel produced pinging under heavy acceleration and lower fuel economy. Mid-grade fuel improved the fuel economy and eliminated the pinging. There was no noticeable improvement when using premium fuel. I kind of thought this would be the case since it is also true of the in-line 6 in the Trailblazer.
So far I haven't had any problems. The engine is smooth and quiet and there are no rattles or squeaks from the body. The truck actually exceeds many of my expectations and I am very happy with it overall.
While mine was ordered with the black body side moldings these were taken off the order by the factory. Apparently, GM is having problems with the body side moldings pealing away from the body. New side moldings will be available soon.
DRIVING IMPRESSIONS:
Let me begin by saying that I had every intention of buying a Toyota Tacoma, but in the end the Toyota fell short in many respects. The Colorado bests the Toyota in both ride and handling. The I-5 engine is smoother and more refined than Toyota's V6. The Colorado is more roomy and comfortable on long trips, and its power leather seats are far better than anything the Tacoma has to offer. When you take into account better fuel economy the Colorado is the clear winner between the two.
I have a very bad back and seat comfort is high on my list when purchasing a new vehicle. I would much have preferred cloth seats in my Colorado, but the cloth seats were poorly bolstered and constructed, a step down from my 2000 S-10 ZR2. The material was corse and the padding felt more like a sponge than a tougher bolstering filler. The leather seats are not just the standard seats covered with leather, they are a completely different seat with firm bolstering and padding. If you have back problems take a close look at this.
ROOM FOR SOME IMPROVEMENTS:
1. The cloth inserts on the door panels don't go well with the leather interior and should be replaced with leather or matching vinyl.
2. The Amercian General tires are poor quality and bubbling on the side walls. Chevrolet should have used the BF Goodrich tires used by Toyota, similar to what was on the S-10 ZR2.
3. Ride and handling would improve even more with 16" or 17" wheels.
4. A/C system capacity should be incrased. The truck has problems keeeping-up on hot 90+ degree days in Atlanta. Don't get me wrong, the A/C is adequate but could be better.
5. The Delco 6 disk XM radio is great, but the speakers are awful. The overall sound quality is more like a tin can than a stereo. The Toyota is even worse! The speaker locations, however, are excellent and just need to be replaced with better drivers. (Note: I did not have to upgrade the factory speakers in my other trucks as they were adequate. The Colorado is truly poor.) On a side note Kenwood and Clarion make a small self-amplified sub that will fit under the rear seat. It's not a BOOM BOOM type of sub but helps fill-in the low frequencies.
6. The center console needs a slightly wider arm rest and padded rubber inserts in the two front storage trays. (I made some inserts from the black rubber tool chest inserts they sell at Lowes.)
7. The sun visors are so thick that a garage door opener will not stay clipped onto them, and they could use lighted vanity mirrors (my wife hates this!). Overall these visors and the roofing material used in the cabin are of much better quality than what was on the S-10. They will not begin to separate 10 years from now because they are molded from some type of fiber material.
8. A light under the hood would be nice :-)
9. The rear seats need more of a recline. Granted, they are better than the Toyota and decreasing the incline will eat into the rear leg room, but there is more leg room than is necessary already.
CONCLUSION:
If you own an S-10 and like it, you will love the Colorado. No one makes anything like it in the 2004 model year. If you need more space but can't justify a full-size pickup then the Dodge Dakota is your only other choice. The 2004 Ford, Mazda, Toyota and Nissan (yep, I looked at all of them) are not up to the Colorado.
I think if GM refines the Colorado a bit more it will make life hard for the other small truck manufacturers.
P.S. I didn't see a GMC Canyon thread, so, since they come from the same factory, I thought I'd ask. Sorry if I've broken any protocol.
As for covers. Lo-Rider makes a solid fiberglass one for the crew cab Colorado/Canyon and I just got mine installed. It's got lift assists and is easy to remove.
www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/ problems/recalls/recallsearch.cfm
Here in the NE, there are more Colorados on dealer lots than Canyons and the Colorados are priced slightly lower. So, it's silly to limit my hunt to Canyons. Yes?
So far, my hunt has prompted me to pass up the current rebates (but limited selection) and look again in Spring 2005. GM will have had more time to practice building these trucks and, with new compact trucks coming from Toyota, Dodge and Nissan, the market should be very buyer friendly. Here's hoping GM makes my choice easy next May.
If anyone else has noticed that the air temp goes from cold to somewhat cool. Please voice your concerns to your dealer.