Howdy, Stranger!

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

Chevrolet Colorado



  • the_big_althe_big_al Posts: 1,079
    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: 1,079
    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: 1,079
    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: 1,079
    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: 1,079
    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: 1,079
    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: 1,079
    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: 1,079
    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: 1,079
    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: 1,079
    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....

    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: 1,079
    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: 1,079
    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.