By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
GM should also offer a "Moon Roof" option
2FastDre.
The same issue has their review of the Colorado trucks in it too, along with a brief Q & A with the truck's designer. One of the questions concerned future engines (specifically more powerful engines), and the answer was along the lines of: Stay Tuned..
So for people that think the 3.5 is too weak, there's hope for even more power (possibly by the same route as the H3 concept is using?).
beaune
No, I don't really want a full size, but might be stuck with it, Nisan here I come - 9500 lbs towing for ALL models.
Chevy - are you listening?
Anyway, can anybody suggest me which suspension, a Z85 or Z71, is more popular for a young guy in his early 20s, like me? I seem to like both very well but my mind keeps saying pros and cons from the two suspensions. I just need someone to give me a good recommendation. Help me out here.
Harry
Have looked at the Colorado/ Canyon not overly impressed with the club cab models, but the lower standard 2wd model is hot!! It will be an after market dream!!!
For us Trailblazer owners it's not such a good thing though. If the new trucks had shared the bolt pattern with our midsize SUVs, we could expect a better selection in the aftermarket than we have now (it's fairly sparse).
I have driven the new 2004 Malibu on a trip. It is a much improved car, too bad they did not do the same with the truck! Wake up Chevy!
One other thing, the paint on two that I have looked at closely appears to be not smooth as in a "bad paint job!"
I like the extra room in the cab compared to the S10 I use to own, my teenage kids were comfortable in the rear seats. The ride and handling was smooth in my opinion and getting from 0-60 seemed adequate (not out to win races). Had nothing but compliments for it looks and color.(sunburst orange-looks like the one in their brochure).
It looks a little better on the commercial, but at a quick glance you'd swear it was an Explorer Sportrac. I can say Chevy finally got the Corvette to look like they wanted it to all along: a cheap looking 360 Modena kit-car. Harley Earl has got to be turning over in his grave. Wished they would have shown the '66 Chevelle convertible more than the other stuff though.
And now Nissan will have a Frontier with a 4.0L V6 with 250hp and 270lb/ft of torque. http://www.nissannews.com/multimedia/nissan2005/frontier.shtml Looks like the Frontier is going to be the truck that I wanted Chevy to build (except for the odd Nissan styling)
C'mon Chevy, fix the Colorado interior for next year so I can spend my GM Card earnings.
Seems written and spoken reviews are mixed, particularly on the no V-6 / I6 issue. Maybe GM wants to keep the I6 only on the mid-size SUVs. Maybe that's why the frame was designed to not accept the 6.
I remember what Bob Lutz stated in 2002 "In the vehicle interior, where Lutz acknowledges GM needs to make some "huge" improvements, it involves material quality, feel and appearance, where high gloss surfaces, poor grain, mismatches etc. create an air of "cheapness" and lack of quality, no matter how well it is put together" and I can see that the Colorado escaped improvement.
I thought about my disappointment with the Colorado and considered it's competition. Is it really that bad in comparison? Yes. I'd buy a Tacoma, Frontier, Dakota or Ranger before I'd buy the Colorado. I can justify the purchase of a full size Chevy over it's competition, but in the compact/midsize category GM still needs to improve.
Plus having worked for a company run by Lutz, I've been a victim of his "acknowledgment and improvement"-type speeches. I've heard a rant like this before.
Yes, GM needs to improve the interior... but I'm not sure I'm paying $24k for "expensive interiors". I think the interior has been upgraded, to some extent, but of course there is room for improvement.
On the other hand, I'm not even sure I could find a truck comparably equipped without going to a full-size truck -- which I don't need/want. Does the Tacoma even offer leather seats or a CD player in their non-base model (not jacked up) model? The Dodge is just ugly, in my opinion... and gets low gas mileage with the optional 230HP V8. The Ranger? I'll bet the Tremor has an awesome sound system.. but they don't make anything this sporty... and while the Frontier is nice, it has 40HP less than the Colorado and you can't even come close to configuring it the same way.
My Sonoma w/ZQ8 never failed me in the 5 years I've had it.. and never once did I have a problem. I'm going to buy a Colorado Sport as soon as I sell my Sonoma ZQ8. I'll let you folks know how it goes.
For about $25k, after rebates, etc. I think this is the right choice for me and my family.
Tx.
- Speedi
Beaune
In my opinion, they are a big hit in the styling department, I prefer the Canyon but they both look the part. The overall size is a bit of a disappointment. We were hoping for something more comparable to the Dakota, although the Interior is essentially the same size as the Dodge, if they had simply sized them comparable to the Dakota on the exterior, the interior could have been significantly bigger and offered more comfort. The available options allow a great variety of content which is appealing.
What I do take issue with are the following items:
1. Rear Drum brakes, are you kidding me? (saw braking distance results in Motor Trend's Truck of Year issue, 153ft 60 to 0, worse than all of the other trucks tested which were full size).
2. No available I6/V6 or the Turbo5, which would be nice. I feel the I5 is enough for my needs but can see this as an issue for others.
3. No way to upgrade the wheels/tires without getting the sport suspension, or no 4 wheel or all wheel drive option with the sport suspension? Crew Cab, 4 wheel drive with sport suspension and 17 inch wheels would have been my preferred configuration, can you say Mini Silverado SS?
4. Interior material quality, particularily the center console which is "TINY" and feels very flimsy and cheap.
5. My wife does not feel it is quite wide enough for 2 car seats(and potentially 3 children in the future).
6. Although they offer side curtain air bags, they do not offer the same front side airbags that can be purchased throught the rest of the GM truck lineup
I am the person they designed this truck for. I tow a trailer occasionally with 1-2 motorcycles on it or for a trip to the home improvement store. I have a family, so I appreciate the added interior space, but it is a personal use vehicle, not a work truck. It should be a compelling package but I am a bit disappointed.
The sad thing is we feel tied to GM because of our GM Card earnings and the one vehicle that fits my needs falls short braking capacity, the promise of size, and the interior just plain feels cheap.
Looks like I'm probably getting an SUV or going fullsize, which is simple a compromise I did not think I should have to make. GM missed the boat, and it will be really obvious next year when the competitors bring their new models to market. This platform has great potential, but when they should have taken a leap forward, they simply took a baby step.
SportTBird
I've got one, it was $18 sticker with AC, power stuff, and 5sp manual... goes like stink, has great space for 4 people... really... and will tow 1,500lbs at least occasionally. Use your Rebates (I had $2,6k on the old blue GM card) and you'll have one cheap car.. paid $14 OTD for mine.
I know it's not a truck, but for your uses it seems worth thinking about.
-Mathias
I don't get your reference to the exterior dimensions of the Dodge. Do you plan on riding on the outside of it? A bigger exterior means more drag and poorer fuel economy. Other than ego, it doesn't serve much of a purpose and from the NHTSA ratings of the Dodge, it sure didn't help it from a safety perspective. Purely subjective. . .
As for the brakes -- just about every manufacturer in this segment is using rear drum brakes (check out the recently released specs on the new '05's). As long as the vehicle stops, what difference does it make? Take a test drive and see for yourself -- you can't judge based on the type of brake.
Each suspension has its own unique tire and aluminum wheel combination suited to the suspension tuning.
By the way, you're looking a little silly here -- Sport suspensions are tuned and lowered for driving performance not off-roading (the larger diameter tire and wheel are specific to achieve the effect). If you want traction assistance, you want the Traction Control option that includes the rear automatic locking differential. If you're going off road and want the monochromatic paint scheme of the sport suspension, you need to get the Color Keyed Exterior Appearance Package on the Z85 standard suspension. Aluminum wheels and other features are included.
Can't comment on your impression of the interior. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Both the crew cab and/or the extended cab will fit 2 or 3 child seats without a problem. Go to the dealership with your seats and check it out for yourself. Don't guess.
Front airbags are standard in all models and can't be "purchased". What makes you think they are different from others in the GM Truck line-up? I'd check the source of your information.
Sounds to me like you're really not the person this truck was designed for after all and really are looking for an excuse to choose another type of vehicle. Check out the other new Chevy's -- the Equinox or even the Malibu Maxx. I think they'll offer the utility with the car refinement you're looking for.
Colorado would look pretty sweet lowered with some 20's on it though.
This is a vehicle that I have been researching for well over a year. I have done much homework on this vehicle, including test drives, putting 2 car seats in it, loading up our travel gear, etc. To date, there have been none available for 24 hour test drives in my area.
>I don't get your reference to the exterior >dimensions of the Dodge. ... Purely subjective. >. .
My reference to the exterior of the Dodge was to point out that the packaging efficiancy of the GM Duo is great, but if they had upsized it on the exterior to say something more the size of the Dodge, they would have a package that far supercedes the Dodge. See my post, "the interior could have been significantly bigger"
>As for the brakes -- -- you can't judge based on >the type of brake.
I judged this based on reviews that I have read, not on the "type of brake". Again, see my post, regarding results from the Motor Trend TOY testing. Very little braking power is needed when no load is being carried. However as the load increases, the braking power needed at the rear does as well. I want to stess again so you understand, I am disappointed that they didn't take the lead here, and set the bar higher for the competition. They had a great opportunity to make this truck a standard bearer for the class, but chose to do what, (I will quote from your reply) "just about every manufacture in this segment" does.
>Each suspension has its own unique tire and >aluminum wheel combination suited to the >suspension tuning.
I believe I mentioned "Mini Silverado SS" as the type of package I would have liked. This would be a package similar to the ZQ8 Sport model, lowered suspension, but with AWD/4WD. Again, please read the post. I am not planning on doing off roading, but like the idea of all wheel drive, with an on road handling package.
>Can't comment on your impression of the interior. >Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
This it very true, and my complaint about the interior was that it seems cheap, particularily the Center Console which has zero padding. Thankfully, unlike my S10, the build quality is much better overall.
>Both the crew cab and/or the extended cab will >fit 2 or 3 child seats without a problem. Go to >the dealership with your seats and check it out >for yourself. Don't guess.
As mentioned before, we checked this out. 2 car seats fit fine. I believe 3 will fit but not "without a problem" as you state. Actually if you want, you can get 3 across in an S-10 crew cab. We did it, but had trouble getting the doors to shut. Not fun, or comfortable when your 3 year old is tormenting his little brother or sister. Our particular issue is that my wife wants to be able to sit back there along with the 2 car seats. And that, is simply not a comfortable possibility.
>Front airbags are standard in all models and >can't be "purchased". What makes you think they >are different from others in the GM Truck >line-up? I'd check the source of your >information.
Again, read the post. I said "Front Side Airbags". Those would be the bags that mount in the driver and front passenger seat back sides, in the MidSize SUV's, for side impact protection of the driver and front passenger's torsos. I am surprised that given this existing technology they were not made available. The side curtain protection is great for your head and shoulder area but does not protect your torso as well in a side collision.
Actually, I've been looking for every excuse TO choose this vehicle. In fact, we did purchase the GMC Canyon, and will take delivery in a few weeks. Like I said, it is a fine vehicle, I just think they didn't take it far enough, it could have been head and shoulders better than the competition, but it did not raise the bar high enough. I do admit to a certain amount of venting, because I expected a bit more.
As far other potential vehicles, if I can still haul around sand, dirt, lumber and all of the other home improvement type project materials that I will need around the property, I would have been intersted. Maybe the Envoy XUV? I test drove that too, but in the end, it came down to the XUV and the Canyon. I liked the Canyon better. That does not mean I cannot be critical of the vehicle.
Well, that's my Opinion, for what it's worth.
SportTBird
steine13 - I like your suggestion of the Vibe with a hitch. I like the car alot, and have put several hundred miles on one. I love the utility, but towing even 1000 lbs through the Black Hills, or Wyoming Mountains would not be fair to the car. (We did this to our Olds) If the Vibe had been available in 2000, we would probably already own one. As it stands, maybe in 2007 when we are in the market to replace the Oldsmobile.
Word of advice to GM: to compete with Toyota and Nissan you'll need to up the power to 240/250 horses 270 torque and revamp the interior of the cab. Also you got to do better than 3500 # tow rating. Nissan will come in at 5,500#!
I don't think you can compete by lowering the price via big rebates. You will need to give $4000 or more to make a difference-and that comes right out of your profit margin.
I looked at but did not drive the Colorado crew. Although it appears to be very well built, it reeks of Isuzu's D-MAX generic-for-the-rest-of-the-planet truck. Especially the interior. It is simple and functional (read: plain and boring). Not terribly comfortable either, although the rear seat surprisingly had adequate head and leg room. The interior of this truck is one place where GM is not competing well with the other trucks in its class. I guess they're counting on brand loyalty to sell these things. GM saved money by letting Isuzu design the truck and then throwing a modified Trailblazer motor and drivetrain into it. Great idea for the design budget and build cost, but it shows in the final product.
My wife has a Volvo V70 and I can state that the seats in my Colorado are as comfortable and do just fine on long rides. I did notice at the auto show the interior of the GMC looked better and had better fit & finish than the Chevy.
As for the Frontier hauling 5500# that's great - but get all that weight sling along behind a smaller truck that weights about the same and you'll see why some mfrs are more careful in rating the smaller trucks.
Although the Mazda is derided by many to be a twin of the "aging Ranger", in terms of the interior or ride, I did not feel any significant superiority in ride or interior quality in the new Colorado as compared to my Mazda.
Also, I understand what GM is saying about the towing, but I think if nothing else, they are making a marketing mistake. I would never try to test my Mazda's 5,500 lb limit, but I have pulled 3,000 lbs and the truck felt quite competent. I felt secure in the fact that I was only at about 55% of capacity. In a Colorado, I would be closer to capacity, which would give a perception (if not reality) of pushing the limits of the truck.
Why did I drive a Colorado? I thought the exterior looked good and due to changing circumstances, my extended cab (even with the four doors) does not quite cut it and I need a crew. I will be waiting for the new Frontier and Tacoma, which will slaughter the power output of the GM twins. GM made a major mistake of not fitting these trucks for their excellent in line six engine, and a later addition of a supercharger will not plug the gap in my mind, because of durability issues associated with a force fed engine.
I'm not sure what durability problems a supercharger would create? I've owned a supercharged Bonneville for four years and I have heard of no durability issues whatsoever with the venerable 3800 motor. It's actually more durable than the regular 3800 because it doesn't have that prone-to-leak plastic intake manifold and some beefed-up internals.
I looked at the Colorado because I wanted a four-door truck with the utility of a pickup, but I don't have the need for a full-size truck. I got an Avalanche instead. It's much bigger than I need but man is it comfortable, and I think for my light-duty needs more practical than the Silverado 1500 Crew since it rides like a Suburban and has that cool mid-gate system. Even though the Av was expensive (I ended up leasing) the decked-out 4WD Colorado with leather, XM and Z71 was $31,000 sticker. If it had been $27,000 sticker I might have gone for it. Also I couldn't get over that puny and flimsy center console and lack of armrests for the front seats.
I was expecting the Colorado to be a three-fifths scale Silverado (it looks the part). That's what I wanted, but it doesn't live up to expectations.
What stopped me from buying, the 4000# tow rating. Now I believe that an I-5 is a better more reliable engine in the long run. I can see how a softer suspension helps on long drives. However, it just makes me a bit queazy to think that my truck can't pull at least 5000#. Now six and change would be nice, but at least five.
Yes, GM I doubt I'll actually test that limit but you want to know its there. You don't want to be in a "why the hell did I buy a truck if I can't even tow as much as my buddy's Jeep Liberty" situation. Frankly its just kind of embarrassing.
It seems the writer just loved it, (he drives a 1988 S-10). the only flaw he mentioned was the high noise of the I5 engine. It was not a balanced piece.non of the shortcoming were mentioned. I wonder what other people think, is the Colorado
the best mid size truck on the market? and will it be so when the 2005 Tacoma and Frontier arrive in November?
read article here; http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/02/automobiles/02AUTO.html?pagewan- ted=2