Howdy, Stranger!

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



  • machiavellimachiavelli Posts: 260
    Same as the Colorado.
  • Once again GM will miss the mark in providing a truck worthy of any of us spending our hard-earned money on. Who wants a 4 0r 5 cylinder 4X4? Why does GM waste time and money developing an inline 5 when they have the idea engines in production: the 4.8L or 5.3L eights. You can get the 5.3L in the extended Envoy. Why not give us something that makes sense. Some of the Eurporean manufactures tried the 5 cylinder solution and they didn't sell. I have bought my last GM product as they are always late to market and never provide a decent product.
  • jchan2jchan2 Posts: 4,956
    Hmm. Acura tried the 5 cylinder engine in the Vigor and 2.5 TL. What happened? They got AXED! Acura replaced them with a 3.2 liter V6. Why did the 5 cylinders get axed? They got axed because they delivered the power of a 4 cylinder and the operating expense of a Turbocharged 6. Plus, doesn't a 5 cylinder make the same power as a Turbocharged 4 cylinder or a small V6? Dodge tried a V6 in its Intrepid and it was a sucess. Now, almost every automaker has a V6 somewhere in their lineup. Audi made a Turbo 4. It was mildly succesful and many buyers preferred it over the
    I-5 made by Acura. the A4 competed with the Vigor and 2.5 TL. The A4 was more popular and the Vigor was a sales mistake.
  • fsmmcsifsmmcsi Posts: 792
    GM should offer the Canyon and Colorado with the 405HP small block V8, AWD, an extended cab, all of the deluxe features (plenty of sound insulation, Etc.) and a 6' bed. It would be an excellent alternative to an SUV, since all of the things which rattle and move around (or go flying in a wreck) would be outside the passenger area, but it would be short enough to fit in normal garage spaces. I would much prefer something like that to the Sierra Denali, which is simply too large, too heavy, and too inefficient.
  • My opinion, saying a design is bad or good before the product is personally evaluated is not a practical one. In-line engines have been around for over 100 years and have been some of the most durable engines ever built. And as we have seen with products from the past that consumer opinion is not based on sound engineering, but on emotions or cost-popularity is not always best. I prefer in-line engines that are properly designed due to reduction in parts, lower operating cost, more access to vital engine components (easier to fix), and longer life (over 300,000 miles) Marine and trucking companies have lived on in line six engines for decades and why should a short version be such a bad move? Look at any farm equipment, earth moving equipment, industrial generators, Navy, Coast Guard, or Commerical cruise ships - you might be surprised. And yes, they are longer and if you want a short front end on any vehicle you must make a "V" configuration. GM may actually make a "Professional grade" truck sooner than later. This is my opinion, try to keep the emotions out and the logic in-not always a simple task.
  • bdboibdboi Posts: 1
    .. i'm very glad the new truck is coming out .. there are conflicting opinions about engines .. but my source says it will have the I6 4.2L 270hp avail also. i've had an '85 S-10 for over 12 years. it came with a 2.8L V-6 and a 5 speed .... it pulled a fitfhwheel !!! ... but wanting more power .. i bought a totaled '94 Blazer and put everything that would fit in my S-10 ... so i've had everything Chevy or GMC offered for a long time now .. i'm very anxious for the new truck .. however , i'll have to most likely wait till they show up at auction or on the used lots .. .. all that said .. Wow !! it's about time
  • orwoodyorwoody Posts: 269
    Here is what the GM website has on new vortec I-4 and I-5 in line engines. They plan to offer them in the new Canyon.

    "New Vortec 3500 I-5 and 2800 I-4 Engines to Provide the Power of a V6 and the Efficiency of an I-4

    Leveraging the technology of its highly successful Vortec 4200 inline six-cylinder engine, GM has created two additional inline engines with excellent driveability features for mid-size pickup customers: the Vortec 3500 inline five-cylinder and Vortec 2800 inline four-cylinder engines. Both engines will be available in the 2004 Chevrolet Colorado and GMC Canyon and will provide the power of a V6 and the efficiency of an I-4."

    and here is another website with more tech info.

  • With all this talk about the 2.8 and 3.5 Vortec's, let's not forget the trucks themselves.

    Here is a link to the Isuzu D-max:

    (This ia a Thai site. Down on the bottom there is link to the English version)

    As a GM supplier posted on the Colarado board, the Canyon/Colorado were developed by Isuzu. Isuzu is making their trucks in Thailand, the Chevy/GMC will be made in Shreveport at a new assembly facility adjacent to the old S-10/Sonoma plant. As I said on th Colorado board, a few things stand out to me:

    - D-MAX's listed dimensions are similiar if not smaller than the Sonoma/S-10. All the scuttlebutt out of Detroit had these vehicles being larger, comparable to today's Dakota (which, paradoxically is reported to be getting smaller next generation). The pictures show a vehicle with a shallow, Tacoma-sized bed. Yes, I believe it is possible to fit a deeper bed, but a larger cab I don't think is in the cards.

    - I say the cab is not going to change because the interior shots show an interior (dash, door hardware and steering wheel) spot on with all the spy photo interior shot of the new Chevy/GMC. Yes, owing to righthand drive in Thailand, the interior is reversed, but it looks almost identical.

    Based on this and other info, some conjecture:

    - These trucks will not be as big as expected. Heck, GM is now calling the present Sonoma a mid-size ( Why make a mid-size when you can market your old compact as one (Revenge of Ron Zarella?!?). Maybe GM got some good intel on the Dakota being shrunk and decided not to be behind the power curve. Probably GM also read the writing on the political wall (read: CAFE) and knew they needed to compensate for Yukons/Denalis, Escalades, Silverado 1500's and the like. Might be the reason GMC, quite a while after the Colarado was announced finally announced the Canyon. Corporate might have forced them to have a small truck so all the CAFE averaging pressure isn't on Chevy.

    - The engine debate is also interesting. Again GM is going for fuel economy IMO. An exec practically said so when he was quoted as wanting to sell a lot of 2.8/5-speed combos. Owning both a vehicle with a 4.2L I-6 VORTEC and one with the old 4.3 V-6 Vortec, I can attest for the new engine's smoothness and higher end power. But GM is putting in an I-5 version for mileage. Even with balance shaft's it won't be as smooth. Plus, it has less torque than the 4.3. In the end it might come down to buyer's perceptions. Ford dealer's will be quick to learn "Yes, theirs is nice, but OUR's has a V-6! You will be amazed at the people who will automatically think "ah, more power" than take the time to read a spec sheet!

  • I can't for the life of me figure out this big thing about the I5, and I4 engines, both of these engines are going to out power the current 180HP2wd/190HP4wd 4.3V6 so what's the big deal?! From what I have heard the I4 will have 170HP and the I5 will have 215HP. I dramatic improvement over the piddely little 180hp2wd/190hp4wd that's currently available. Another tidbit of information the in line engines run smoother than you could ever imagine. The I6 had to have an anti-starter grind circuit installed because they were getting chewed up starters from those that couldn't tell the engine was running.

    A SS model would be cool though, like the old S-10 Typhoon with the turbo charged 4.3, man that was a real runner there. Oh well there are aftermarket companies that will come out with the go fast stuff we crave. Now if it didn't void the factory warranty....
  • Yes, the 3.5L will best the 4.3 Vortec by an of 25-35 HP (depending on which version (2wd/4wd)4.3 is compared to) but it does lose 20-25lb-ft of torque in the same comparision. Will buyers be more concerned with torque output and engine size/number of cylinders? Ford's top Ranger engine is a 4 liter four with 238lb-ft of torque.
    The 4.3 had this beat on both accounts. Of course, the Ranger out-sold it, so maybe the 3.5 will outsell it due to horsepower (8hp more). I'm not so sure though. With the I-6 GM out-muscled the 4.0 in the Explorer and even out HPed the
    V-8. The advantage was clearly GM's. In this case though, I don't think the advantages are as clear cut. Especially with Ford salesman asking True-Blue American pick-up buyers if they want a "Japanese designed pickup with one them smaller foreign style five-cylinder engines in it."
    Hopefully, GM's gambit to lower it's CAFE numbers with this truck will work, but it might be at the expense of the truck's marketability (read: fleet sales).
  • jedaijedai Posts: 7
    All this confusion about inline 5's. Audi and Volvo (Audi engine) had them for years and Volvo still uses them. The Acura 2.5 I5 was a great and economical motor. Acura wanted to go upmarket with the TL and dropped it for the 3.0 V6. Any automotive engineer will tell you that an I5 is the smoothest configuration, probably won't need balance shafts like big I4's. The only thing that compares is an H6 like Porsche and Subaru. I would love to have this truck with the 5 cyl. as I drive lots of miles and fuel economy is a big thing for me.
  • The 3.5 I-5 will have twin balance shafts (rotating at twice engine speed) installed to quell the second-order vibrations still present in the I-5. The I-6 might be the engine you are thinking of, as it it suffers little second order vibrations. The outgoing 4.3L has had a single balance shaft in it since the early ninties, since the 90 degree V angle so smooth for it's 5.7L parent is not the best for V-6s. As a general rule:

    I-4s over 1.8L will benefit from balance shafts

    I-5s obviously can use their help to smooth things out

    V-6s should have a V angle of 60 degrees for smoothness.

    V-8s should have 90 degrees of V.

    I have heard V-12s should be 75 degrees from one
    source and 60 from another. Not to many of them around anyway since Jag went to V-8s so it really is almost a moot point.

    Of course crank, connecting rod and piston design are major players in an engine's NVH characteristics too.
  • Thanks for the link on that Isuzu D-max. I know I will probably never buy a Canyon no matter how much I like the looks and potentially the drive of it. Reason: too many spark plugs. Give me a Canyon Crew-Cab with that Isuzu engine that is in the D-max or get Duramax to make a little I-4 or I-5 D-Max, and I will get one - maybe two. Until then, I'll just keep driving my overkill 2500HD D-Max rocket ship and a VW TDI!
  • From what I hear, Duramax Ltd (joint Isuzu/GM venture for the 6.6, to include the plant in Moraine, OH) was looking at producing a smaller diesel, but Isuzu's money problems was causing some problems. I believe I heard that Duramax was completely bought out by GM, so maybe there is hope. With Ford partner Navistar producing smaller P-stroke's it may be only a matter of time. Or maybe they will source a diesel overseas like they did with the early S-10s.

    My wife like's Duramax's too. Woman must like compression ignition. Passat diesels are really popular over here as you can well imagine.

    A 2500HD is not overkill around Orlando, it's a way to move slow traffic out of your way on I-4!
  • I have come across a WEB Site a few weeks ago that stated that apparently the Colorado/Canyon price will remain approx the same as the current S10/Somoma prices which would make Colorado/Canyon a little more palatable. I hope someone at GM is listening; your product is a tad overpriced. GM has good products but if you go to Dodge and Ford Website and use the Build your own vehicle you will see why the Dodge Quad Cabs and are multiplying like rabbits and the F150 is the best selling truck.

    PS any idea of what the Payload and Max towing capacity of the
    I5 200hp will be?
  • PS any idea of what the Payload and Max towing capacity of the
    I5 220hp will be?
  • bri719bri719 Posts: 6
    I agree with some of the other comments posted here and also had a few of my own.

    first, Chevy's styling doesn't really appeal to me in any shape or form but I would consider buying GMC model since I really like this truck in general. I agree with some of the others the engine offerings are a slight problem. if they're going to offer just two engines, the I5 should be the base engine and the larger 5.3 V8 should be the optional one, for capable 4 wheel driving (added torque, etc).

    my guess is that GM's offerings w/ the engines are based upon a couple of factors, one being that the 5-cyl would definitely have more than enough power for most people. but why even offer an I4 for a larger truck that curbs at a minimum of 4000 lbs?!? crazy. economics and gas efficiency are also factors no doubt, but not if you can't even get off the line with 4 cylinders. but even with a blip in gas prices, consumers aren't being swayed from larger engines these days. so that's almost a moot point. what people are craving these days is power, it's clear across the auto industry with more and more 200-300+ hp vehicles coming out these days.

    as for too many sparkplugs, I don't see it - I presume the I5 has 10, only 2 more than most I4's (and are cheap maintenance).

    one of my questions, for which I didnt see an answer by reading any links, was whether or not the extended cab is a 4-door model. if not, forget it, and the crew cab doesn't appeal to me because of the super short box. I also think the 6 foot box is too short for a "mid-size" truck, which is a phrase that doesn't carry much weight anyway since "compact" has basically been replaced by "mid-size" in the lingo department. my smaller Ranger even has a 7-footer which is the correct length.

    I was excited about this truck but being that it won't even come out until the very end of 2003 I doubt it's for me. chances are what I'd do is just end up waiting for Ford dealers to slash stickers on their '03 F150s and buy a V6 model (being that they're putting the completely new '04 out to market in the fall of this yr), or even a used one since I'll get a much better incentive than on the 2004 Colorado/Canyon. I also didn't see any photos or much description on the "high riding" model talked about in the articles. as in, descriptions or photos. finally, wheel/tire selections look strange right now - there's just not enough info available. no optional wheel/tire package listed, and the first article I read said this truck came with 15 in. wheels, then the Edmunds article said 17 in. wheels. hmmmm
  • corvettecorvette United StatesPosts: 5,718
    "...why even offer an I4 for a larger truck that curbs at a minimum of 4000 lbs..."

    The current Sonoma/S10 curbs at 3016 lbs. for a base model, 2wd, regular cab. Only the crew cab, 4wd model has a curb weight of over 4000 lbs. The I4 will be adequate for the base models, and if I'm not mistaken it will have the most standard horsepower in the class. In the current models, bed length is reduced on the crew cab model to make them more maneuverable. Standard bed length is 6 feet on the regular and extended cab models, 7 1/3 feet available on regular cab models. Full-size pickups typically offer a larger variety of cab, bed, and engine configurations.

    Also disappointing: side-curtain airbags aren't standard; Stabilitrak isn't available. The front grille and lamp design is a shade of ugly reminiscent of the current Chevrolet abominations (Avalanche, Trailblazer, and Silverado). Another safety gaffe: The Canyon appears to have red rear turn signals instead of the amber ones. Not only is the color amber easier to see than red, the signals are more easily distinguished from brake lights. (This setup is required in Europe.)
  • "The front grille and lamp design is a shade of ugly reminiscent of the current Chevrolet abominations"

    Vette, The Canyon is, with exception of it's grille insert and steering wheel airbag cover, a Colorado. The Sonoma at least had it's own headlights, grille, and hood to differentiate it from the S-10. I still think this truck was forced down GMC's throat for CAFE reasons.
  • aldan93aldan93 Posts: 202
    ever heard of CAFE standards, GM's fleet has to get better MPG!!!! avg of 24? thats why the 4/5 combo/ any vehicle over 6000LBS doesn't hurt the MPG avg, like Suburban, Hummer.... Duelly trucks etc...Why do think they are tossing in that small car this year! looks like a GEO metro
  • boikoboiko Posts: 82
    Other then cosmetic differences, are there any other significant reasons to buy one over the other...?

  • brianbmbrianbm Posts: 55
    This coming year should be interesting for midsize trucks, with GMC/Chevy, Dodge, and Nissan all coming out with new or greatly changed machines. I personally think an I-5 will be fine. I'm hoping for an American alternative to the Tundra (current smaller version). It surprises me a little that the I-6 in the TrailBlazer isn't an option, surely one more cylinder isn't THAT big a size difference. Pity we have to wait for 2004 to touch metal.
  • I think it will have slight styling changes on the front. Kind of like the headlight variation on the full size models.
  • brianbmbrianbm Posts: 55
    A local dealer told me he doesn't expect to have a floor model until December. That's OK, I can wait ...
  • orwoodyorwoody Posts: 269
    from what I have been able to find it appears the 2004 Canyon physically is not a lot bigger than the Sonoma; but is better designed to give a large interior (feel). Most significantly is that the GVW and towing capacity are increased about 20% or more over the Sonoma.
  • Courtesy Chevrolet in Phoenix had a couple of Colorado demos on Saturday! They had a base model and a Z71. GM had them on display as part of a sales training. They won't be getting any actual units to sell until either this week or the next.

    Showcase, the GMC dealership across the street didn't have any Canyons on demo, but the salesman I spoke to gave me a dealer sales workbook that has all of the specs and pictures, including a comparison to the Ranger, Dakota, and Tacoma. It's a really neat piece of literature, bound by a wire notebook coil ring.

    I love the Sonoma Highrider, but this new truck is incredible! Although I like pick-ups, I plan on sticking with SUVs, but this truck is very appealing because of it's bold styling and well-though-out mechanics. The interior is VERY spacious! I couldn't believe the front leg room. I'm 6'1" and felt very comfortable, with room to spare. The whole truck appears much bigger than it's predecessor, even though it's only a few inches bigger in each direction. I almost mistook the Colorado for a Silverado when I passed by the first time.

    While the Colorado is very sharp, I like the styling of the Canyon better, especially the Z71 Crew Cab. There are two oddities that bug me, though. One is that goofy steering wheel. Why they gave it that wimpy half circle look, I'll never know. It really needs the cool angular steering wheel like the other GM trucks to go with it's angular exterior design. The other ridiculous thing is the absence of 31x10.5" BFGoodrich All-Terrains on the Z71, AT LEAST AS AN OPTION! GM is so frustrating. They get so many things right, but they seem to always blow something. They even brought the door panel cup/bottle holders back, like my Jimmy has, but the new Envoy is lacking. So, here's this great truck, with a high stance suspension that's 3.6" taller than the standard suspension, but NO BFGs?! Oh, and 3 different wheel choices that finally look cool for a GM truck, but they're ALL 15"! Come on... I guess GM's leaving it up to the buyer to swap tires.

    Other than those minor things, this seems like it will be a great truck.

    I'm holding out for the H3, built off of the same chassis, but who knows what GM might screw up on that. If it's ugly, or incomplete in some major way, I may have to consider the Canyon. Of course, I'd have to throw some BFGs and a bed cap on! I'd also have to swap out the center console with an Envoy, so I could have a center shifter...
  • aldan93aldan93 Posts: 202
    The H3 is built off the GMT 360 Platform, Trailblazer, Envoy, not the GMT 355 that is used for the Colorado/Canyon
  • theo2709theo2709 Posts: 476
    No the H3 is definately built off the GMT 355. Check out the H3 thread for spy shots that have Colorado front ends.
  • Jeep is coming out with a small diesel in their Liberty next year with 270 lb/ft torque and 28 MPG. Can tow 7700 lbs. Sounds like something GMC should have had all along in their small truck. Will GM step up?
  • logic1logic1 Posts: 2,433
    and some of the other states following suit.
This discussion has been closed.