GMC Canyon

Sylvia

Check out GMC's newest truck in the lineup:

http://www.edmunds.com/future/2004/gmc/terrain/4drcrewcab/preview.html

machiavelli

Same as the Colorado.

hsvgrinch

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.

jchan2

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.

fsmmcsi

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.

ncgtriangulum

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.

bdboi

.. 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

orwoody

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.

http://www.gm.com/automotive/gmpowertrain/vortecinline/index.htm

"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.
http://www.pickuptruck.com/html/news/I4I5.html

thecargonzo

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:

http://www.isuzu-tis.com

(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 (http://www.gmc.com/sonoma). 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!

jgmilberg

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....

thecargonzo

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).

jedai

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.

thecargonzo

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.

cowgyrl13

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!

thecargonzo

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!

ghislain

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?

ghislain

PS any idea of what the Payload and Max towing capacity of the
I5 220hp will be?

bri719

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

corvette

"...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.)

thecargonzo

"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.

aldan93

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

boiko

Other then cosmetic differences, are there any other significant reasons to buy one over the other...?

Thanks,
-mike-

brianbm

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.

leedavidyoung

I think it will have slight styling changes on the front. Kind of like the headlight variation on the full size models.

brianbm

A local dealer told me he doesn't expect to have a floor model until December. That's OK, I can wait ...

orwoody

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.

tbcreative

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...

aldan93

The H3 is built off the GMT 360 Platform, Trailblazer, Envoy, not the GMT 355 that is used for the Colorado/Canyon

theo2709

No the H3 is definately built off the GMT 355. Check out the H3 thread for spy shots that have Colorado front ends.

bradkurtz

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?

logic1

and some of the other states following suit.

tbcreative

Expect a new turbo-charged in-line 5 to find it's way into the Canyon, eventually. Rumors state that the H3 will be introduced with a normally-asparated 5 and a turbo version. GM Powertrain division has been developing it for some time.

The H3 T concept, debuting in L.A., has a version of the turbo 5 rated at 350 hp & 350 lbs/ft of torque! Sadly, I'm sure the production version, debuting at the Detroit show, will only be somewhere between 240 and 260 hp. K&N, here I come!

ldavisfl

A nearby GMC canyon dealer got their first Canyon in and called me to take a look (I had stopped by a few weeks earlier to inquire about the Canyon). I am not a GM fan but this is an interesting truck so I thought I would take a look.

The vehicle I saw was a basic extended cab with the I-5 engine. It was fairly trimless, having just arrived (didn't have window stickers yet and there was a collection of new/unattached trim pieces sitting in the extended cab area). I took it for a drive and was fairly impressed with it. It was comfortable and had plenty of power in my opinion.

Two things gave me pause, however. During my "tour" of the vehicle I happened to push up on the headliner and discovered what seemed to be a bouncy, thin, and cheap piece of fabric covered cardboard. I could actually bounce the center of the ceiling (with the dome light going along for the ride) up and down about 0.5 inch. My old '93 Ranger's headliner is glued continuously and securely to the roof of the truck, so I wasn't expecting such an easily avoided element of "cheapness." Finally, as I took one last walk-around, I was disapointed to see that the two main headlamps and the two smaller ones (above the main ones) were all filled with condensation. Fresh from the factory! NICE!

If anyone is considering this vehicle, make sure to check on these two issues. Perhaps they were unique to the vehicle I saw, but you never know.

Kirstie_H

First Drive: 2004 Chevrolet Colorado and GMC Canyon
http://www.edmunds.com/new/2004/chevrolet/colorado/100275004/road- testarticle.html?articleId=101038

orwoody

Was in for an oil change and checks on my Grand Prix... Dealer had a couple of the New Canyons on the lot. It is looks definitely bigger than the Sonoma and the interior is a pretty good upgrade. I also noticed it had 6 lug wheels (verses 5 lug on the Sonoma). The prices don't seem too much more than a comparable Sonoma (except for rebates). I'll have to drive one to really know how much improved it is.(since I own a Sonoma)
So far it looks pretty good.

cb750

As a driver of a 1995 Sonoma SLS bought new and currently with 252,000 miles on my 2.2 four cyl. 5 speed, I feel I've more than earned the right to speak on this new replacement. First, I spend alot of time on the road and comfort is important to me. Seems, GM took away a few of my favorite comfort items: Lumbar support...now only available on the 4 dr. crew cab model; Sun visors that block sun...my SLS has a slide deal that will extend out of the main sun visor for extra, well needed protection from the sun and an additional visor to pull down in the front when the main one is swung over to the side window. On all models, even the $40,000 Envoy, all you get is the cheap single visor that provides minimal protection; Instrumentation...My SLS has a speedo, fuel, temp, oil and volt gauges. The new models dumped the oil & volt gauges but added a tach...I'd rather have the oil & volt over the tach.

A four door extended cab is ok, but you can't really seat a full sized person back there so why have those little seats back there anyway. I like the way Ford does it in the Ranger, better with one seat that sits the rear passenger sideways affording a ton more leg room. Also, doesn't 4 doors on the extended cab take away from the structural integrity? Would the price be lower is there were three doors? How 'bout those little seats being an option instead of standard...I'm trying to lower the price on this truck, hope someone is listening. Those little boxes under the rear seats don't look like they will last, the lid snaps look like they will surely break if often used. Is the nap of the carpet kind of thin, or is that my imagination? It just feels flimsy. Lastly the head liner in my 95 SLS has a very soft padded feel to it and it looks as good as the day I drove it off the dealers lot. In contrast the new models head liner has a long way to go... It just seems that GM is trying to cut corners in the interior.

I'll give GM praise for the new engines and exterior design, but I'm going to hold on to my GM card points a little longer...I'm not quite sold on these new trucks.

orwoody

Has anyone purchased one? I'm seriously thinking of trying to down size from 2 to 1 vehicle. I need a truck, comfortable ride for 2 adults, 1 child and have a truck. I've got the sonoma but with a child seat, no real room for Momma and I can't haul lumber or compost too well in the GP. I saw a crew cab Colorado at the auto show and even though the bed is a bit short, it might do the trick. I'm going to look around for a test drive, but was curious what new owners had to say.

6thbeatle

i think GM's got a stinker on their hands. just like the chevy equinox, it's not a very appealing package. as numerous people have mentioned here before, why a 5-cylinder engine?!!
even people who know nothing about cars or trucks are turned off instinctively by an engine with an odd number of cylinders--the words "5-cylinder engine" don't even SOUND balanced!

the interior is simply NOT good enough either. what a lame attempt! nuff said.

orwoody

I drove a 4WD crew cab Canyon over the weekend. Overall a huge improvement over my Sonoma. Interior plastic was about the same, but the seats were much more comfortable (although not on par with their sedan's bucket). Interior was quiet and the 5 Cylinder engine, quiet and smooth. Overall power and acceleration were good. Ran it up a 20-25% hill that goes for over a mile and was able to accelerate up it, hold steady without the engine straining. Interior seems larger as does the box. Overall a pretty nice package.
Incentives aren't great, but it got me interested.

orwoody

Would like to solicit new owners and their experiences. I just purchased a 2004 Canyon Crew Cab 4WD SLE. I consolidated from a small pickup and midsize sedan to the crew cab and so far I am very pleased. Drives well, pretty quiet and plenty of room. First gas fill up in mixed driving was just over 20mpg with the I-5 motor.
Cherry Red with off road package and this rig gets a lot of looks and compliments. (which I didn't expect from associates who are Ford and Toyota owners.)

hotrodlincoln1

That is one UGLY truck.

joe3891

size is so close to the old truck that auto writers are still calling it a compact while GM is calling it a midsize.Looking at the old and new specs it about 1 inch wider and 2 inches longer hardly a midsize.

orwoody

Depends on if you use wheelbase or interior dimensions to determine midsize. Interior of the Canyon vs the Dakota crew cab, all dimensions are within an inch or so(shoulders, hips, leg room...) and the box on the Canyon Crew has greater capacity than the dakota.
Having owned a Sonoma Ext cab and now the Crew Cab Canyon I can say the interior up front is larger. (no not just cause I have a crew cab) The box also seems wider and the Canyon drives like a larger vehicle, smoother, quieter and not as harsh as the Sonoma. If you drive a Sonoma and then a Canyon you'll notice much difference.

sporttbird

I just ordered one last week, Canyon Crew Cab SLE, standard suspension. The interior is definitely on par with the Dakota, and much larger that my current S-10 Extended cab in width. We checked out both the Dakota and Canyon with our 2 car seats in the back and there was slightly better hip room in the Canyon if you wanted to put a 3rd passenger in the rear seat. They did this without making the vehicle much larger on the outside. I am not sure that this was the best route to go, as if they had bumped it up on the exterior a bit more, they could have had an even more spacious interior.

I probably would have waited a bit longer on the purchase if we didn't need the extra room for a new baby on the way. My impressions so far, with only test drives under my belt, is that the drivetrain package is perfect for my needs, the exterior styling is great, The interior styling is good but could be a bit "softer" to the touch. The door handle and center console padding is practically non-existant. I was very impressed with the overall build quality. The gaps in the sheet metal are consistent and not large. Definitely a much more quality feel when opening and closing doors and turning switches/controls, than my current S-10.

Things I would have liked to see:
Nicer Interior Padding on door arm rests and center console.
Heated exterior mirrors for these Minnesota Winters.
More Wheel/Tire options. How about some 17" wheels.
A Driveline package like the Silverado SS. All Wheel Drive, 17" wheels, sportier(and Lower suspension) I would have bought this package in a heart beat.

I'll give you an update after I've been driving it for a while.

orwoody

Well After over 6 weeks and 2100 miles of ownership I say that GMC did a good job on this truck. I’ve owned the new generation Sierra and a Sonoma, as well as test drove Dakota and Tacoma crew cabs. I am very happy with my choice of Canyon 4WD Crew Cab Z71 SLE in Cherry Red. It’s loaded and I keep comparing it to the Sierra as opposed to the Sonoma so I think GM succeeded in taking a quantum leap over the Sonoma as a replacement. I’ve been spoiled so perhaps my expectations are now too high for a “compact/midsize” truck.

First What I’d change(well maybe it ain’t supposed to be that good for this $$ range):
- The wheels: they aren’t that attractive and very tedious to clean. I replaced mine with a nice set of 16” chrome Niche wheels after the first wash.
- Find a way to offer OnStar, XM radio AND the IRVM (rearview) mirror together. Currently you have to trade off the OnStar vs. the Mirror/XM. “Due to them having interference problems” I was told by GMC – funny I replied – you can get all three options on a Sierra or Yukon!
- A little less hard plastic. I’d like a softer armrest on the door so I could rest my knee against it more comfortably.
- More lateral support in the bucket seats.

My Likes and Impressions:
- Good mileage. My commute is 30+ miles one way. Although running in 2WD, ~75% freeway I’ve gotten just over 20mpg on the last 3 tanks.
- Ride is smooth and handles the bumps, washboard, and expansion joints well. There is a bit more road feel through the steering than I’d like.
- The I-5 motor is smooth and has good power. I’ve eyeballed 0-60 times in the 8+ seconds. Not back for a crew cab truck.
- Good cruiser, pretty quiet and stable at 65-75mph. Taking our first road trip in a couple of weeks.
- Solid, doesn’t shimmy or jounce over the bumps and breaks. Got a comment from the owner of a Jeep Grand Cherokee & BMW 325 that my Canyon sure was “solid” for a truck. It also felt more solid than the Dakota or Tacoma crew cabs durig test drives.
- Comfortable interior with room for 4 adults comfortably. Ergonomics are good.
- I’ve come to like the XM radio quite a lot.
- You can option this out almost like a “higher class” truck…leather, power options, 6 CD changer, XM Radio, IRVM…
- The Cherry Red gets a lot of positive nods. The look has really grown on me and more than several people have complimented it.

Bottom Line – Would I buy this truck again now that I’ve owned it for a little while:
A firm Yes.

durango5o8

Glad to hear your Canyon is giving you no troubles! I test drove a 2WD, I-5, crew Canyon several weekends ago and also test drove a Dodge Dakota 2WD Crew with the V6. The Canyon seemed solid with good fit and finish and drove well. The Canyon seemed to have a little less room in the back than the Dodge, but that seemed to be because the front seat went farther back than the Dodge. The V-6 in the Dodge seemed loud compared to the I-5 and was most uncomfortable. I was really surprised by this being we used to own a Durango with bucket seats, and the room was adequate. I am pretty tall and pretty big. The Dakota had the split bench, and the fold down armrest didn't seem to leave me enough room to sit. I felt like I was pushing against the driver's side door and it would burst open going around a corner. I may look into a Canyon starting next month. Just kind of depends on the deals to be had and if I can find what I am looking for without too many more options.

Also, have you used an XM receiver anywhere besides your truck? I am wondering if the little receiver with the boom box would work in an office. I am considering it, especially if I get the truck with the XM radio, but would hate for it to not work in my office after spending the money.

Thanks, glad to hear you are enjoying your truck!

orwoody

No, the XM in the Canyon is the first I've experienced. What I have noticed in driving around is that the XM radio does not seem to suffer from the shadowing and directional fading as with std AM/FM broadcasts. The sound seems clearer and cleaner too.

orwoody

Well several months and about 3500 miles I am still very pleased with the Crew Cab Canyon 4WD. We just returned from out first road trip. It wasn't a long one but first time I've gotten several hours on a highway and also some dirt back roads. I got 21-22+mpg on several tanks which were ~90% highway. We bumped around on some back roads where I had to run in 4WD Hi a couple of times. I did notice that running in 4WD does tax the I5, but it seemed adequate.
We're waiting now for the accessory mfrs to offer a locking cover for the bed (Crew cab cover isn't out yet) so we can really travel more conveniently.
No issues yet and no creaks or buzzes. I do get a little engine vibration through the steering column at idle, but nothing unusual.

wheel_man

Picked up my 04 Canyon, Black off road package, full loaded without ordering body side moldings(not a big deal) The problem with the truck is there is no vanity mirror on the drivers side, the carpet is loose on top of the tranny hump, the paint quality is poor(orange peal on the cab by the third brake light, on the tail gate, on the "b" pillor. Have you looked underneath this truck? It's primer"no paint"How cheap is GM. Where are the skid plates on this thing, I'm not sure if I want to drive it down a gravel road, the fuel lines, brake lines and shifting linkage are wide open. Who built this thing a woman who drives it to the store? Where the heck is a ashtray. I'm already thinking of taking it back. I am a GM fan but this truck is poor at best. What is GM thinking,maybe I should have waited a year or 2 before buying this vehicle. I was way happier with my 1997 GMC Sonoma 4x4. At least it had skid plates, lit vanity mirrors(driver/pass) ashtray, a full instrument panel,and even room in the dash for a couple of cd's. Very dissapointed owner of a Canyon..............Wheel

wheel_man

Picked up my 04 Canyon, Black off road package, full loaded without ordering body side moldings(not a big deal) The problem with the truck is there is no vanity mirror on the drivers side, the carpet is loose on top of the tranny hump, the paint quality is poor(orange peal on the cab by the third brake light, on the tail gate, on the "b" pillor. Have you looked underneath this truck? It's primer"no paint"How cheap is GM. Where are the skid plates on this thing, I'm not sure if I want to drive it down a gravel road, the fuel lines, brake lines and shifting linkage are wide open. Who built this thing a woman who drives it to the store? Where the heck is a ashtray. I'm already thinking of taking it back. I am a GM fan but this truck is poor at best. What is GM thinking,maybe I should have waited a year or 2 before buying this vehicle. I was way happier with my 1997 GMC Sonoma 4x4. At least it had skid plates, lit vanity mirrors(driver/pass) ashtray, a full instrument panel,and even room in the dash for a couple of cd's. Very disapointed owner of a Canyon..............Wheel

orwoody

Sorry to hear your truck is a disappointment. I agree that the skid plate should be skid plateS. I complained that most skid plate kits did more than only protect dives on the front end(the oil pan etc. exposed). Was told that the truck wasn't intended for "extreme" off road. The undercoat is electrostatic primer and has been std on GM for years. GM actually was one of the first to use that primer technique, when many mfrs weren't using any.
But overall I am very happy with mine. The Cherry Red Metallic is almost perfect. The interior fit and finish as good as any Toyota, Ford, Nissan I've seen (better than the Dakota). I've done a few back roads and a number of potholes and the truck hasn't any buzzes or chirps. I also had a Sonoma, and the Canyon is heads above my Sonoma experience. I've got over 4100 miles now and avg ~20mpg (about 75% hwy)