By on April 3, 2013

GM will have two new mid-size pickups out in 2015, just in time to steal the spotlight from the all-new Ford F-150. And according to TTAC Commenter and GM exec Mark Reuss, the two trucks should have fairly different missions.

Speaking to the Detroit Free Press, Reuss said that the Chevrolet pickup will be a “lifestyle” oriented truck, while GMC’s truck would be aimed at fleets and small businesses. Reuss also said that the new trucks would have all-new powertrains and be slightly larger than a Toyota Tacoma. We can only hope that this includes some kind of diesel, perhaps the Duramax that’s offered in the Thai version of the Chevrolet Colorado.

Perhaps our Aussie/global readers can fill us in on the subtitles of the Colorado vs. Hilux debate as well.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

144 Comments on “GM Will Introduce Two Mid-Size Pickups For 2015...”


  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    I’ll be interested to see the mileage figures.

    • 0 avatar
      ash78

      I’ve always said that whoever could hit the magical 30mpg highway number would be printing their own money. Unlike full-size buyers, a lot of these people are coming from cars and tend to get sticker shock seeing a Tacoma in the low 20s, just like a full-sized truck.

      Aerodynamics are the real enemy, but I doubt people are willing to accept “pointy” trucks without a big, manly frontal area to tell the world how much of a badass they are :D

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        I agree, I like 30ish MPG hwy and would seriously consider a “midsized” 4WD truck if I could get 18/19-30ish mpg similar to a traditional V6 car (4WD is pretty much required in these parts).

        • 0 avatar
          DenverMike

          The Mahindra promised to be our 30 MPG solution, but ended up with only 21 hwy MPG once it got here. Is something lost in translation?

          The Aussie boys said it was an old generation of diesels, *but* the Mahindra gets similar MPG to the rest of the global pickup offerings in the land of Oz, including the Holden Colorado.

          yahoo.carsales.com.au/ute/

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            @DenverMike
            Are you lying and trolling again.

            You were in the debate when we discussed this.

            The US vehicle tested was an Indian variant with a much lower final drive.

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            @Big Al from OZ
            Yes it did have a much lower ratio.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @Robert Ryan – Is the Mahindra’s most radical gear option drastic enough to drop it from 30 MPG to 21? Diesels don’t really require so many RPMs, do they? What’s the best all around ratio in a diesel global mid-size?

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            @DenverMike
            More questions. Remember provide a link or something.

            Present proof to support your argument, not talk.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @BAFO – Here’s the links you asked 4.

            http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2011/02/mahindra-tr40-rated-at-a-disappointing-1921-mpg.html

            http://yahoo.carsales.com.au/ute/

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            It also had POOR Fuel Consumption here in Australia of 9.9/100km. About 23mpg US.
            As well as all the other problems and poor build quality the Mahindra Pikup bombed big time in Australia.
            http://www.carsguide.com.au/news-and-reviews/car-reviews-road-tests/mahindra_pik-up_review

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @Robert Ryan – The Manhidra is rated at 9.1/100km (23 MPG) for all models while the Colorado is at 9.0 to 9.1/100km for more than half its models.

            And when you speak of 30 MPG (hwy?), why do I get the impression it’s a stripper regular cab 2wd without a bed, cab/chassis with vinyl everywhere?

            And is that 23 & 30 MPG, EPA equivalent?

            http://yahoo.carsales.com.au/ute

      • 0 avatar
        AFX

        I already found a spy photo of this new GM mid-sized pickup that’ll get high mpg ratings :

        http://cimages4.carsforsale.com/386656/9D875971-DF77-4CAE-8F3F-BD27F5A5B11A_1.jpg

  • avatar
    Secret Hi5

    Marketing it as a ‘lifestyle’ vehicle could help GM counter the Value=Size argument (i.e. Small vehicles should be cheap.)

  • avatar
    Tosh

    “Lifestyle oriented truck”? Isn’t this a euphemism for rubber-lined hose-down interior? (a la Honda Element)

    • 0 avatar
      ect

      The question is, what “lifestyle” will GM present to the urban/suburban cowboys who have no need of a truck at all, but happily pay premium prices for a vehicle with awful handling, bad ride and poor fuel economy, just to aspire to being a parody of a real man?

      • 0 avatar
        Sigivald

        I’ve never met anyone in the suburbs who didn’t need to move a large object now and then, myself.

        (And I think maybe you need to recalibrate your ride and handling assumptions around light/mid trucks.)

        • 0 avatar
          krhodes1

          I need to fly on a very regular basis, but I don’t own my own airplane. Makes way more sense to rent or borrow something than to have a huge amount of unused capability “just in case”.

          Compared to a decent car, all trucks suck to drive. But I suppose if your frame of reference is something like a Panther I can see where you would think they are just dandy. Or you just don’t care about driving.

          • 0 avatar
            andyinatl

            I’m pondering this question myself at the moment as i’ll be in the market for new vehicle next year. On the one hand, I really like what Acura ILX offers, as i’ve been waiting for long time for something to replace the Infiniti G20 (mocked by many, yet amazingly fun to drive and dead reliable). I like that size in the car, where it would fit in the garage along with other various stuff i store in there, and offer modern day luxuries along with decent name.
            On the other hand, as long as i can remember i always wanted Toyota Tacoma double cab. Yes, the ride/handling will be nowhere near ILX, but the utility, resale value and long term reliability for these trucks show that for me it’d be easy 20-year vehicle. Just because i won’t use truck’s bed/hitch on daily basis, doesn’t mean that i won’t be using the truck. Plus it’s a major hassle to rent a truck every time i decide to plant new tree/do some landscaping/mulch/major/minor home improvement/etc. And it’s nice to be able to throw kids’ bikes in the bed and go to the park without messing with bike racks…. There are many, many positives to own a truck.

          • 0 avatar
            Reino

            And do you also hire contractors to work on every single aspect of your house and landscape?

            If you own a house and also do all of the work on it yourself, it is silly to rent/borrow a truck every single weekend. Just because someone has an office job doesn’t mean they don’t need a truck to take care of their house.

          • 0 avatar
            krhodes1

            @Reino

            A plain old station wagon takes care of 99% of my needs, I’ve been a homeowner for a dozen years now, in the suburbs. I had a 4×8 utility trailer for many years, but not for the past 5 or so. I think the last time I borrowed a truck was a couple years ago to bring a washer and dryer home, but the store would have delivered for free. Just more convenient to DIY. I rented a U-haul trailer a couple of times to go to IKEA last year. Furniture. $20/day when needed is a lot cheaper than buying, registering, insuring, maintaining, and feeding a truck.

            If you NEED a truck, buy a truck, but for 90% of the people hauling air everyday they are rather inefficient penis extensions. The thought of keeping a truck around just in case I need something at HD or need to take trash to the dump once a year makes me LOL. I’d hire landscapers, it would be cheaper. The little trailer was great, a friend and I shared it but we wore it out – he used it a lot more than I did. I do occasionally borrow a similar one from another friend.

          • 0 avatar
            Reino

            I think a lot of you guys grossly exaggerate the ratio of pickup owners who are ‘hauling air’ to the amount of owners who actually use them on a daily basis.

            So an alternative for a single person is to buy a 7-person minivan? How is that not ‘hauling air’?

            BTW, the Prius is the new ‘penis extension’.

        • 0 avatar
          th009

          I’ve lived (and driven) in the suburbs for 35 years now. Have never owned a pickup truck, SUV or a van/minivan.

          Most things fit in a hatchback or sedan with the rear seat folded, or on a roof rack (bicycles, christmas tree). Have rented a van a couple of times for moves — many other times stores will deliver for a small charge.

          • 0 avatar
            KixStart

            Yes, surprisingly, I’ve also managed to own and work on a home in the ‘burbs for the past twenty-something years without owning a pickup truck.

            On the couple of occasions we’ve *really* wanted a truck, a pickup truck wasn’t enough truck, anyway, and we rented something that was up to the task.

            Delivery works, too. I once bought 10 tons of rocks. That would be 10 trips in an overloaded half-ton pickup. I had it delivered for $50. Gas for the 10 trips to the seller probably would have run over $50, anyway.

            Many smallish cars can tow a half ton. Our 1st-gen Ravs or a recent Corolla can go to 1500lbs. I wouldn’t want to do that every day but then I don’t need to do that every day.

            Minivans are surprisingly useful. The one thing we bought this past year that was askward to bring home was vinyl soffit material in 12 ft lenghts. We slid it up the middle of the minivan, which is over 8 feet, tied the hatch down and maybe 4 feet sticking out the back. A quad-cab pickup often only has a 5-6 ft bed, unless it’s a real monster and we might have had 6 to 7 feet dangling over the back. It’s rated to tow 3500lbs. Trailers are cheap to rent.

            If someone *wants* a truck, he will think up all kinds of reasons why he *needs* a truck. When you don’t want a truck, you find plenty of ways to live without it.

            Maybe I just love my money more than I worry about my image.

      • 0 avatar
        azmtbkr81

        It’s funny, I’ve owned a few pickup trucks over the years and friends and family love to scoff and turn their noses up right up to the point that they need help moving or bringing home a new BBQ or couch from the store.

        On a separate note there is some truth to that old country song; I can attest that there really is something women like about a pickup man!

      • 0 avatar
        TEXN3

        I guess it depends on where you reside. Here in Idaho, folks use pickups for hauling motorbikes, snowmobiles, campers, ATVs, horses, etc… They also use them for a large-acreage lot (10-20 acre) homes. I don’t have one, I use my in-laws 1990 F350. If I did have a second vehicle, it would potentially be a truck that is used for camping, errands, etc…stuff that our sedan (only vehicle) couldn’t handle or our Outback couldn’t handle.

        Growing up down south (LA, TX, OK), having a truck was used more as a status than I’ve witnessed in ID, UT, MT, and other mountainous areas with lots of public lands.

    • 0 avatar
      Lorenzo

      No, not a euphemism, it’s code for the new El Camino.

  • avatar
    cargogh

    Surely it looks better in real. It is like a Chinese Spark on ‘roids. No one would buy this, would they?

  • avatar
    Landcrusher

    And if you were born on a Thursday you pay less than your neighbor because he is only a veteran. Between bankrolling the UAW election machine and demographic pricing schemes how can anyone deal with GM?

    • 0 avatar
      MPAVictoria

      Surprised you have time to post on internet forums Rush. Don’t you have a radio audience to grift?

      • 0 avatar
        Landcrusher

        Smack! Okay, I was probably out of line on that one. It’s just that I get angry every time I think they might produce something I might want. I decided to give them a try last time because a Tahoe would work for me. After 30 minutes of the guy trying to get through the demographic pricing all I could think about was that when I go to sell it there is no demographic sales price and I could get burned.

        As I left the lot, all I could think about was that I really didn’t want to support the UAW anyway. I wouldn’t blame an anti gun person for not buying from a company that sends millions to the NRA. Nothing wrong with voting with your dollars IMO.

        • 0 avatar
          MPAVictoria

          “Nothing wrong with voting with your dollars IMO.”

          Totally agree. It is why I refuse to buy from Walmart and why I try and support Union/North American Companies.

          Also agree with you that the demographic pricing has gotten a bit out of hand.

        • 0 avatar
          billfrombuckhead

          Demographic sale price? What’s that?

          • 0 avatar
            Landcrusher

            Pure Evil, that’s what it is.

            But to answer your question for real, it’s discounting by demographics. Here are some not so totally ridiculous examples I am just going to make up: Army veteran -500, credit union member -500, elderly -200, student or recent graduate -200, left handed -50, friend of the UAW -2,000…

            Wait, it says you are from Buckhead! You get an extra 500 off.

            Now, you think that’s great cuz you got the Buckhead discount. Then your cousin in Sweetwater tells you he got a great deal and $5000 more off because he lives in Sweetwater.

            I don’t know really how it all works, but when you hear that the going rate is 8,000 off on Tahoes, and they are saying you only get 4,000 off, do you buy one? What was wrong with supply and demand? Is that suddenly unamerican?

        • 0 avatar
          Compaq Deskpro

          Huh? Was the truck any good?

    • 0 avatar
      azmtbkr81

      Most every car maker has similar schemes and really they are just gimmicks to get buyers in the door. If you intend to pay sticker you might save but if you haggle or use a site like Tru-car the discounts become irrelevant.

      The biggest discounts, which are typically employee discounts, make complete sense. Every company I’ve worked for has offered substantial discounts to employees on products and services, most companies encourage employees to eat there own dog food whenever possible.

  • avatar
    Type57SC

    I wish they would just be straight and say that the trucks are virtually identical, but they have two different dealer channels to satisfy so each channel gets a version. It hurts his credibility to hear Reuss repeat that old spin.

  • avatar
    steamlincoln

    subtleties plural of sub·tle·ty (Noun)
    Noun
    The quality or state of being subtle.
    A subtle distinction, feature, or argument.

    subtitles 3rd person singular present, plural of sub·ti·tle
    Noun
    Captions displayed at the bottom of a movie or television screen that translate or transcribe the dialogue or narrative.

    That being said, I recently made a trip to South America, where the Hilux is very common (along with a couple of other cool trucks we don’t get here, i.e. VW Amarok, and a slightly different Ford Ranger are two), and my first thought of a new GM truck was to compare it.

    I like driving a truck, but I spend too much time on the highway, not really carrying any significant payload, so I lean more to small to mid-sized trucks. I’d be interested in these GM offerings depending on fuel efficiency.

  • avatar
    JMII

    I’ve sworn off GM products but if they make a midsized diesel I’m interested. Hopefully such an offering will spur others to enter the market. Size-wise my current Dakota Quad Cab is perfect. I just want better MPG while towing.

  • avatar
    slance66

    I’d rather we got the new Ranger. Good looking truck. This may finally push Toyota to replace that boat anchor 4.0 L six in the Tacoma. What a pointless gas pig of an engine. Nobody tows anything with that truck anyway, just stick the 3.5 in it.

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      The Tacoma hasn’t had ANY competition for decades. That’s why the Tacoma is the best-selling midsizer. Why mess with a good thing?

      But there is a market for small pickup trucks and there will always be some buyers. This may be exactly what was needed to get Toyota to “sh!t or get off the pot” and upgrade their much-too-long-in-the-tooth Tacoma.

      I wouldn’t buy one of these new midsizers because I’m a full-size truckman myself, but I see this as an opportunity for hi-output, hi-tech 4-cylinder powerplants under the hood mated to an 8-speed automatic.

      For beginners, a normally aspirated Gas-Direct-Injection 4-cylinder inline. For the more advanced, a Turbo-version of the same.

      For the frugal, a Direct-Injection 4-cylinder Diesel. For the frugal with an obsession for grunt, the Turbo-charged version of the Diesel.

      I bet we would see Toyota do wonders with future Tacomas if they perceived a threat from the new GM line of midsizers and the future compact trucks from Huyndai.

      If this GM-offering comes to pass, Tacoma owners rejoice! Tacoma will be right there with the best of them.

      That’s how Tacoma became king of the midsize class. By out-performing and marginalizing Ranger, Colorado and Dakota.

  • avatar
    ToxicSludge

    Too little….too late.I was hoping that GM would come out with the midsize twins for 14my,and a diesel option….who knows now.Although I prefer the GM trucks over the other oem’s,the less GM comes out with,the more I’m leaning towards the ram 1500 diesel.The only waiting I’m going to do now is for ordering the ram.Gm…you have been behind the 8 ball for so long you can’t see past it.That’s gotten you a BK.And with your constant hindsight you’ll soon be back in BK court.Hopefully no more tax payer money to bail your sorry asses out.

  • avatar
    thalter

    Seems like they got it backwards. Shouldn’t GMC get the upmarket lifestyle version, with Chevy getting the volume and fleet versions?

    • 0 avatar
      4LiterLexus

      That was my first thought, too.

      Maybe GMC wants to reinforce its “professional grade” image by selling more pickups. If a consumer sees a bunch of fleet-owned Colorados running around, maybe he’ll conclude that GMC crossovers are also tough and reliable.

    • 0 avatar

      So GMC is for small businesses and not the lifestyle choice, and Chevrolet is the lifestyle choice?

      That’s how it is now?

      I thought GMC was professional grade as “professional grade as luxury”.

      This was true. Now it’s not.

      GM is asinine.

      • 0 avatar
        sunridge place

        You totally miss the point of ‘Professional Grade’. GMC as luxury is very understated in the Denali line up.

        Yes, GMC has a large amount of small business sales.

        http://www.gmc.com/commercial-vehicles.html

        http://fleetowner.com/equipment/near-record-crowd-attended-work-truck-show

        They will also happily sell you a loaded Denali which is an entirely different segment. Its rather asinine that you can’t see the difference.

    • 0 avatar
      Lorenzo

      GMC was traditionally the outlet for commercial vehicles, while Chevy put out the lifestyle El Camino.

  • avatar
    CoreyDL

    I’m sure the design pictured is fine for Malaysia, but I don’t think it will go over well in the US.

  • avatar
    krhodes1

    I just don’t think those headlights are QUITE big enough…

  • avatar
    danio3834

    Slightly larger than a Tacoma? The Tacoma has gotten pretty large.

    • 0 avatar
      KixStart

      You got me to start thinking… Maybe it’s not all that large. Perhaps nobody from GM has actually looked at or sat in a Tacoma in 10 or 12 years.

    • 0 avatar
      jco

      i just jumped in to make that same comment. they aren’t small anymore!

      i guess occasionally I see a base shortbox regular cab Tacoma and they’re on the edge of small, but when you add doors and 4wd they’re bigger than my 4runner.

  • avatar
    KixStart

    “Slightly larger than a Tacoma?” That’s midsize, now? Tacomas are huge.

  • avatar
    CJinSD

    I’m getting confused about GMC’s role at GM. Aren’t they supposed to be the higher profit, mysteriously superior alternative to a Chevrolet truck? Why are they targeting GMC’s midsize at part runners and meter maids?

    • 0 avatar
      sunridge place

      Fleet is typically composed of daily rental, government, and commercial sales. Pretty sure they are talking about the commercial sales.

      GMC’s Professional Grade branding is successful at attracting the small and medium size business for their truck fleets. The Denali line is more for the higher profit piece overall.

      There is a challenge within Chevy to get some of the higher end business that Ford enjoys with their high end trucks and it appears they might give Chevy those trim levels on this truck…but two years is a long time to change their mind.

  • avatar
    NewLookFan

    The Tacoma is already bigger than I want or need, and this is bigger still? I feel like I’m watching history repeat itself, and am waiting for a similar situation to what Nissan created in the late ’60s and early ’70s with a compact truck. The scenario won’t be exactly the same in detail, the players may be different, but it will be repeated in a broad sense. If my S10 doesn’t last long enough for me to find a similar replacement, maybe I’ll get a small 5 door like a Matrix. Certainly not this Colorado. I’ll Pass.

  • avatar
    ATLOffroad

    I’ve been looking for something to replace my 2006 Nissan Frontier. I’m excited that GM will have something for me to compare the next time I’m in the market for another new truck.

  • avatar
    DenverMike

    Mid-size trucks will only get bigger with each new generation and continue to imitate full-size trucks in weight, footprint, price and MPG.

    Since mid-size payload and towing will continue to suffer, they should just go Whole Hog and become official 1/2 tons. I mean like ’80s 1/2 tons except narrow like they are now, but on real 1/2 chassis’.

  • avatar

    Chevrolet is losing all of its romantic attributes.

  • avatar
    APaGttH

    So wait – are these the same “trucks” from a platform stand point, or will the Chevy version be the mythical Holden Ute that has been rumored (and almost came to the states in 2010) to be joining the GM line up in North America since 2007 and the GMC version the new “Colorado” the rest of the world is getting?

  • avatar
    RobertRyan

    @Derek Kreindler
    The Colorado has the 2.8 Litre Motori Diesel no Petrol(Gas)Engine.
    It is roughly the same size as the Ford Ranger and has similar payload towing capacity.
    http://blogs.cars.com/.a/6a00d83451b3c669e2017ee8ef28b7970d-800wi
    The Hilux is the most popular Vehicle ,Car or Pickup in Australia despite it being a fairly old design. A completely new model is not too far away. Major problem with Hilux is lack of towing ability.

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    The Toyota Hilux is a generation behind the ‘new’ midsizers just released over the past 18 months. The generation is a huge jump as well.

    The new midsizers are 2 generations in front of the Taco which is based on the same platform as the Chinese Great Wall pickup, a Surf chassis.

    The Toyota diesel is ‘old’ school and has less much less power and torque than the Amarok, Colorado/Dmax, Ranger/BT50.

    But the Hilux diesel is a very reliable unit and moves the truck effectively, if a bit leisurely.

    The Colorado I haven’t driven, but at work we have 4×4 diesel Hiluxes and 2.7 litre 2WD Hiluxes. These vehicles do tend to go in for unscheduled servicings at times.

    The Colorado has come out on top in a review for off roading ability. The Colorado when reviewed is always rated higher than the Hilux.

    My view is Toyota is living on its past reputation and good marketing for the Hilux.

    In regards to the Hilux, Toyota charges a premium for nothing substantial, actually below par in comparison to its competition.

    Even though what I wrote sounds bad, the Hilux is reliable and is the biggest selling pickup on our market.

    It now has very stiff competition by vehicles that significantly outperforms the Hilux in any testing parameter.

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    Here is a comparison of some of our current ‘pickups’.

    Read the Hilux content, interesting if some think I’m harsh.

    http://www.carsguide.com.au/news-and-reviews/car-reviews-road-tests/ute_comparison

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    One thing I would like to point out regarding the US Colorado.

    The vehicle is a redesign based on the global Colorado that was design in Brazil.

    It has taken 2 years for the redesign and it would be interesting to see what commonality there is ie, suspension and chassis changes etc.

    I think it is a waste of money for GM to spend $2.5 billion and then redesign it for an individual market or to ‘Americanise’ it.

    In its current shape it can carry a similar load as a F-250 and tow 7 800lbs, so it isn’t a lightweight performer.

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      @BAFO – The Holden Colorado has a payload of approx 2,400 lbs, which is great for a mid-size, but the F-150 has a payload of 3,120 lbs which is also decent for a 1/2 ton along with its 11,300 towing, but you were joking about the Colorado “carrying a similar load as an F-250″ right?

      http://yahoo.carsales.com.au/ute/

      http://www.ford.com/trucks/f150/features/#page=Feature2

      • 0 avatar
        RobertRyan

        Actually 1.4 tonne or 3086lbs for the Colorado. It actually covers the Payload of the of the base F250

        http://www.carshowroom.com.au/newcars/reviews/3041/2012_Holden_Colorado_First_Drive

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        @Robert Ryan – To get the max payload Colorado, you’re talking about 2wd so stripped, it’s stripped of the bed too! We don’t usually buy trucks in the US without a bed and legally you can’t drive without one. Either way once you deduct the weight of the bed, you arrive at approx 2,500 lbs in a truck that only Orkin could love. But once you buy a stripper, you compromise towing ability.

        The F-250 you speak of, is of course the fully loaded King Ranch 4X4 crew cab, long bed (yes, it actually comes with a bed). I think if you were looking for meaningful payload, you wouldn’t go for this truck. Probably an F-350.

        Should we even bother comparing their towing CGWR, Colorado to F-250?

        http://autos.yahoo.com/ford-truck/f-250-sd-crew-cab-4×4/2013/172-in-wb-king-ranch-styleside/

        http://yahoo.carsales.com.au/cab-chassis/

        • 0 avatar
          RobertRyan

          Not stripped to the bed it comes with a 7ft Factory supplied Utility bed
          http://www.holden.com.au/vehicles/colorado/range

          The Ford Ranger has a 7ft Pickup bed or more Common here Utility bed up to roughly 8ft.
          http://www.ford.com.au/commercial/ranger/models/4×2/xl-single-cab-pick-up

          If the Colorado had the towing capacity of an F250, a 3000lb payload extremely good fuel economy. You would be killed in the rush.
          So the HD F150 does not have a meaningful payload.?
          The King Ranch is a F250 that has a payload similar to to the Colorado as BAFO pointed out. Except you get a Factory utility bred instead of a Pickup one.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @Robert Ryan – People reading may assume your talking about 2 vehicles with similar layouts when discussing “carrying ability”, not the best from one line and the absolute worse from the other. I know you guys hate to compare “apples 2 apples”, but the casual reader may not.

            BAFO said “F-250″, but of course, you and I know he’s talking about the King Ranch F-250 4X4 crew cab, long bed with a sunroof, running boards, ManStep, 5th wheel, etc with limited payload (all that extra stuff is part of the “payload”) vs a very basic stripper reg cab 2wd that squeezes out the max payload *BUT* who else does?

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            Wait there you said the Colorado did not have the carrying capacity of an F250. Yes it does. What model of F250 is irrelevant.No we are not comparing a “basic stripper model 2wd” we are comparing a F250 to a Colorado in payload capacity yes they overlap. The F150HD has slightly more payload than a base F250.
            Bit confused what you are comparing what to what? What Apples to Apples?

        • 0 avatar
          RobertRyan

          Where did you get this from?
          “The Colorado is at 9.0 to 9.1/100km for more than half its models.”

          “Holden has measured the entry-level DX 2.5-litre (4×2 only) fuel consumption at 7.9 litres per 100 kilometres” That is 30mpg US. Worse it gets with the 3Litre engine is 26mpg US. Remember diesels actually get better fuel economy as they free up Looking at least at another 2-3mpg.
          http://www.carsguide.com.au/news-and-reviews/car-reviews-road-tests/holden_colorado_ute_review

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @Robert Ryan – Perhaps technically, you’re right. Nope you’re still wrong. A “tonne and 1/4″ payload is 2,750 lbs. The base F-250 has a 4,240 lbs payload. And that includes a bed with sides and a tailgate.

            That “factory supplied” flatbed/tray is installed at the dealer and aftermarket. Our trucks’s payload is always calculated with after the bed is installed. Your cab/chassis global truck don’t deduct for the flatbed/tray, regardless of who “installs” it.

            No one is bothering to re-label the truck’s payload ‘after’ the install. The bed/tray is always part of the load and takes up ‘payload’. The real/usable payload is approx 2,300 lbs on that base stripper Colorado. I don’t see what you and BAFO have against an objective comparo.

            I gave you the link for fuel mileage:

            http://yahoo.carsales.com.au/ute

            Trucker reviewers will always drive the ballz off a truck, but they still achieved 9.5/l00km. Mahindra actually claims 9.9. The yahoo link is a single site that compares all truck specs fairly and equally.

            Are your converted MPG values adjusted for EPA testing?

  • avatar

    In Brazil we get all these trucks (Ranger, Hilux, S10-Colorado, Amarok, Mitsu L200) too. Generally speaking, in comparos, the Ranger wins. Then you have a clear division, if for work, the Hilux comes in second disputing with S10-Coorado, Amarok and Mitsu dispute the bottom. If for lifestyle, then Ranger still wins, Amarok is better placed (over Hilux) and Chevy goes to the bottom with Mitsu.

    The reason for this is that the Chevy’s suspension is the crudest. Uncomfortable for the road (lots of body motion) but seems ok for off roading, dirt roads. The VW Amarok is seen almost exclusively as a lifestyle vehicle while the Hilux is getting old, which shows in the ride and cabin. Mitsu L200, there are two versions, the old one that is considered very adequate for heavy work (mining companies, farms etc) but uncomfortable for the city or the Triton L200 which is deemed too sensitive for work.

    Off the top of my head the S10 leads in sales, while Ranger and Hilux get second. THe Amarok follows a little back and the Mitsu trails.

    In agree with the general opinion, the Ranger is the best to get. The new Chevy S10-Colorado has improved a lot and most don’t really notice the difference. But it’s ride is undeniably worse than Ranger, Amarok and Hilux. The Hilux is plastic fantastic and the amarok could pass for a car.

    Oh, I almost forgot, there’s the Nissan Frontier too, but it’s so long in the tooth I think the Market has forgotten about it, but I think it does sell better than the L200

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    @Marcelo de Vasconcellos
    Quite similar to here in Australia.

    I think a lot in the US don’t realise how these ‘little’ trucks work.

    I don’t know about Brazil but over 90% of our new midsizers are sold as diesels. Some of these diesels are putting out more torque than some of the US V8 pickups. This makes for fantastic tow, off roading and highway cruising and getting 30mpg plus.

    I do understand this is a US centric site, but midsizers in the US are much different than what we have here.

    Do you get the Navara with the Renault 3.0 litre V6? Nissan provide them here as the Navara is getting old like the Hilux. Funny though the Hilux and Navara are the 2 oldest pickups we have, but are the two best selling. Work that one out.

    • 0 avatar
      RS

      We used to know how ‘little’ trucks work, but then they got big and expensive and left for dead developmentally. The differences between those and the full size trucks got too close in too many areas. Maybe they grew because of regulations. MPG’s didn’t improve because of outdated power trains. Prices were too close to full size offerings.

      If GM brings a ‘midsize’ that is close to the same size and price of a full size it won’t go far unless it offers much more MPG’s – as that is the biggest competitive area in trucks today. But they need to be careful with the up charge for putting a Diesel in a small truck vs a full size with the base gas motor (also getting good MPG’s). This will put the sticker price too close.

      In this market a small truck will need a clear advantage in both higher MPG’s and lower prices to sell.

      • 0 avatar
        Lorenzo

        The only way to get that combo is a RWD with a Malibu front end – an El Camino!

        • 0 avatar
          RobertRyan

          They are either Car/Trucks or “Corvettes with a Bed”
          Customized Holden Maloo
          http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2620/3909030210_f009960518_o.jpg

          Production 425hp version
          http://www.hsv.com.au/images/press/hsv/2009/maloo_economy_full.jpg

  • avatar

    Lifestyle. Sorry. Um the image of a Kings Ranch ford popped into my head and I had to shake it. Leather, power seats ect ect ect, back up camera? No these do not belong on a truck. After living on the edge of Texas (Alamogordo) I can say this. Lifestyle choice = Leather super duty that sees perhaps 1 sack of mulch in the back. It is really a problem in NM and TX. I see a truck as a tool.

    IE

    My 72 Ford F340 4x long bed. Yes it has a pig of a 460 in it, yes it has a 4 speed with gears so low you do not dare go over 70 because you are right at the limit of the big block. But it lives it’s life hooked to a 20 foot flat bed trailer normally with tools, equipment or a car on the back. If a dog poos in it or does a exorcist impersonation we grab the pressure washer and hose it out.

    Simple as that.. it is a TRUCK.

    These leather clad duel climate control trucks… are not trucks any more they are a life style statement, IE I can afford to drive this pig around and look all butch because I have money. It never gets -worked- might haul something but generally is a status symbol. (Read F150 250 350Kings Ranch FX4 ect ect ect ect Raptor? (I wanted a WRX but daddy said I have to have a truck))

    I would LOVE to have a smaller truck (Oh for the days of the 79 to 93 Toyota trucks) That is reliable, takes a beating can be hosed of dog barf and will still get some decent millage. I am not enamored with what Toyota has done with the Tacoma, It has become like Windows, Bloat Ware. Nissan and all of them have done the same. How bout simplicity and smaller.

    How bout a nice small truck that has a decent diesel in it that gets us 30 on the freeway, can haul a decent load, is reliable and… can be hosed out with a pressure washer. If it is a truck does it really need power seats? No cars are for that. Does it need a back up camera. What cant use your mirrors because you are used to driving a Accord?

    Trucks need to go back to being trucks, not leather clad statements. As for GM’s quality? Dun get me started. As for the other manufactured pushing bloat ware.. REALLY dun get me started. It is time for a basic small TRUCK, not a accessory, not a statement, not a I am so green ecoboost stuff. How bout just a plain Jane work truck that WORKS! And does it’s job!

    I do not care who it comes from as long as it is quality and it does as advertised. IE it is a TRUCK.

    Let the house wives in TX have there SUV’s because they surely do not belong behind the wheel of a leather clad F350 dully that will never even see a field with cow pat in it.

    Forgot one thing.. Denali stands for Denial of how much debt you just really got into for buying the dam thing.

  • avatar
    wmba

    I’m not a truck person, but if that thing came in lustrous baby-s**t brown with a single cab and optional floppy fiberglass bed cover with sliding plastic windows, 18 inch long, 3/4 inch diameter shift lever stirring the gears in a heavy duty six speed hitched to a husky diesel engine, steel wheels and aerodynamic model with electronic grille shutters, a low bed height and LED brake lights …

    I’d actually have to visit a dealer and gaze on its wondrous form.

  • avatar
    JaySeis

    And to think in the 80′s a Mazda B2200 with a 5 speed could roll at over 30 mpg. With the right tires, aero in the front and dropped an inch or two I could get damn close to 30 mpg….at 50mph with my Adrenalin, maybe 28 mpg. Weight just kills trucks on acceleration & hills.

    • 0 avatar

      +1 my stock 89 B2200 even hauling engines got at least 23.. 28 going from KC to St Louis unloaded. In town it was POOR at 19. But it was a good little truck. Reliable and well, it looked poor because of rust and such but I did love the little thing, especially the snickity gearbox and light clutch. And it was not too cramped, I had the SE or what ever it was with air con and Tach. I loved the size, last of a breed really.

  • avatar
    Athos Nobile

    I found the Colorado interior better than the Hilux. Engine compartment in the Toyota seems bigger than in the Chev.

    Size wise, the Chevy is slightly larger. Any of those “midsizers” is roughly as big outside as an US full size from the 80′s. They ALL are “high riders”, something I find funny because tradies here seem to like their utes close to the ground. I suspect the last is because a long tradition of using car based utes, which leave the cargo at a very handy height. Also the reason why the Hilux Workmate seems to be popular.

    As BAFO said above, most of them are diesels down here. Toyota sold something like 50K Hilux trucks last years. Dunno about the size of P’up market cake here.

    • 0 avatar
      RobertRyan

      @Athos Nobile,
      Yes Trademen they like the low loading and unloading height of the car/utes.
      http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a186/RobRyan7/UteLoadMixers-1.jpg

      • 0 avatar
        Athos Nobile

        I’ve seen that almost everyday for the past 2 years. The best one was a VE Maloo with a canopy and loaded to the tilts with cement bags in the CBD.

        Some of the old Japanese trucks until very recently seemed to account for this, and offered either lowered ride, smaller tyres or a combination of both. Being cheaper, and I would guess cheaper to run, than the traditional car based utes it’s no surprise I see them everywhere.

  • avatar
    Landcrusher

    I’m going to say one last thing to all the people who harbor hate for people driving trucks because they don’t think they need them or think they are a lifestyle choice or think they are about projecting an image. (Apologies if this point was made already but I stopped reading this crap).

    99% of truck owners will take actual value from their purchase because they will use the bed, or get low depreciation, or tow something, or not get stuck or whatever.

    If you apply the logic, or lack of it, being used here against truck owners, you would REALLY have to hate sports and luxury car owners. No one “needs” performance from an automobile. 0 to 60 sub 10 seconds is hardly necessary. Want a government mandate that saves gas? Make all cars go 0 to 60 no faster than 10 seconds.

    And luxury is by definition not necessary in any car or truck.

    I replaced my Landcruiser with a Volvo wagon. I live in the inner city. In less than the first year I have had to haul stuff on the roof rack nearly a dozen times and get a frend to take a load of stuff across the state once (total hassle). I made the trade for better highway comfort, and so my wife would be able to borrow my car for going to oil wells on occassion (she did not like driving the Landcruiser) since she traded her X3 in on an A5.

    You can hate me all you want and feel proud of yourself in your non air conditioned B210 or just keep your mouth shut and we won’t have listen to more foolishness.

    PS my wagon is not brown, manual, or diesel. I considered bronze, but the other two were not options.

    • 0 avatar
      IHateCars

      Thank you and well said….agree 110%.
      I get a kick (for a while) out of these type of threads when the brown diesel manual station wagon crowd derides, what they see as, “poseur” truck owners. I live in the suburbs and yes, I own a truck…and *gasp* it’s a Raptor! I enjoy four wheeling on the odd weekend or hauling my dirtbike to go meet some friends but by and large, it’s my daily. I love the look of it, I can afford to run it, I’m a big guy so I fit into it comfortably and I don’t have to worry about bending a wheel or blowing a shock out on our bombed out roads up here….so it works well for me. I feel it’s actually more practical than a car for my needs because it is a people hauler, a stuff hauler and a weekend play toy all in one.

      Plus, I can just pull a Big Foot when one of the smug brown diesel manual station wagon owners pisses me off! ;P

      • 0 avatar
        Landcrusher

        Lol, you just made the same mistake te truck haters made. There is nothing wrong with brown diesel wagons. I doubt you could find a correlation between that crowd and the real truck haters.

        It’s fine to talk about how much you can do with a wagon. It’s not okay to cross the line into deriding truck owners. One sign a post has gone astray is the phrase – “Nobody needs…”

        “Nobody needs” is a cheap rhetorical trick where you make the illogical connection between something being unnecessary and undesirable. It’s often true that if we don’t need something we don’t want it (like bad behavior). OTOH, if you have it, and I say we don’t need it, I am likely misbehaving myself (truck, sports car, most anything). It’s not my place to decide what is either needed or desired outside my own home (nor in it according to both my wife and our cat).

  • avatar
    wstarvingteacher

    You know it really matters very little to me what others seem to think. I will drive my 22yo S10 and I will try to keep it running. The mileage is satisfactory and I haven’t spent much but it is a swiss army knife. I never saw the springs frown till I loaded it with tools and equipment for an AC changeout and had a trailer full of dirt on the back.

    It isn’t pretty enough for the wife. I wish it was but it can pull a trailer with my tractor and it gets 20mpg while doing so. Think I’ll keep it and, if things go well, I plan to cover the whole truck with bed liner. That’s the most expensive thing I’m planning. Guess you can bury me in it.

  • avatar
    RobertRyan

    @Denvermike.
    Author: DenverMike
    Comment:
    “@Robert Ryan – Perhaps technically, you’re right. Nope you’re still”
    It is 1.4 tonnes not 1.25. Where did you get the 4,240lb payload for the F250??

    “That “factory supplied” flatbed/tray is installed at the dealer and aftermarket. Our trucks’s payload is calculated with the bed. Your cab/chassis global truck don’t deduct for the flatbed/tray, regardless of who “installs” it.”
    OK where did you get a differing method of calculating payload?

    “Trucker reviewers will always drive the ballz off a truck, but they still achieved 9.5/l00km. Mahindra actually claims 9.9. The yahoo link a single site that compares all truck specs fairly”
    We are comparing a COLORADO with a 7.9/100km not a Mahindra

    “Are your converted MPG values adjusted for EPA tests?”
    Why is that got to do with it? It is a straight conversion.

  • avatar
    DenverMike

    @Robert Ryan – I noticed the 1.4 vs 1 1/4 discrepancy minutes after and it’s a small enough difference that it doesn’t affect my point after the aftermarket flatbed/tray install on that base stripper cab/chassis.

    What you said is the Mahindra has “POOR Fuel consumption”. All I’m saying is more than half Colorado models get equally “POOR” mileage. So do most global truck models

    The 4,240 lbs is on the base stripper F-250 that btw, comes with a bed.

    BAFO’s F-250 example is great for towing though.

    http://autos.yahoo.com/ford-truck/f-250-sd-regular-cab-4×2/2013/137-in-wb-xl-styleside/specifications.html

    Cab/chassis payload rating does not deduct for the unknown bed that will be eventually installed. It makes for a pointless comparo until you know what the payload is… with the bed.

    The MPG L/100km is a straight conversion, but the it’s the EPA’s rating that we use for comparison. The Mahindra did meet the EPA, granny-gears and all.

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      I don’t know why a Mahindra is being even considered here.

      A Mahindra is not an atypical global midsizer. The Mahindra according to our Australian standards delivers 25.8mpg. It is highly likely it will deliver 30-31mpg on the highway.

      The diesel fitted to a Mahindra is based on very old technology modified to meet our emissions standards.

      For the size diesel the Mahindra is far behind other Asian midsize manufacturers in power/torque/mpgs.

      The Mahindra is very agricultural and is sold in quite miniscule numbers in Australia. Farmers buy them instead of quads, that’s there main purpose here.

      DenverMike, you have used to worst possible example of a vehicle to make a comparison with, I might add purposely, you are trolling.

      You are very aware of the current performance of our new midsizers as I have debated you on all the pros and cons with these vehicles.

      Why do you always try and troll?

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        As crude as the Mahindra may be, it gets MPG that’s about even with the rest of the global mid-sizers. Some Hilux drink 10, 11, 12 and even 13/l00km.

        We know how good or bad the Mahindra is in the US. It has been here and tested by the EPA.

        As far as it’s “much lower (rear end) ratio” goes, got links?

        • 0 avatar
          RobertRyan

          @Denvermike.
          So the Hilux has 10-13/100km. Interesting as it is the best selling Pickup in Australia. Actually the GAS version is a Hog. Diesel Nahh ;Single Cab SR Cab-Chassis petrol has a combined fuel consumption of 12.5L per 100km[G11] (manual), and the diesel variant uses 8.1L PER 100km[G11] (manual)
          http://www.toyota.com.au/hilux/features/car-ownership/fuel-efficiency

          Tested by the EPA when was that?

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al from Oz

          @DenverMike
          DenverMike your initial comment was a Mahindra can only get 21mpg. You failed to tell the full story that you knew the Mahindra was a different spec’d vehicle to the Australian variant.

          You were trying to use that 21mpg as indicative of ‘normal’ midsize economy.

          You have now changed your tune. Are you trolling.

      • 0 avatar
        Piqutchi

        Do you even know what the word “troll” means? It’s not a synonym for “meanie who says stiff I disagree with”!

        Do you really think people holding different opinions than you are doing so purposely to make you mad?

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al from Oz

          @Piqutchi
          Its not opinion when a definite measure can be used to make a determination ie, 12″=1′ or a Colorado has a payload of x and a F-250 has a payload of x.

          These are quite measurable. The guy has debated us on vehicle specifications previously. He seems to follow us around different sites and is causing frustrations.

  • avatar
    RobertRyan

    @Denvermike,

    “- I noticed the 1.4 vs 1 1/4 discrepancy minutes after and it’s a small enough difference that it doesn’t affect my point ”
    One it is not a small difference 500lbs(3085lbs overall not much different to a F150HD )and it is NOT an aftermarket tray fitting it is FACTORY fitting.

    “All I’m saying is more than half Colorado models get equally “POOR” mileage. So do most global truck models.”
    More than half where do you get that from? They range from 26-30mpg which is a very good figure for a diesel that has not been broken in and much better than any GAS engine.

    “The 4,240 lbs is on the base stripper F-250 that btw, comes with a bed.
    BAFO’s F-250 example is great for towing though
    http://autos.yahoo.com/ford-truck/f-250-sd-regular-cab-4×2/2013/137-in-wb-xl-styleside/specifications.html”
    There is no 4,250lb rating on that link. The base F250 is still less than a F150HD and in the 3000lb range.

    “. It makes for a pointless comparo until you know what the payload is… with the bed.”
    Still cannot see what you are trying to get at here. Have you a link?

    “The MPG L/100km is a straight conversion, but the it’s the EPA’s rating that we use for comparison. Not the MPG journalists from Oz claim.”
    The EPA rating is irrelevant if you are basically converting from metric to imperial measurement. What “MPG Journalists from OZ claim”?
    they are quoting the factory ratings.

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      @Robert Ryan – The 2 of you will stop at nothing, and always comparing the best example for one line to trucks to the worst from another to make global trucks look better than the are and US trucks worse than the are.

      Why the heck is it so dang impossible for you 2 to compare trucks with similar layouts? We have stripper trucks to fully-loaded behemoths that you have nothing that come close to *but* those are the ones that you put up against your strippers for a max payload comparo every time.

      Mine was an honest mistake, but the truth mains. Colorado payload was not overlapped with F-250 *but* once you mount a flatbed/tray to the base stripper Colorado cab/chassis, I’m even more right. Look on the link I gave you and the Colorado with the absolute most payload just happens to be a cab/chassis stripper 2wd, regular cab with vinyl everywhere.
      Now look up the payload on same stripper Colorado *but* sold with a traditional pickup bed… You still don’t get it? See the difference in payload? Notice that the only difference is one has a bed and one is sold and or rated without one? I shouldn’t have to hold you hand through this stuff..

      With the F-250 link, click on “Capacity and Volume”. See that wasn’t so hard, was it? I’ll cut and paste for you if still can’t figure it out…

      GVWR Standard…………..10000
      GVWR Maximum…………10000
      Payload Standard………..4240
      Payload Maximum………4240

      The EPA rating is how we keep score and do “apples 2 apples” comparos. That may be a new concept for you, but right there, the EPA 21 MPG Mahindra gets 23 MPG in the land of Oz. And where is the your link detailing the “much lower (rear end) ratio” of the Mahindra that supposedly killed its EPA MPG?

  • avatar
    DenverMike

    @BAFO, Robert Ryan,

    http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2011/02/mahindra-tr40-rated-at-a-disappointing-1921-mpg.html

    “EPA at 19/21 mpg city/highway. The Mahindra TR40′s disappointing highway mileage can’t even measure up to Ford’s 302-horsepower, 3.7-liter F-150 4X2, which is rated at 17/23 mpg.”

    I was surprised the so many Hilux were such pigs, but the diesel 2013 Toyota Hilux SR KUN26R get 9.3/100km. Yeah I know it’s an automatic, but the Mahindra get 9.1.

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    @Dk
    You have managed to start over again with more or less the same comment.

    Here is my first post to you in this article. Go back to the beginning and read again. You have achieved nothing and proved nothing.

    When you have finished reading all of the comments again start at the top.

    @Denvermike
    Are you lying and trolling again.

    You were in the debate when we discussed this.

    The US vehicle tested was an Indian variant with a much lower final drive.

  • avatar
    RobertRyan

    @Denvermike.
    http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2011/02/mahindra-tr40-rated-at-a-disappointing-1921-mpg.html

    “EPA at 19/21 mpg city/highway. The Mahindra TR40′s disappointing highway mileage can’t even measure up to Ford’s 302-horsepower, 3.7-liter F-150 4X2, which is rated at 17/23 mpg.”
    That is not far off the very poor 25mpg US it got here. That is one reason it never sold. The very agricultural 2.2 diesel did not have enough grunt for the vehicle.

    “I was surprised the so many Hilux were such pigs, but the diesel 2013 Toyota Hilux SR KUN26R get 9.3/100km. Yeah I know it’s an automatic, but the Mahindra get 9.1.”
    Where did you get a 9.3/100km for the Hilux? when it gets 8.1/100lm for the diesel
    Or 29mpg US. A PICKUP GETTING 29 MPG US is a PIG???
    http://www.carsales.com.au/car-research/results.aspx?Ns=p_Year_String|1||p_Make_String|0||p_Family_String|0&N=4294942755+4294842769+2994&TabID=2207731
    2013 Toyota Hilux Workmate KUN16R
    • 2 door Cab Chassis
    • 8..1 LITRE/100K
    • 5 speed, Manual
    • 4 cylinder, 3.0 litre engine

    ? “We have stripper trucks to fully-loaded behemoths that you have nothing that come close to *but* those are the ones that you put up against your strippers for a max payload comparo every time.”
    What do you mean? Try to get a website reference to state your case

    “Colorado cab/chassis, I’m even more right. Look on the link I gave you the Colorado with the absolute most payload just happens to be a cab/chassis stripper 2wd, regular cab with vinyl everywhere”
    Your answer is very confusing . Look on what Link? Comparing to what?

    “With the F-250 link, click on “Capacity and Volume”. See that wasn’t so hard, was it? I’ll cut and paste for you if still can’t figure it out…

    GVWR Standard………..10000
    GVWR Maximum……….. 10000
    Payload Standard……..4240
    Payload Maximum………4240″
    What is this supposed to mean? Where is this 4250lb payload? Where is it on the Ford Website?
    On the Website it shows 7,260 lbs. (F-350 DRW 4×2 Regular Cab) Where is the base
    F250?
    http://www.ford.com/commercial-trucks/superduty-commercial/specifications/

    “And where is the your link detailing the “much lower (rear end) ratio” of the Mahindra that supposedly killed its EPA MPG?”
    From the same Pickup.Com article:
    http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2011/02/mahindra-tr40-rated-at-a-disappointing-1921-mpg.html
    Nissan Frontier 4×4 Crew Cab: 14 city/ 19 highway
    Toyota Tacoma 4×4 Crew Cab: 16 city/ 20 highway
    Ford F150 SuperCab (3.7L) 4×4: 16 city/21 highway
    Mahindra TR40 Crew Cab 4×4: 19 city/21 highway
    So, the Mahindra does get THE BEST FUEL ECONOMY of the bunch. However, being it runs on diesel fuel which is presently more expensive than regular gas, it’s most likely a wash at best.
    I’m curious as to how the Mahindra is geared. If it is geared ridiculously low, that could be part of the reason why the fuel economy isn’t as high as it could be. I’m guessing this is the case since the Mahnindra’s payload exceeds even the F150′s by a staggering 900lbs.

  • avatar
    DenverMike

    @Robert Ryan – Try this link. It took 5 secs to find.

    http://www.ford.com/trucks/superduty/specifications/payload/

    GO FURTHER MATE!

    • 0 avatar
      RobertRyan

      @Denvermike,
      I found the 2012 F250 has less than that 3,690lbs, which is only 605lbs more than a Colorado.Previous F250′s had considerably less payloads
      http://pickups.agriculture.com/l/447/2012-Ford-Super-Duty-F-250-King-Ranch

      A 2010 drops down to 3,200lb.
      http://www.edmunds.com/ford/f-250-super-duty/2010/

      Previous to that they are on par to the Colorado. Which BAO of Oz said.

      Fuel Economies of the Colorado and Hilux are vastly better than any Gas Pickup in the US with 7.9/100km and 8.1/100kmh respectively. As new vehicles they get 29-30mpg and improve another 3-4 when the diesel is run in.

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        @Robert Ryan from Oz – I gave you 2 different links that list the base 2013 F-250 as having 4,240 lbs payload. I can’t help you if you fully ignore and keep going back to an old review of a King Ranch 4X4 crew cab long bed. I tried, but hey, it’s your credibility that’s at stake.

        We can argue fractions or equivalencies all night, but once the dust settles, global Colorados get approx 26 MPG when fully equipped, same as the Mahindra. That remains to be adjusted by the EPA like when the Manhidra got a 21 MPG rating.

        • 0 avatar
          RobertRyan

          No they get 29mpg , 31mpg-33mpg US fully when run in. UD Pickups 23-25mpg US run in. They are are US Pickups “gas hogs” and I hope they GM bring the Colorado which is in diesel form is a lot more frugal than a current Us Pickup.
          Well you gave me two links one was USELESS and the other mentioned the current F250 and not the much Global Pickup compatible 2009 and early ones.

          I agree with Jeff S, that you distort negatively the characteristics of Global Midzise Pickups. All I can think of is they are not built in the US and it is some stupid vendetta on Non-US built products.
          You have had many heated discussions with Jeff S, Big Al, Myself and now Lou on PUTC about Midsize Pickups about your “idea” of what they do.
          Some other one off posters sound a lot like you as well.
          Big Al’s analogy you are like one of those Japanese soldiers that were hiding in the Jungle after World War 2 ended convinced it was still going on.
          Your almost Paranoid hatred of Midsize Pickups is what stuns us all.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @Robert Ryan – No, I said “fully equipped Colorados” get 26 MPG and again that has yet to go before the EPA. The Mahindra way under delivered and where did you get the info on the “lower gears”? I doubt they come with such drastic enough gears options to go from 30 MPG to 21. Where’s the link? I know you didn’t pull it out of thin air?

            I proved the base F-250 has a 4,240 lbs payload and all you can say is this:

            “Well you gave me two links one was USELESS and the other mentioned the current F250 and not the much Global Pickup compatible 2009 and early ones.”

            “Global Compatible”? What does that even mean?

            I don’t “distort” anything and only compare “apples 2 apples” for the sake of a relevant comparison. The stuff you and BAFO try to pull over are completely ridiculous. I have misquoted a fraction or two, but clarified it. You try keep the focus on the minutiae and avoid my greater point… Your idea of “apple 2 apples” is comical at best.

            And please show where I have shown hatred or a “paranoid vendetta” for mid-size inadament objects? That’s absurd. I just look for REALISTIC assessments of all kinds and classes of trucks. Not rants based on wive tales and propaganda. I just seek truth and knowledge. The rest is useless nonsense.

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            @Denvermike,
            When it come to Midsize Pickups”Jeff S. Big Al, Lou and Myself..”make it up’ you who have never seen one, think everyone who likes or has any thing positive to say about them”is crazy”That everyone on the Globe should be driving full Size Pickups rather than Midsize ones and I forgot to add they should not be diesels.. You have a true paraniod vendetta against Midsize Pickups as Jeff S, has noted on a prior post, that mystifies all of us on PUTC.

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al from Oz

          @DenverMike
          NO ONE MADE A COMPARISON TO A F-250!

          ONLY YOU!

          I STATED A COLORADO CAN CARRY A SIMILAR LOAD. THAT ISN’T A COMPARISON!

          NO ONE

          YOU THEN POSTED MISINFORMATION, WHICH ROBERT RYAN COLLECTED.

          YOU HAVE MANAGED TO MORTH A SIMPLE STATEMENT INTO A FIGHT.

          You stated the Mahindra is the ‘saviour’ for the US regarding midsizers.

          Then used data collected from an Indian sourced pickup truck that wouldn’t even meet EPA or EURO standards and its geared to plow fields.

          The funny thing is we have had this exact debate regarding this vehicle on PUTC a year ago. And the ins and outs of the test vehicle was explained.

          From the antiquated diesel tech through to the low final drive ratios that gave harsh mpg figures.

          What kind of fool are you?

          Robert Ryan, stop debating him.

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            @Big Al will do. Cannot believe a word he says. He trolls here and on PUTC. Jeff S said he wants nothing to do with him.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @BAFO – You keep repeating “mid-size carry a similar load to F-250s” so I just ask for the respective spec’s you’re basing that on. Clearly it’s not and “apples 2 apples” comparison. Of course, once you really do a true “apples 2 apples” it’s more like mid-size carry approx 1/2 the load. Which is darn good, as I’ve said repeatedly, but let’s get real here.

            You have yet to back up any of your claims of the EPA testing an “antiquated Mahindra geared to pull a field plow”. Are you just pulling that out of the air? Where’s the link?

  • avatar
    ponchoman49

    I so wish they could have made it look less like a Tacoma.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    I am more interested in a small sized truck than load capacities. I do not need or want the ever growing full size trucks which are mostly equipped with everything imaginable. I agree with Michael Peerson that the utility and practicality of a truck has become less and they have become more like high priced toys. For those that want these trucks then they are available, but for the rest of us we have fewer choices, but we do have some at least. I do see the Colorado/Canyon as at least another choice.

    @Piqutchi–Big Al is correct, you are not as familiar with Denver Mike as many of the rest of us are on another website. Denver Mike goes out of his way to comment on any article concerning midsize trucks which he does not like. Yes DM is entitled to his opinion but he is more interested in forcing his views on others. I am not a large truck fan but I do not go on blogs about large trucks and force my opinions on others. Maybe a larger truck has a larger payload than most midsizes, but a global midsize will have more capacity than a midsize in the US, but regardless if someone doesn’t want a larger truck then it really doesn’t matter. I am not going to tell Denver Mike what to drive, or anyone because everyone has a right to choose what best suits their individual needs.

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      @Jeff S – I’m not clear on what makes you think I hate mid-size inadament objects, but when I see tired wives tales and less than “apples 2 apples” comparisons, I may stop to clarify a fact or two.

      People claim the reason mid-size trucks are going away is CAFE or the Chicken tax and if I dispell that mystery with links and commonsense, I get accused of hating, forcing my opinions otherwise working for the Feds.

    • 0 avatar
      RobertRyan

      Jeff S. See my comments about Denvermike and his interaction with others on PUTC and here when the subject of Midsize Pickups arises.i.e Global ones.

  • avatar
    Magnusmaster

    Here in Argentina the Hilux is the king, with the Ranger very close. The Ranger is by far the best pickup you can get nowadays, but the Hilux is possibly cheaper. The VW Amarok used to sell well right until the Ranger and Colorado (which is called S-10 over here) popped up. Now it’s dead last. From what I’ve heard the Amarok has a lot of reliability issues, and it’s built like a car, though that may be different in the Euro-spec model. The S-10 sells solely on price, though it seems nice and looks more robust than the Amarok.

    • 0 avatar
      RobertRyan

      In Australia here is how they rank:
      Top 10 Best-selling Utes – March 2013

      Toyota HiLux
      Nissan Navara
      Mitsubishi Triton
      Ford Ranger
      Mazda BT-50
      Holden Colorado
      Isuzu D-Max –
      Toyota Landcruiser PU/CC
      Volkswagen Amarok
      Holden Commodore Ute

      Top 10 Best-selling Utes – 2013 to date

      Toyota HiLux
      Nissan Navara
      Ford Ranger
      Mitsubishi Triton
      Holden Colorado
      Mazda BT-50
      Isuzu D-Max
      Toyota Landcruiser PU/CC
      Holden Commodore Ute
      Great Wall V200/240

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      @Magnusmaster
      We have the VW Amarok which is manufactured in Argentina. Do you have them?

      In Australia they are highly regarded, but viewed as a little expesnive, probably because of the VW badge.

      Also, I have the Mazda BT50 which is a reskined new Ranger do you have them as well.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    @Denver Mike-I don’t think you work for the Feds but you might work for a marketer, but then again you might not. Not all consumers make vehicle choices based on which vehicle sells the most, otherwise we would have just one manufacturer. I agree, a midsize truck is not for everyone, nor is a full size truck. I would probably like full size trucks more if they were closer to the size and height of the early 90s pickups but unless the midsize trucks grow to those proportions then I will stick with the current midsize trucks.

    There are many reasons why midsize trucks don’t sell as well and one is the Chicken Tax but that is just one. Safety equipment has grown the size of trucks, price is another, crossovers, and many other reasons. I like to have a bed to haul things at a level that I can reach, also I like a truck that is easy to park, and takes up a little less space. I probably will never use my trucks for towing but then I want an open bed so that I don’t mess up the interior. My old S-10 is smaller than a lot of the current midsize trucks but larger than many compact pickups of the early 90s(it is the right size for me). I do think the diesel option that is currently available on the global Ranger and Colorado would be a good alternative for many as long as it is not priced too high. The Mahindra was a no go from the start and it is very primitive and questionable quality. The Chinese have much better trucks than the Mahindra. Mahindra failed because they had a poor product and they could not get their act together.

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      @Jeff S – Buyers don’t necessarily buy whatever sells the most and really sounds mindless if not bizarre when talking about new vehicles. OEMs still have sell a minimum of units though. And a minimum of hard loaded. There’s a few people that cannot deal with the size of full-size, no way, no how. But there seems to be up to 2 million annual new truck buyers that don’t mind their mass/height/footprint including full-size SUV buyers.

      How can the Chicken tax affect sales of mid-size truck? Do you mean the lack of global competition sends potential mid-size buyers to buy full-size or anything else on the market? The mid-size market was once filled with plenty of global truck brands, but their sales were starting to disappoint anyways. You cannot blame the Chicken tax on that. If what I say sounds like I’m defending the existence of tariffs, clearly I am not and that would be a different topic.

      Mid-size trucks are continuing to growing with each new generation and it looks like they’re headed to the size and mass of early ’90s full-size. If you wait long enough, you may have your perfect truck. The viability of diesels won’t pencil out for most consumers unless they drive an excess of daily miles. Diesel VWs have been in the US market for many years now and sales leveled off at stagnant.

      I’m not saying the poor quality of the Mahindra didn’t also kill the deal, but it’s EPA MPG was very disappointing. 30 EPA MPG doesn’t seem in the cards for global trucks even with regular cab base-strippers.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    @Denver Mike–Chicken tax has less influence than the EPA ratings of a few years ago that classified smaller trucks in the category of smaller cars but larger trucks were exempt from the tighter mpg standards. The same thing happened to the station wagon which became the crossover, which is more like a truck with car features. Do you remember that article that TTAC ran a few months ago about this and that Lou or someone else posted to PUTC? That was more significant than anything else. The history of the Chicken Tax was originally used against Germany, France, and the Netherlands in retaliation for those countries putting high tariffs on American poultry to protect their markets. LBJ signed the Chicken Tax into law in late 1963 after taking office. Senator Fulbright from Arkansas was lobbying hard for this tax because Arkansas is a major poultry producer. There were other items that were taxed as well but those items are no longer taxed. The Japanese initially got around the tax by sending just the trucks without the beds and the beds were put on once they reached the US thus paying a much less tax than the 25%. In the early 80s the law was amended to make it much tougher so the Japanese started putting assembly plants in the US, first Nissan in Smyrna, TN and then Toyota in California.

    We will have to wait for the Colorado/Canyon to enter the US market to see for sure, but both appear to be larger than the prior Colorado/Canyon. We will also have to see if the diesel is offered as an option and if these twins are closer to the global models except maybe load and towing capacity will probably be less.

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      @Jeff S – The mini-truck invasion/craze started shortly after that ‘local bed install’ loophole ended January of 1980. It wan’t until the mid to late ’80s that Nissan and Toyota started building trucks in America. But that would have likely happened anyways, just like they started building cars in America. The mini-truck invasion/craze was starting dying off by the late ’80s anyways. That’s still a lot of trucks that didn’t mind dealing with the Chicken tax besides Toyota and Nissan. Like Mitsu, Izusu and Mazda, they sure as hell weren’t complaining all during the height of the early ’80s buying frenzy. But it’s never been OEMs that complain, except for GM execs and marketing directors, BUT only when talking about weak products with weak US potential. When have we heard them complaining about Datsun king cabs, for example, that they couldn’t build/ ship over fast enough to keep up with demand? Of course not.

      Just like then, nothing is stopping mid-size trucks OEMs from selling in the US. But if the don’t already sell cars here, setting up a dealer network from scratch is tough for any OEM. Even if they had a product in high demand, it would be tough to impossible. You can’t just ship over trucks and sell/service them at Harbor Freight. If they already sell cars here, said trucks would cannibalize their lucrative cars sales. Like the Amarok would dig into VW cars and suv sales for example. Also, you have to rebate the heck of trucks to compete. With VW cars and SUVs, you don’t.

      Why would the Colorado and Canyon’s payload and towing capacity be any less? Are these not the same trucks, technically? Or are regs tougher and rate the same trucks harder? Isn’t that similar to the EPA MPG and Euro/Aussie MPG not so comparable?

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        Full-size trucks were exempt compared to small cars and mini-trucks, but in 1991, CAFE classified all trucks as “Light trucks” regardless and equally exempt. Mini-trucks were free to morph into mid-size plus grew into double/crew cabs with 6 ft beds.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_guzzler

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        @Jeff S – I found you the truck you’re dreaming of…

        http://www.cargods.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/new-2013-volkswagen-truck.jpg

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    After reading about the global Colorado, these twins are starting to grow on me. I am not as crazy about the front end but I could live with it. The GMC Canyon will have a nicer front. I was not that crazy about the first generation Colorado, Canyons, and Isuzus Is but after having my Isuzu I-370 for almost 5 years it has grown on me and for the most part it has been a good truck. Denver Mike I looked at the link you provided on the Amarok and that seems to be a nice truck as well. I would have to drive these twins and look at them before I could really judge them, but if they are as good as my current Isuzu I would be satisfied. My 99 S10 has been a very solid and reliable truck as well.

  • avatar
    RobertRyan

    @Jeff S.
    The Link provided was NOT of the Amarok but of a VW Hatchback sedan.
    Single Cab Amarok
    http://img547.imageshack.us/img547/804/vwamaroksinglecab.jpg

    Over 30mpg US from the Amarok.
    http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_FoXyvaPSnVk/TJvHNYCNtTI/AAAAAAADVRk/sKhu0Alk5Ts/s1600/2011-VW-Amarok-Single-Cab-4.JPG

    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_FoXyvaPSnVk/TJvIBNMx8zI/AAAAAAADVVk/WBgGz7DHmj8/s1600/2011-VW-Amarok-Double-Cab-30.JPG

    DualCab Amarok.
    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_FoXyvaPSnVk/TJvHq0M1n5I/AAAAAAADVUU/NPbx7KIszxA/s1600/2011-VW-Amarok-Double-Cab-20.JPG


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Authors

  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • Tycho de Feyter, China
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Faisal Ali Khan, India