By on November 20, 2013

2015 Chevrolet Colorado Z71

The stagnant mid-size truck segment is about to get shaken up in a big way, as Chevrolet unveils the new Colorado mid-sizer at the Los Angeles Auto Show.

Available in extended or crew cab versions with either a 5 or 6-foot bed, the Colorado will be available with a 2.5L 4-cylinder engine (193 horsepower and 184 lb-ft of torque) or a 3.6L V6 engine (302 horsepower and 270 lb-ft of torque) backed by a 6-speed automatic. Later on, a 2.8L diesel 4-cylinder will be available. Final power figures aren’t available, but in Thai-spec, the engine puts out 200 horsepower and 368 lb-ft. All engines are backed by a 6-speed automatic.

The Colorado is expected to exceed the small truck segment’s leading tow rating of 6700 lbs, and a Z71 off-road package will also be available.

 

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

188 Comments on “Los Angeles 2013: Chevrolet Colorado Revealed With Diesel Power...”


  • avatar
    Z71_Silvy

    And Ford misses out bigtime. Maybe it was a mistake to assume that all those Ranger buyers would buy a POS Focus or POS Fiesta.

    Big Al needs to be fired for making such a dumb and shortsighted decision.

    • 0 avatar
      IHateCars

      Lol….you are nothing else if not predictable. I still contend that your vitriol for the blue oval stems from your puppy being run over by a Ford as a kid.

      On to the Colorado, I’m not a Chev guy but it looks like a winner to me. The boxy proportions look better here that on the full size version.

    • 0 avatar
      Silvy_nonsense

      Ford misses out small time. If that.

      This is a mid-size truck and its not comparable to the compact Ranger. It’s about the size of a previous generation Tundra, which is not petite.

      The new Colorado is more likely to cannibalize sales from the Silverado, which is nearly the same size but costs more. GM is taking sales away from its most profitable product and that is dumb.

      • 0 avatar
        Carlson Fan

        The new Colorado will crush more Tacoma sales than anything else. And if it steals Silverado sales, that means it will also steal Ford and Dodge 1/2 ton sales. In the end GM gets the sale regardless. Tell me again how that is dumb?

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      Never mind Ford. If this diesel-powered Colorado is a seller, you can bet your bottom dollar that Toyota will upgrade their Tacoma line with a small diesel, already selected and waiting.

      Toyota is not going to upgrade their best-selling Tacoma until there is some competition. There hasn’t been any for years.

      But when the Tacoma gets the nod for upgrade, we’ll see a small diesel with a stick shift as an option.

  • avatar
    The Heisenberg Cartel

    Please don’t screw this one up, GM. I’m starting to not hate you anymore.

  • avatar
    mjz

    If they price it right, this will be a HUGE seller. There are a lot of urban cowboys who want a truck, but don’t want to spend $40,000+ on a gargantuan full-size pick-up. As dull and boring as I think the new Silverado is, this is a sharp looking beast. I wish it was a little bit smaller, but this could be the spiritual successor to my old and much missed S-10. Great job Chevy!

    • 0 avatar
      afflo

      Bummer about the automatic only.

      I had an S-10 as well (Sonoma actually). It was dirt cheap and basic, a 2003 with steel wheels, 4×2, and the little 2.2L I-4. While everyone is now convinced that you need 500 horsepower to merge into traffic, I never had an issue driving all over the place with its meager 120 hp. Even better, it got low 20′s in town and 30-ish on the highway.

      Yes it was crude, and yes it drove like a truck (rear axle hopped around like Michael Flatley, clanging and clattering over bumps, and the worst mix of oversteer and understeer that modern engineering can produce), but it was a useful little pup.

      I just hope they’ve gotten their build quality under control. The build on that thing was terrible – seat foam sticking out fromm the bottom edge of the seat, screws and bolts falling off, trim pieces that would just let go and bid farewell like George Clooney in Gravity. I shouldn’t know my service manager that well in 3 years. I ditched it when the spectre of no warranty became more and more frightening, though in retrospect, I paid $12,500 for it new* – it would take a lot of repair bills to really call it a bad value.

      * end of model year clearance rebates.

      • 0 avatar
        NMGOM

        afflo – - –

        “Bummer about the automatic only.”

        Get a Nissan Frontier (as did I). That is a nice midsize, with excellent power and interior ergonomics, and it has a sweet 6-speed manual. (Manual only available in short-bed now though.)

        But maybe this will be a wake-up call to Ford, and their international-version Ranger (that we can’t get here) will finally be approved for the USA. That has a manual (from what what I understand).

        ————-

        • 0 avatar
          28-Cars-Later

          I hear the V6/auto in the extended cab Frontier drinks gas.

          • 0 avatar
            NMGOM

            28-Cars-Later – - –

            Please see my comment response to “Chicago Dude” (below), posted yesterday at 11:23 AM.

            ————————-

        • 0 avatar
          DenverMike

          It could be a wake up call to Ford, and it’ll surely sell at least 100K trucks. But then Ford would sell around 50K units of that pie. That’s where the US Ranger left off. And is that pie made up mostly of fleet and other base small truck loving cheapskates?

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            This might also lure in the truck as family sedan crowd though as I see F150 has done. Ranger wouldn’t have had a chance in that demographic.

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      @mjz
      The Chev Colorado will make a great family truckster. If you have a couple of kids they’ll fit very comfortably in the back. When the diesel comes you’ll have a mid 30′s mpg vehicle as well.

      • 0 avatar
        mjz

        Thanks Big Al, I just hope it’s not too BIG. It sounds like it’s considerably bigger than my old S-10 extended cab. The size of that truck was perfect for my needs. I guess we’ll have to wait and see. Too bad it’s a year off yet, and the diesel another year on top of that. I often wish the automakers would refrain from showing these new offerings so far ahead of actual production. They’re dangling a carrot in front of you that you can’t try to grab for another year or two. Frustrating!

        • 0 avatar
          Vulpine

          That’s why they’re dangling the carrot, mjz; they don’t want you buying from a competitor before it hits the dealerships. Frustrating, yes. But how many times have you bought something, only to have a newer, better equivalent come out a month (or a year) later? Haven’t you said, “Oh, if only I had waited a little longer!”

          Hey, I don’t necessarily agree with announcing them so early either. It used to be you didn’t know what was coming until it was in the showrooms–in other words, in September/October of each year for cars and trucks. Now they push them out whenever they want to and call it the next year’s (or two) model.

  • avatar
    Lie2me

    Pricing is expected to be in the $20-35K range. With little competition how can it miss?

    • 0 avatar
      Chicago Dude

      You can buy full-size trucks with similar fuel economy for $20-35K. That’s how it can miss.

      This is the only size truck that I would buy, but most people aren’t like me. And I’m not in the market for a truck.

      • 0 avatar
        racer-esq.

        This.

      • 0 avatar
        Lie2me

        I’m not a pound for dollar car shopper either. If I were in the market for a truck I would be more interested in this over a full size. the piece that I read about the pricing stated that GM was going to keep the pricing of the Colorado at about $5-6K below a comparably equipped Silverado

      • 0 avatar
        Lie2me

        I don’t know where you’re buying your trucks, but a quick check confirms that a 2014 F-150 crewcab starts at $24,445.00 The Silverado 1500 crewcab is $25,575.00 If this Colorado comes in at $20K, They won’t be able to build ‘em fast enough

        • 0 avatar
          racer-esq.

          The base price for the old Chevy Colorado Crew Cab, with an inline-4 and 4-speed auto (not an option), was $24,285.

          http://autos.msn.com/research/compare/default.aspx?c=0&i=0&tb=0&ph1=t0&ph2=t0&dt=0&v=t113203

          • 0 avatar
            Lie2me

            Well obviously the article I read quoting a “GM source” was BS

            From Autoblog:

            “Pricing has not been announced at this time, but Maria Rohrer, Chevy Trucks’ director of marketing, told us that it will be very important to keep pricing at a “three-truck, three-tier” strategy. Considering the Silverado starts at $25,575, we would expect the Colorado to fall somewhere under the $20,000 mark. (A 2014 Tacoma starts at $17,875, for reference.) Official numbers, as well as final specifications, should be released closer to the truck’s on-sale date next fall. “

          • 0 avatar
            Lie2me

            From MT:

            Base price $19,000-$32,000*
            Vehicle layout Front-engine, RWD/4WD, 4-5-pass, 4-door pickup
            Engines 2.5L/193-hp*/184-lb-ft* DOHC 16-valve I-4; 2.8L/197-hp*/369-lb-ft* DOHC 16-valve turbodiesel I-4; 3.6L/302-hp*/270-lb-ft* DOHC 24-valve V-6
            Transmission 6-speed automatic
            Curb weight 3950-4500 lb*
            Wheelbase 127.9-140.5 in
            Length x width x height 208.2-224.1 x 74.3 x 70.5-70.6 in
            EPA city/hwy fuel econ Not yet rated

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Interesting, Lie2Me

          • 0 avatar
            Lie2me

            …and from “Automotive News”:

            “GM won’t release pricing until closer to the launch. A decent price spread between the Colorado and Silverado is “incredibly important” to keep the vehicles distinct in the showroom, said Maria Rohrer, marketing director for Chevy trucks.

            Rohrer said GM consumer research shows that “there has to be a spread of $5,000 to $6,000 between the mid-sized and the full-sized, base to base. Otherwise, the gap becomes too close, and customers might walk up to a full.”

          • 0 avatar
            danio3834

            The 6 grand gap might work for GM customers looking to buy a GM truck, if GM refuses to put cash on the hood of the 1500s or matches the cash on the hood of the Canyorado to maintain the gap.

            Unfortunately for them, Ford and especially Ram are willing to discount their reasonably equipped full sizers right into the heart of that price territory.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            RAM lease prices say, “F U Colorado.”

      • 0 avatar
        NMGOM

        Chicago Dude – - –

        Well, not quite.

        I have both a full-size Ram 1500 and the 2010 Nissan Frontier SE 4-door Crew Cab, 5-seater, long bed, midsize (WITH manual transmission, MT). It cost $24K, and even with a beautiful ARE cap, gets routinely 22-24 MPG on the highway, although I have gotten > 25 on occasion.

        This Frontier does 90% of what the Ram can do, except with reduced hauling and towing capabilities. There is NO full-size truck that can match its features and capabilities at the Frontier’s price point. And there is NO full-size (except the Ram 2500 diesel, which is almost $40K) that can offer an MT.

        ———

        • 0 avatar
          jim brewer

          Well, My 2012 Plain Jane F-150 was $21.5K. Gets 22 mpg hwy and 17-18-mpg city. No manual, no extra cab, but then 3K cheaper than the Frontier. 302 hp on the 3.7L.

          Best car I’ll ever own was a Nissan 720 pickup and the style and size is hard to beat, but Frontier just did not seem competitive to me.

          Its not obvious to me how this works. There is always the possibility that it becomes the kind of car where they can double the base price with options, like Ford does with so many of its trucks, but they certainly can’t count on that.

          I suppose they can compete on price with a full-size pickup, it is a smaller and at least somewhat cheaper truck to build, but that’s a tough way to make a buck.

          For some reason, the manufacturers always demand a huge premium for diesel, and even if they don’t in this case, that wouldn’t move too many units I don’t think.

      • 0 avatar
        Dr. Kenneth Noisewater

        With a diesel?

        IIRC the Ram diesel will be in the $50k range..

        • 0 avatar
          NMGOM

          Hi Dr Ken . .

          Yeah, I stand corrected. Thanks. It’s even worse than “almost $40K”.

          The 2014 RAM 2500 LARAMIE CREW CAB 4X2 6’4″ BOX will go about $52K, just to get an MT. Please see link.

          http://www.ramtrucks.com/hostc/bmo/CUT201414DJ2P91A/2TH/summary.do

          ————-

      • 0 avatar

        “The correct size truck that I am not going to buy” pretty much explanes the demise of midsize trucks. Kudos for GM for trying at least. Toyota pretty much gave up with Tacoma bloating.

      • 0 avatar
        toxicroach

        We’ll sees. The econ numbers are not known at this point, but if they are similar to the global version, and the curb weight appears to be the same, we’re talking nontrivial improvement. You’ll go from a 100 a tank fill up to a normal car. The difference between an F-150 and an Escape, basically.

  • avatar

    Please bring over 4 banger oil burner soon. It’ll render 2.5L petrol useless.

  • avatar
    Dan

    I’m enthused and surprised to see a front bumper that’s shaped like an actual 4WD truck. All of GM’s media kit shots were the Z71 package so I suspect the others will get an enormous plastic plow blade but getting that right on one trim is already one better than they did with the Silverado.

    I’m not enthused or surprised about any of the rest. There’s no sign of GM’s brand new 4.3 V6 let alone a V8. The CUV styling on the lights and rising belt line don’t work at all.

    It’s probably a better truck than a 10 year old Tacoma if you can look past sitting in a bathtub but I don’t see anything to get excited about compared to a half ton.

  • avatar
    Dsemaj

    I’m so glad they fixed up the interior compared the AUDM version… here’s hoping they fix it up for the next update, the current one is an absolute joke!

    http://www.privatefleet.com.au/images/upload/Image/holden-colorado-7-dash.jpg

    • 0 avatar
      pacificpom2

      Yes, the “Daewoo/Kia/Hyundai” school of interior styling still exists in this part of the world. Hopefully this will change, but I doubt it.
      As for the specs , this may clear a few issues up.
      http://www.holden.com.au/Satellite?blobcol=urldata&blobkey=id&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobwhere=1237127217108&ssbinary=true&blobheader=application/pdf

    • 0 avatar
      th009

      Yeah, I have to admit that the Holden interior looks pretty grim!

  • avatar
    luvmyv8

    Wow, I’m actually impressed by this. Honestly it looks great and…. it looks like an actual truck. Me being impressed by a GM product that isn’t a Corvette or a ’9C1′ package vehicle, that’s scary…. and it’ll have a diesel. I’d look at it- BUT my hearts set on a Jeep Wrangler.

    Now let’s see if this forces a move from the blue oval….

  • avatar
    mjz

    The “new” Silverado looks like it was “styled” by the same team that produced the dull Malibu. The Colorado, on the other hand, looks like the talented Impala team got their hands on it and actually injected a sense of style to it. As someone said on another site, it’s too bad the Silverado wasn’t a full-size version of THIS.

  • avatar
    Athos Nobile

    Memo to GM, please update the global model with both the external look and that interior. That thing looks great.

  • avatar
    Tomifobia

    Any chance of the Diesel being offered in WT trim, if there’s even a WT time level again?

  • avatar
    geozinger

    Wow, that’s a good looking truck! Especially compared to it’s predecessors. It also sounds like one heck of a package with the diesel engine option.

  • avatar
    Good ole dayz

    Love diesel, except that EPA has ruined them with urea injection and (especially) DPF. Everything I’ve heard about DPF is that it’s very problem prone, and probably very expensive to replace the unit when the vehicle gets older. Ditto the urea injection. All the integrated sensors (e.g., the kind that can make your vehicle not start if they *think* that you’re out of urea) and other integrated emissions add-ons are just post-warranty “intermittent” and expensive problems waiting to happen.

    Also agree with other commenters: the high-beltline / sitting in a bathtub styling in vogue these days needs to go. Besides the poor aesthetics that make the vehicle look disproportionately slab-sided / like the cab is a shrunken head, the reduced visibility presents an permanent safety issue.

    • 0 avatar
      OldandSlow

      The need for cleaning / regeneration of the added particulate filter in the exhaust is indeed very problem prone. – To me it reeks of 1970′s, early 1980′s add-ons to gasoline engines. -

      The following method of DPF regeneration is most concerning:

      “Post-injection (late-cycle injection) in particular causes increased engine wear by diluting the engine oil film with fuel.” – dieselpowermag.com

      The preferred alternative to the above method of DPF regeneration – which injects extra fuel into the cylinders of engine – is to add an extra fuel injector into the exhaust system upstream from the catalyst chamber to burn off the particles trapped by the DPF.

      The kick in the pants is that the particulate filter in the exhaust eventually needs to be replaced – at a present cost in the thousands of dollars.

      • 0 avatar
        Hummer

        I’m sure in short order you will be able to buy a bypass for all the emissions equipment, no worries there, for most states anyway.

        • 0 avatar
          rodface

          Why, pray tell, should anyone think it is their right to go about spewing diesel soot into other drivers’ lungs?

          Emissions delete is for a$#holes.

          • 0 avatar
            danio3834

            They probably just want a well performing vehicle.

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            As danio said, diesels had very little emissions equipment up and until 2007, and you seemed to have survived to then, the returns for current emissions equipment is nonexistant the increase in price and the decrease in fuel economy + performance however is substantial.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Put me in the a**hole category, generally speaking once a vehicle gets beyond a certain age it should be emissions exempt by federal law. Out of the gate as much as I don’t care for the equipment its existence seems somewhat reasonable, but to be forced to maintain it over a long period is not, especially if it hinders the motor design.

      • 0 avatar
        gtemnykh

        Yeah I was excited to hear that it would have a diesel option and then I realized what that meant in terms of the scary emissions equipment that it would be saddled with here in the US. Uh, no thanks. Can you even imagine how that stuff will hold up, 10 years down the line? Heck, even fresh off the showroom floor? I think I’d prefer Chevy’s new 4.3 OHV V6 in this. 300lbft torque, 24mpg highway, and (most likely) superior long term reliability and lower servicing costs.

        • 0 avatar
          thelaine

          +1 gtemnyk, good ol dayz and the rest on this diesel tangent. Diesel is something I have wanted for a long time in a small pickup, SUV or Wrangler. I love the range and torque and what used to be promised regarding durability. I have looked forward to small diesel availability in the US for a very long time. Now that it is increasingly available, I’m backing off. Maybe in AUS small diesels are Kate Upton’s tits, because they seem to insist on them, but modifications to meet US regs have made diesels too risky for me. I guess I can wait another 6-10 year buying cycle to let them sort it out or fail.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @thelaine – It’s not just about emissions. There’s high pressure fuel injectors, high pressure fuel pump and high pressure oil pump. In the good ‘ol dayz, you could work on diesels yourself if they ever needed repairs. They were crazy reliable, dead simple and you could drive them into the ground. Today, they’re delicate instruments you don’t want to own past the warranty. I’ve owned diesels since the early ’80s and I’m taking a break until they get the issues and emissions sorted.

          • 0 avatar
            thelaine

            @DenverMike – Yeah, your comments on this issue were the first ones to cause me to put the brakes on my plan to get the diesel Wrangler that is supposedly going into the next generation. Too damned bad. It is a great application for it. Pentastar is fine, but you just can’t have too much torque and range when you are off in the sticks.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @thelaine – A Pentastar in 4low has all the torque (multiplication) you could possibly need, if you can get traction/downforce.

          • 0 avatar
            thelaine

            Thanks DM. It should be easier to go in and out of 4 low in the new ones than it is in my 86 CJ7 :) Kind of a pain in the butt in rapidly changing terrain.

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al from Oz

          @gtemnykh
          Actually this technology isn’t new, it’s been around since the 50s in power generation.

          Many heavy vehicles use this technology and they don’t have the issues you talk about.

          There’s bound to be some issues, but hey, the new vehicles from Fiat/Ram, Fiat/Jeep, etc seems to be rolled out with no issues.

          As for the high pressure injectors, we have had them for a while and they do seem okay.

          Maybe when diesel become more common prices will drop for both new diesel vehicles and maintaining diesels in the US.

          It’s called competition.

      • 0 avatar
        danio3834

        OldandSlow is absolutely right and the added emissions equipment since Tier 2 emissions equipment is causing many a diesel owner to switch back to a gasser.

        Late cycle injection regeneration can also cause crank case oil growth, which if left unattended, can cause oil/fuel mixture accumulate in the charge air system through the crank case ventilation system. Why is this bad news? A diesel runs on oil and is completely throttled by fuel, so an uncontrolled fuel source can cause a runaway or consistent overfueling.

        In a diesel, rich is mean and overfueling leads to meltdowns.

    • 0 avatar
      That guy

      Urea injection isn’t bad, just top off the tank at every oil change. It’s no worse than filling windshield washer fluid.

      DPF does suck though.

      • 0 avatar
        Hummer

        It’s not bad until you keep putting off filling it or need to wait to the next paycheck, and on the way to work the trucks goes into limp mode because of a lack of urea.

        That’s just one scenario; someone’s not complying so we’re going to shut them from their low paying job. We’ll just say its protecting them, that they need someone to tell them what’s right and what’s wrong.
        ~ EPA

        • 0 avatar
          IHateCars

          I had thought that you conservative types like to preach about personal responsibility? So if said “low paying job” person (not sure why a “low paying job” person would buy a new Colorado diesel if they can’t afford it…kinda goes against the personal responsibility thing as well)neglects to keep their truck in good running order, then don’t they deserve the unfavourable end result? How is that the EPA’s fault? I kinda like clean air and water so forgive me if I fail to see your logic…

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            Oh so clean water and air was unexistant until 2007?
            Doesn’t matter the owner, unless your implying this truck won’t live past the first owner,
            Hopefully it will still be running in 15 years, it will get to a 3rd, 4th etc owner or be passed down to an owners child. Your overly presumptuous to conclude that the only person to buy this are traditional nonrhino conservatives.

            The emissions difference before and after urea injection is almost nonexistant. There is no realistic purpose other than someone lobbying to get rights to make a product with a legal requirement.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Think long after the truck was originally sold and the “low paying person” is the third or forth owner.

          • 0 avatar
            krhodes1

            Down the road, there will be cheaper aftermarket alternatives to the expensive OEM parts, just like there are for gas engine catalytic converters.

        • 0 avatar
          krhodes1

          If you can’t afford to put pee in the tank, you can’t afford to be driving a newer diesel anyway. The stuff is dirt cheap. Even BMW only gets something like $12/gal for it, and that is the rip-off of the century.

          I think everyone whining about emission control systems should be forced to drive and maintain an old 60s carbed piece of crap. In the freezing cold on top of a high mountain pass.

          • 0 avatar
            gtemnykh

            Only if Krhodes1 is forced to drive a car with a Malaise era smog pump, cat converter, carb control, and ignition.

            I bring the Malaise era up because people like me aren’t arguing the benefits of reduced emissions, we’re saying we’re wary of these transition-period attempts that are fraught with potential failure points. I’m sure they’ll get it right soon enough, but I don’t like being a beta-tester for this stuff.

            Are we at the point of extremely diminishing returns? Maybe, I haven’t looked at hard numbers.

            I do credit with emissions standards with ultimately ushering in fuel injection to mainstream automobiles along with a slew of other improvements which we enjoy every day.

          • 0 avatar
            danio3834

            “I think everyone whining about emission control systems should be forced to drive and maintain an old 60s carbed piece of crap. In the freezing cold on top of a high mountain pass.”

            Why a 60′s carb’d car in particular? What’s the correlation here?

          • 0 avatar
            danio3834

            “I do credit with emissions standards with ultimately ushering in fuel injection to mainstream automobiles”

            I don’t. Fuel injection, both mechanical and electronic was being used well before the introtuction of EPA emission standards in the US. If anything, the emission standards delayed the more widespread use of EFI while manufcturers figured out how to control NOx emissions by adding catalytic converters, air pumps and EGR valves to carbureted cars.

            Carburetors were common place on production vehicles for a decade and a half after the first EPA standers under the CAA were enacted because they could be made to meet the standards. Even today, a carburetor could likely be made to pass, I’ve tuned carb swapped cars to pass upper bins of tier 1 standards on the ASM 2525 test. Haven’t tried anything Tier 2.

            Anyway, I credit the proliferation and related price drops in microprocessors, desire for better drivability, reliability, the fuel crises, CAFE, and consumer performance demands for the proliferation of electronic fuel injection. Sure there are plenty of emission control benefits with EFI, but too much credit is given to emission stanards where it’s not due.

  • avatar
    Vulpine

    I think I’d be willing to trade my F-150 long-bed in on one of these. It looks better than ANY of the full-sized models.

    Still want a stick in it though.

  • avatar
    Hummer

    If it could get a real front bumper and a 5.3 it wouldn’t be half bad.
    But that plastic bumper kills it, absolutely murders all the work that went into making the truck.
    This may take sales from CUVs like the equinox or the escape, but it won’t take sales from fullsize at all, they made sure of that.

  • avatar
    snakebit

    First, why the disparaging remarks about Focus and Fiesta. Is it because you haven’t driven either one, yet. And, how does that relate to medium-size trucks? Ford couldn’t see a business reason for continuing the Ranger, for now, in the States. Get over it.

    Ya, I like those Fords, also like the Cruze and glad that I’m seeing more on the road. As for the medium trucks, I wish Chevrolet the best with the new Colorado. The competition between Tacoma and Colorado can only improve both vehicles. In my perfect world, buyers would make the medium-sized truck market just as healthy or more so than the market for full-size trucks. Glad from a company health standpoint that Ford, Chevrolet, Ram, and Tundra are popular with buyers, but wish buyers would look and see they couldn’t make do with a medium-size truck.

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      I can agree with the disparaging remarks about Focus and Fiesta–and Ford in general.

      My wife, after us being married for 13 years, has decided to get her drivers license. Her practice and testing vehicle is a 1990 Ford F-150 long-bed. The state-certfied driving school is using the Focus as their training car–with the small EcoBoost engine. She has one complaint that rides across both vehicles: You have to stab the gas pedal–and WAIT for the power to come on, then it kicks you in the rear. Get this–the truck has the 5.0EFI V-8 engine and the throttle lag is horrendous, especially when trying to force the transmission to downshift. The turbo lag in the Focus is little better. Definitely not something a student driver should have to contend with.

      I, personally, have never liked Ford cars ever since my first one which devolved to the point that it was costing me more just to keep it running than the monthly payment on a brand-new car. There was almost never a month that I didn’t have to spend something on it and my current F-150 is no better; I’m expecting a near-thousand-dollar tune-up because the shop is almost certain to claim it needs a new timing chain.

      I put 160,000 miles on a V6 Chevy Camaro with no engine work other than changing spark plugs and serpentine belt. I put 120,000 miles on an I-4 Saturn Vue with no engine work–not even plugs and belt. I’ve put 4,000 miles on that truck and still haven’t come under $1/mile on costs since purchase and I’m looking forward to getting rid of it. Even my ’08 Jeep Wrangler is doing better as I am now well under $1/mile for purchase and repairs at 55,555 miles.

      • 0 avatar
        bball40dtw

        What Focus has the small ecoboost engine? The ST? I didn’t notice issues with turbo lag when I owned one. I had the opposite problem. I also owned the regular Focus wth the 2.0L. I didn’t find any issue with the throttle at all.

        • 0 avatar
          Vulpine

          That was her description. The point is that the typical student driver car is an automatic. An automatic typically idles around 600-800 RPM. Turbo usually starts to boost around 2000 RPM, plus or minus. Accelerating from a traffic light then has you at well below the power band to start rolling, then a sudden surge of power when the turbo finally kicks in. Now, I’ll grant that the EcoBoost is tuned for lower boost, so it won’t be as strong a surge–but it still doesn’t really start adding power until you reach that 2,000 RPM range which, strangely, is about when the transmission is considering upshifting for economy. So you’re either driving grossly underpowered in a city environment where strong acceleration (not drag racing) is frequently demanded (some traffic lights in my area change so quickly that even with strong acceleration only about 5 cars get through, so you can imagine how many get through with a slow start) or you’re horsing the thing around like an idiot just to get out of your own way! Yes, some of today’s cars are less extreme than this, but people who are used to either instant power (non-turbo engines or manual transmissions) or very weak engines (the older, tiny, non-turbo fours) are going to be thrown by this sudden dependence on turbocharging.

          • 0 avatar
            gtemnykh

            What eco-boosted Focus is this? Certainly not an ST, they come in manual only, not to mention a driving school would never buy a fleet of STs in a million years.

            I think your wife was driving a plain jane naturally aspirated 2.0, and was experiencing the wonders of ford’s powershift transmission, in concert with a modern tuned-for emissions electronic throttle.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            The powershift transmission of evil rears its ugly head once again.

      • 0 avatar
        Lie2me

        “You have to stab the gas pedal–and WAIT for the power to come on, then it kicks you in the rear.”

        This is unacceptable. This is why I haven’t bought a turbo since the ’80s. If turbo lag is still this pronounced 30 years later, then they haven’t done a thing to address this deal breaker

        • 0 avatar
          Timothy

          Ummm… Current ST owner (2013) and there is a split second of turbo lag below 2000 RPM. Take off RPM is 1200 – 1500 and peak torque is at 2100rpm. Modern turbo units are virtually without lag.

          The only Focus model with EcoBoost is the ST. All others (gas powered) are the 2.0 4 cyl.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            Exactly, what Vulpine is describing isn’t turbo lag. Its second hand infomation by someone that hasn’t driven the Ford DCT before. The Focus seems like a poor choice for a driving school. The transmission will only learn how to do terrible things.

            Tim, did you get your quality control and MFT problems fixed?

          • 0 avatar
            Timothy

            @bball40dtw: Yeah.. wow, thanks for remembering. Watertown Ford (Watertown MA) has been outstanding. MFT has been flawless since the last major update came out (June I think?).

            The one really serious problem I had was with the car hunting/idle and stalling on the rare occasion. Believe it or not it had to do with the sound symposer and a stuck valve. Replaced the entire unit (at god knows what cost) and it’s been perfect since.

            Just popped my winter snows/rims on it. Dropped it a size (17″) and added some knobby Goodyear winter force tires (i’m a skier) and hand to heart the car is as fun to drive if not more.

            You want to hang the ass end out? A little flick and away she goes. Absolutely hilarious. Absolutely expensive. Going to have to get a new set of tires if I keep this shit up.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            My MFT has been flawless since the last update as well. Downsizing rims and adding winter tires is great on the Focus. I swear by dedicated winter tires/wheels now.

          • 0 avatar
            Lie2me

            Mine too, I’m very surprised and pleased with it

      • 0 avatar
        Les

        My own experience with test driving a new focus was also involving lots of lag, but I don’t think it was turbo-lag (I don’t think Turbos are all that common on US-spec Focuses yet).. I think it’s the ‘New and Exciting’ automatic that was to blame.

  • avatar
    crtfour

    Wow nice job GM! This makes the Silverado look like an old man truck.

  • avatar
    EquipmentJunkie

    This thing will be a hit! While I’d like a row-your-own stick and a third pedal, the automatic-only option will not keep me from ordering a ’16 diesel.

    Shame on Ford for wasting an opportunity with their new Ranger.

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      “This thing will be a hit!” That’s what GM is hoping based on all the comments on this and other car/truck sites.

      But buyers are a fickle lot. They often voice their fondest wishes, hopes and dreams and when the manufacturers take action to accommodate them, the buyers shy away when it comes to putting their money where their mouth is.

      So it remains to be seen how well it sells because it will cost significantly more than a similarly-equipped gasser.

      Maybe Ford and Toyota are choosing to stay on the sidelines for now, but may already have a small diesel in mind for their offerings, just waiting to see how GM does with this diesel-powered Colorado.

      • 0 avatar
        Scoutdude

        It will take Ford about 5 min to put the Global Ranger up for sale in the US IF this sells in reasonable numbers and it doesn’t cannibalize the sales of their full size trucks.

        • 0 avatar
          highdesertcat

          Amen to that!

        • 0 avatar
          RobertRyan

          @Scoutdude. Ford could do the same as GM, take the Global Ranger, put in softer, springs and dampers . Change the Chassis and they would have a Pickup that could take on the Tacoma.
          Problem is Ford thinks it can have one vehicle that covers all bases.So I cannot see it happening soon.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            @Robert Ryan
            I think Ford will eventually have to bring in the F-150.

            Prior to the sacking of the government in Thailand several years back the US was making an FTA with the Thai’s. The US pulled out of the FTA.

            Ford was looking at bringing the Ranger in from Thailand. Marketing is like politics, just distort to sell.

            The new F-150 was earmarked to be sold side by side with the global Ranger.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            My first sentence should have read “Ranger” instead of F-150.

      • 0 avatar
        Carlson Fan

        I wouldn’t worry about the diesel. The gas engined version of this truck will surely steal many sales away from the Tacoma. Having ridden in a new one not too long ago it isn’t much of truck. I mean it’s OK, and could maybe even considered great if it was 1995. Incidently they guy that owned it got rid of it fairly quickly and went back to another Avalanche. I suspect that was the first and last Toyota truck he’ll ever own.

        • 0 avatar
          highdesertcat

          Carlson Fan, you could very well be right.

          Toyota is always last to the party but when they arrive they bring a lot of value for the money.

          That’s what displaced Dakota, Colorado and Ranger out of that segment in the first place.

          There was no incentive or reason for Toyota to improve or further evolve the dated Tacoma after Dakota, Colorado and Ranger bit the dust.

          That may be changing if this new Colorado is a hit with the masses.

  • avatar
    AMC_CJ

    The 2.8L will be the same, but updated, engine as the one in my Liberty CRD.

    Awesome

    Might just be my next vehicle, although I really am partial to mid-size SUV’s. But a crew cab and camper shell can fill that void.

    • 0 avatar
      Johannes Dutch

      I’m not sure, but I think the diesel engine in the Chevrolet is from Isuzu. The 2.8 ltr. diesel in your Liberty is from VM Motori.

      • 0 avatar
        AMC_CJ

        Yeah, it looks like that might be the case. I figured with the Cruze having a VM, I figured the Colorado would too. But Fiat/Chrysler just did buy them, so I’m not sure.

        Which isn’t a bad thing. Our fleet runs a lot of Izuzu’s and those engines are pretty durable and reliable, and we hardly ever see any serious issues with them. Those are the larger I4′s, but should be built about the same I hope.

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al from Oz

        The 2.8 in the Chev Colorado is a VM.

    • 0 avatar
      Good ole dayz

      I have a 2006 CRD. Been driving since the 1970′s, but 2006 was the first time I was willing to roll the dice and purchase a new “domestic” / UAW vehicle. I rolled the dice only because it offered a diesel.

      Alas, I’ve found out that the quality from the UAW manufacturers is still far inferior to the Asians:

      Left me stranded in the first few weeks — wiring harness installed incorrectly, causing rubbing and shorting out the electrics;

      Numerous windows falling down due to cheap plastic part in the window regulators;

      Driver’s seat vinyl started cracking shortly after warranty expiration (and yes, I did maintain the interior with Mequiars);

      Steering rack failed at 50k;

      Rear end and t-stat failed at 75k;

      Just turned 100k and put $3200 into it for EGR and other repairs. Two days later the check engine light came back on. God only knows what this premature failure is, and what it will cost me.

      I’ve always maintained it better than book, never off-roaded or abused, always used Stanadyne.

      Moving shortly, and after that, if finances permit, early in the next year going to dump this thing and run into the arms of a dependable 4Runner, and forever leave the UAW vehicles to masochistic buyers.

      • 0 avatar
        Hummer

        I see your problem:
        you were worried about dependability with domestics >> you went to daimler-Chrysler.

        • 0 avatar
          Good ole dayz

          The UAW manufacturers are all pretty much the same — inferior — any reading of Consumer Reports from the 1970′s on tells you that. I’ve read that the “domestics” spec shorter mean time to failure / lower cost components to help offset the higher cost of the UAW workforce: (legacy costs of pensions / retiree healthcare, above market wages, union featherbedding / work rules padding the workforce / lowering productivity and union slacker attitudes on the line). Not to mention workers who get high at lunch.

          BTW, the taxpayer bailouts really were bailouts of the UAW, not GM/Chrysler — the so-called Chapter 11 reorganizations were pre-packed in Washington, D.C. to insulate the UAW pensions and pay packages, which otherwise would have been dinged had this been a non-political Chapter 11.

  • avatar
    talkstoanimals

    Am I crazy or does this look like a Honda Ridgeline from certain (i.e. front) angles and like old school GM in the interior? Hopefully the latter is just due to the picture quality, not the quality of the materials and design.

  • avatar
    ash78

    My interest is piqued…I’m getting to the point where a crewcab is appealing, but the size and fuel economy of the full sizers are just too much to swallow (especially coming from a lifelong non-truck guy). For space, capability, and value, the full-size trucks are about as good as it gets, but this should be a nice compromise.

    If I can commute to work getting 25+ mpg (mostly highway) but still haul concrete, lumber, mulch, camping gear, and tow an occasional trailer or small RV on the weekends, it’s a winner in my book.

    This is one little Thai beauty I’d love to get inside. Wait a sec.

  • avatar
    redav

    It’s peaked my interest. I will need to see if it is mid-sized enough to fit in my garage. If not, then it’s still a no-sale.

  • avatar
    mcarr

    This has my attention. I’m probably going to ignore the diesel version because it will probably only be available in the top spec trim, but I’m seriously interested in a ext-cab, 2.5, 4×4 if that configuration will exist and be priced decently. Oh, and get at least 25+ mpg on the hwy.

    The MPG thing will have to be a real improvement over the full sized version, otherwise, the main competition for these trucks will be 1-2 year old full sizers.

    • 0 avatar
      ash78

      Precisely. To take it to the extreme, it’s like buying a Smart Car — you have to really need the smaller size to spend the same money as a much more capable Corolla or Golf or Fiesta etc.

      As I said in my comment above, full-size pickups are a great value, even if you don’t need all the capacity.

      • 0 avatar
        th009

        It’s great value in terms of the amount of vehicle per dollar. But if you really want less vehicle (fit in garage, be able to reach into the bed from the side etc), it’s not so good.

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        No, a full-sized pickup does NOT offer a great value; not to people who have no place to park them and streets are too tight to maneuver comfortably. I have a standard-cab full-sized pickup that sits with its rear bumper over the curb and the front bumper over the sidewalk in front of my house. An extended cab model ‘standard’ bed or crew cab short bed would actually extend over both and risk getting hit by passing cars and utility-service vehicles; something that’s already happened to one of my neighbors who DOES have a crew-cab truck.
        They’re also harder to park in the typical mall or shopping-center lot, especially during the Christmas rush which has already begun where I live. A more compact truck like this Colorado offers a size advantage far beyond what a little more towing or load capacity offers when that extra capability is never used.

        Value for you may well be waste for someone else. It really depends on how–and where–it will be used.

        • 0 avatar
          Hummer

          Not everyone lives in a big city and lacks land. Your situation is unique, you must admit. Even in raleigh I can’t think of many areas where a fullsize is a hindrance or hard to maneuver.

        • 0 avatar
          Pch101

          The marketplace has spoken. Last year, RAM fullsize pickup sales alone exceeded total sales of compact pickups from all brands combined.

          Full-size sales exceeded compact sales by a margin of about 6:1. Compact sales have been trending downward. The gap between full-size and compact truck sales is widening.

        • 0 avatar
          el scotto

          Are the parking lot spaces striped to fit a full-size truck? If so, you are in fly-over country, the cornfields, the sticks, God’s country, or what I humbly call “home”. I rent an F-150 from Hertz when I fly into IND. Your points are valid, and true, for anyone flying out of BWI, IAD or DCA.

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            Considering the #1 selling vehicle is a fullsize truck I find it hard to believe parking spaces even exist that cannot handle a fullsize.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            “I find it hard to believe parking spaces even exist that cannot handle a fullsize.”

            You’ve never seen a compact parking space?

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            Never.

          • 0 avatar

            The so-called “compact” parking space accomodates a so-called “fullsize” pickup easily, as long as it’s a short bed version. However, narrow parking slots are a fact of life where liberal fascists are in power. The best example I can think is San Francisco State University parking structure, where I had to exit and re-enter my 1996 Galant through a window (granted they also marked a limited number of wider slots, which never were vacant).

        • 0 avatar
          azmtbkr81

          Good points. A shorter wheelbase also makes for better maneuverability and break over angles off-road. The wheelbase of a modern full-size crew-cab truck is so damn long that I feel I need a second person to steer the back wheels. I checked the specs and the crew-cab Colorado has a nearly 2 feet shorter wheelbase than the crew-cab Silverado.

          • 0 avatar
            ash78

            Perfect. As I said multiple times above, for roughly the same cost, you really have to put a premium on the smaller size. As a car guy, I almost definitely see value there.

            It’s a really old-school marketing concept in cars (especially in the US) that people want the BIGGEST car they can afford. This trend has shifted here in the last decade towards “small but nice.” The same should apply to pickups, and this size vehicle could make a perfect Jack of all Trades for many buyers.

            I believe GM themselves pointed out that the income levels of Colorado and Silverado buyers were almost identical, despite a $10k average purchase price difference (as equipped). Going small isn’t about being cheap or poor, it’s about finding the right tool for your job.

    • 0 avatar
      toxicroach

      We’ll see the stats here, but the Aussie version with the diesel got 35 hwy and 25 city or so.

    • 0 avatar
      That guy

      The diesel is supposed to be available on all trims and configurations.

  • avatar
    JMII

    WOW they are really going to bring over the small diesel! This is the first truck in a long time that might be able to replace my Dakota. Wish Ford would step up here, not really a fan of GM products. Current power in my 4.7l V8 Dodge is 235 hp and 295 lbft and gets all of 12 MPG while towing. So 200 hp and 368 lbft with the diesel sounds good to me. Any idea what MPG we are looking at here?

    • 0 avatar
      Onus

      Probably around low 30s.

      • 0 avatar
        JMII

        That would be awesome as my Dakota gets 19 MPG on its best day. Size compro:
        ’02 Dakota Quad Cab 2WD
        Length 215.1 in
        Width 71.5 in
        Height 64.9 in

        So this GM is about 5″ bigger in all dimensions. OK… only the extra height bothers me, why are these trucks lifted so much these days? Makes sense on the 4WD model, but what’s wrong with a 2WD truck being lowered back down to earth so you can reach into the bed?

  • avatar
    blackbolt

    Does remind me of a Ridge also. Had one, loved it but hated the gas mileage and road noise. Engine was also gutless and transmission mapping was weird. Concept was spot on tho. Honda thinks outta the box which is great but never seems to follow through to the end. Ridgeline, Element, and Crosstour are perfect examples.

  • avatar
    wstarvingteacher

    I don’t know if GM has a winner or not but I do know that I like it.Do know another thing. The 2002 Vue that I bought in 2002 and the 77 Starfire also bought new have taught me not to buy any first year GM offerings. Actually, the 77 may not have been first year but had so many changes it might as well have been. This truck has some of the front end appeal that hit me with the Vue. I’m not ready to buy one yet. Need to see if the engines and transmissions hold up. I want them to.

    I was hoping the new 4.3 would make it here. I owned an S-10 that I could not break and sent my granddaughter off to another state to school in it. I now own an Olds Bravada and am going through the sorting out pains that come with a bottom feeder car lot purchase. Turns out valve bodies can kill transmissions. When I get that fixed and then wear it out this will no longer be a new truck. I will know if it falls into the category of new S10 or the less stellar Colorado.

    In a perfect world this will be the spiritual successor to my S10 with the bulletproof 4.3/700r4. I would probably have never needed a successor it that had a back seat. it was a hard change for me to make.

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      That ’02 Vue you had must have been the V-6 by Honda. My Opel I-4 was remarkably peppy and lively–with a manual sport transaxle under it. I understand that Honda drivetrain simply ATE transaxles. I put 120,000 miles on mine in 8 years without even needing to change clutch plates.

      I am looking forward to going hands on with this Colorado to see if it really does meet my needs and my wants. The Tacoma comes close, but the I-4 with stick is simply too weak in that truck.

      • 0 avatar
        gtemnykh

        My guess is that wvstarving teacher had issues with a 4cyl equipped CVT model (more failureprone than even a 5spd Honda automatic of that era). The Honda engines/transmissions only appeared in 2004.

        • 0 avatar
          Vulpine

          Hmm… I didn’t know they finally got that CVT out. I ordered mine with CVT and they told me they were having too many reliability problems to even consider shipping them, so they changed the order to the Open sport 3-plate manual transaxle.

          • 0 avatar
            gtemnykh

            Oh they got it out alright, and many a customer got to serve as GM’s guinea pig in its halfbaked foray into CVTs. Good thing you got a 5spd, I hear those are quite efficient and a good mix of value and utility.

        • 0 avatar
          Dubbed

          The Honda/5 speed Automatic was only available with the Vue Redline from 04-07. After that GM dropped its 3.6 under the hood. Short of the LS, GM didn’t sell a car with a better engine transmission combo at the time.

          When I was younger I so wanted one of those. Had a friend who had one and he loved it.

          The V6 in the non Redlines was the anemic and old 3.4 liter pushrod before 2008.

      • 0 avatar
        wstarvingteacher

        Sorry to say that it was the same as yours. I replaced at least three computers, a clutch cylinder for $600, then went back the next year to replace the clutch for $800. Transmission replacement under warranty and the last thing that went was the engine when the timing chain went without warning. I understand that most of the problems were fixed by 2004 including a larger drip aperture for oiling the timing chain. Plastic was falling off the rear window trim and the moonroof leaked (not the drain).

        It was perfect and I loved it. Then it broke. It broke long, hard, and often. The 2007 Vue we had came with the Honda gear and we loved it. Sold it when I was “up to here” with the 2002. Not because the Honda stuff broke but because some stuff was just wired in. Like $1200 for a timing belt at 100k. We traded for a Nissan cube which went 100k with zero problems. The vue was much more suited for what I wanted. If there were a stick 2004 handy when I dumped it I think I might have gone for it. I think you had the experience I wanted to have. I went to a chev S10 and now to an olds bravada. Thought if I stayed with rwd the general might be good to me.

  • avatar
    Zackman

    This may be the truck I buy when I retire. At least GM got rid of that 5 cylinder motor.

    Diesel? What would be the advantage? I don’t really understand the “diesel-love” some have on here. Gimme a modern gas engine any day.

    In any case, make mine red, with lots of chrome!

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      Diesel has one advantage over gas; it gives more torque at notably higher fuel mileage. They may not be the fastest accelerating things on the road, but they can go farther on the same amount of fuel carrying the same load as their ‘gasser’ equivalents. On top of this, if you’ve been paying attention to racing at at all you’ll have noted that diesel-powered cars are competing effectively against traditional gas and alcohol-powered cars both in performance and range–often able to go several laps farther between stops to score on the podium.

      • 0 avatar
        Quentin

        Isn’t that because power is capped on a lot of these race series? If you have the same constraint of power, you’re better off choosing the most efficient powertrain.

        • 0 avatar
          Les

          It’s not a power cap, it’s a displacement cap.. working around that to get more power than should be theoretically possible is what’s given us things like the V-10 engine configuration.

  • avatar
    philadlj

    From the Spark and Encore to the ILX to the Evoque, X1 and Macan, a lot of Americans are buying smaller cars. Perhaps that means there are those who will buy a smaller truck as well.

    We don’t know, because everything in the present segment is so ancient. I for one am very interested to see how well this does and particularly who buys it. The Colorado may not be THAT much smaller than the smallest Silvy, but that can make all the difference in a crowded urban environment.

  • avatar
    el scotto

    Here’s what I think will happen in the real world. Roll into your local Chevy superstore that sponsors all those irritating ads. Colorado with a diesel? Yeah we have one or two of them. Salesperson shuffle commences. You look at the Colorado. Salesperson stops and ask have you seen a Silverado WT? You drive both of them while your trade gets “appraised”. Into the cubicle/open air desk you go. Dealerships shenanigans commence. With heavy GM discounts the WT is much cheaper than the diesel you wanted. You and your significant other discuss. Most will buy the WT over the diesel due to it being much cheaper.

  • avatar
    NN

    This looks too good to be true. Diesel 4WD crew cab will probably cost $40k, which means few will buy it (kind of like a $26k diesel Cruze). If they price it aggressively and look at it as expanding their market rather than cannibalizing Silverado sales, then GM could get a lot of new/conquest buyers. However, pricing it aggressively may not make the best business sense for them at the end of the day.

    As a former ZR2 Blazer owner (stick, BTW); I could see myself in this truck.

  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    I wonder if there will be/is a touchscreen delete option?

    • 0 avatar
      bball40dtw

      Hahahaha

      I think we both know the answer to that. If the answer is somehow “yes”, it’ll be like trying to find a manual Fusion or Focus, with leather, no MFT, and without a moonroof.

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        I may need to call a meeting of the Secret Egghead Confederation and together we will design and manufacture an aftermarket delete kit.

        • 0 avatar
          bball40dtw

          I just want everything to work, and have a screen that duplicates my smart phone nav (it can hide when I’m not using it). Suzuki actually had a good idea with a pop up Tom Tom in one of their cars. It was a cheap option too.

          I really like the live maps on some of the touchscreen infotainment displays because I am a dork. While driving to industrial parks in not so nice Detroit neighborhoods, its always nice to get a birdseye view and available emergency egress routes if needed.

          The man or woman who took the radio tune dial out of centerstacks should be stoned to death.

  • avatar
    Pch101

    This is great news for the automotive interwebs. Probably not so great news for the dealers who will be stuck with trying to sell them.

  • avatar
    ajla

    Probably would have preferred the 4.3L over the 3.6L as the V6 option.

    I also think it’s funny that it looks like this and the ATS share the same base engine. Not to mention all the stuff that uses the 3.6L.

    Never thought I’d see such engine overlap between Cadillac and the entry level truck.

  • avatar
    APaGttH

    Well, I have to admit, as much as it pains me to say – I like it.

    Was no fan of the previous gen Colorado/Canyon. Over built in some areas (sharing GMT800 platform parts like rear ends and tranny) and under powered with the God awful 5 banger that sucked gas. Ridiculously large wheel wells that only the biggest Z71 rubber could fill – a crude interior, crude, well everything. GMs heart was in the right place on paper, build a midsizer that was built specifically for what people typically use it for – Home Depot runs and commuting and the occasional haul of a smaller toy like a popup trailer or jet ski. The execution was horrible, the engine offering horrible, the build quality atrocious. Now let me tell you something bad about it.

    I also was having a fair amount of hate because I really wanted to see the Holden Ute here. Fine, selfish motivation.

    This is going to sell. Agree with everyone above that says pricing is important, but this is going to sell.

    It’s going to be have top towing in its class, its HP and torque numbers are close enough to the competition (it wins HP, it comes in to a darn close tie on torque on the I-4, under on the V6). By going with no forced induction MPG won’t take a huge MPG hit under load. Its attractive, the interior is better (well anything is better than the current offering) and in 2016 – diesel with conservatively 325 pound feet of torque. We know the 6-speed and 2.5 and the 3.6 are good motors, and the 3.6 in particular is being used in CUV applications.

    Here is the thing that becomes interesting.

    Does this force Nissan to update the getting long in the tooth Frontier? How does Toyota respond (and the Tacoma will remain the leader in this class)? Will Ford go, shoot, we need to get back into this class (all those F-150s sold says no)? Honda is getting ready to put the Ridgeline on vaca but vows a new model – where do they play? What about Ram trucks?

    This could shake up the segment. Most of the B&B sneered at the Buick Encore – now a bunch of makers are rushing to create a sub-compact SUV, mainstream, near luxury and luxury.

    Does GM shake up the segment and grab share? Or do they cannibalize their own fullsize market? What about GMC?

    Lots of questions – but in photos and on paper, the package looks right.

    • 0 avatar
      slance66

      I think Toyota has been coasting with the Tacoma for years. That 4.0L six is a monstrous gas pig. They could easily tune the 3.5 V6 for more torque and less HP, and up the MPG a few points, but they didn’t need to. Now they will need to do something.

      Hopefully Ford will reconsider bring the Ranger over, that was an even better looking truck.

      This one looks nice on the outside, but that interior….where did they get that? It’s straight out of 1982. Awful. Can’t they at least make the inside as nice as a Cruze?

      • 0 avatar
        RobertRyan

        This aimed at the Tacoma in the US Market. No in many ways it is very different to the Global Version and not just in styling. Global version would cannabalize Silverado sales. This will not with its 1400lb payload and 6,700lb towing, unlike the similar and aging Tacoma it has a diesel.

        • 0 avatar
          ajla

          How specifically is it engineered different? I highly doubt the difference is as big as you think.

          A lot of stuff gets much lower capability ratings when it comes to over the United States, even if it was built on the same assembly line with the same part numbers as an international version.

          I don’t know how they do it in the rest of the world, but our towing and payload ratings are practically made up. Manufacturers will add several hundred pounds to either figure on a whim.

          I think they just artificially kneecapped the payload and towing figures on the Colorado to protect the Silverado because like you said it would canalize sales otherwise.

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            The Colorado has a 1400lb payload rating. It was mentioned that they re-engineered the vehicle to make it into the Chevrolet Colorado. The Global version is a “I tonne Ute”with a 3000lb rating.I agree about the “magic dust” towing numbers of US pickups.
            As a result you can do this (Ford Ranger in photo, but similar payload characteristics).The Hitch on the 5th Wheeler(below) is almost as much as the payload on the Chevrolet Colorado.
            http://www.summerliferv.com/index_htm_files/1506.jpg

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            ajla is right. The Ford Escape has a higher towing rating (about 4600 lbs) than the Ford Flex Ecoboost (4500 lbs) when its a Kuga in Europe.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            @ajla
            From what I’ve read the hydro formed chassiss on the US Colorado is lighter than the global version. The suspension is lighter as well.

            The Chev Colorado is supposed to have a stronger or is it stiffer frame than the Taco, not the global Colorado.

            I do think GM is trying to not enter into the Silverado’s domain as much as possible.

            The Holden Colorado is a little more rugged in design.

            The Chev Colorado is also earmarked to eventuate as a ‘work’ truck with a diesel also.

  • avatar
    BigOldChryslers

    Great! When it finally comes time to replace my 1994 Cummins, there will be plenty of lighter-duty diesel choices on the market between the Colorado, RAM1500 and Titan.

  • avatar
    crtfour

    I’m glad they did away with the akwardly shaped wheel wells and it looks like they have a proper Z71 package unlike the Silverado Z71′s with 20″ chrome wheels and touring tires.

    • 0 avatar
      dolorean

      Actually looking at the Chevy website, only the Z71 looks right wearing the cool guy wheels and front fascia. Anything less nets you the 16″ wheels and no fog lamp fascia in the boring front end. Going to the 16s leaves that ugly, gaping maw still.

  • avatar
    Beerboy12

    It’s about time, what took them so long?

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    If there are any mechanics out there, I would suggest to go out and do some kind of light diesel bridging course.

    Or if you are thinking of becoming a mechanic go out and become a light diesel mechanic.

    The US and Canada will need many more soon, probably with higher wages.

  • avatar
    dts187

    Let me get this out of the way: I like the look and idea of this truck. I just don’t know that it will work. I don’t think GM can keep the price low enough. Sure the Chevy guys might buy one in lieu of a Silverado if they want to save a little bit money or have a smaller truck. But, for anyone outside of that, Ram or Ford will sell you a more capable and powerful full size for the same price or only a couple thousand more.

    The sheer volume of full size sales allows the margins to be lower. Unless the diesel gets incredible fuel economy and can be had at a relatively lower cost, I expect this truck to fade away from the market after two or three refreshes.

    The one saving grace could be fleet sales. Most every Colorado or Canyon I see (I live in truck country in the mountains of WV so I see more trucks than any other vehicle) are white fleet specials. Usually auto parts delivery or a light-duty truck for one of the Oil&Gas companies. The new Colorado could be a very low cost option for light work rather than stepping up to a full size for these businesses.

    I hope I’m wrong. I really do. I would love for my next truck to be a diesel midsize that gets nearly 30mpg on the highway for under $28k. But I just don’t see it.

    For now I’ll somehow have to manage in my brand new Ram 1500 4×4 with only 395 horsepower that I got for under $28k out the door.

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      I think that’s where you’re wrong, dts; I fully expect even Ford and Ram people who have been wanting something smaller will take to this–assuming that neither of them announces their own smaller truck between now and the release-to-showroom date of this Colorado. The point is that for some people, money alone isn’t the issue; size is. That, and the impression that it is American Made instead of an obvious foreign import (even when that ‘foreigner’ is more American-made than the American brand). If Ford or Ram don’t introduce a smaller truck, only those who are total fans of the brand will ignore the Colorado. As an example, I’m pretty much agnostic when it comes to which brand of truck I’ll buy, though I happen to like the looks of the Ram the best. However, the smallest Ram is much bigger than I want and until this Chevy hits the roads, the Toyota Tacoma comes closest to what i really want in a truck; though even there I’m not dead-set on owning one. I’m willing to wait–a short time anyway. The F-150 I’m currently driving will be a legal Antique in less than a year, at which point as long as I keep it in decent physical and mechanical condition the market value can’t get worse (though it may not get any better, either). I’ll then have something to trade in that will at least take some of the pain of the high price of a smaller pickup away with it.

  • avatar
    mnm4ever

    I like having a truck but what stops me is the crappy around town mileage. I have been whining for years about why the domestics don’t offer a small diesel, so if the city MPG is in the 20s, I will put my money where my mouth is and buy one.

    For now I borrow my dad’s full size Chevy when I need a truck. He works his truck hard and his Chevy runs as good as new, 137k of hard miles hasn’t ruined it yet. But it really is too dang big, I can deal with it but I do not need the size. I want a truck that can make Home Depot runs and I will use it as a daily driver so I want a crew cab, but the hardest part is I want to be able to tow a car on occasion. If this truck can handle it then it will be perfect. I see a few comparisons to the full sized WT, the problem there is I insist on a crew cab which ups the price considerably.

    I also like the looks of this truck. Mine will get the full urban cowboy treatment too: lift kit, big black wheels, flares. bedliner’d trim, etc. Yeah I am that guy LOL


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

  • Contributing Writers

  • Jack Baruth, United States
  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Vojta Dobes, Czech Republic
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Cameron Aubernon, United States
  • J Emerson, United States