By on January 12, 2014

cyn16

 

So, it’s mechanically identical to the Colorado. But it comes in brown.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

120 Comments on “2015 GMC Canyon Revealed...”


  • avatar
    Phillip Thomas

    I’ll be first to say it.

    “HNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNG”

    • 0 avatar
      Skink

      I like the GMC grille, but the rectilinear wheel arch blisters conflict with the rake implied by the windowsills, and with the downward slope of the top edge of the box. Then again, I hate the Chevy car front end. Botched Chevy. Botched GMC.

  • avatar
    Vulpine

    Smaller than full size, but is it small enough? I don’t think so.

  • avatar
    APaGttH

    The three GMC flavors side by side helps put this into perspective. Is this Honda Ridgeline in size?

    • 0 avatar
      CJinSD

      It is Honda Ridgeline in appearance. Who knew that the Ridgeline’s styling was worth cloning?

      • 0 avatar
        th009

        That was my first thought, too. And I sure didn’t think so.

        The Colorado looks much better to my eyes.

        • 0 avatar
          Pch101

          GMC does seem to have gone overboard with the conservative look.

          The US-spec Chevy is the most attractive variant, in my opinion. The global Colorado borrows the front end look of the cars, and that doesn’t really work, either.

          • 0 avatar
            mike978

            Good job they have two brands, so those who like the “conservative” look can get this. And those that don`t can get the Chevy. If they looked identical then there would have been more complaints about why have both brands.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            The Chevy appears to be well proportioned. The GMC seems to be suffering from an inferiority complex, a smaller truck that wishes that it was bigger.

            Conservative is fine, but this pushes things a bit, in my opinion. Not that it matters all that much; the small truck market is not exactly a booming segment.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            @Pch101
            I actually agree with you on something.

            I think the Chev’s styling gives it the nicest front end of any pickup.

          • 0 avatar
            OldandSlow

            There’s two brands that GM is feeding. For the Condo and Townhouse Cowboys – we have a little bit of extra bling on the outside and a few Denali-esque features inside.

            According to the press release – only the GMC Canyon All-Terrain will have an available two speed transfer case. The Chevy Colorado Z71 will not.

          • 0 avatar
            kmoney

            +1. This truck looks like a kid trying to wear his father’s suit. I get truck buyers want big vehicles, but I’ve never understood why manufacturers insist on “puffing” out the proportions of what could otherwise be sleek and good looking vehicles.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            @kmoney
            ‘I get truck buyers want a big truck’.

            What to SUV/CUV buyers want? That is what most pickups are.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            The Global Colorado has a much more aerodynamic nose. I’m betting worth another 10% in fuel mileage by comparison. I will admit I like the looks of the Chevy a little better than the GMC here, but the GMC family resemblance is much better presented compared to Chevy.

          • 0 avatar

            That may be, but the Chevy full-size trucks are hideously ugly, so I’m glad the Colorado bears little resemblance to them. They’re so hilariously over-masculine they may as well come from the factory with Tap-Out stickers on the rear glass and Axe body spray in the door pockets. Copy of “The Game” instead of an owner’s manual. You get what I’m saying.

      • 0 avatar
        tonycd

        My reaction exactly. Given that the Ridgeline reportedly is going to be moved a bit in the direction of other pickups in appearance, it’d be amusing if the two turned out to look like clones after all the years of the Ridgeline getting ripped as the Aztek of pickups.

    • 0 avatar
      FuzzyPlushroom

      First one to Photoshop in a last-generation 4×4 Sonoma, to scale, wins a No-Prize.

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    I prefer the Chev’s styling to this overly conservative look. I think the Chev Colorado along with the global Ranger and Amarok are now the best looking pickups globally.

    The grilles are my gripe, way to big. If you want a truck, buy a Mack or Kenworth. What 2.5 litre engine requires 70 square foot of grille?

    Placing the aesthetics aside.

    Full size trucks have become a replacement SUV in the US market for many and especially the profit makers for the Big 2 and Fiat. Fiat is now the only full size pickup manufacturer who doesn’t have a ladder frame midsizer available (poor decision Sergio, look at the Rampage concept and place it on a ladder frame and call it a Dodge).

    With the promotion of favourable bias towards full size trucks in the US this has left a huge gap in the US midsize market. You guys have been left with two poor representations of what currently available globally with the Taco and Frontier.

    Really, look at the previous US Ranger, I know it had a place in your market and some hearts. The reality was it’s overall performance was marginally better than a lawn tractor.

    Who would buy a Taco or Frontier as a replacement for a midsize SUV/CUV? The Frontier and Taco might be acceptable, but are nowhere near as refined as these Colorado/Canyon will be. They are not competitive enough to be a serious midsize SUV/CUV replacement option.

    Full size pickups have advanced in refinement to the point where they are refined enough to replace large SUVs/CUVs. This full size pickup market opinion can be proven by the demographics and style/quantities of full sizers currently sold.

    The Colorado/Canyon will now offer potential midsize SUV/CUV customers the same refinement as full size SUV/CUV customers.

    A decent alternative.

    All you guys have to do now is remove CAFE, Chicken Tax, restricive and anti competitive diesel regulations and you could have a very competitive midsize market with the likes of the Amarok, Ranger, BT50, etc. Real midsize SUV/CUV alternatives.

    But that is a pipe dream. Real and fair competition benefits the consumer.

    Don’t look at all midsize sales as full size competition, some will be. Like SUVs/CUVs not all want a V8 large vehicle. That’s the pickup market now. Your pickup market is what our ute market was supposed to be a vehicle that could go to church on a Sunday and take produce to the market on Monday. Your pickups have morphed into a ute.

  • avatar
    mjz

    Good looking truck. Love the brown color. Do wish it was smaller. If not priced too close to the full-size trucks, should be a big success.

  • avatar
    mikey

    Looks good! It does look a bit Honda Ridgeline. I assume were looking at B.O.F.

    I wonder if they will bring out an SUV version?

  • avatar
    Loser

    This is one of the few times I prefer the Chevy appearance over the GMC. Compared to the exterior the interior looks small to me.

  • avatar
    OldandSlow

    I’ll wait until the GM twin mid-sizers have been out for a year. The concept looks sound – but knock on wood – let’s pray that the execution is done well.

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      @OldandSlow
      I think and hopefully GM has listened to the reviews/complaints of the global Colorado.

      The global Colorado’s were one peg down from the Amarok/Ranger/BT50 and one step up from the Hilux. They just weren’t competitive enough for the new global midsizers in refinement. Poor interior and ride. Great off road.

      The interior styling of these US twins looks much better as does the exterior styling. Hopefully GM fixed up the steering issue’s and refined the suspension a little.

      If GM has paid attention to those few things and build quality is good they will be a hit.

      The 2.8 diesel when it comes out would provide real competition for the guys who want to tow up to a few tons every now and then as well.

      This might force Ford to bring in the global Ranger as well. Toyota and Nissan will also produce very competitive vehicles.

      I bet the new Frontier’s/Navara’s will be fitted with the ISF 2.8 Cummins diesels as well. That would make them more attractive for the US market.

      The pickup market in the US will heat up.

      • 0 avatar
        mkirk

        I think the Frontier/Navarra diesel in the US market will be pegged to the success of the upcoming Titan with the 5.0 Cummins.

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al from Oz

          @mkirk
          With CAFE the way it is midsizer will need as much help as they can get with FE, more so than a full size 1/2 ton.

          A diesel midsizer will almost become a must, unless they make them out of aluminium.

          But, with the global pickups I can’t see this occurring. Cost comes into it.

          Hopefully that will leave us in Australia with cheaper ‘steel’ pickups.

          Even if the US doesn’t receive the ISF Cummins we’ll hopefully get them in our midsizers.

          Cummins has done great work with them. 200hp and 380ftlb of torque and 30mpg in the current Nissan Titan, add a few mpg’s for the Navara/Frontier.

  • avatar
    Lie2me

    ” Can you name the truck with four wheel drive,
    Smells like a steak, and seats thirty five?
    Canyonero! Canyonero!

    Well, it goes real slow with the hammer down,
    It’s the country-fried truck endorsed by a clown,
    Canyonero! Canyonero!”

    I wonder if Crusty the Clown is available for an advertising campaign ala Ron Burgandy

  • avatar
    Andy D

    Geeze, wabbout a 6cyl 5 spd , ala 64 F 100, Or a Chevy C 10 ?

  • avatar
    Z71_Silvy

    This really shows how incredibly stupid Ford was for insisting that the size of the F150 isn’t the issue, it’s the weight. So while Ford will be letting their customers deal with the headaches of beta testing their aluminum experiment with tiny, high strung engines, GM will be printing cash with these.

    The Colorado is stunning enough but the Canyon is yet a step up.

    Hopefully Dodge will do extremely well with the eco diesel and with the small twins from GM, we can knock Ford off of their best selling vehicle for 30 odd years (because of fleet sales) high horse!

    • 0 avatar
      Monty

      Seriously, what did FoMoCo do to you or your family? I understand disliking a company/corporation, but your hate borders on pathological, so I really do wonder what Ford did to earn your eternal hate and biliousness.

      I’m seriously curious. You sound like my mother and her hate for Kraft Foods, which turned out to be something from her depression era childhood and how the buying agent screwed over the local dairy farmers. And she retains that hate to this day.

      Care to share?

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        Some people just don’t feel good about themselves unless they have something or someone to hate.

        Just be thankful that he chose a brand of car, rather than a group of humans.

        youtube.com/watch?v=UlzaBi_QxPw

      • 0 avatar
        Z71_Silvy

        Not a thing. I just like to call out dumb, misguided companies that are run by fools.

        • 0 avatar
          Monty

          Now you’re evading the answer! Seriously, man, I’m not calling you out on this, or intending this as mockery of any sort. I am truly curious what sparked your absolute hatred for all things Ford.

          General Motors was just as dumb and misguided as Ford over the past three decades, yet your vitriol is saved for Ford only.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            Forgetting brand loyalties or personal preferences, Ford has been a much better managed company than GM during recent years. It’s hilarious for anyone to claim the opposite — Mulally is obviously a strong CEO.

    • 0 avatar
      mkirk

      Right, because Ford has such a history of screwing up the F series launches. But in all seriousness, I just don’t see a bunch of people saying “Man, I want a midsize truck but that Tacoma and Frontier are garbage so I’m not going to buy anything” This may enjoy some conquest sales from the Taco and Frontier, but if it sells in large numbers it will be at the expense of the GM Fullsize trucks IMHO and I doubt GM is going to allow that to happen. Contrary to a few posters beliefs, there is not a giant pent up demand for a midsize truck in this country. In fact I bet they would have sold more with a true compact. This is just too close to full-size territory and Tacoma buyers tend to be a loyal bunch…Think typical full-size buyer.

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        A recent article in Automotive News noted that Ford Ranger owners who are currently in the market were more likely to shop for Toyota Tacomas than for Ford F-150s.

        I suspect that most compact/midsize truck buyers are either married to the niche, or else are considering different types of vehicles altogether, such as crossovers, SUVs and even regular passenger cars. A lot of them are not just buying them for the cargo bed.

        GM’s problem is not one of cannibalization, but of finding customers. Demand for this segment is plummeting, and Toyota owns most of who is left. A lot of those buyers are brand loyal, and aren’t going to switch.

        • 0 avatar
          Z71_Silvy

          Ford said Ranger owners want a Fiesta or a Focus.

          And this whole silly notion that this will steal sales away from GMs full size trucks is incredibly shortsighted. It will take sales away from the entire full size market.

          The conquest rate will be very high from owners of Ford/Dodge trucks that want something that’s not huge but still is as versatile as a pickup.

          I’ll be trading my Ram in for one.

          This segment has the potential to grow significantly. But the product has to be right. Ford doesn’t know how to do trucks, especially small ones. Dodge gave up on the Dakota…and rightfully so. And the others were just not updated.

          Look at what happened with traditional SUVs and the SUVs they now call crossovers (because SUV isn’t PC anymore).

          Same thing is going to happen with trucks. A VAST majority of pickup owners use their trucks for one thing….hauling people. They don’t do actual work

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al from Oz

          Pch101
          Are you an analyst?

          If you are you misrepresent facts and you have difficulty trending data.

          An article in Reuters reported that they suspect full size pickups sales will increase marginally up to 2016 and midsize sales will increase by 33%.

          Some analyst named Stover was the only one who has your biased views ;)

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            Midsize truck sales will obviously increase more over the next two years. With GM introducing two new midsized trucks, total units have nowhere to go but up. If RAM sat out the large truck market for a few years than brought the RAM back, you would see very high growth in that segment too.

            I do like the Colorado/Canyon twins. I hope it makes Ford bring the Ranger over, but I doubt it.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            “With GM introducing two new midsized trucks, total units have nowhere to go but up.”

            The small truck market has lost significant market share. As of 2012, it was about 2%; there are actually more Americans buying vehicles with manual transmissions than there are buying smaller trucks.

            It may enjoy a year or two of decent sales as they satisfy pent-up demand, but I wouldn’t expect much after that. This is likely to be a lackluster vehicle for GMNA. This ain’t Field of Dreams — just because you build it doesn’t mean that they have to come.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            Pch-

            We agree. If midsize sales increase 33% over the next two years, thats because a third company actually makes a midsized truck. The analyst forecasts are basically assuming Toyota and Nissan continue to sell what they do and GM hits their goals. After that, who knows..

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            “If midsize sales increase 33% over the next two years, thats because a third company actually makes a midsized truck.”

            I’m not sure where you’re getting your 33% figure from. But even if it that proves to be correct, that doesn’t translate into high sales figures.

            From Automotive News:

            “U.S. sales of the Colorado totaled 36,840 in 2012, down from a peak of 128,359 in 2005. IHS forecasts 60,346 Colorado sales in 2015, the new generation’s first full year on the market. LMC Automotive projects 50,017 Colorado sales that year.”

            http://www.autonews.com/article/20131120/OEM04/131119868/chevy-banks-on-mid-sized-pickup-comeback-with-2015-colorado

            Those numbers aren’t good – 50-60k is not very impressive at all, particularly for a low-cost vehicle like this.

            With expectations that low, it’s surprising that they’d even bother to offer it at all. GM’s internal numbers must be aggressively optimistic.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            @Pch101
            There is a reason why I tackle you, you should have treated me with respect with your very first comment to me.

            You seem to have preconceived ideas of an outcome. You then create a story to meet what you think rather use real data and information.

            This tends to distort.

            Most of what you offer is grey and fuzzy.

            Below is a comment from another site I made.
            ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

            If you read these comments from the so called experts and GM (subjective??) it sort of matches up to what several of us bloggers at PUTC has been discussing.

            The full article is in the link at the bottom of my post.

            …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

            Executives at the No. 1 U.S. automaker are counting on the 2015 Canyon pickup when it debuts in the fall to be a “true conquest machine” that will attract full-size truck owners from rival brands. Target buyers include those who want something smaller and people who currently drive crossover vehicles but want the utility of a truck.

            ……………………………………
            CROWDED TRUCK SEGMENT

            While large pickup sales are expected to rise only slightly from 2013 to 2016, midsize pickups will see sales increase by more than a third, according to research firm LMC Automotive. The leader in the mid-sized truck segment is Toyota Motor Corp’s (7203.T) Tacoma.

            ……………………………………

            http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/12/us-autoshow-gm-canyon-idUSBREA0B02E20140112

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            I was just using Big Al’s numbers. I don’t know where he go them from though.

            There were 226K midsized trucks sold in the US this year. Adding 50K units with the Colorado would be a 22% increase.

          • 0 avatar
            Monty

            @Pch101 – I wonder what percent of the market I represent with my Ford Ranger equipped with a manual transmission?

            The market is small for small trucks, so 33% (or 22%, or whatever the figure really is) will be a small increase in number, although represented by a large percentage increase.

            I think General Motors is being overly positive, and we may see a large transaction price drop by the summer if the Canyon/Colorado twins aren’t selling at GM’s predicted numbers.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            “The market is small for small trucks, so 33% (or 22%, or whatever the figure really is) will be a small increase in number, although represented by a large percentage increase.”

            Exactly. Percentages in a vacuum don’t mean much. Costs get amortized through unit count, and there aren’t a lot of units here.

            “I think General Motors is being overly positive, and we may see a large transaction price drop by the summer if the Canyon/Colorado twins aren’t selling at GM’s predicted numbers.”

            I won’t try to predict transaction prices, but I would agree that overall volumes won’t be that impressive. The segment suffers from a demand problem, not from a supply problem.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            @Pch101
            Again, you twist data and spin. Really.

            You should work for Ruggles.

            Trying to trivialise when you are wrong, egocentric are we?

            Data and trending is data and trending.

            How many vehicles? From the sounds of the article I presented (as opposed to you opinion) a MINIMUM of a third is projected..

            The US sells about 200k midsizers a year. So a minimum of 66 000 vehicles isn’t to be laughed at.

            No is predicting a white wash of full size trucks.

            I trend data as well for a living. Give me your email address and I can give you some online courses to help you interpret trends.

            These courses will also help you invest.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            @Pch101: You appear to be ignoring one factor… Between 2005 and 2012 we were pretty much in a global recession, where sales of all kinds of vehicles sank rapidly. Considering a number of other factors–one of which Ford specifically addressed–it’s no wonder sales of mid-sized trucks fell off so far. That was a 75% drop on a vehicle that ran almost unchanged due to the company itself effectively going bankrupt.

            However, our economy appears on the rebound as far as truck sales are concerned and quite honestly there isn’t an American-branded mid-sized truck available to take advantage of it. Many of the mid-size buyers either fought in WWII or grew up under parents who fought in that war and still have some level of prejudice against the Japanese. Some of them still see Japanese vehicles as either cheap, flimsy econoboxes or they see them as a Japanese economic invasion in an effort to win the war they lost militarily. Yet others–a lot of others–simply want an American branded version because of their National Conceit that America makes the best of everything.

            How well will the new Canyon sell? We can only guess. Personally, I hope it proves all the naysayers wrong and wipes out the majority of the CUV market. I think the problem IS one of supply and not demand.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            You seem to be unaware of the concept of market share.

            The percentage of US vehicle buyers who want small trucks has plummeted. Which is to say that a smaller proportion of those who buy new vehicles are choosing to buy small trucks; increasing proportions of them are buying something else.

            Vehicle buyers are clearly losing interest in the segment, while the rate of buyers who choose crossovers is increasing. There is no debating this; the market share numbers make this abundantly clear.

            But since you never look at numbers, you wouldn’t possibly know this. You always argue from gut feeling, and never from fact.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            I am fully cognizant of the term “Market Share” and very aware that market share changes as the market itself changes. I acknowledge that the Market Share of compact pickup trucks is currently very small–then again, I discussed several reasons about why just above. However, that market share CAN change with new products. Just because full-sized trucks hold about 90% of the current market of all pickup trucks in the US, their global market share is far smaller; proving there is a demand for smaller trucks. It’s only we Americans that really want these Road Whales™. Bring us an American mid-size and it’s very possible that full-sized trucks may lose some of that market share to the mid-sized pickup trucks simply by those same smaller trucks decimating the CUV market–making the overall pickup-truck share balloon by comparison.

            It doesn’t matter WHERE the mid-sized trucks steal their niche, so long as they do so. You say that the percentage of buyers are losing interest but you ignore the fact that most of those buyers bought smaller SUVs and CUVs simply because their product of choice was taken away from them. But YOU are unwilling to imagine that people who are now driving some other sort of vehicle MIGHT want a pickup truck–just not a Road Whale™.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            The market share is declining.

            Research suggests that full-size truck buyers are generally not interested in downsizing.

            Other research shows that buyers of smaller trucks aren’t necessarily interested in larger trucks, either. The fact that both size classes have beds attached to the back doesn’t necessarily mean that one size class is considered to be a substitute for the other.

            The problem with these sorts of discussions is that you are orienting your position based upon your own personal preferences, instead of what the market wants and doesn’t want. And the market just doesn’t share your fascination with smaller trucks.

            Bummer for you, I guess, but your tastes just aren’t shared by that many people. This is your version of the manual transmission diesel station wagon, beloved by you but not by enough new vehicle buyers to matter.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            And yet again you ignore my point.
            Prove to me that the market share of global-sized pickup trucks is declining. In what countries OTHER than the US are their numbers being replaced by larger models? In other words, your definition of “market share” and mine are two different things.

            You’re assuming that the “Market” is a static figure. Let’s say just for example’s sake that the market is one million pickup trucks. Now, as long as you maintain that assumption, an increase in full-size sales automatically means a decrease in compact sales. Conversely, a decrease in compact sales automatically means an increase in full-size sales. Over the last 8 years this appears to be true. However, that ignores the fact that the market itself was depressed to the point that certain models were cancelled due to falling overall numbers combined with keeping the models that offer the most profit.

            Of course, now that the economy has stabilized and started to grow, more people are buying cars than have been for the last 8 years. As such, the market itself has grown. However, as there are fewer smaller pickup trucks available and more compact SUVs AND demand for higher gas mileage has gone up, people are buying more economical vehicles unless they have an absolute NEED for carrying capacity OR they need that big truck to satisfy their low self esteem. Typically, it’s the low self-esteem type that can’t understand why anyone would even WANT something smaller. Now, with the advent of a new American smaller truck, this sort believes it will be a total failure except in certain, artificially-limited markets that have little bearing on the general public. This is where I believe they are wrong.

            Why would somebody that has a need to carry unusual loads BUT has a much stronger need for high gas mileage buy a truck that gets 1/3rd to ½ the gas mileage when their need to carry those unusual loads may only occur once or twice per year? Why should they pay up to twice as much per year for fuel just so they can carry that occasional load. Taking that into mind, they buy what they really need rather than something that only meets an occasional need. THAT is why the mid-sized SUV/CUV market has exploded. Add to this that the current round of mid-sized pickup trucks only barely have better economy than the full-sized trucks, and the mid-sized pickup market slips even farther. BUT… If a mid-sized truck came out with SUV fuel economy, those who really wanted a truck can now get both the load-carrying ability AND the economy they need. Combine this with a price about 20% cheaper than the full-sized models (or about the same as those SUVs) and those mid-sized trucks see a market explosion which nibbles at the overall pickup truck market but destroys a huge chunk of the SUV market.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            The auto industry may be a hobby to you. But to the automakers who need to turn a profit, it’s not just a hobby — they have to make money in order to stay in business.

            If demand for a product is falling, there is rarely any justification to bet heavily against the trendline. The market share is falling, and it isn’t the job of automakers to try to rescue a dying segment that is dominated by one entrenched, well-capitalized player (in this case, Toyota.)

            Why should the automakers gamble a billion dollars or more just to please you and your whims? You just aren’t worth it.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            Hmmm… Where, in this discussion, did I say the auto industry was a hobby? Rather, I have stated in my general profile that transportation as a whole is a hobby; I look at the BIG PICTURE, not tiny little niches. But that’s beside the point, PCH101.

            You have intentionally blinded yourself to the many reasons WHY a given market falls. Where are the gigantic barges we once called ‘full sized cars’? The biggest car available today for the average consumer is little larger than the so-called ‘compact’ of 1960. The Ford Falcon, the Chevy Nova, the Dodge Dart–all of these share a very similar length and wheelbase to the Fusion, the Cruze and the 300. Granted, their technologies have changed a lot and the new cars are much more economical and performy than those old ones. The old Galaxy, Impala and Diplomat are gone–even the nameplates effectively dead. Who’s to say that the exact same thing won’t happen to pickup trucks? But again, that’s beside the point.

            You simply want to believe that there cannot be a market for mid-sized trucks because you don’t want to see a resurgence of the compact truck market. Why, I don’t know. You want to believe that the short-term death of a class means there’s no demand for that class and stagnant sales of foreign-branded models to you emphasizes that perception despite mitigating circumstances such as the many-times-reported lack of the current manufacturers’ efforts to upgrade and improve those vehicles. Simply put, the manufacturers don’t want to spend money on a vehicle that doesn’t make that much profit compared to their full-sized siblings.

            On the other hand, GM is bringing out a model that portends to be smaller, lighter and significantly more economical than their full-sized models. What we don’t know for sure is whether those smaller trucks will demonstrate a significant-enough improvement to make the effort worthwhile. If they demonstrate an improvement in excess of 35%, they could easily spark a mass migration from large and expensive to smaller and more affordable. They could, as I’ve now said twice before, blow out the SUV market itself.

            I’m not saying they WILL do it, but if they demonstrate enough of a sea change in pickup truck technology, they could change the entire automotive market here in the US.

            As for what I personally want?
            First choice: A Jeep Wrangler-based pickup so I have all-weather hauling capability with superior off-road capability (Yes, I know about the Raptor fans–I also know about the Raptor’s bent frames. I don’t want a race truck, but one that’s able to work under ALL conditions).
            Second choice: A truly compact pickup truck or at least one no larger than the ’80′s vintage S-10/Ranger (even the Dakota was too big when it was introduced). With a true 4×4 it would be acceptable, but not as much fun as the Wrangler truck.
            Why? With either of these vehicles, I would then be able to buy whichever ‘toy’ car the wife decided on, whether that be Beetle, Mini or 500 (or whatever other micro car grabs her fancy). As it is, I have a Jeep Wrangler that gives me 17 city, 21+ highway. I have an F-150 that gives me 12 city (if I’m lucky) and 19+ highway. Both are poor for economy but one is capable of driving any time, anywhere I need to go while the other is only capable of fair weather, dry road load carrying. Both can get me to the in-law’s on a single fill-up–at a minimum of 21 gallons round trip and with the truck it works out to more like 26 gallons round trip. Almost any other CAR on the market could do it on 16 gallons or less. That, by the way, is a difference of $17-$35 per trip. That might now sound like much to you, but when you’re on a budget, that money can be better used elsewhere.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            Eeesh.

            This isn’t really that complicated — the segment is not large or profitable enough to be exciting to the auto industry.

            If the volumes are low, then the difference has to be made up with margins. Unfortunately for you, there aren’t enough truck buyers to deliver the necessary volumes, and they won’t pay enough to produce the margin.

            This is a very basic business problem that shouldn’t produce a lot of emotional angst. Not enough customers, prices are too low — it’s really as simple as that.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            You’re making assumptions based on insufficient and obsolete data. You can’t know if there enough customers or not until they come out of the closet. I personally know a LOT of SUV drivers that wish they could find a new, more compact pickup truck. Why do they drive the SUVs? Because, as I said, they don’t want the high cost and the SIZE of the full-sized truck.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            I know that this will surprise you, but nobody spends several hundred million dollars launching a product without forecasting sales and price points.

            Only a fool would ignore the data and trumpet a sky’s-the-limit mentality, particularly when the sky is obviously falling.

            Again, you want to bet against the trendline based upon your gut, i.e. a whole lot of nothing. In the real world, the automakers can’t afford to gamble like buffoons, particularly when we have reams of data that show that the customers aren’t going to pay very much.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            @Pch101: You’ve hoisted yourself on your own petard.

            “… nobody spends several hundred million dollars launching a product without forecasting sales and price points.”

            If this is true, then WHY has GM done so? Why, if you’re so certain there is no market for it, has GM brought not one, but TWO midsize pickup trucks into a vanishing market? For all your insistence that “people just don’t want smaller trucks” and overbearing efforts to make my logic look illogical, you’ve displayed your own lack of logic. You proved my case for me.

            Thank you.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            Unfortunately, GM has a long track record of making bad business decisions, and this appear to be yet another one of those bad decisions. Chasing volume at the expense of profit is a nasty, recurring theme in the company’s history — you may recall that we just lost $10 billion bailing it out of bankruptcy — and it looks as if it is doing it again.

            Ford is a much better managed operation overall, and it’s staying out of the segment. That looks like the smarter decision.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            Again, obsolete data. Those bad business decisions were made by CEOs who are long gone. GM has seen significant growth since their departure. It’s not that I disagree with that historical data–they killed off brands and models they should have kept and kept models they should have dumped. But the last bad decision came during the bankruptcy itself when they divested themselves of two of their more popular brands–each popular for different reasons but each also crippled by prior bad decisions.

            For whatever reason, you want to ignore that GM ALSO dropped its mid-sized truck and obviously for more than just a single year. Also, like Ford, they’d not done much to improve that mid-sized truck before they dropped it–the platform itself almost 10 years old and effectively obsolete. Also, like Ford, they’d built the thing to be too close to the size of the then-existing full sized truck and as such pretty much killed their own market for it. Ford’s excuse is legitimate–but rather than fixing the problem to re-build the market, they’re trying to turn the F-150 into a “one size fits all” platform that simply can not work. GM at least is making the new Colorado/Canyon a little bit smaller to refresh that so-called ‘dying market’.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            These are the same guys who just botched up the Malibu. And that’s a segment that actually matters.

          • 0 avatar
            geeber

            Vulpine: “Many of the mid-size buyers either fought in WWII or grew up under parents who fought in that war and still have some level of prejudice against the Japanese. Some of them still see Japanese vehicles as either cheap, flimsy econoboxes or they see them as a Japanese economic invasion in an effort to win the war they lost militarily. Yet others–a lot of others–simply want an American branded version because of their National Conceit that America makes the best of everything.”

            The remaining World War II veterans are in their 90s, with a few in their late 80s, and most of their children are in their late 60s.

            Neither group is driving the new-vehicle market in the United States, and hasn’t done so for at least the last 15 years. How many new cars do people in their 90s buy?

            Have you seen how many 50- and 60-something adults are driving around in Toyota Camrys and Corollas? I would hope and pray that GM isn’t depending on anti-Japanese sentiment to boost sales of these pick-ups.

            The idea that the Japanese churn out flimsy tin cans went out of fashion by the early 1990s, at a minimum, in this country.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            Indeed, it is more than a little bit silly to hope that grudge carriers from the Greatest Generation are going to save the small truck market from itself.

            Vehicle classes rise and fall in popularity. It happens.

            As it turns out, a lot of the factors that spurred the mini truck boom are now gone, so they have lost their relevance.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            You two are too funny. What makes you think YOU know what the buying market really wants?

            I am a child of a WWII vet and I’m certainly NOT in my late 60s. Nor are many of the people I talk to who frequently complain that they want a MUCH SMALLER pickup truck–smaller even than the Tacoma. In fact, I just spoke to another one (I didn’t even bring up the subject they did) today between my last comment here and this one. They were surprised to learn the new Canyon/Colorado was coming out but still wished it were smaller.

            You, geeber, mention how many 50s and 60s are driving Camrys and Corollas yet totally ignore how many are driving Jeeps, pickup trucks, Camaros, Mustangs, etc. People in my age range still buy what they want, not just some conservative little econobox. Even my step-father, at 87 years old, drives a stick-shift ’92 Ranger. My father-in-law, much closer to my own age, drives whatever he can get his hands on but currently LOVES my old Saturn Vue for its performance, economy and remarkable load-carrying ability. He’s told me he’d rather have a Ranger or an S-10, but the standing market for used models is simply higher than he’s willing to pay.

            You know what you like and want and I accept that; but don’t go thinking you know what everybody else likes and wants. That’s part of why the US automotive market is in such straits–in reducing costs they’ve reduced choice–killing features and models that customers really want. It may be time to bring back a-la-carte ordering.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            You’re definitely a guy who won’t allow facts to get in the way of an argument.

            Automakers need to make money. Mistakes of this magnitude cost hundreds of millions of dollars, far more money then you’ll ever see.

            You’re just a fanboy, so you don’t need to worry about it. But there are other people whose decisions do matter, and even the most optimistic ones among them don’t have your high expectations.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            What “high expectations”? What assumption are you making now based on what you THINK you know of me?

            All I’ve been saying is that I believe the mid-sized trucks will do better than you want to believe and now you’re acting like I’ve said they’ll take over the pickup truck market.

            Learn how to read and learn how to reason–you keep killing your own arguments!

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            “All I’ve been saying is that I believe the mid-sized trucks will do better than you want to believe”

            And your position is based upon a complete fiction, which cannot be justified by anything in the real world.

            It’s all in your head: This whole argument of yours is rooted strictly in your imagination, and nothing else.

            The people who disagree with you are using facts. In contrast, you shout down, ignore and otherwise refuse to understand anything that interferes with your automotive dreamland. Your position is totally unreasonable, i.e. lacking in reason, so there isn’t much reason to cling to it.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            So now you’re saying nobody in the entire world is buying mid-sized and smaller pickup trucks.
            “… a complete fiction, which cannot be justified by anything in the real world.”

            You’re saying your facts carry more weight than my facts, despite the fact that facts are facts.
            “The people who disagree with you are using facts.”

            You’re saying I, “… refuse to understand anything that interferes with your automotive dreamland,” when I have offered extremely reasonable and logical arguments that prove that YOURS is the dreamland–especially when you consider that at least one automaker is actively refuting your views by re-entering a market that they feel is valid–despite your “facts”; rather, blaming them for making another expensive mistake that will come to nothing. It seems that YOU are refusing to acknowledge even the possibility that they may be right.

            “Your position is totally unreasonable, i.e. lacking in reason, so there isn’t much reason to cling to it.” You’ve made your bed; now lie in it. You’d better pray that you’re right, because you’re going to have a lot of egg on your face if you are wrong.

            I’ve acknowledged that every one of my arguments are possibilities based on many different factors, not one or two somewhat questionable analyses that even you refute. I’ve never said mid-sized trucks WILL, I’ve always said they MAY. You flat insist they CAN’T–with absolutely no evidence to prove it.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            I can see that this is going well.

            Of course, there are a few customers. But they aren’t enough customers who are willing to pay high enough prices to make it worthwhile.

            If minitruck buyers were willing to pay $35k+ or more, for example, then it could be a different story; the high margins would make up for the lack of volume.

            But combining low volume with low prices is a recipe for failure. It’s a business, not a charity, and the profit potential has to be high enough to be worth the risk.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            How how much are these mid-sized (not mini-) trucks selling for? Their prices on average are only about $7000 below the price of equivalent full-sized trucks for each platform type–standard/extended/crew-cab. Yes, some of those mid-sized trucks are reaching the $35K mark, too–the price you say they’re not willing to pay.

            Well, there I may agree with you; I’m not willing to pay $35,000 for a pickup truck of any size when I can get almost the same capabilities in an SUV that’s $10,000 cheaper. That’s WHY the SUV market is so huge! It’s like Apples and Androids–Androids have taken over the smartphone market because they’re half the price of the Apple and are almost as good (some say they’re better). So your price argument has some validity–but maybe not in the way you were hoping. On the other hand, $30K for a mid-sized, extended cab truck with a six-foot bed is a much better fit for me and for those not willing to pay the exorbitant full-size prices.

            Interestingly, a 10-year-old Ford Ranger can still command $12K-$15K in good condition; that for your idea that there’s no market for them.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            There are so many problems with your approach that it’s hard to know where to begin.

            First of all, I’m going to call BS on your $7,000 figure. Provide a link to back that up.

            For another, the average transaction price of a full-size domestic pickup is just under $40,000. For your $7,000 figure to be correct, that would assume that (a) compact trucks are selling for prices that exceed the national average for cars and (b) are pretty much being sold all fully loaded, as that price is at the top of their MSRP ranges. Which is to say that your $7,000 figure is obviously wrong.

            For another, $7,000 per unit is a lot of money. To claim that the difference is “only” $7,000 betrays your lack of knowledge of what is needed to make a profit.

            And you also miss the boat by comparing it to full-size trucks. The issue isn’t how it compares to one specific segment, but to other opportunities in the lineup.

            Let’s say that you’re Ford. If you discontinue the Ranger, you’ll have two kinds of former Ranger customers: customers who you keep and customers who you lose. The ones who you keep will buy something else in your lineup, while the others will defect.

            The ones who you keep will obviously be buying some other vehicle that you already make. Because you’re already making that vehicle, the marginal profit on that vehicle is improved by the increased amortization provided by the former Ranger customer.

            If you’re in Ford’s position, the question becomes one of the value of the customers kept vs the customers who were lost but who would have been kept had you offered them a new Ranger. (There are also those who you would have lost anyway, but they aren’t relevant to this particular discussion.) Chances are that the purchases made by the customers who you keep will be more valuable than they would have been had they bought another Ranger, since you were able to get their money without going to the trouble of building them a special low price, low volume truck.

            On the other hand, the customers who you lost weren’t spending enough money to bother keeping. Some customers aren’t worth the cost.

            There’s your truck problem in a nutshell. The truck buyers produce lots of added cost, since they demand this low cost vehicle and wont buy very many of them. It’s better for some of those customers to buy something else that you already have and to lose the rest, than it is to spend a bunch of money making a special truck to keep all of them but then sell to them at a low price.

            When there isn’t volume, then it needs to be made up for with margin, and there is no margin here. The business problem is easy to understand if you lose the emotion and just focus on the basic business issues.

          • 0 avatar
            JD-Shifty

            I don’t seem to reply to the latest posts.
            anyway. why do I care how well GM does with this truck as long as it makes me happy?

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            You don’t have to care. But if you want to understand why the auto industry does what it does, then it helps to know how it operates and why it rarely makes sense for them to make unpopular vehicles or to gamble on what are sure losers.

          • 0 avatar
            ajla

            “why it rarely makes sense for them to make unpopular vehicles or to gamble on what are sure losers”

            I would think that most of us understand that, at least conceptually. We just wish that our personal preferences were more viable.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            “I would think that most of us understand that, at least conceptually.”

            There are those such as Vulpine who clearly don’t understand it, which is why what should be a fairly simple discussion turns into this extended emotional thread that is based upon fantasy and hope.

          • 0 avatar
            geeber

            Vulpine: My father-in-law, much closer to my own age, drives whatever he can get his hands on but currently LOVES my old Saturn Vue for its performance, economy and remarkable load-carrying ability. He’s told me he’d rather have a Ranger or an S-10, but the standing market for used models is simply higher than he’s willing to pay.

            So your father-in-law balks at paying the market value for a used compact pick-up, but will fork over a minimum of $25,000 for a brand-new compact pick-up?

            I’m no business whiz, but even I would be reluctant to make the business case for a brand-new vehicle on that scenario.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            @Geeber:

            The point is that the market value of a 20-year-old compact pickup is almost 3x that of a full-sized pickup of the same vintage. That proves that there is a strong, ready market for smaller pickups, no matter what the rest of you want to believe. He’s not alone, either. All you have to do is check out the ‘car search’ engines on cars.com and other review sites and see what kind of pricing smaller pickups command and compare them to full-size. I’ve already done this multiple times over the last few years and to find a compact in good condition means paying a premium price.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            Just for fun, I used Edmunds to compare values of two hypothetical Chevy 1994 model year pickups in “clean” condition and with 150,000 miles.

            The private party value of the fullsize was about $1,200, a couple hundred bucks higher than the compact S-10.

            In any case, what people are paying for 20 year old trucks doesn’t help automakers to forecast volumes or price points for their new vehicles. This is yet another instance of your “facts” being false and your analysis of those non-facts being off the mark.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            @pch101: You just keep shooting yourself in the foot, don’t you. I guess you just like the pain.

            Go to Toyota’s website and check out the pricing between the Tacoma and the Tundra–style for style. What do you find? Let’s start with their first truck page where they show a Taco crew cab at $31,720 next to a Tundra crew cab at $39.125. That’s a difference of $7500. The base model Taco sells at:
            * Standard Cab — $18,985
            * Extended Cab — $21,475
            * Crew Cab — $24,970

            The base model Tundra sells for:
            * Standard Cab — $26,200; a difference of $7,215
            * Extended Cab — $27,090; a difference of $5,615
            *Crew Cab — $32,105; a difference of $7,135

            This calls BULL to your bull. Naturally maxxed out versions would be significantly higher but the price differential tends to hold that same separation.

            “To claim that the difference is ‘only’ $7,000 betrays your lack of knowledge of what is needed to make a profit.” Well, I’ll tell you: Full sized trucks certainly don’t NEED $10,000-$25,000 profit on them; that’s just the asking price which nearly every brand–including Ford–will come off of. However, because of that high asking price, they still tend to achieve from $5,000-$15,000 profit off their trucks; higher than the profit on any other type of vehicle they sell. You commented on how any car company would be foolish to build something that didn’t offer a decent profit margin, but with almost every car (not truck) sold in America today, the profit margin is barely over 7% while full-sized trucks maintain a 20%-30% profit margin. At that rate, why do they even bother building cars?

            Of course, your parable about Ford still ignores the fact that Ford loses money with every Ranger customer that buys a car instead of a full-sized truck. Ford’s in the business for profit, after all. Making a mere $1,500 off of a customer who would have given you $5,000 if you’d kept the Ranger (smaller) is effectively losing money–or rather, losing profits. Letting them go to another brand is just flat losing money. Based on a statement made by a Ford executive a few years ago, “We make all our money on 20% of our sales. Our trucks make us the most profits so we can afford to make everything else.”

            Truck buyers don’t produce added cost, they produce added profits; several times the profit of any other vehicle type. All other vehicles produce added cost and it is likely that the profits on some of those vehicles is next to nil. You can call them loss leaders intended to bring customers in so you can upgrade them into something more profitable. Unfortunately, your concluding statement is exactly backwards as Ford’s single-biggest-selling product line is the F-series truck–which is their biggest cash cow. That’s the line with ALL the margin.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            We’re discussing Chevys here, and I compared two 20-year old Chevys. Your point failed.

            And again, the price of a 20-year old Chevy has nothing to do with how GM is going to set prices for the latest Silverado and Canyon. Your point fails again.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            No, Pch101, we’re not. Your long dissertation that I responded to argued that my $7,000 figure was unrealistic (which I not only proved false but gave specific prices on BRAND NEW models) and that Ford simply wouldn’t sell something that didn’t make a profit.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            I can see this is pretty much impossible. You simply don’t understand basic business concepts, and are too stubborn to learn them even if you could.

            The average transaction price of a new full-size pickup is about $40k. Not the base price, but the actual price paid by consumers.

            The smaller trucks aren’t hitting average price points anywhere close to that.

            Many of the fullsizers end up getting heavily optioned, which is why the average real world price is well above the base price. That’s one reason why they’re so profitable — the option packages have fat margins attached to them.

            It’s a very different market from the small truck market. You obviously can’t grasp the difference, and it’s a waste of time trying.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            You keep saying that, but you never once have presented evidence to prove your argument–you insist I take you at your word despite my offering readily-accessible proof of mine.

            I take very few people at their word unless they can back it up with easily verifiable evidence. So, prove to me that the average transaction price of a full-size pickup is $40K AND THEN prove to me that the mid-size trucks aren’t $7000 below that. It’s time for you to prove your words, because I have clearly proven mine.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            I find it hilarious that a guy who proves absolutely nothing is always expecting everyone else to provide facts. Look in the mirror.

            And go read Automotive News, which will gladly tell you the price of full-size trucks compared to the average vehicle. The Google skills that you acquire while looking this up could pay dividends if you let them.

          • 0 avatar
            JD-Shifty

            ever notice every time you see an S-10 with a cap on it there’s an old fart driving??

            They’ll be buying creampuff pickups for decades. they sold hundreds of thousands of them and there is an unlimited supply

  • avatar
    Carlson Fan

    It will be interesting to see how these trucks sell. The truck market is always changing and full size crew cab pick-ups aren’t going to enjoy the sales success they have right now forever. So what’s next? Honestly as someone who currently owns a fullsize 2500 Sierra and a Chevy Tahoe I could see myself in one of these provided it can safely tow what I need it to and fit my family of 5. And I’d consider the diesel, even if it cost me more to run. The benefits in better range, especially when towing, and all that torque down low, again awesome for towing, would be reason enough for me right there to won one. Like most I’d rather throw my money at the truck versus the gas pump every week.

    So it is good to see that GM is offering something that is really worth taking a look at. And I have to commend them for planning ahead w/3 tier strategy. If the price of gas goes beserk and/or the economy takes a slide killimg the sales
    of fullsize trucks at least this time they will have something else to offer their customers.

    • 0 avatar
      JMII

      I too hope they sell well, especially the diesel. This might be what my Dakota V8 gets replaced with in a few years. Unless someone else steps up to the plate (Ford? Hello?). Would prefer something a touch smaller.

      • 0 avatar
        JD-Shifty

        I don’t think you’ll ever see a new truck any smaller. the tacoma and the frontier will just end up getting bigger or going away. bear in mind people used to spend 30k on ZR2′s.

  • avatar
    Zackman

    I like the GM twins. What I’m concerned about is if on all levels, the price differential between these and the full-sizers is enough to warrant a customer to choose between them, or just going for the big guys and letting the Colorado/Canyon wither on the vine.

    Me? I’d prefer a mid-sized truck if I were in the market. I owned a 1996 Ford Ranger for six years, and while it was an outstanding truck, it was just too small in the cab area. I sat in a Colorado when they first came out, and was impressed with the interior volume, but I needed a sedan, hence my old 2004 Impala.

    My heart still aches for a truck again!

  • avatar
    Sgt Beavis

    Overall I like it. I think the Chevy is better looking but mainly because the overall styling seem a bit more cohesive. IMO the C column of the GMC doesn’t work with the rest of the truck.

    I get the Ridgeline comments of other except for one thing, it isn’t ugly like a Ridgeline..

    I’m not in the market for a truck, but if I were, I would go for the Chevy.

  • avatar
    Mandalorian

    Is that the new 2500/3500 in the picture with all three trucks? I can’t tell.

  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    The previous Colorado was probably about as large as this segment should be, this truck just looks like an outgoing Silverado in terms of size. It also appears to be entirely too tall as well, I’m 5’9 and I’m not the type to want to climb into my car everyday. I might expect that out of today’s super duty size basic pickup, but also from the supposedly midsize alternative?

    • 0 avatar
      Pch101

      Colorado Crew Cab -
      Bed Length – 5 feet
      Wheelbase – 128.3″
      Length – 212.3″

      2013 Silverado Crew Cab -
      Bed Length – 5.8 feet
      Wheelbase – 143.5″
      Length – 230.2″

      The Colorado is definitely smaller, but it isn’t small. Vehicles are generally larger than they were a few decades ago, and pickups in particular are getting larger due in part to the extended and crew cabs becoming the norm.

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      No picture I’ve seen really gives the GM twins proper justice. It’s really hard to estimate their size based on anything I’ve seen so far even when placed next to their bigger brothers. Even a photo of GM’s new CEO standing next to a Canyon at the Detroit auto show isn’t very telling because none of us knows how tall she is, though the truck is only about an inch taller. As such, claiming it looks like an outgoing Silverado is a bit of a misnomer.

      Personally I agree that it’s still bigger than the market segment really wants, however. I was hoping for a truck with the roofline at about my shoulder and I’m no taller than you. I do like the full 6-foot bed, but to all intents and purposes this thing looks to still be the same size as my now-antique F-150 or very nearly so. 15-feet long should be plenty for a compact truck as it still gives a full 9 feet for engine and cockpit and with today’s smaller engines you don’t need the hood to take up a full half of that remaining length.

  • avatar
    luvmyv8

    To my eyes, I see Tundra.

    The grille looks like a scaled down version of the ’14 Tundra.

    The door design (how it’s shaped) looks like the ’07-’13 Tundra.

    I’d have the Chevy version myself, it just looks better IMO.

    • 0 avatar
      dodobreeder

      As a Tundra owner I am astounded by your observation! While imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, this dinky Canyon looks more like a Honda Ridgeline than anything else.

  • avatar
    Dave M.

    I rarely sing GM’s praises, but these mid-size trucks are both great in their own ways. The GMC certainly skews towards a more conservative, classic style.

    The only thing I don’t like is the design incline on the rear doors. Looks totally out of place and gimmicky.

  • avatar
    danio3834

    I had to look at the picture of all 3 GMC pickups to tell if the Canyon had any of it’s own styling cues, or if GM just multiplied the Sierra by 0.75.

  • avatar
    Short Bus

    The crew cab variant looks like it would make for a decent family vehicle if you didn’t need third row seating and have a preference for an open bed versus an enclosed box.

  • avatar
    Hummer

    Be nice to see some of the H3Ts tech put into the offroad version, front+rear lockers, < 22 degree turning radius, iron front diff vs the alum, low gearing, and decent UCP.

    Maybe I'm dreaming though…

  • avatar
    CoreyDL

    Good God, GM. Fix your shifter designs. That’s too close to the stupid one you put on TrailBlazers!

    Also, bad fake wood is bad.

  • avatar
    Vulpine

    I provided my facts, PCH. Time for you to prove yours. Until then, this discussion is OVER.


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