By on February 6, 2014

2015 Chevy Colorado | Gas 2

A few short hours ago, I was in McCormick Place with a handful of auto journalists and GM’s 2015 Chevy Colorado team. It was a lucky break- a last-minute invitation to meet with some GM brass before the hectic onslaught of the 2014 Chicago Auto Show’s press days and ask them the questions that my fellow alt-fuel/cleantech gear heads wanted answers to.

So, here it is: the 2015 Chevy Colorado, in the 72 dpi digitized flesh and packed with some seriously trick goodies. Will this (and its GMC Canyon twin) be enough to reclaim the compact truck throne, however? You’d better believe it- the Colorado is that good!

 

2015 Chevy Colorado: the Look


Make no mistake, this is one seriously good-looking trucklet. Chevy’s 2015 Colorado is a true mid-sizer, but the look is more F-150-fighter than Nissan Frontier. Size-wise, more than one of my fellow deep-divers commented that “it’s the perfect size”, and I think it’s just short enough to make a reasonable case for having one in Chicago.

Chevy Colorado Z71

Chevy Colorado Z71

Chevy Colorado Z71

As you take a look at the photos of the Z71 off-roader version of the Colorado, look at the soft, velvety look of the black plastics and the crisp inner workings of the headlight. This is a far cry from the old S-10 EXtreme and its “generic level 2″ plastics.

Chevy Colorado Z71

Chevy Colorado Z71

 

2015 Chevy Colorado: the Cockpit


Inside, the truck’s 2015 MyLink infotainment system is decidedly more Chevy Sonic than Chevy Cruze, and that is a very good thing. All the buttons were logically labeled, there didn’t seem to be any of the convoluted “touch screen + button + more screen-touching” command sequences that made me loathe the Cruze’s MyLink. It had another neat trick, as well: a fully-functional Pandora app.

Is that game-changer? I’m much more excited about my Pandora stations than I am about XM/Sirius, so- yes? Just pretend you can already hear my blasting Shakira and Ke$ha as loud as the Chevy Colorado’s speakers will let me.

Chevy Colorado Interior

Chevy Colorado Interior

Chevy Colorado Interior

Chevy Colorado Interior

 

2015 Chevy Colorado: Seating


The biggest complaint anyone ever had about a compact pickup (think old Chevy S-10, 90s-00s Ford Ranger, etc.) wasn’t that they weren’t capable enough, it’s that getting in and out of the things was always a pain. It was a pain when I was 23, and it would be a bigger pain today, more than a decade later. I’d never climb over a front seat to get into a side-facing jumper again, and- in a truck that’s the size of the new 2015 Chevy Colorado, I won’t have to.

Ingress and egress seems straight-forward enough. You just open the solidly-mounted, triple-sealed doors, climb into the quality-feeling vinyl/cloth seats, and shut the door with a satisfying, Mercedes C-Class level “whooomp”. Actually, open the door and slam it shut a few more times. It is a hugely satisfying feeling that was totally absent in my 1991 GMC Jimmy, even with the rose-colored lenses of nostalgia firmly in place.

Colorado-DeepDive_25

Colorado-DeepDive_26

Colorado-DeepDive_15

Colorado-DeepDive_08

Colorado-DeepDive_12

The 2015 Chevy Colorado has a cleverly adjustable seatbelt that adjusts at the shoulder AND at the hip. More comfortable belts are more likely to be worn, so this is a huge step towards 100% adoption of belts- especially out in rural ‘Murica where the Big Gulp comes in more than one size of early-onset diabetes.

Colorado-DeepDive_13

 

2015 Chevy Colorado: the Tough Questions


I hate to tell you this, guys- but I didn’t get the scoop on the 2015 Chevy Colorado’s EPA fuel economy. I can’t tell you what the EPA numbers on the 2016 diesel will be, either. I also couldn’t tell you if the truck is E15 or E20 compatible, because the GM engineer on hand (a lovely, polite woman who I mistook for another journalist, despite the Riot Grrl leanings of my youth) didn’t know. I also couldn’t tell you if GM plans to include the Colorado in its CNG fleet plans, but I was told, wink-wink, nudge-nudge style, to expect a bi-fuel announcement from GM soon.

A few things I did find out? The upcoming V6 version of the 2015 Chevy Colorado- which uses the same 3.6 liter VVT V6 engine used in Cadillacs and Buicks …

Colorado-DeepDive_24

colorado_engine

… and that, in truck duty, the V6 is expected to be able to haul up to 6700 lbs (!?). That’s more than enough to safely haul any number of RVs, fishing boats, and (dare I say it?) race cars- and the Colorados will be available with fully integrated receiver hitches and easy-to-access wiring for 4 and 7 pin connectors.

So, that’s something- no? What do you guys think? Am I right in thinking Chevy’s hit a home run with this new 2015 Colorado, or do you think Nissan and Dodge will out-Darwin it with their 28 MPG full-size diesel half-tons? Let us know what you think in the comments, below. Enjoy!

 

Originally posted to Jo’s other site, Gas 2.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

300 Comments on “Chicago 2014: Deep Dive with the 2015 Chevrolet Colorado...”


  • avatar
    FJ60LandCruiser

    So who would want a midsize truck that is the same size as a full size truck from 10 years ago, has less features and power than a current full size truck but after is optioned in a popular/desirable way costs the same as a full sized truck? No one will buy these damn things aside from Autozone and Napa in 2WD short box guise to schlep parts around town.

    I doubt that whatever imaginary gas mileage figures GM will throw out that these things will ever get more than the mid-teens in the real world, and therefore the choice of a crappy V6 instead of a proper V8 is a mystery.

    Looking forward to the diesel option, though. A diesel truck this size would be very appealing.

    • 0 avatar
      harshciygar

      28-year old male here.

      Would buy this truck, all day all day. It isn’t just about size, it’s about price, and you can’t even get into a full-size pickup for less than 25k.

      Obviously don’t know the price point of the Colorado either, but I’m willing to bet it will be a fair bit lower than the Silverado. Leaves money for the finer things in life…like dat diesel.

    • 0 avatar
      rpol35

      “I doubt that whatever imaginary gas mileage figures GM will throw out that these things will ever get more than the mid-teens in the real world, and therefore the choice of a crappy V6 instead of a proper V8 is a mystery.”

      Everyone has to deal with CAFE standards and they are going seriously northward with the march towards 2025. I believe it is 25 MPG combined for 2015 light trucks like this one. That said, GM’s 3.6 VVT is many things but crappy isn’t one of them; they got that one right.

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      59-year-old male here, and I’m certainly interested.

      I don’t need or want the massive power of a high-end full size;
      I don’t need or want the massive SIZE of a high-end full size;
      I don’t need or want the massive COST of a high-end full size.
      In fact, I happen to know that many people who are currently driving mid-size SUVs WANT a mid-size pickup truck instead!

      Even if the gas mileage is identical to their full-sized siblings (which I personally doubt–smaller size and lighter weight will give them an advantage) there are those who will buy these rather than choose something that is grossly too large for their purposes. And I’ll tell you now that even a so-called ‘crappy V6′ can perform surprisingly handily today compared to those of the ’80s where gearing alone effectively killed them. People around me were amazed when they discovered I had a small 3.8L V6 under the hood of my ’96 Camaro, so V6 power competes well with older V8s.

      • 0 avatar
        Pig_Iron

        @Vulpine
        I think you’re very wise. Maybe GM is starting to straighten up and fly right.

        • 0 avatar
          Vulpine

          Thank you. While I don’t expect it, I would love to see if there is any kind of sales modeling capability out there the way the weather services use weather modeling. Those weather models have become significantly more accurate over they years, showing general trends a week or more before the event happens. The automotive markets move much more slowly, so a similar model could show trends stretching to years.

          Long, long ago, the Model T Ford truck was probably the most popular vehicle on the road. By the 50s, pickups shared the market pretty evenly with station wagons and panel wagons (before the step van). The panel wagon got replaced by the micro-bus or standard van (most common starting in the ’60s through the ’70s) followed by compact pickups and minivans. Now compact pickups are nearly completely gone and the minivan has been effectively replaced by the SUV and like each of those models before them, the market is becoming saturated with them with even more samples getting added.

          Meanwhile, the pickup truck has gone from being an everyman’s work vehicle capable of hauling anything and everything to a commercial-grade work truck simply too big and too capable for the everyman. It’s gone from simple everyday truck to a monster meant for heavy work. Their price has followed suit.

          Now with the SUV market becoming so bloated and no effective replacement in sight other that too big, the compact–or rather not quite so large mid-sized–pickup could take up the slack and offer the DIYer something that can be used anywhere, any when, urban, suburban and even rural. When even farmers are buying SUVs or only buying used full-sized trucks for their fields, you know something’s gotta give.

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            @Vulpine,
            Throw in much larger and more numerous MDT’s you do not get in NA and we are going the same way here. Outside of the explosion in SUV’s and Diesel Pickups, European Cab Chassis Van derivatives are becoming much more numerous and they are not small.(Imagine a Sprinter with a flatbed)

          • 0 avatar
            Les

            I think too many complaining about the attempts to re-vitalize the compact/mid-sized truck market are mistakenly under the impression that trucks are judged the same way as cars by those who need/want them.

            There are many reasons to buy a small(er) car but the most common one is gas mileage, it’s almost always the first thing cited when justifying getting a car smaller than the largest one could actually afford.

            This is not so much so with trucks. Sure, better MPG is a nice thing, but (at least where I’m from) it’s not the chief thing driving desire for smaller pickups.

            Where I live pickup-trucks are and have historically been more ubiquitous for personal transportation, they were often one’s first vehicle, and they filled several niches. Also rural areas like mine tend to have low crime and a low expectation of crime so fewer people worry about having stuff turn-up missing if they leave it in the open bed of a pickup.

            Yes, a full-size truck is much more capable, it can do really well the big jobs.. but, it’s too clumsy and cumbersome for a lot of the little jobs, and we have a lot of little jobs for trucks out here. It’s just sad that this niche is under-serviced, and largely because the manufacturers don’t wanna expand their dealer networks that deep into the rural areas that’d lap these kinds of products up.

    • 0 avatar
      toxicroach

      If it top of the line tops out at 32000, which should be totally loaded that will be 10-15k less than the equivalent full sizer. I priced a Silverado 1500 up to 58000 last night just for fun, so yeah.

      I’m not sure what features it doesn’t have, and it’s a modern midsize truck. Since the current rather decrepit mid sizers get quite a bit better than mid-teens, I find that hard to believe. The international diesel gets a COMBINED mileage of 30 with the diesel. So I think the mileage will easily beat even the Ram EcoDiesel.

      As far as capacity and power the full size trucks have a ludicrous amount of capacity that you can’t even legally use in most states without a CDL. The only thing I own or am likely to ever own that weighs more than three tons is my house. So the Colorado will be entirely sufficient for me, and I think it would be just fine for 100% of the rest of the lifestyle truck owners if they’d just admit it.

    • 0 avatar
      hshields

      34 year old white male north of the border here.

      Right off the bat, does the Colorado/Canyon answer the question that has plagued the compact truck market for decades? Question: why buy a compact truck for X amount when for X + just a fraction more, I can get a full sized pick-up with all the capability I need? Does the new GM compacts deliver on capability? Does it deliver on such a price mark down it makes it worthwhile? Is the compact truck segment still no-mans land?

      I personally love compact trucks! They look great and they would do everything I would want it to do. Of course, a Subaru Outback or Honda CRV is also doing that so why bother?

    • 0 avatar
      baconator

      I run a delivery business with lots of business in a crowded city downtown. A current Silverado is, literally, too wide to fit in the loading dock at one of our key locations, and is also too wide to fit in my carport at home. Not a tight fit, mind you – it is simply wider than both spaces. We currently do most of the work with an aging GMC Envoy, and none of my staff wants to maneuver something larger than that in tight city alleys. We’ve looked at the Transit Connect and Tacoma but need more towing capacity.

      For us, the new Colorado is 80-90% likely to be our purchase later this year. Current full-size trucks may make sense in rural America where parking space is a non-issue, but for us in cities, the Silverado / F150 / Ram is just ridiculously large and can’t even go many of the places we need them to go.

    • 0 avatar
      gkhize

      I would buy one for the size alone. I drive a current-gen Colorado that I traded in an ’04 F150 for. The full size Ford was like driving a boxcar around and was a pain in the rear to park. It was great on the open road, but with mpg at best in the mid teens it cost a lot to simply drive back and forth to work. I haven’t once wished I had the Ford back. The Collie is a cinch to drive around town, I get low 20s mpg, and I can haul 99% of what I hauled in the Ford. I’m excited about this new truck; the current model is a bit crude in places, and it looks like they’ve taken care of those areas with this new one.

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      @FJ60LandCruiser
      With a title like you have driving a midsize. Why? Why do you drive a midsize when a full size SUV was available?

    • 0 avatar
      ChevyIIfan

      32 y/o male here. Would buy this in a heartbeat if priced right. I drive an Envoy; love the size. I abhor driving Silverados and Suburbans in any more traffic than highway cruising. They are pain to even maneuver in a Home Depot parking lot, let alone a parking garage. I could care less if the fuel economy is the same as a full size; I just hate driving titantic sized pickups. So yes, the size is the #1 deterrent of a full size for me.

  • avatar
    flatout05

    Is this “review” a joke? Or is it by any chance sponsored by the good people at General Motors? Come on.

    • 0 avatar
      FJ60LandCruiser

      GM would just post a few photos of the Z71 on the web site, in the wrong section, then put up cab and bed lengths that are incorret and in a table that doesn’t display correctly on any browser but an outdated version of IE7.

      • 0 avatar
        mike978

        Their website seems to work fine with firefox. At least when I enter my zipcode I don`t get taken to SET (South East Toyota) distributor hell where you cannot build a car but are instead shown inventory – very annoying.

  • avatar
    Halftruth

    Trucklet? Mid size? This? Hardly. It’s as big as a damn Sierra/F150.
    Looks nice though and the seats look comfortable.

    • 0 avatar
      azmtbkr81

      The Colorado’s wheelbase is about 2ft shorter than that of the Silverado which should make it a good bit more maneuverable on and off road. I’ve avoided buying a modern full size crew cab truck due to the firetruck like length but I’d actually consider a Colorado.

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      @Halftruth
      It within millimetres of a Taco in size.

  • avatar
    Ishwa

    It’s cool that you got this sneak peak, but this really reads like a puff piece. Regarding the vehicle – I bet that black plastic grill upfront will look real nasty in a few years after some UV sun exposure and the resulting white film covering it. A small truck sounds exciting (at least more exciting to me than a minivan will all of its seats folded into the floor) but I just can’t get excited about this maxi-sized “midsizer”.

    • 0 avatar
      CoreyDL

      Thank you RE: the plastics comment. The matte trim nearly works on the grille, but not other places. Trim in other spots needs to be gloss to match the paint.

      Also it was very puffy.

    • 0 avatar
      d002

      Its a third world car for third world markets. The cart springs give it a terrible ride – how do you think they managed to get the towing capacity up so high ?

    • 0 avatar

      The Grille is painted with an exterior grade paint so it will hold up as well as the rest of the exterior. The painted version is an option package, there is also a chrome version.

      Did you complain as much about the Raptor Grille, which IS raw plastic. Seems more of an issue that Ford chose to put the cheapest Grille on the most heavily optioned, expensive truck they make.

  • avatar
    IHateCars

    It’s a good looking truck, but I agree with the above….it’s slightly smaller than a full size, not a true small pick up a la Ranger, Taco, etc. Fuel economy is still an unknown (yes, the diesel option will be interesting). I just don’t see why someone would buy a slightly smaller full size pickup. Maybe I’m wrong but yeah, I can see a plehtora of stripper versions serving as fleet jobber parts runners.

    Also, what is that pic above the rear seats pic supposed to be showing? A door edge?

  • avatar
    PrincipalDan

    Yeah. If you could dial back the enthusiasm a bit. That’d be great.

    “A few things I did find out? The upcoming V6 version of the 2015 Chevy Colorado- which uses the same 3.6 liter VVT V6 engine used in Cadillacs and Buicks …”

    And the Chevy Impala and the Camaro. It’s not like this is 2005 and Chevy announced their going to build a Canyon/Colorado with the Northstar.

    A: Was this actually written by the TTACstaff_bot? (which now has name)

    B: Was said TTACstaff_bot taking Valium at the time?

    Oh and you used the phrase “game-changer” I think someone is trying to get the Lamborghini and strip club visits privilege added to their contract. Poor Derek, he can’t even have that all to himself.

  • avatar
    Zackman

    Just give me a full-sized short bed, standard cab pickup and call it done.

    Unless these new GM twins are about identical to the 1967-72 models in size, not sure how they will fare in such a competitive marketplace. For GM’s sake, I hope they are THAT good and do well – they HAVE to be.

    I wouldn’t go near a Tacoma, but I may approach one of these if I were serious. For now, I just want a comfortable car due to my circumstances.

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      If I can get an extended cab without shortening the bed and still stay within the LENGTH of that full size you describe, then I’d be much happier. That means every proportion forward of the bed needs to be about 15% less. I can live with that.
      Maybe you wouldn’t go near a Tacoma, but obviously a fair number of people will. I see new Tacomas on the road every day where I live and by no means are they all so-called “strippers”. In fact, they’re quite comfortable.

  • avatar
    doctor olds

    Good photos and details. Glowing reviews of anything GM jar the paradigms of some here, and it is glowing.

    I love my ’08 Sierra, but it is not fun to park, takes my wife’s old parking spot, the only one it fits. Oh, she still parks in the garage, but not in the spot she wants! I would like more flexibility in parking and getting around town.

    I wanted a 4wd truck capable of hauling a car trailer and for driving in winter snow. Colorado seems to fit the bill very well, while offering better fuel economy and ease of parking.

    Based on experience pulling a car trailer with an ’09 Traverse FWD, I am sure the power will be more than adequate with the 3.6L. The wheels spin a lot on the Traverse, though. There is a reason we don’t see FWD trucks! The diesel will be very interesting.

    • 0 avatar
      geozinger

      Judging by the amount of positive comments and reactions of the non-GM fans on this board, I think that GM has a hit. I have to admit, I’m interested too.

      I was never a big fan of the Ranger/S10 class of truck, the slightly larger Jeep Comanches and the Dodge Dakotas were way more comfortable for me. So much so, I owned an extended cab Dakota for a while.

      This appears to be a direct replacement for my old Dak, or even better as Zackman suggests, a direct replacement for the late 60’s early 70’s C10 pickup.

      Now that I’ve told my wife our next car would be a SUV of some sort, I’ll have to figure out a way to get her in the Colorado…

      • 0 avatar
        ajla

        What even constitutes a “hit” in this segment?

        • 0 avatar
          Pch101

          One more than the Ridgeline?

        • 0 avatar
          geozinger

          Good question. But, it has generated an awful lot of interest, enough to make the Yota and Honda fanbois slam it even before it’s been released in the wild.

          If that doesn’t tell you they’ve got something going on, I don’t know what will…

          • 0 avatar
            ajla

            “If that doesn’t tell you they’ve got something going on, I don’t know what will…”

            Sales figures once it is released.

            I see a bunch of TTACers ready to crown this thing before any pricing (a huge factor here), fuel economy, driving impressions, or reliability information is known.

            It just seems too early for the folks with size fatigue to be popping the champagne.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            I would say that the comments section of a car blog is one of the worst ways to gauge general public response to a new vehicle. They don’t reflect anything that resembles a statistical norm.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            You do realize you’re including yourself in that statement, don’t you PCH?

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            Er, no, Vulpine, I’m not. (Of course, I’m not surprised that you don’t understand most of what I am saying. Your track record in that regard is solid.)

            I didn’t express any personal opinion whatsoever about the truck on this thread. Rather, I am using market data to estimate its likelihood of success.

            Again, you would benefit from the ability to separate factual analysis from wishful thinking. Just because you like something doesn’t mean that there are many other people who care.

            My personal tastes play absolutely no role in what I am saying on this thread. I am not an irrational fanboy, unlike yourself.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            I understand what you’re saying more than you think, PCH. The problem is that you WON’T understand what I’m saying because you simply don’t want to believe it. Everything you’ve said on this thread says that you believe this truck (and any similar truck that may be released by Ford or Ram) will be an abject failure based on what you see as current data but which itself is based on obsolete products. You believe this so strongly that there’s no room in your mind for even the possibility that you could be wrong. That’s conceit in the worst possible way.

            I have never stated that the Colorado, et al, will be a roaring success but I have observed and noted that there is a strong chance they’ll have a significant impact on a completely different market–the mid-sized SUV market–which you won’t even acknowledge. If you want numbers, I’ll guess (I said guess, not state) that mid-sized trucks could pull as much as 40% of the SUV market by 2020. Especially if they get equivalent or better gas mileage than those same SUVs. On the other hand, I’d guess they’ll take less than 10% of the full-size truck market. Analysts have already estimated GM mid-size sales will pull 120,000 units in its first year and if history holds true, second and third year sales will certainly multiply that number. We’ve seen this sort of market flow in the past with the progression from one type of vehicle to the next as more players enter the game–or re-enter, as the case may be.

          • 0 avatar
            geozinger

            @ajla: I agree that the real proof are the actual sales numbers. And, editorial staffs everywhere were ready to crown the Scibaru twins as the second coming of the sportscar, too. We all see how that turned out…

            While I’m not in the market for one of these right now, GM has been releasing a series of rather good products lately. I’m curious to see how well this will do. It may be a “segment-buster” to quote the old Chrysler mini van hype-sters.

  • avatar
    Maymar

    I suspect unless the coming diesel full-sizers start displaying a littany of catastrophic issues, and quickly, and maybe if we see a bump in gas prices, the Colorado is bound to be dead truck walking shortly.

    The size of this thing is only really an asset to city dwellers, which I suspect is a small, small subset of the truck buying population, and the full-sizers are already doing plenty to boost their fuel economy. Which is a shame, because I feel comically dwarfed in most new trucks, and I’d support something Colorado-sized, but I’m not a truck buyer.

    • 0 avatar
      APaGttH

      The Ram diesel engine has a $4K premium out the gate. That isn’t chump change for the average buyer.

      • 0 avatar
        Maymar

        True, but full-sized trucks also tend to get fairly generous rebates that the mid-sizers are much less privy to. Give it a year or so, I wouldn’t be shocked if we see Rams promoted with the diesel upgrade as free (I’ve seen the same promotion for the 2500 with the Cummins, and that’s a nearly $10k option in Canada).

    • 0 avatar
      toxicroach

      Because there are very few people actually need the ludicrous ‘full size truck’ who shouldn’t get a HD truck? A lot of people would like to be able to, say, have a truck that gets reasonable gas mileage, is decently optioned without becoming a 7 year financial burden, and isn’t a total nightmare to park. I’m pretty sure I could even fit it in my garage!

      I don’t get why people can’t see the appeal. There’s this fantasy that truck buyers are out towing bulldozers up Pike’s Peak every day, but for 90% of them, the most demanding thing they do is go to home depot and get some mulch a few times a year. They’re wasting money on capacity they will never even come close to needing. The same people who were shocked that the Eco-boost was such a hit still don’t get it. There’s enough truck buyers making decisions based on a rational appraisal of their actual needs that this truck should do pretty well.

      • 0 avatar
        Sals

        I see the appeal. I’m the city/burb groceries, mulch, occasional larger-item hauler–but mostly it’s just me commuting. I enjoyed driving Rangers for 18 years, gave up the most recent one for a CUV so we could transport my in-laws and their walkers. Wifey got the CUV, I inherited her sedan. I miss driving a truck, but I don’t want to drive one the size of a building. For now I need to bank some bucks, but when the time comes, this Colorado looks just fine to me. Unless Ford decides to bring that nifty global Ranger over here…Either way, just make mine the standard four banger.

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        No one says you have to buy a full bling, full-size luxo truck. They’re crazy expensive for no good reason. A Ram Express or STX with rubber floors is just right if you ask me. And you’re talking mid-size crew cabs that barely compare to extended cab full-size. When you factor in rebates, the price gap is very thin.

        I agree full-size trucks are crossing into commercial medium-duty capacity, but you don’t have to get an HD truck.

        The real difference in size is about 6″ all the way around, when comparing mid-size to behemoth full-size. Crew cab mid-size vs full-size extended cab. Or extended cab mid-size vs regular cab full-size.

        • 0 avatar
          toxicroach

          Well, a lot of people aren’t interested in base models. Since, for me, there is 0% difference terms of capacity, in the sense that either one could do anything I could realistically want it to do, I’ll take the cheaper truck that will cost me a grand or two less every year cause I don’t have to cart around a half ton of useless steel.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @Toxicroach – A lot of what you may save by sticking to small trucks is assumed and hypothetical. And if you’re opting for the loaded up, full boat mid-sizer truck, don’t expect much, if ANY fuel savings, vs full-size. With more aggressive full-size rebates, you may even pay more upfront. Small truck buyers (that aren’t opting for base models) are more interested in slightly smaller over all dimensions. Similarly, a Smart Fortwo only makes sense for its tiny size.

          • 0 avatar
            toxicroach

            If Truecar has any validity at all, the idea that you can get a 45k stickered truck for tens of thousand off on a regular basis is not true. If they price the Colorado in the same range as the Tacoma (estimates put the Colorado at 20-32k) you will be walking out of there with at least 5000 still in your pocket in an apples to apples comparison. Once you start the climb up, could get up to 8-10000. The idea that companies are just going to toss their hands up and give up all profit from a full size truck to fend of the Colorado is a bit odd to me. Seems to indicate a underlying belief the vehicle is a very attractive value proposition to people since it’s just assumed they will have to slash prices to move full sized trucks while having to give no incentive to sell the midsize. Add in a grand in fuel savings a year and not having to feel like a prick for using such a gas hog to drive to Walmart and it just makes sense to me.

      • 0 avatar
        Maymar

        I just think if there was that much of a market for a truck this size, the Tundra would sell significantly better than the erratically decent 100-150k it does. I also think although most consumers are rational enough to pick the truck they need, I also think that if the full-sized trucks get rebated to a similar price point as their smaller counterparts, few buyers will take the smaller truck without good reason.

        • 0 avatar
          RobertRyan

          @Maymar
          Constant rebates are not a smart way to run a business. Something like the Colorado will sell and help expand the “midsize” market in the US.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            @Toxicroach
            CAFE will eat consideralbly into the fullsize margins.

            Just look at the aluminium F-150.

            CAFE’s impact on the full size market including HD’s will become apparent soon.

            I forsee a homogenisation of 1/2 ton into 3/4 and some 1 ton category. This is why I think Nissan is looking a smallish V8 Cummins.

            This will make the midsize market more attractive, especially the 3 litre class diesel. These trucks will do most what a current 1/2 ton can do, but a lot more efficiently.

            Diesel offers the best opportunity to meet CAFE, just like the Euro’s have had in the reduction of CO2. Co2 equates to fuel burnt to perform a task.

            The biggest issue I see is the US government has to put it’s foot down on energy, ie, refiners to produce and sell 10ppm, 51 cetane diesel. This will aid the diesel manufacturers in meeting US EPA emissions.

            Ford with the 2.7 Eco Boost will not be the best engine for work. Gasoline is quite unforgiving in the FE department. Unlike diesel you just can’t crank up the boost on a gas engine without a much larger sacrifice of FE in comparison to diesel.

            Look at some of the performance diesels in Europe, BMW has that tri turbo 3 litre putting out 285kw and over 700nm of torque, more than enough to power an HD.

            In 2018 HD’s will have to meet a similar model as CAFE for trucks over 8 500lbs. It will be based on weight per mile for FE and emissions. This will impact the larger HD diesels.

            The Transit/Ducato style vehicles will eventually become the US’s work horses and pickup will become essentially a SUV, they are almost there now.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @BAF0 – It’s unlikely Ford is taking more than a tiny loss on the Aluminum F-150 vs the old steel body. Short term if at all. The current generation of F-150s sold 5 to 6 million units already. Obscene profitability here. What you won’t see is an aluminum body midizer truck. There’s simply not enough revenue to go around.

            I don’t see 1/2 tons disappearing or taken off the market. Diesels will help keep trucks inside the CAFE schedule, but they’re not everything. And may not be necessary for full-size trucks. Mid-size trucks could disappear though.

            The 2.7 Eco Boost would get less (hard work) FE than a Coyote V8 too.

            But it’s crazy to think Euro vans will become the US’s work horse. You keep thinking that.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            @DenverMike: You really need to stop saying, “It’s crazy to think…” when somebody comes up with what looks like an off-the-wall vehicle concept–especially when evidence is already in place for that concept becoming reality. We already know that the Transit Connect by Ford is moving in surprisingly large numbers while Ram doesn’t seem to be complaining about poor ProMaster sales. (My local Ram dealer can’t keep them in stock.) Now we see Chevy releasing their own Euro-styled van with surprising load capacities for something so visibly small compared to the old full-sized vans. Obviously the market is there and Chevy is coming late to the game.

            So what of mid-size trucks? You said it yourself just earlier in this thread; full size trucks have simply become too big and too expensive for everyday use–something I’ve been complaining about for over two years here and on PUTC. I’m glad to see you’re finally acknowledging that. With the release of the Colorado I see the Silverado, F-150 and yes, even the Ram ¾ tonners getting relegated to medium-duty use as Class 5 trucks and the ½ tons more as the new full-size SUV and big camper haulers. After all, even the travel trailers have been on a diet, making a 25-foot model fall within the rated capacity of the Colorado.

        • 0 avatar
          toxicroach

          Yeah, but the discounts won’t happen. They’d rather lose a million sales to the Colorado a year than turn trucks into another $500 profit per vehicle like small cars.

          But if the Colorado does kill the profit margin on full size trucks then huzzah for American consumers.

          The Tacoma has two things going against it; for one thing it’s been on the back burner for decades and doesn’t offer much except being a very marginal mileage boost, and it’s Japanese. For the image buyer in the truck market getting an off-brand truck with marginal benefits and has much less capacity (without the towing package it can only tow 3500 lbs, which is part of a $3500 package!). The base Colorado will beat the hell out of a base Tacoma on any metric you want.

          I see the Colorado as a great package. It looks good, while the old Ranger/Colorado looked cheap. The Tacoma comes in white and black. It’s not tiny, but it isn’t massive. It won’t have the sticker shock that happens when you go look at the prices on a lot of full size trucks. The fuel economy will probably be in the Ford Escape range, if not better, while the Tacoma barely beats a F-150 with ecoboost. It can tow more than you need, but not more than you legally can.

          If it was porridge it’d be just right.

        • 0 avatar
          Vulpine

          The smaller size alone is the main reason for mid-size buyers, not massive haul/tow capacities that they’ll never use.

      • 0 avatar
        ajla

        “They’re wasting money on capacity they will never even come close to needing. The same people who were shocked that the Eco-boost was such a hit still don’t get it. There’s enough truck buyers making decisions based on a rational appraisal of their actual needs…”

        Ummmm, the Ecoboost has 365hp, 420 lb.-ft of torque and is rated to tow between 8800 and 12000 pounds depending on spec. Its success may show acceptance for turbo’d trucks but it is far from evidence that buyers are going rational.

        • 0 avatar
          toxicroach

          You kinda misread me there. The point I’m making is that most people don’t need 8-10000 lbs of towing AT ALL, 10000+ requires a CDL to do legally.

          The point I’m making is there’s a lot of guys on this site who think everyone wants a burly 8 cylinder truck that can tow the space shuttle. In a world with free gas that would probably be true. But a lot of truck buyers are happy to get the truck they need. Enough space for the Colorado to do well.

          The fact that the main argument agains the Colorado is that full sizers will get discounted so heavily that the price difference will disappear kind of indicates that there’s not a really good argument against the Colorado as a value proposition, since it assumes the full sizers will be discounted to keep moving the truck and there will be no similar incentives for the Colorado. If you apply the logic of supply and demand to that argument it sure looks like they are arguing there will be a lot of demand for the Colorado and less demand for full size trucks. Kind of an odd argument to make as proof the Colorado won’t sell much.

          • 0 avatar
            ajla

            “10000+ requires a CDL to do legally.”

            That just depends on the state.

            I know Florida exempts several things, including travel trailers/RVs and some agricultural transport, from any CDL requirements (Statute 322.53 if you were interested). There are a few other states that have similar exemptions or don’t require a CDL until combined GVWR exceeds 26000.

            However, then there are places like Nevada or Connecticut that do require an additional endorsement to tow anything over 10000 lbs.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            Sure except why would anyone opt for an HD truck if they’re even contemplating a small truck? And if you’re talking fully equipped small trucks, you’ll likely have similar or worse MPG that its full-size counterpart. Way worse if you’re thinking about putting the small truck to hard work.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            No one is arguing against the Colorado, except its advantages vs a a full-size are grossly exaggerated here. Full-size OEMs can offer much deeper rebates and still reap healthy profits on them. #1 most profitable cars in the world. Small truck OEMs simply cannot come close. Small BOF trucks may be among the least profitable cars, at least in America.

            Especially early on, the Colorado/Canyon won’t sit around the dealers much. So expect to pay more than they’re full-size counterpart.

            And full-size trucks will always sit around more at dealers than mid-size trucks. There’s way more full-size models, options and combinations to choose from. Dealers stocking up on as many of these as possible means a lot of trucks will sit around gathering dust.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            You know, there are a couple of reasons why full-sized pickups have such high rebates:
            * Gross overproduction — The Ford, GM and Ram dealers close to me have more than half of their lot space taken up with trucks while their same-branded cars all combined take up the rest.
            * Gross overprice — People have become accustomed to getting massive discounts off of MSRP, to the point that they now feel they have a right to ‘bargain’ $5000 or more off the price–which is still $15k-$20K over manufacturer cost. Like cars, smaller trucks won’t have that much built-in profit but they’ll still have more profit than you expect.

            Even so, I expect we’ll see about a $5K to $7K difference between full-size and mid-size pricing even after full-size rebates.

    • 0 avatar
      Les

      “The size of this thing is only really an asset to city dwellers..”

      You’d be surprised, out here in the country where trucks outnumber cars the small trucks are hugely popular. It’s just that the big three don’t wanna be bothered servicing that market, especially since they were already forced to draw-down their dealer networks (The rural dealerships were typically the first to go) as a result of the recession and the bail-outs.

      Out here the big trucks (half tons or better) are great for pulling stock trailers and hauling a load of feed and the like, but there’s other jobs where you’d rather have an open cargo-bed but a full-sized pickup would be too cumbersome. Like I’d never wanna put a bale of barbed-wire and a half-dozen reclaimed bodarc posts in the back of my Jeep Patriot to go repair fences, but I can’t use the Silverado for that job if it’s been raining because it keeps getting stuck.

      Pickup-trucks are also most-often the ‘first-car’ everyone has out here when they turn 16. Would you want your kid’s ‘first car’ to be something the size of a Rolls-Royce Phantom?

      • 0 avatar
        RobertRyan

        @Les,
        I tended to think the growth in size of vehicles is maybe an imaginary thing. Seeing a tiny Sports Coupe the other day I noticed it was an early 1970’s Mustang..was it tiny.
        Then comparisons like this below do ram home the fact that vehicles are indeed becoming bloated. Yes it is a “Pickup” that can be had with a 15,500 lb GVWR and a RAWR greater than a F450.
        http://www.goingbush.com/iveco/truck23.jpg

  • avatar
    Hummer

    What’s the point in getting the z71 package when there is a massive plastic bumper on the front in addition to an air dam that is 5 inches off the ground?

    • 0 avatar
      gtemnykh

      I was scanning the comments for mention of this so I didn’t make a redundant post.

      The bottom chin spoiler I understand, EPA blah blah, it can be taken off rather easily. But my does that plastic front bumper look fragile and scratch prone. If it must be plastic, why not make it in an unpainted black form, and make it out of some really thick, compliant stuff? Is this not the “z71″ offroad package?

      I’m happy to see another midsizer coming out, but for actual backcountry adventures, I’d take a Nissan Frontier Pro-x4 or a TRD Tacoma. The Chevy’s sole advantage is its’ more modern drivetrain, and that is a big advantage (ignoring potential diesel reliability issues).

      EDIT: to be fair, the Tacoma has had a plastic front bumper since 2005 as well, but it just looks a bit less massive and doesn’t hang as low.

      • 0 avatar
        Hummer

        Good point, if it must be plastic, don’t make it be painted, most trails around here would be impossible to go through without having something come up and hit my front bumper.
        Difference is my steel isn’t going to deflect, and the paint probably won’t come off, if it does rattle can, and you’ll never notice.

        Black textured plastic hides scratches and is much cheaper to replace than something that must be painted.

    • 0 avatar
      azmtbkr81

      I wonder how much the mileage drops with the removal of the air dam?

      • 0 avatar
        Hummer

        I’m willing to bet engineers could solve the air dam issue if they were to tuck everything above frame level as well as having a decently placed frame. That way the dam wouldn’t have as much air to redirect.

        I’m not saying it needs to be 2 feet off the ground, but rather make it so the frame can slide across something without risk of slamming something such as a transfer case into a rock.

        • 0 avatar
          azmtbkr81

          I agree completely. I would like to know if the black piece in the middle of the bumper is actually a skidplate or just decorative plastic, it is hard to tell from the photos.

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            I know on GMT 900 SUVs the Z71 had a fake plastic skid that would deflect with the push of 1 finger.
            So reason stands to say this will be the same.

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        I wonder how much the mileage rises with the addition of a LOWER air dam?

        • 0 avatar
          Hummer

          I’m sure you can go to a low rider forum and find some one sided testimony.
          But airdam and Z71 package sounds like oil and water.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            Kind of the point I was making, Hummer. I was offering a sarcastic counterpoint to azmtbkr81’s question.

            You know, I seem to remember that even the Sierra/Silverado mentioned something about a ‘retractable’ air dam. Might there be a possibility of a similar device on this one? At which point, dropping the air dam down to 4″ might even be an on-road improvement.

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            Yea, I didn’t catch, thought it was counter to my post. Been doing that a lot lately.

            But to an aside, we had some (decent) snow down here last week, which is rare, but I enjoyed going through deep drifts and plow piles (oddly placed ones at least) without the slightest thought of the possibility of hurting anything. Now that I look around I’ve noticed several newer trucks with broken airdams.

            While electronic sounds great, all that I hear is another break point.

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            And honestly if the air dam is going to be positioned so low why not just make the entire truck low to the ground, I’m not seeing the benefit to the height this example rides at, when the front makes it pointless.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            Remember that this specific truck is a 4×4, Hummer. The 4×2 probably sits a few inches lower.

          • 0 avatar
            azmtbkr81

            @Vulpine – I don’t understand the sarcasm, my question was pretty straightforward. I can’t imagine many who buy the Z71 will keep the airdam in place so it would be useful to know how much of an impact it has on fuel economy, no?

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            I can’t imagine very many people will REMOVE it, azmtbkr81. Most of them simply won’t replace it when/if it breaks off. Only devout off-roaders bother to customize their vehicles for off-road purposes. The rest want the off-road capability either for foul weather or for that occasion when they take the family to a “primitive” campsite. I put “primitive” in quotes because they’re still on a pretty well-used trail that’s probably still graveled. Let’s call them, ‘unimproved roads’ and we’ll be more accurate. This type of driver will probably never notice when they drag that air dam.

          • 0 avatar
            gtemnykh

            Vulpine,

            As far as I know, those plastic air dams are designed to be quickly removed without tools. But I do agree, 99% of people won’t bother.

            I also would tend to agree that realistically, that chin spoiler will never be a bother in regular driving. Hummer does bring up a good point that deeper snow will probably be the demise of most of these that do get ripped off, not some gnarly off road trail.

            I suppose I just find the aesthetics offensive. Having big tires and decent clearance everywhere else, and then this big, blocky, plasticky front end with a disproportionately low piece of black plastic hanging off of it.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            @Hummer
            Why the anti subliminal GM comments?

            DiM is Ford.

  • avatar
    troyohchatter

    My fear of the Colorado is because of the lack of sales when compared to the full sized the actual transaction price will be close to the full sized trucks. I also think that by looking at it the truck will be a narrower version of a full sized truck but won’t really lose much in the way of length. It also looks like the benefit in MPG over a full sized truck is going to be 3-5MPG, not worth considering really.

    Frankly, I wish them luck with it. But if I can’t get a well equipped 4wd extended cab for under 25K out the door that will average north of 25MPG on the highway, I won’t bite. I don’t think many will.

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      The rule of Supply and Demand. GM is going to want to build demand, so I’m actually expecting the initial price to be relatively reasonable; low $20s to start. This would be enough to tempt many SUV drivers over to a true (albeit smaller) truck platform. We’ve already read that the Colorado is about 15%-20% smaller than the full-sized models in every dimension; shorter, lower, narrower. At the same time, the bed is reportedly about the same length as the full-size models at 5.5- and 6.5-foot lengths.

      The 4×4 requirement under $25K may be the killer for you if they don’t reach it, but if it’s under $27K, I’m betting there will still be a lot of takers. Car and truck prices continue to rise and I, for one, don’t want to take on 100-month financing just to afford a new vehicle.

  • avatar
    Silence

    This is a pretty handy size truck since the full size are real behemoths these days.

    The GMC Canyon version of this looks to be a pretty nice product.

  • avatar
    mike1dog

    My feeling, and maybe I’m wrong, is that this will just cannibalize sales from the Sierra for those that want something a little smaller.

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      Expect it to cannibalize more SUV sales than full size sales. This may cause some full-size losses, but I think the ones who choose this simply never bought into the full-sized market in the first place.

      • 0 avatar
        slance66

        Probably right. I’d consider this. I have a large house in the suburbs and don’t feel I can fit a full size in my garage (at least If I want to get to my trash barrels). So I’m forced to the SUV market instead. Just as Honda finally realized that the Accord had become oversized, I hope the full size trucks start shrinking. Bigger isn’t better.

    • 0 avatar
      Russycle

      Since Ford and Chrysler don’t offer anything comparable, I expect it will eat into their sales too. And GM sure won’t be crying about that.

  • avatar
    Jimal

    Count me in the “this isn’t smaller enough than a full-size” camp, though then again it is probably about the same size as my favorite piece of forbidden fruit, the Amarok.

    And to answer the most frequent question that comes up during these truck conversations, I don’t want a full-size truck. I have no need for the supposed capabilities of a full-size truck. I really don’t even care if the smaller truck is more expensive. I’m not buying the stupid thing by the pound. I just want something with modern appointments that I can commute with and park normally while being able to go to the home improvement center on the weekends. My alternatives at this point are an old truck, which I wouldn’t want to commute with, or a utility trailer, which I don’t want sitting around in the yard.

  • avatar
    Silent Ricochet

    What’s with all the GM hatred in here? Can you guys really not handle the fact that The General might have a good idea here? Time to grow up a bit and put your biases aside for a second. And that’s coming from a 22 Year old. I’ve never really been a huge fan of trucks, nor could I ever see myself buying one.. Until now. I quite like the way these are designed, and given the correct gas mileage, It’d definitely be one of my top choices as a graduation gift to myself.

  • avatar
    alsorl

    The Canyon looks like a great truck. Should help off set the poor sales of GM’s full size pickups. The canyon will have to do great when the 2015 F150 comes out. It will probably be able to get the same mpg as the canyon.

  • avatar
    billfrombuckhead

    Ram is coming out with a 28 mpg diesel pickup, not Dodge. I doubt Nissan’s 5.0L diesel will match Rams fuel mileage.

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      @billfrombuckhead
      I do think that the Nissan will be the first half ton hybrid Heavy Duty of the future.

      Remember the changes to HDs right now are voluntary but the emissions and FE regulations for HDs will be effective in 2018. The EPA deems HDs one generation behind 1/2 ton pickups and have given the manufacturers some grace time to develop the newer HDs. Which will be a beefed up 1/2 ton.

      So the future Titan will like comparing a global midsizer that can tow nearly 8 000lbs and carry 3 000lbs to a current US Taco that can tow 3 500lbs and carry 1 600lbs.

  • avatar
    segfault

    I’m going to be the first to say that I hate GM’s new seatbelt design (also used on the Terrain/Equinox). Not because of the hip pivot feature, but because of the buckle. Once it’s buckled, the buckle tightens up on the seatbelt, making it extremely difficult to turn around and look behind you when backing up. A backup camera isn’t a substitute for being able to do that.

    This looks like a typical GM convenience/safety feature which seems to be thoughtful but is poorly implemented, resulting in it being more irritating than it would be if it weren’t there at all.

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      I’m going to disagree with you, segfault. I’ve been driving for over 40 years now and I almost never twist around to look out the back window when backing any more; the mirrors on both sides and the rear-view give me better data and better control of the vehicle itself. A good back-up camera that actually lets you see where your bumper is in relation to the spot you’re backing into is far superior than trying to judge the length of your vehicle and *praying* you don’t back too far. I’ve parallel-parked a long-bed full sizer into a spot a smaller car driver gave up on. It’s all in knowing how and using your mirrors properly.

      • 0 avatar
        wstarvingteacher

        Put my first dent in a new car by focusing on the backup camera instead of the mirrors. Embarrassing.

        • 0 avatar
          Vulpine

          Like I said, you have to know how to use the tools you’re given. Especially with a stick shift, you can’t really manipulate three pedals when you’re twisted around trying to look behind you. Even with an automatic, it’s too easy for your foot to slip off the brake and hit the gas when you’re twisted like that.

      • 0 avatar
        segfault

        You generally can’t see cross traffic through the side windows with the mirrors or the backup camera.

  • avatar
    APaGttH

    Comments are funny from the Malibu and Regal are too small crowd.

    This is too big apparently (though almost no one commenting has actually seen or sat a real one).

    Had it been “smaller” then the cries of useless, bed to small, cramped interior, not enough capacity, would be going off.

    I reserve judgment until I see one and drive.

    Reminder – the Encore was ugly, too small and underpowered according to the B&B. Amazing it sold better than forecasted and many makers are now rushing subcompact SUVs to the market when the B&B insisted no market existed.

    The Verano is just an over priced Cruze according to the B&B – yet if you dig in the TTAC archives you’ll be reminded it owns it’s segment.

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      Haven’t you noticed? Such complaints are going on. In fact, the very first comment in this forum asks the question, “So who would want a midsize truck that is the same size as a full size truck from 10 years ago, has less features and power than a current full size truck …?”

      Yes, I too complain that it’s still bigger than I want based on other reports both here and on PUTC, but it is smaller than TODAY’s full sized trucks and will certainly be shorter at least than my current 1990 F-150 long-bed and significantly more reliable while still meeting my lightweight (but bulky) hauling needs.

  • avatar
    tresmonos

    After the third comparison to the GMT325, I stopped reading.

    It’s been over a decade. Stop giving GM a hand job for a car by comparing it to cars that are so old, it’s a miracle to find one that isn’t rusted out.

    Doors with weather stripping AND seals! Plastic moulds with texturing! Headlamp accents!
    Christ on a stick, it is 2014. This is partially not the same GM that peddled sh1t to consumers with steep discounts.

    This review is worthless until we get someone in a Colorado with a boat behind it, see some real world fuel economy and get someone inside of it to see if there are any glaring launch issues with it’s transmission cal and fit/finish.

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      Why does it have to have a boat behind it? Is EVERY driver of one going to own a 3000# trailer of one sort or another? No.

      I do agree that I want to read some on-road reviews now; they’ve been teasing us enough with this, that and the other hints of ‘things to come’. They’re playing this game a little too strongly and if they’re not careful this teasing will end up having the exact opposite effect than desired. Quit with the ultra-long build up and get the thing on the road–and in the showrooms! A surprise introduction *in the showroom ready for immediate sale is far more likely to garner impulse buys than this trickling down of tiny pieces of data that most will forget by the time the truck finally hits the market.

      • 0 avatar
        tresmonos

        Because if a truck doesn’t tow anything, all you need is a Honda Accord with a bed (Ridgeline).

        What will set this truck apart from its full sized brethren is price and it’s capability. If it tows anything like a GMT700, GM will have a winner.

        I used to be as enthusiastic about new cars as this author, then I launched 8 of them and they’re all the same, now. I shouldn’t have been so harsh in my original comment.

        • 0 avatar
          Pch101

          Many truck buyers don’t tow anything, particularly in the smaller size classes. You’re making too much of it.

          I don’t expect this to set the world on fire, for a number of reasons. But towing isn’t one of them.

        • 0 avatar
          Vulpine

          That’s exactly my point–except that I don’t want a Honda, I want a Traverse with an open bed. If I ever tow, it will almost certainly weigh less than 5,000# and this truck is already rated to over 6K towing.

          • 0 avatar
            tresmonos

            It may be making too much of it, but truck sales are sold based on numbers. So everyone can brag about their d1ck sizes to one another.

            If this thing can tow a boat, I would be tempted to trade in my truck for it. Rating and real world performance are two very different things.

            PCH101: the Colorado and Canyon are bloated. This will cannibalize full sized GM truck sales. If they aren’t going to make a price point vehicle whose capabilities are tailored for a significantly different user, it’s a horrid business case.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            “but truck sales are sold based on numbers.”

            Large trucks are sold on the numbers. For the smaller ones, price plays a greater role.

            “This will cannibalize full sized GM truck sales.”

            I doubt it. The two segments are different. Just because there are beds on the back of both does not mean that there is much of an impetus to downsize. Size does matter in the segment, particularly for those who are inclined to want the full-size trucks.

            I suspect that GM’s best market for this will come from disaffected would-be Dakota and Ranger buyers and a few Nissan conquests. But that won’t amount to very many people.

          • 0 avatar
            tresmonos

            Pch101:
            You’re discounting the plethora of consumers that stick to the ‘domestic’ brands due to loyalty. A lot of those Ranger buyers will buy Ford just because. The rest of the Ranger market will be disgusted with the bloat of the Colorado and go towards simplicity.

            Why spend more money on a Silverado when you can get leather and haul around the same amount of crap in your Colorado?

            Time will tell. The last Colorado was miserable. My mother had one and it was a gas hog with no guts.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            Some market research reported in Automotive News indicated that former Ranger owners were cross-shopping Tacomas at a higher rate than the F-series. The cross-shopping rate for large truck owners into smaller trucks is lower still.

            The data would suggest that the two truck segments are fairly independent of each other, particularly when moving from large to small.

            A lot of these truck buyers prefer a particular size range, with the vast majority of them belonging to the big-is-better camp. Many of the big truck fans think that the small trucks are silly and beneath them, and don’t see them as being in the same league. There are preferences and ego issues at work here, it isn’t just about the box in the back.

          • 0 avatar
            tresmonos

            The more I think about it, the more I agree with you, Pch101.

            There are a lot of high trim level trucks driving around. Only recently have I seen lower trim levels for the GMT and F series, but that is usually discount driven towards a platform’s EOL to move metal.

            I have a F series STX because I refuse to pay 8k for leather and different color plastic trim and MyFordTouch. I would have loved to have been able to cross shop a Colorado. A Tacoma didn’t cross my mind due to discounts and lack of improved fuel economy.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            In a place like LA, an affluent buyer (or lessee) will get something German.

            But there are vast sections of what some what would call flyover country where the status vehicle is a heavily-optioned full-size truck that costs just as much as the German car.

            Detroit has figured this out, and is taking full advantage of it. It’s those high-end buyers who make large trucks so profitable.

          • 0 avatar
            tresmonos

            ‘American Luxury.’

    • 0 avatar
      d002

      Its got cart springs ; it’ll tow fine, just have a horrible ride. Its made in Thailand so the build quality is abysmal.

  • avatar
    bryanska

    The new Honda Ridgeline will give this a run for its money.

    • 0 avatar
      CoreyDL

      If they’re priced the same, that is. I feel like the Ridgeline would start at the top end of the Canyon/Colorado.

    • 0 avatar
      Carlson Fan

      @ bryanska – No it won’t, the Ridgeline isn’t even a real truck. It’s a unibody Honda SUV with the back cut off.

      • 0 avatar
        bryanska

        Yes, but assuming the Chevy’s user base as 50% people who don’t need its towing, I think it will. We can use the CUV/SUV market split as an analog to show that Chevy’s ruggedness doesn’t matter to everyone shopping it.

      • 0 avatar
        klossfam

        Yes but that is the benefit of the Ridgeline…Unibody with cross members (more than a true unibody). Hence a true 1/2 ton which is just as capable as the current Frontier or Taco WITH a much better ride and MUCH better handling…Your tow limit is 5,000 lbs but it tows a true 5,000 lbs pretty well due to the solid platform…Plus all the other features you can’t do with body-on-frame.

  • avatar
    Carlson Fan

    The gage cluster is pretty disappointing compared to what is offered in the full size trucks. I see it does have the tow/haul mode button. Hopefully you can monitor transmission temp and it comes wired with a 7 pin connector for trailers w/electric brakes. Better yet if you can order it with a factory brake controller.

    The diesel is what is gonna make people stand up and take notice of this truck. As much as I like the new Ram 1/2 ton diesel I’ll take the smaller size, & simplicity of an I4 engine in the Chevy.

  • avatar
    wstarvingteacher

    I don’t know about the vehicle and won’t till someone actually drives it. Writers normally strive to make sure the reader likes them. Living in the country I didn’t care for the comments about rural america.

    Chevy can make a truck. Hopefully they are making my 91 S10 again. Don’t see the 4.3 and think it is unavailable in this. 4.3 and a manual would be my choice I think.

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      I think you’ll be surprised with today’s smaller engines. I had a ’96 3.8L V6 that put out 205hp and now 3.4s are putting out over 300hp. I do agree on the stick, though; I feel you get better control and maintain a better power supply than automatics which are programmed more for economy than true efficiency.

      • 0 avatar
        Carlson Fan

        I drove and towed with a compact Toyota PU for 11 years that had a stick so I always fail to see the fascination with it. For towing, everyday driving and general truck duties an automatic is the only way to go. Leave the stick shifts in the sports cars.

        • 0 avatar
          Vulpine

          I have a stick shift in my Jeep Wrangler for two reasons, most important of which is that *I* select the gear most effective for the grade I’m climbing or descending to take advantage of the engine’s strengths. An automatic tends to let the vehicle coast on downgrades (unless you push a button somewhere) and has to hunt for the best uphill grade, often jumping back and forth two gears apart when the one in the middle works quite well.

          If you live full time on the flat, I have no problem with an automatic–other than the cost of repairs when the torque converter fails (I had a Camaro go through three of them in under 6 years). I’ll grant that the newer ones may be better, but since I haven’t owned an automatic newer than 1996, I really wouldn’t know. The few I HAVE driven since ’96 haven’t really impressed me.

          • 0 avatar
            Carlson Fan

            Yep I’ll give you that automatics are more expensive to fix when they break. The one in my 04 GMC 2500 has been problem free the first 10 years and 160K . My buddy that bought my old ’93 Toyota PU sold it a year or so ago, over 300K and still running the original clutch.

    • 0 avatar
      Les

      I do hope they put the 4.3 as an option later. It just makes sense. Bean-counters will love it because it will amortize the costs of the base engine in the Silverados, truck-enthusiasts will love it because they get to have a ‘Trukk-Motor’. :D

  • avatar
    CoreyDL

    Well a couple of things.

    -I feel it was a MAJOR mistake to not rebrand these trucks, after the relative awfulness of the Isuzu rebadge.

    -Agree with the puffiness sentiments of other commentators on this write-up.

    -Don’t like the hexagon pattern in the seats. Things like that never age well. Puts me in mind of those cloth seat patterns with squiggles they put in cars like the Cavalier and Neon in the early 00’s. They look horrible now.

    -The rubber surround for the adjustable lap belt is already messed up, how’s that going to look with a couple years of movement for different drivers, and aged rubber, and dirt?

    -The matte trim looks fine on the grille, but is sort of out of place other places on the vehicle. It looks cheapo around the doors and on the B pillars. I worry about the aging of the grille as well.

    -The headlight detail looks nice, and Camaro-ish.

    -Needs to be in another color besides flat red-orange. I’m thinking black cherry metallic. But maybe they save the fancy colors for the GMC version.

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      Under florescent lights, no color is true. I’m not sure what the color truly is but the greenish tint that florescent lights emit skew the tint to sometimes hideous shades. It looks like the camera may have overcorrected the white balance to make that color look more orange than it really is. It looks like some sort of polarizer was also on the camera to reduce reflections and glare–making the color look flat as well.

  • avatar
    Edzius

    I presently own a 2008 Dodge Dakota and was just about to give up hope on having a domestic nameplate midsize. Looks like a 2015 GMC Canyon diesel just might be in my future!! OH yeah, I ain’t gettin” rid of the Dakota either since it came with the lifetime power train warranty from Chrysler in the 08 model year…been six years so far and the truck remains flawless!!

  • avatar
    Clueless Economist

    I will be in the market in 2016 and GM’s new mid-size truck with the diesel will be my first test drive. However, it had better get 30 or better on the highway.

  • avatar
    honda_lawn_art

    Yeesh. For the offroader version it has about the ground clearance of a Buick Century.

    I am looking forward to the basic version of this truck.

    I own a parts delivery special ’97 Tacoma – gets high 20’s mpg and fits in a compact parking space. There are a few of us that still want a smaller truck even if it only costs slightly less than the overgrown full sizes.

    • 0 avatar
      honda_lawn_art

      Well, the pictures from Chevy’s website do better to show off the ground clearance, it’s actually got a whole bunch of it.

    • 0 avatar
      frozenman

      +1 on this assessment, the front end is too low for off-road use, and even if you don’t go 4wheeling it does not have the ‘tough truck’ presence of the Tacoma (if your into that). Hopefully the competition this brings will have Toyota upgrade the Tacoma, many buyers are waiting for that to happen.

      • 0 avatar
        MR2turbo4evr

        Forget upgrading the Tacoma, just bring over the Hilux! I’m sure changing it slightly to meet the NA regulations would be cheaper than designing a new truck. It irks me to no end that 3rd world countries get the Hilux and we in North America have to make do with oversized and underengineered (compared to the Hilux) POS that is the Tacoma.

  • avatar
    DC Bruce

    Given the size of today’s “half-ton” trucks, I would imagine a fair number of people would prefer something smaller, even if the price is the same. My guess is that there are a lot of people who would like a pickup’s utility but don’t need the 1,600 — 1,900 lb. payload capacity of a “half-ton” or the 8,000 — 10,000 lb. towing capacity either. (In just about every state, towing over 10,000 lb. GVWR requires a CDL.)

    The lower weight of the vehicle can’t help but improve real-world mileage, regardless of the engine that’s powering it; and I suspect these have a somewhat smaller frontal area, which will improve mileage as well.

    In my mind, the more serious question, with trucks like this on the market is: why buy a half ton at all. If you need more capacity than this, buy a 3/4 ton. While its true that Americans happily drove behemoth cars in the late 1960s and early 1970s, today’s full-size pickups are pretty awkward to drive in urban and suburban settings because of their size.

    And, given the size of the pickup market, it’s hard for me to imagine that the folks who buy them live exclusively in rural areas.

    • 0 avatar
      Pch101

      When compact trucks hit the market, they were cheap as chips and offered good fuel economy compared to the land barges sold at that time. They were similar to the VW Beetle — low cost, but with some hipster cachet.

      But that was then and this is now. Now, they aren’t particularly competitive in any of those respects, while large truck buyers have little interest in downsizing. Those who buy trucks for status want a big truck with a lot of toys, not this, while those who buy for utility want the bigger bed.

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        Again you make too many assumptions, PCH. Times have changed–again. What was old is new again and I expect this truck to prove it.

        • 0 avatar
          Pch101

          I rely upon facts and data. You should try it sometime.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            You rely on OBSOLETE facts and data, which is worse than relying on none at all. The current data says there is a demand–but that the demand has been transferred to a different class of vehicle. That’s all.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            Of course. Data from within the last several months is “OBSOLETE” if it says what you don’t want to hear.

            I realize that you’re just a fanboy for these things, but still, it’s quite something that you are completely incapable of objectivity. You simply won’t permit any facts to interfere with your argument (which I suppose is to be expected, given the utter absence of facts in the points that you make.)

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            And yet again you prove my point, as you have to revert to name-calling rather than actually showing evidence. You are so stuck on your microscopic view of the pickup truck world that you simply can’t imagine that someone willing to take a broader view just MIGHT be correct.

            I’ve said this to you before and I’ll say it again–you’re going to get very sick of eating crow.

          • 0 avatar
            bryanska

            I tried to find relevant data, but my Mintel account doesn’t have access to the segment report. Can you share what you have? Honestly curious.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            The market share of the segment is plummeting. This information is readily available.

            The average transaction prices are below the market average (as opposed to full-size truck prices, which are well above average.) If you read Automotive News and the trades, then you already know this.

            Large truck buyers express little interest in downsizing, according to surveys conducted by the automakers themselves.

            As it stands, GM itself is claiming that the smaller trucks will be marketed as sporty vehicles, in an effort to gain incremental sales.

            Analyst forecasts don’t have high volume expectations, either.

            Meanwhile, Toyota would have us believe that they have the best demographics in the segment (lowest buyer age, highest incomes). Brand loyalty appears to be strong.

            All told, this is now a small niche with limited profit potential, due to the low pricing. The fact that the compact SUVs that could share platforms with these things is also on the wane makes it that much harder, as those would help to amortize the costs.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            The market share of WHICH segment is plummeting, PCH? The current mid-size segment where the two existing members haven’t been significantly upgraded for over a decade, or the market of mid-sized so-called trucks that has exploded to the point that even high-performance brands have entered? Why have full-sized trucks decimated the full-size SUV market? Why can’t mid-size trucks do the same to the mid-sized SUV market? That’s a question you refuse to answer simply because you can’t imagine that there could possibly be a connection.

            Yes, I do agree that BIG truck buyers will have little interest in moving down, but neither analysts nor GM have any real idea of how a smaller pickup will affect ANY market, which is why they are both being so conservative about their plans. However, the simple fact that they’re re-entering the market means that someone in the company believes they are missing out on a huge opportunity–huge enough to commit hundreds of millions of dollars into the attempt. As long as they don’t price these new trucks OUT of the intended market, I still believe the skeptics are going to be surprised at what happens.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            If you have to ask, then you really shouldn’t be discussing this.

            The data (that you obviously want to ignore) is readily available. The compact/midsize segment has taken a nosedive since the middle of the last decade, and is now one of the smallest segments in the market. The take rate for stick shifts is now higher than the market share of these smaller trucks.

            I realize that you really, really, really, really like these things. But most people in this country who buy new vehicles couldn’t care less. The marketplace is a big democracy, and they’re casting their ballots elsewhere. You’re the type who is voting for the marginal third party candidate in the election, and who simply can’t fathom why his guy never wins.

            And since people like you don’t want to pay very much, that makes these smaller trucks even less interesting to the automakers. They need to make a profit, and you aren’t particularly profitable.

            If you and your fellow truck buyers wanted to pay a lot more money, then that would be a different story. But the high-priced buyers want the big ones. The profits really come from those who are buying the trucks with luxury pricing, and they aren’t playing in this segment.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            And the fact that you ignored my reasoning simply proves that the only thing that will change your mind is proof–which will come soon enough. By totally ignoring the mid-size SUV market as ripe for mid-sized trucks, you ignore how full sized trucks have wiped out the full sized SUV market. I asked the questions that I asked in order to open your eyes to a market that has become bloated and is looking for a release–a release that does NOT include full-sized trucks. Your myopic view that the current market of existing mid-sized trucks represents the WHOLE of the mid-sized market is what will prove your downfall.

            Meanwhile, you continue to offer absolutely NO verifiable evidence that people don’t WANT mid-sized pickup trucks. You’ve only proven that they don’t want the obsolete things currently holding that market. Most of the statements posted since your own at 1415 today demonstrate just how wrong you are.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            Oh, and PCH? It’s not that we’re not willing to pay more money–It’s that we can’t stand the physical SIZE of these newer full-size trucks. They’re simply TOO FREAKIN’ BIG!

            Have I made my point yet?

          • 0 avatar
            OldandSlow

            Midsize pickups are aimed at mainly urban buyers who don’t need a truck for work. There are exceptions that I see – which include the pest control and swimming pool maintenance. Vulpine has a point and it’s has to do with urban parking spaces.

            The Tacoma sales average is about 13,000 vehicles a month in the US. Frontier are around 5,000 vehicles each month.

            Those are not huge numbers for the US market and could be improved somewhat just by Toyota updating their drive trains to achieve few extra mpg than they do now.

            There isn’t much difference between 2005 and 2014 in this segment.

            GM re-entering the midsize segment could be the push needed to get Toyota to up their game.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            In 2005, the small/midsize trucks had 4.0% market share.

            In 2012, that figure had fallen to 2.0%.

            I haven’t bothered to figure out 2013, but I’m sure that it isn’t much different from 2012.

            Analysts are figuring that annual sales will probably be around 50k units or so. I wouldn’t bet too heavily against that. (Not that the fanboys will care; selling a dozen of them will be enough to convince them that this is some kind of a home run.)

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            @PCH: Market share by itself means absolutely nothing when the market itself is growing at a record rate. You very conveniently ignore that despite plummeting SHARE, sales NUMBERS of mid-sized trucks is growing and has been for at least the last two years. Trucks are not the only market where claims of superior market share by one product meant the supposed demise of another product–whose actual sales profits have made that company one of the richest in the world.

            Again, market share by itself means nothing to those in the know.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            In 2005, new registrations totaled 16.8 million.

            In 2012, those had fallen to 14.1 million.

            In 2013, deliveries (which aren’t quite the same as registrations, but close enough) were 15.6 million.

            Surely, even you must know that 16.8 is a larger number than either 14.1 or 15.6. The overall market has not grown — once again, you get it wrong.

            Small/midsize truck sales fell by more than half between 2005 and 2012. The loss of market share makes it pretty obvious that the customers are fleeing the segment.

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            @Pch101
            Now that would be a welcome change from your previous posts.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            @pch: It’s nice how you so-conveniently ignore that we’ve just come out of a major recession and that sales have been repressed for years. Yet again you take a microscopic view of a macroscopic environment. You Can Not Look At Just One Statistic And Claim It Represents Entirety. It’s very probable that this year’s total market will exceed that 2005 number and 2020 could see 20 million sales in the US alone. Again I qualify that with Could because neither of us can possibly know that for a fact unless you have some sort of time machine–which if you do you certainly haven’t demonstrated any advanced knowledge.

            You’re also insisting that because small/medium-sized truck sales have fallen by 50% during that same time period that there’s no effective market–while again ignoring not only the recession, but also the fact that–again–both Toyota and Nissan have seen GROWTH in mid-size sales between 2010 and 2013. I’ll grant some of that will have come from Ford converts, but much of the F-150’s own growth has come from the rest as many Ford drivers have an unhealthy obsession with brand–either positive for Ford or negative for Japanese. That brand obsession is quite obvious on every automotive blog I’ve watched.

            Yet again, your views are based on obsolete data.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            This is unbelievable. Even basic arithmetic is above your head.

            The market share is falling. That indicates that sales of the segment fell more than the other segments.

            Even you must know that 2% is smaller than 4%. In 2005, one out of 25 new vehicle buyers were buying smaller trucks. By 2012, that had fallen to one out of 50. Hopefully, you can see the difference.

            Market share helps to show us relative popularity. And these things are obviously getting a lot less popular. Buyers have moved on, even if you haven’t.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            And yet again you prove my point *by ignoring basic arithmetic*! You are so obsessed with “market share” that you’re ignoring the market itself–which is GROWING. The mid-size truck market is GROWING. The full-size truck market is GROWING. Their relative markets are growing at different rates. YOU, sir, are the unbelievable one. You’ve lost all relevancy in this discussion.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            Again, this is unbelievable.

            If the US vehicle market grows by one million units and truck market share remains constant at 2%, then that would mean that the segment will grow by 1,000,000 X 2%.

            Perhaps you could tell us what 1,000,000 X 2% is equal to. (Hint: It’s not a very big number.)

            Now, the next step on your path toward enlightenment: If GM wants to sell more than 1,000,000 X 2% units, one of two things has to happen:

            a. It needs to earn conquest sales from other sellers, i.e. turn Tacoma and Frontier buyers into GM buyers

            b. It needs to move buyers away from other segments and into compact trucks, i.e. turn crossover buyers, compact car buyers or whatever other buyers into GM midsize truck buyers.

            Gee, that sounds easy.

            If you want to estimate GM’s chances for success, then you need to have a grasp of how either of those things could happen. And I’m sure that you don’t.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            And yet AGAIN, PCH, you prove you can’t read. You just stated what I’ve been saying all along: ” It needs to move buyers away from other segments into compacts, i.e. turn crossover buyers, compact buyers or whatever other buyers into GM midsize truck buyers.” Where you think this is a patent impossibility, I see this as a strong possibility entering probability.

            Oh, and your math? You do realize that 2% of one million is 20 thousand, don’t you? GM and analysts both are estimating a minimum of 50 thousand just for Chevy alone while one analytical company is estimating as many as 120 thousand GM/GMC combined which would be 10% to 12% of that one million. It appears you do have a problem with math after all.

        • 0 avatar
          OldandSlow

          Pch 101 – Last year 2013:

          Toyota sold slightly less than 160K Tacomas

          Nissan moved a bit more than 63k Frontiers.

          The two mid size pickups combined sales were 223k. Neither have seen a major upgrade in performance since 2005.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            Consider your own numbers.

            Only Toyota has decent sales figures. It doesn’t make many changes to this vehicle, and the company may just be smart enough to have a reason for that.

            Nissan wins the silver medal, yet its sales are tiny.

            Now we have projections for the GM twins coming in at about 50k units, close to Nissan. Not a very exciting space.

            Toyota owns what little of there is of this segment. TMC’s greatest challenge going forward is taking share in the full size market, which is very difficult to do.

            An automaker with limited resources would be wise to allocate them efficiently. Unfortunately, GM doesn’t always make wise decisions.

          • 0 avatar

            Where are you getting those numbers from? Make them up as you go?

            “IHS projects about 100,000 Colorado and Canyon sales in 2015, their first full year on the market. ”

            http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/20/autoshow-gm-colorado-idUSL2N0J40QR20131120

            “The average truck is 12 years old, compared with the average age of a car at 8 to 9 years old,” Brinley said. “You have a lot of people who haven’t bought a truck in a long time, and they might consider a smaller truck that better fits with the needs of their lifestyle.”

            IHS estimates GM will sell 120,000 Colorado and Canyon pickups a year.

            Bill Visnic, senior editor at car-shopping website Edmunds.com, said that in its first year, Colorado could match the 150,000 midsize Tacoma pickups Toyota is on track to sell in 2013.

            “There is pent-up demand in the market for a smaller truck,” he said, adding that the new Colorado is an improvement from the previous version. “It’s a nice-looking truck and a much more substantial-looking model than GM had before.”

            http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/gm-unveils-new-look-for-the-colorado-pickup/article_8d89e163-01a7-5962-a956-3facc1661eba.html

            Here is my prediction. These trucks will be huge. If you count them as one, in the first year they will outsell the Frontier 2 to 1 and outsell the Ridgeline 6 to 1. In about three years after launch they will outsell the Tacoma.

            Btw 100K units a year is nothing to sneeze at. That’s 40,000 more than the entire Scion brand. More than any pony car, and more than popular models like the Acadia. Think of it as a hedge against high gas prices. The 2.5L Auto is going to be very enticing if gas hits $4 a gallon. If you haven’t noticed FS trucks have gotten too expensive pushing $40,000 in ATPs. GM isn’t generous with truck incentives anymore. With CAFE looming they are going to have to keep FS truck prices high to make the same profit by selling fewer trucks.

            Personally, as an auto enthusiast I love the fact that there will be more choices in the market not to mention that this truck is frickin awesome. Blows everything right out the water in terms of styling, technology, efficiency and refinement. An added bonus is if it gets a few “haul air crowd” off their full size land whales. Americans are going to keep buying pickups anyway. With a 4cl NA engine and 1000 lbs less than the Silverado there would be less material used and less gas burned.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            “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

            If IHS is otherwise forecasting 120k units, then I would say that those figures are completely nuts. If it follows GM’s usual pattern, then the first year or two will be pretty good, but then sales will fall after the pentup demand has been fulfilled.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            So now you’ve turned around and finally admitted that there IS demand for a smaller truck–something you’ve been denying for over two years.

            As I said before, “You’re going to get tired of eating crow.”

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            Vulpine, reading comprehension is truly not one of your strong suits. (That must explain your inabiity to understand links when they are provided, or to do your own research.)

            I never said that there was zero demand. Obviously, there are a few people who would buy these things.

            What I did say is that there aren’t enough of them, who will pay high prices that are high enough, to make this a profitable or worthwhile venture for General Motors. Toyota owns this space, and it will be very hard to dethrone TMC from its position.

            A market of 50-60k per year is just not all that great when the prices are this low, particularly when there is no platform sharing opportunity for this elsewhere in the US market.

          • 0 avatar
            sunridge place

            @PCH

            1. Quit using IHS links for the Colorado only and look at their estimates for Colorado/Canyon. You quote the numbers after the reveal of the Colorado …they were not including Canyon in those 50k estimates and revised it with the GMC added in.

            2. Quit turning your nose up against an OEM entering a segment in the US with potential sales of 100k as a bad investment. You act as if any segment not moving 200k plus units is an automatic loss when transaction prices might be in the mid-20k range. You are wrong. That said, it has to be done right…you can’t go off and build a new plant with 250k unit capacity in a segment like this. GM invested some cash to expand a plant to build a mid-size truck….they didn’t sink a billion bucks to build a new plant. Its not like there are a bunch of 200k unit frontiers left in US/Canada market.

            3. You act as if there are zero platform or other synergies with the Colorado/Canyon. There are plenty with engines, the global mid-size truck, and Silverado/Sierra.

            I changed jobs last year and am a lot closer to the OEM business than I was before working for a company that wants to ‘Build a Smarter Planet’….there are also a ton of people who show up at dealerships and want a truck and can’t afford a new one in spite of what some people read about generous lending. Also, I do believe that the low end (by price) half-ton business is dying outside of fleet/commercial. Move people from a base/stripped Silverado/Sierra into a well-equipped Colorado and you might be surprised at what happens.

            And, quit being so damn condescending when someone disagrees with you…. I used to be that way too at times…I’ve changed.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            Even the GM fanboys should recognize that the GMC versions of trucks sell a fraction of those that carry Chevy badges. Nobody should reasonably expect them to sell in equal numbers.

            The last Colorado outsold the GMC variant by 3-4:1. Similarly, the Silverado outsells the Sierra by a wide margin. Any published forecast that calls for equal sales of the two is either the result of a typo or is utterly ridiculous.

            “Quit turning your nose up against an OEM entering a segment in the US with potential sales of 100k as a bad investment.”

            I’m not expecting 100k, certainly not more for than a year or two.

            This is a sinking market. In effect, you are claiming that GM is going to reinvent it and dominate it. I’m sorry, but that’s just too much to ask.

            “You act as if there are zero platform or other synergies with the Colorado/Canyon.”

            It doesn’t share a platform with other US-market vehicles.

            It’s being built in the same plant where the full-size vans are made. What do these vehicles have in common, exactly?

            GM has spent several hundred million dollars to modify this truck for US consumption and to retool the Missouri plant. That doesn’t sound like money well spent for a vehicle in a declining segment, particularly from a company that just cost us $10 billion.

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            @Pch101,
            “GM has spent several hundred million dollars to modify this truck for US consumption and to retool the Missouri plant. That doesn’t sound like money well spent for a vehicle in a declining segment, particularly from a company that just cost us $10 billion”

            As well as GM you have Nissan about to do the same thing. Guess your massive marketing analysis may have less resources than GM and Nissan?

            “I’m not expecting 100k, certainly not more for than a year or two. ”

            So you are expecting a 100K?

            “It doesn’t share a platform with other US-market vehicles.”
            Engines, possible transmissions and parts from the Silverado

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            @alluster
            These new gen midsizers are awesome, they are as capable as a full size truck in diesel form.

            They will offer comfort form a midsize you guys haven’t witnessed. Trying to compare this to a Frontier or Taco is ludicrous.

            These trucks will take full size, large and medium SUV, medium and large CUV sales as well.

            As a daily driver the Colorado will even offer families a choice.

            My view is if cars come in all shape and size and sell, why can’t a truck if the comfort and all round performance is as good or even better.

            Not everyone in the US drives a large CUV or SUV or car.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            @PCH: As a writer, my reading comprehension appears to be far better than yours as I at least read your entire rant before responding. In your case you ignore any data that goes counter to your own beliefs, passing it off as fanboyism or whatever.

            True, you have never said there is zero demand, but what you HAVE said is that the demand is too low and is falling, despite evidence to the contrary including Toyota’s own record of ever increasing Tacoma sales over the last two years–long after Ford dropped the Ranger and GM dropped their previous Colorado/Canyon models. No longer is it Toyota taking up the slack of a dying market, Toyota is showing that the market WANTS a more compact truck–especially as an uban/suburban vehicle.

            Yes, I know you’ve shown us how the market for mid-size trucks compared to full-size is shrinking; I’ve even acknowledged that. However, when looking ONLY at the mid-size market itself, both Toyota and Nissan have demonstrated growth, not shrinkages. Both brands sold more than the previous year simply because they’re the only players IN that market–until now. In fact, it’s as much because of this growth that we’ve seen a similar growth in Tundra sales as people who would prefer to buy an American brand have been forced to consider Toyota as “American Made”. Sure, Toyota doesn’t sell as many of either size truck as the Big Three, but it’s closing rapidly with the Big Three in truck sales and could surpass any one of them within the next few years. “Could,” not “will”.

            Now, imagine what could happen if Toyota and Nissan finally do a complete overhaul of their mid-size truck lines to bring them up to date. Imagine what could happen if they make them look less boy-toy-ish to give them better aerodynamics and ‘sexier’ shapes. You might just see those ‘soccer moms’ buying mid-sized trucks instead of minivans to carry the kids’ gear. You might just see more pickup trucks in communities where the SUV currently rules.

            No, I’m not saying it WILL happen, I’m saying it MIGHT happen. You see, I’m willing to acknowledge that nobody truly knows what will happen–not you, not me. Everything we say here is pure guesswork based on our own observation of different facts. You say your facts are the only relevant facts, yet TRENDS often override historical data. You need a far larger database than a mere one or two groups of numbers that point to what you want to believe.

            GM is doing something here that “analysts” have said is nigh to impossible; they’re re-entering a market that most have said is closed. Over a decade ago, another company did the same sort of thing and was told that it couldn’t succeed. A few years later they did it again to the same arguments–those analysts saying the market was already saturated. Mere years after that they did it a third time–those same analysts stating the market didn’t even exist. All three times that one company not only proved those analysts wrong, but did so to the point that they completely CHANGED those markets. Maybe, just maybe, GM is about to do the same thing.

          • 0 avatar
            danio3834

            (“It doesn’t share a platform with other US-market vehicles.”
            Engines, possible transmissions and parts from the Silverado)

            What engine will these share with the Silverado?

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al from Oz

        @Pch101
        I do think you should listen to other’s.

        Your problem is your arrogance and your ‘American Exceptionalist’ attitude.

        The midsizers are different. They will make the current Frontier and Taco look agricultural.

        Why would you buy a Model T for comfort when you had your full size trucks? This is an exaggeration, but along the right lines.

        This truck will now take some sales from full size trucks and full size and midsize SUVs. That’s how good the new generation midsizers are.

        All you need now is the other new gen midsizers.

        Why does someone buy a Corolla when a Camry is larger with a larger engine?

        Your answer will be the usual American Exceptionalist response. Because we are America and that’s how we do it. Even when a much lower quality mini truck rocked up in the US a chicken tax was used to prevent them taking over your pickup market.

        So, how loyal are American’s to a particular size vehicle? Just look at your car market.

        • 0 avatar
          DenverMike

          @BAF0 – It’s a widely held wife tale, around the world that the American full-size trucks market is artificially propped up by regulations and tariffs or it would collapse and quickly disappear. A child’s mind also works this way. If something doesn’t work for them, it must not work for anyone else. Herr Bertel kept reminding us of that “fact”. He was ignorant of quite a few things. You know better, he didn’t. But you have a child’s mind also.

    • 0 avatar
      Hummer

      What state do you live in that is under 10k?
      In NC at 18 your allowed up to 26,000 pounds (truck and trailer) and I was doing well over 20,000 myself before I ever turned 20

      10k is easy to hit, even with only home chores.

  • avatar
    noxioux

    What do we think? Well, I think you’re up in the night, Jo. This truck is a cheap looking, bloated unicorn that nobody wants. If it was my kid, I’d lock it in the basement with a bowl of dog food and a three-year old copy of Teen People.

    This column reads like one of those annoying Motor Trend commercial fold-outs.

    I’ve come to feel that TTAC was the place where we could get something of a break from the empty-headed mainstream auto journalist knee-bending. Now I just feel dirty and used.

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    As I’ve stated this truck will pull sales from medium SUVs, full size trucks.

    If you only need to tow a couple of tons this will be more than adequate.

    I think Chev has itself a winner here. It’s taken several years but the US appears to be getting the decent midsizers we get now, a feature full size trucks have had for a while.

    The diesel will be the better of the Colorado’s to own.

    • 0 avatar
      Carlson Fan

      I’ll be interested to see what the tow ratings are for this truck. With a gas engine it should be be able to safely handle 3 tons and I would expect close to a 4 ton tow rating w/the diesel.

      • 0 avatar
        Scoutdude

        The article says 6700lbs, though they don’t say in what drive train configuration is required for that rating.

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al from Oz

        @Carlson Fan
        In all honesty I wouldn’t fell comfortable towing more than 75% of the manufacturers limits.

        If you were to tow 3 tons around on a regular basis I would not even use a full size, I would use a diesel HD.

        I do know in Australia our diesel midsizers run V8 drivetrains due to the torque. So a diesel Colorado should be as durable as most V8 fullsize pickups.

      • 0 avatar
        d002

        Its not the engine that’s the weak point, its the suspension and chassis rails. A 4 cylinder Hilux has a capacity of what, 2500 kg ? That’s because it has rock hard leaf springs. But you can’t _actually_ tow that much, you’ll just burn out the clutch !

        • 0 avatar
          RobertRyan

          @d002,
          “Rock hard springs” I have been in Hiluxes plural and a Ford F250 guess which vehicle is a masochists paradise? I suspect people driving the Ford must go to the doctors on a regular basis to check their kidneys.

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al from Oz

          @doo2
          I don’t know the strength of the US Colorado as it has a different chassis to ours.

          But I have read prior to this article that is will be able to tow 6 700lbs.

          That a large fishing boat or camper trailer.

          But our Colorado has a HD like 3 080lb payload and can tow 3.5 tonnes or about 7 800lbs.

          The BT-50 and global Ranger are very competitive with those figures as well.

    • 0 avatar
      RobertRyan

      @Big Al from Oz,
      Not really the springing and everting else has been changed to make it more car like. Towing is supposed to be 6,700lbs with a 1400lb payload. far cry from the Global version.
      Then again the Global version does not compete with US 1/2tons, the Chevrolet Colorado has been made into a “lifestyle vehicle” so this does not happen.

  • avatar
    troyohchatter

    I have no idea if I am typical but I can tell you I have towed with my truck twice, both times towing a wood chipping machine that weighed considerably less than 1500lbs. I see very few compact trucks, past or present, towing much more than two jet skis or a utility trailer with a motorcycle or two.

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      I have towed with my current truck… Zero times.
      I have towed with my Jeep… Zero times.
      I have towed with my former Saturn Vue… ONE time–a 2,000 pound capacity U-Haul trailer simply because I could not fit a sofa and two chairs in the back of the Vue.
      I towed with a 1973 Ford Gran Torino many times–hauling a 5,000# travel trailer. I traded the Gran Torino off back in ’92 because the trailer was traded for a Class A motorhome.

      • 0 avatar
        wstarvingteacher

        You and troyohchatter show me why most of us should close our comments with a YMMV.

        I sold a pickup so I could buy an SUV. Towing was big. I live on 5 acres and have constant projects and chores that require hay (1500lb round bale), other feed, or building supplies. I have owned two Datsun/Nissan pickups (manual) that filled my needs, 1 1977 Impala Wagon (350/350), 1 1957 Chevy Wagon 283/glide), A 2002 Saturn Vue (manual), a 91 chevy S10 4.3/700r4),and now a 95 4runner with manual and 4wd.

        Pretty diverse bunch but what they had in common is that I could hook any of my three trailers to them and do the task. Like you I have no need for a large truck and would hate to buy that much fuel. My vehicles have always been for commuting and working here.

        Since we all have differing needs, YMMV.

  • avatar
    bryanska

    As a pretty active home remodeler and small landlord who hauls a big thing monthly (even in the winter) and tows big things 2x/month during April-November, this is perfect.

    Also keeps me from having to rent a pickup when I just need a stump grinder for the day.

    If it’s comfy on the highway with 30MPG that would be even better.

  • avatar
    carguy

    While history informs us that midsize trucks are not a volume product, I suspect that there have been some recent changes that may make it somewhat easier for a midsize truck:

    1. Full size trucks have become too big for a lot of urban and suburban environments. They are too wide for some parking spaces and the beds are too high for easy loading.

    2. Full size truck prices are rising faster than any other vehicle class. The average transaction price for a full size in 2013 was near $40K – leaving plenty of room for an entry level product.

    That’s not to say it will be a success – that will depend on the prices and fuel economy – both of which are as yet unknown.

    • 0 avatar
      Dan

      1. This is narrow enough to fit in a compact space but doesn’t give you much of an advantage lengthwise. The extended cab isn’t fit for actual humans but leaves the truck longer than a 1500 RCSB with a toolbox. The crew cab with a 6′ bed is all of 6″ shorter than the closest equivalent half ton and four of them were snipped out of the bed. The bed doesn’t seem to be much, if any lower either. The hoodline certainly isn’t.

      2. That’s not truck prices going up, it’s luxury trims which didn’t exist before bringing the average up. Leave off the sunroofs, leather dashboards, 400 hp engine, etc. and the base extended cabs which this would match up against are still selling for under 30.

      The last wave of new midsize trucks came in around 2004-2005. Half tons were already 230″ long and hard to park in the city, gas prices were skyrocketing with no end in sight, conventional wisdom is that the time was ripe. Ripe enough for five automakers to invest billions. Other than the Tacoma, nobody bought them.

      I don’t see this market as being any friendlier. Neither does anyone except GM or they would be building new midsize trucks too.

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        If you’re talking about in the back seat, then it’s really a good thing that I don’t have “an actual human” to put back there–only my dog and some gear that simply don’t fit behind the seat of my full-size standard cab.

        What, you thought people actually WANT to carry passengers back there? The extended cab was always meant to carry things that you didn’t want to leave out in the open bed and didn’t want to mess up its carrying capacity with a full-time rail-mounted toolbox. The jump seats were just an add-on for the ‘just in case’ scenario. For me, they’ll be removed immediately as they’ll never be used.

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al from Oz

        @Dan
        I do think you are using your agricultural Tacos and Frontiers as a basis for your judgement.

        The US has never had a refined midsizer that has the equivalent comfort as a midsize SUV.

        Your full size trucks are becoming more expensive and if a highend midsizer diesel can sell for less than $40k it will move.

        I think you’ll find your midsize market was hampered by a regulatory framework that worked against them.

        The US still has a little way to go to make diesel more attractive. The first hurdle the US needs to atone is the low quality diesel you have.

        If diesel quality was the same as the Europeans then it would be easier for the manufacturers to meet US emissions regulation.

        The US is the largest producer of Euro 51 cetane diesel, so why doesn’t the US receive it? I would then question your EPAs biased targets for diesel vs gasoline. Diesel has to make a 50% larger improvement in CO2 emission in comparison to gasoline by 2018 when it’s a well known fact that a diesel emits less CO2 than a comparative gasoline engine.

        I would then rip down the chicken tax to allow more competition in the US pickup market. Per model the US has a ratio of 236 000. This is the second highest rate of vehicles per model globally. So this indicates more competition is warranted.

        • 0 avatar

          Diesel sales for the Colo/Canyon will be negligible. Even GM, no stranger to optimistic predictions, expects only 10% of the sales to be diesel. They probably base this on how much more the diesel option will cost, which only they know at the moment. With higher taxes and availability issues I doubt diesel will gain any traction in the market. You’d have to drive nearly twice as much as an average driver every year to break even on a diesel car sold in America. Diesel is taxed higher because it is predominantly used by big rigs and construction trucks that cause the most damage/wear to roads. As long as fuel taxes pay for road repairs and replacement this will not change.

          • 0 avatar
            Scoutdude

            When it costs more per mile to operate driving more miles won’t make it so you break even it will mean the you get that much farther in the hole.

  • avatar
    JK43123

    Looks great, but having been burned by GM before, I would have to wonder how they will hold up in the long run.

    John

  • avatar
    balreadysaid

    I like that this truck exists. when I go to buy another low cost low maintenance small truck it will be a used one of these. I use 1 ton reg cab trucks to plow and tow. they work excellent for work and make lots of money for me. I love the f350 I have with a v10 its the best for plowing snow and never skipped a beat since new 14 years ago. what it doesn’t do good is sip fuel. It drinks fuel gets about 7mpg and goes down from there when being used. v8 hemi I have is a bit better 8 mpg these trucks have mud tires and lift kits. I use a small gmc Sonoma sls extended cab to run around town in. I love it for parking ease, and MPG. there is a truck for every situation I buy the ones that fit mine. I am NOT one of a kind, but one of MANY! There is your market. cheaper price, cheaper to insure, cheaper to fix, cheaper to drive those are the driving factors of owning a small truck pretty simple.

  • avatar
    mikehgl

    The market does exist for this truck. It’s still out there, the cross section of the truck population that neither needs the massive scale of the full size road barges, or intends to haul 10,000 lbs of cow manure on a weekly basis. Count me in. A surburbanite 51 year old small business owner that needs to occasionally transport larger items that conveniently fits in the bed of a smaller p/u truck.
    Many of the would-be takers in this market niche have been turned away by the lack of choice available. They , like me, have defected to alternative vehicles ,waiting for the second coming of the small truck.

  • avatar
    mcarr

    The local Chevy dealer has 2014 Silverado Ext Cab 4×4’s on the lot for $33k after deals, so the only way I’m interested in the Colorado is if it’s noticeably less expensive, and fuel economy is noticeably better.

  • avatar
    KrohmDohm

    I owned a 1995 Chevy C1500 for 11 years. Not jacked up, no offroad packages. At my height of 5’9″ I could still reach into the bed behind the cab to retrieve gear. I didn’t need a step ladder, assist bar nor did I have to stand on the rear tire. I could reach it flat footed. Today’s F150/Tundra/Silverado/Ram/Titan has a bed wall that is so high even on work truck models I can’t reach into the bed anymore. Not even close. I would love to have a truck again that does the jobs I ask of it, is drivable in tight city streets and isn’t 9 feet tall. I understand the argument about the similar MPG ratings of small and larger trucks. That doesn’t help much if you can’t park it in town which some people need from their vehicle. There is a place for both classes of truck on the market.

    • 0 avatar
      mikehgl

      I just want to know what happened to the full size truck platform…Why did they get so massive? It’s almost comical to see one of these try to maneuver in real- world urban conditions.

      • 0 avatar
        PrincipalDan

        I still stare at the 1972 Chevy 1/2 ton that my FIL owns and sigh. That is the perfect size truck but my 2004 F150 Heritage (last of the areo 1996-2003(4) trucks) is close to a perfect size. That’s why I’ll keep it as long as he has kept his Chevy.

        • 0 avatar
          mikehgl

          I would think the new Colly will slot in at about the same dimensions as a 20 year old full size was. Perhaps narrower but still proportionally close.
          It’s true that the girth of Americana has expanded in the last few decades but the current flock of big trucks appears to me to be 125 per cent of human scale.

          • 0 avatar
            troyohchatter

            What happened to our full sized truck platform? Easy: The available half ton pickups have substantially more horsepower and towing capacity than the typical 3/4 ton of 15 years ago. I mean, you can get a half ton to tow in excess of 10K lbs. Make of it what you will. In fact, the term 1/2 ton is kind of silly when applied to the current 2014 fleet of trucks.

        • 0 avatar
          mikey

          @PrincipleDan…I saw the photos when you trailered the Mustang. Is it a flat bed?

          • 0 avatar
            PrincipalDan

            Sure is Mikey. Aftermarket, C&M flatbeds built in Oklahoma. Part of an insurance settlement when an elderly neighbor’s car rolled into my truck (they didn’t set their parking brake.) I love the flatbed and the body shop welded it to the truck frame, rust isn’t an issue in NM and now I have basically two steel I-beams running the bed length of the frame.

  • avatar
    mikey

    60 year old retired Canadian here. I’ve owned my share of trucks, and SUV’s. I had a 2003 2dr 4×4 Jimmy,4.3. My wife loved it. I thought it was too small,and too thirsty. I had a brand new 89 S15 4X4 4.3, long box. With two grown men in the front bench seat, you were sitting shoulder to shoulder,and it to, was also thisty. I had a couple of reg cab full size 2X2’s. The 4.3 powering those full size trucks, were not only thirsty, they were gutless.

    Last fall I picked up probably the last truck I’ll ever own. A three year old Sierra 4×4 reg cab,4.8 V8, long box,rubber mats,crank windows, A/C, and a manual 4wd floor shift.

    That truck is nice riding, smooth, and quiet. It is by far the nicest truck like vehicle I’ve ever owned. I’m 5,10 175 lbs, and my other two cars are a Mustang and a Camaro. I don’t need the big interior, and the big box of the Sierra. I just like the feel, and the ride of the full size. And yes, it does have a healthy thirst. For the small amount of miles that I drive, its not a factor.

    The new Canyon looks good, and believe it will fit the needs of many buyers….Just not me.

    • 0 avatar
      mikehgl

      Point taken. The truck market encompasses a wide variety of buyers. Their is room for all preferences,all needs,and all reasons.
      I am glad to see a new entry arrive in the mid size category. More choice is always a good thing!

  • avatar
    davefromcalgary

    28 year old Single Canadian here.

    I want to buy a small to midsize truck in a few years to supplement my car. I would buy a Canyon in this spec: Extended Cab, short box, 2WD w/ LSD, V6, 6MT, with a moderate options load out.

  • avatar
    RobertRyan

    @Jo Boras
    “A few things I did find out? The upcoming V6 version of the 2015 Chevy Colorado- which uses the same 3.6 liter VVT V6 engine used in Cadillacs and Buicks ”

    As in the Holden base Ute the Omega.

  • avatar
    Broo

    Still waiting to know if there will be a long (7’+) bed option. Anybody know ?

  • avatar
    Tifighter

    Regarding pricing, I don’t see this this latest generation truck being any cheaper than the current Tacoma, so some of the comments expecting this to be $25k well equipped and $32k loaded aren’t living in reality.

    A base extended cab Taco 4×4 V6 automatic is a $29k truck, with no options. Double cab 4×4 V6 automatic starts at $32k with no options. A LTZ Colorado 4×4 crew V6 is surely a mid-thirties truck, and we aren’t even talking about the diesel yet. Which is probably in line with its competitors, factoring in equipment, and about $10k less than a loaded full size crew cab.

    GM has been raising prices (and presumably margins) as the products get better, and I don’t expect the Colorado to be any different.

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      You can’t really compare a crew cab mid-size vs a full-size crew cab. A mid-size crew cab is about equal to an extended cab full-size, in combined front/rear legroom. Assuming you don’t need or want 3-across seating. The real difference is around $5K or less, full MSRP. And full-size OEMs are able to offer much deeper rebates, especially early on.

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        @Vulpine – You wouldn’t cross shop an extended cab full-size with an extended cab mid-size. You can actually put life size adults in the back seats of a full-size extended cab, although I have to warn riders, they’ll be very cramped in my Super cab back seats. Crew cab midsizers are equal to full-size extended cabs, only more cramped, left to right (elbow room).

        • 0 avatar
          Vulpine

          Actually, DM, I would. Since they would both be used for the exact same reasons I would definitely cross shop the two; and choose the smaller one.

          Why? Because your “You can actually put life size adults in the back seats…” simply doesn’t matter to me; I don’t have “life size adults” to put in the back seat, nor half size adults (i.e. children) either. I have a dog–who prefers to lie on the floor. You see, aside from being too big on the outside, most of these full-size trucks are just simply too big all around. I need the extended cab for interior storage and that’s all. It also lets the seats slide just that little bit farther back so a long-legged driver is more comfortable behind the wheel.

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      Ummm… What? Where did you get THOSE numbers?
      * “A base extended cab Taco 4×4 V6 automatic is a $29k truck, with no options.” Ah, I see. You’re cherry-picking. Did you know that the manual transmission model is almost $1,000 more? A MUCH better example for your argument. Yet the I-4 automatic is $3000 less and the I-4 stick drops another thousand. Considering the comparative size the I-4 is enough truck for many–but not all–buyers. Why is the V6 stick so high? Because that’s the one most buyers want. Supply and demand, after all.

      Interestingly, when I take that base model you start with and bring it up to an SR5 with options… the ‘build it’ price for that same truck comes out to… just under $30K. Of course, your results may vary based on where you live.
      http://www.toyota.com/configurator/#!/series/tacoma/cab/Access%20Cab/drive/4×4/bed/Standard%20Bed/trim/131239942

      The full sized Silverado equipped similarly comes out to just over $36,000 AFTER a $3000 rebate included in the ‘build-it’ price.

      No, I’m not saying the Colorado will be cheap, but since they’re starting with an extended cab model and not even offering a standard cab (IIRC) then we can probably expect a starting price in the high $20s and maybe going all the way up to the $40s while the full-size trucks are going to run basically from the mid-$30s and up (not counting rebates.) In other words, like Toyota they’re going to keep the two sizes about $5K to $7K apart and maybe farther for the highest trims.

  • avatar
    wstarvingteacher

    Where can you buy one of these. Oh, that’s right. AFAIK you can’t. That means this volley of insults is just mental masturbation.

    Go ahead. I’m not watching.

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      By whom? The ones who insist any kind of success is impossible or the ones who believe the truck has a chance? I’ll grant that we can’t buy them… yet, but to insist it’s a failure before even the first one is sold is as dunderheaded as all those industry analysts who said the iPod wouldn’t fly; the iPhone would fail; the iPad wouldn’t sell. The predictions on a product before it has even hit the market is just baking the blackbirds into the pie. Eventually you’re going to have to eat that pie.

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        It’s odd how this is some sort of religion for you.

        Incidentally, market share (based upon deliveries) during 2013 was 1.6%, down from 1.9% during 2012.

        While the total vehicle market added almost 1.1 million units, this segment fell by 30,000. (That’s what the math of falling market share looks like.)

        Chevy Cruze deliveries alone slightly exceeded the entire compact/ midsize truck market.

        All told, a lot of internet drama for not much activity.

        • 0 avatar
          Vulpine

          So it’s down to calling me a cultist now, is it? Too bad.

          I’ve explained “market share” to you too many times for you to be this dense accidentally–it’s obviously on purpose.

          “… this segment fell by 30,000.” Ok, exactly WHICH vehicles make up “this segment”? No, I’m not asking for class, we both know what class you’re talking about; I want makes and models of all vehicles you claim to be part of “this class”.

          And I could hardly care what the Chevy Cruze did; it’s not a truck by ANY definition of the term.

          Toyota Tacoma sales were UP in this class for three years running.
          Nissan Frontier sales were UP in this class at least this last year–though I will grant by a minimal amount.
          Ford Ranger sales were down–well DUH! They haven’t been built for the US market since the end of ’09. What few have sold are leftovers that simply haven’t been sold already.
          Chevy/GM Colorado/Canyon sales were down–again DUH! They haven’t been built for two years. Again, it’s the few dregs that simply haven’t moved before.

          The Toyota and Nissan sales have improved and that’s DESPITE not seeing a significant upgrade since ’05. How can you expect the mid-sized truck market (irrespective of the overall market) to do anything BUT stagnate?

          You’re basing your arguments on all the wrong data and THAT is why you’re going to be eating crow soon enough.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            You’ve explained (inadvertently, of course) that you don’t understand business, or math, or the concept of demand, and a whole bunch of other things.

            And that’s why this entire “discussion” (to the extent that one person presenting facts to someone else who is incapable of comprehending those facts can constitute a “discussion”) is utterly futile. You love these things just because, and anything that doesn’t support your love affair is going to throw you into convulsions. Data, factual information and analysis based upon those things are fairly meaningless to you, and nobody is going to change that.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            Now THAT is the funniest thing you’ve said all week! My discussions have proven that I know a lot more about business and math than you do–who are only able to quote stagnant numbers without even noticing the trends.

            To you, the simple point that Toyota, Nissan, Honda and now GM building in this class makes no sense–that they should abandon it the way Ford and RAM did despite the fact that the size is eminently popular around the world with the EXCEPTION of the US. Even Ford builds and sells the Ranger–overseas. Even GM builds and sells the Colorado–overseas. And both of them do fairly well, albeit not as well as Toyota and Nissan.

            You can’t fathom even the remotest possibility that GM might have data of which you are unaware. You can’t fathom the possibility that GM fully intends to steal smaller-truck customers away from a a different platform altogether–even though that platform is also given the label, “truck”. In fact, there is some indication that crossovers in particular are reverting to the automotive segment of “wagon” away from “truck” which seriously hurts many brands’ CAFÉ scores. All these factors can and probably will have a significant effect on the “market” as you so like to argue.

            “Facts” such as you like to so proudly tout are stagnant data; they don’t account for multiple data points that forecast trends. You are reactionary, not PRO-active. You can’t look at yesterday and say, “This is tomorrow.” You’ll be caught by surprise by that next snowstorm if all you could see was yesterday’s heat wave. You’ll be like the citizens of Atlanta, Birmingham and much of the southeast when that freak snowstorm hit just last week; stuck and out in the cold.

            Strangely, “Data, factual information and ANALYSIS based on those things” are VERY meaningful to me–when that analysis is based on a far broader data set than you want to accept.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @Vulpine – There’s no guarantee what sells big overseas will automatically sell big in America. Small/smaller trucks are not a new concept here. Been there done that. For the most part. we’ve moved on.

            What ever the case, it’s a dying segment that might see a slight improvement with the new GM twins, but mostly they’ll cannibalize the Tacoma and Frontier. They should be good for 100K units combined, but mostly the bottom feeders, rebate demanding cheapskates and fleet. Orkin will come back to an American (based) OEM. So will many commercial and private comsumers, just for the sake of buying a stripper, bare bones domestic, D3 branded small truck. Plus too many utilities, municipalities and gov. to list.

            Frontier and Taco sales have only seen a notable rising sales because the Ranger was killed off and the GM twins went on hiatus.

            And it’s not reasonable to think droves of happy SUV owners will dump their comfortable rides for rough riding trucks with a bed they’ll almost never use.

            But what ever GM’s data suggests, it contradicts Ford and Chrysler’s data. Or GM wants to take a loss deliberately like they more than likely do with the Corvette and definitely do with the Volt. GM is GM.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            @DenverMike: You should have stopped with your very first sentence; you proceed to contradict yourself with the rest of that statement.

            I agree that there are no guarantees–in either direction. By then trying to guarantee that the new mid-size trucks will fail, you make yourself look ignorant, not wise. Like Pch, you are so set on their failure that you simply cannot acknowledge even the possibility that you could be wrong; something I’ve been doing all along. I’ve flat-out stated more than once that these new mid-sizers COULD fail and then shown my reasoning why I don’t believe they will. You and PCH won’t even go that far.

            And speaking of rebates: When is the last time you went to the Chevy site and “built” a full-size truck? By any chance did you notice that the running price they give you as you work through the build includes a $3,000 rebate already? WHO are going to be the ‘rebate hounds’? I’m not saying the smaller trucks won’t have them, but buyers of the smaller trucks aren’t the only ones looking to “cheap out” on ridiculous truck prices.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @Vulpine – Not every consumer is like you. A regular cab full-size has similar interior volume, behind the seat storage and room to slide the seat back, just like an extended cab mid-size truck. You compare apples to oranges and complain about the price gap and size difference. Regular cab full-size are much roomier behind the seat than your ’89 F-150. Then you complain of the lack of choices in the mid-size truck class, but have done absolutely nothing to support the segment. OEMs (except for GM) can’t build small trucks on the promise of outspoken bloggers that claim they will buy them. Or buy the necessary (for the line or trucks to succeed) high end models. I can guarantee you won’t even buy a stripper, base Colorado/Canyon. No, you’ll wait for something else to come along or you’ll buy one used.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @Vulpine – Mid-size truck prices are just as ridiculous when comparing similar trucks. Like a crew cab mid-size vs an extended cab full-size. But that’s before the drastic rebates that are rolled into the actual selling price of full-size trucks. OEMs can offer consumers a better deal on full-size trucks because they’re so cheap to build when they’re selling several million trucks per OEM for entire production runs. 10 million isn’t uncommon. #1 most profitable cars in the world. By far.

            Mid-size trucks may seem similar, but not to the OEM. They’re among the least profitable cars. Rebates can only go so deep. So to the average consumer, they’re looking at spending the same or more for less truck. Some will be fine with this, but not the mainstream.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            @ DenverMike:
            “Mid-size trucks may seem similar, but not to the OEM. They’re among the least profitable cars.” Please show me how you come to that conclusion. How can they be “among the least profitable cars” when sedans, econoboxes and even crossovers offer so much less profit? Sure, the mid-size might not offer as much profit as a full size, but there’s still anywhere from $15K to $30K profit on that full size. By extension, that means a mid-sized pickup should realize a minimum of $7K and push to $20K or more if they do like Ford and make a dozen different trim levels (that really aren’t all THAT different at the top end). The typical closed-body car only offers about $2K profit at most until–again–you get into the high-end luxo trims.

            Show me some verifiable proof that what you say is true.

            Oh, and while we’re at it, please explain to me why you INSIST on comparing two different body styles between mid-size and full size and calling them “similar”. The only similarity between the two is their overall length–which is one of the dimensions I’m trying to reduce. Why would I want a mid-size crew cab if I’m looking for an extended cab? I’ve stated numerous times I don’t need the passenger capacity, so crew cab simply doesn’t make sense even in the mid-sizer. When comparing like to like–extended cab to extended cab–the price differential is STILL nearly $7K for a nicely-equipped truck without going overboard.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            @ DenverMike:
            “Not every consumer is like you.” True.
            They’re not all like you, either.

            “A regular cab full-size has similar interior volume, behind the seat storage and room to slide the seat back, just like an extended cab mid-size truck.” FALSE!
            Behind the seat of a standard cab full sizer is a maximum of 8″ of depth with the seat all the way back; that’s hardly enough room for a 50# dog, much less two bowling bags and other personal gear that you simply don’t want to leave out in the weather. An extended cab gives roughly 15″-20″ of interior, secured storage for such things. What, you think I haven’t looked? You think my current standard-cab F-150 is the only full-sized pickup truck I’ve ever been in, much less driven? I’m not as stupid as you’d like to think and I know for a fact that a regular cab really isn’t enough room for anyone.
            Why else would nearly every brand now be talking about dropping the standard cab altogether? Only the “cheapskates” and fleet operators even buy them any more. That extra space wasn’t put in there to carry passengers; for years those jump seats were nothing more than an afterthought–a ‘just in case’ addition for the rare occasion that an extra seat was needed and where a crew cab was too much for everyday purposes. As I’ve stated before, the jump seats would be removed when I purchase one and GM has gone so far as to make their removal a factory option. I expect with time it will be replaced with an ordinary load bearing shelf that can be raised to make room for larger objects.

            This is why you can’t understand why ANYONE would want a smaller truck. You keep insisting that all truck owners want maximum power; maximum capacity; maximum towing. They don’t. I’l grant that some do. Some NEED it while others just want the feeling all that size and power gives them. On the other hand, many DON’T need it and simply don’t WANT it. Let them have their choice and shut up about it.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @Vulpine – Physically, both classes of trucks are similar, but they’re fiscally worlds apart. Not even in the same realm. If you think small truck makers (starting with Mazda, Isuzu, VW, Subaru, and Mitsu) have bailed on the segment because they hate to make money, you’re simply diluted.

            $2K profits for small cars that are made of a cheap stamped steel, FWD and mass produced in huge quantities is a reasonable estimate. Then take expensive to build small BOF trucks that sell in small numbers with no high end luxo models to subsidize the stripper base vehicle. Understand you simply can’t deduce a $7K profit margin for small trucks by extension. It doesn’t work that way.

            What you refuse to accept is that there’s simply no comparison between extra cab mid-size trucks and extra cab full-size. Tall drivers and passengers reclining the seats of mid-size extra cabs to a comfortable driving/riding position leave little or no room for luggage etc. Same as full-size REGULAR CABS. I can reline the seats of my extra cab F-150 to sleep comfortably. I’m almost laying flat.

            You wouldn’t say the Tacoma regular cab has anywhere near the generous behind the seat storage (and recline ability) of full-size regular cabs (made this century).

            Regular cabs are only being dropped in America for the way our cheapskates, fleet, and bottom feeders abuse and take advantage of small truck OEMs. The regular cab Taco stripper is a phenomenal bargain. With rebates, it’s slightly more than a disposable subcompact. Comes with cloth seat, carpet, limited slip, CDMP3 and tilt/telescoping standard. Of course it has to die. Too good to be true. Don’t be surprised when Nissan takes away the King cab. All small trucks will eventually force a crew cab. Their low profit margins demand it.

            Yes both (classes) are trucks with beds and both have “extra cabs” and “crew cabs”. You’ll oversimplify like a madman to prove you’re (wrong) points.

            I’m not saying all consumers demand the most towing, payload, capacity, volume, seating, and HP for they’re dollar, vs a slightly more compact exterior (at a similar price point after rebates) for ease of parking and more useful garage, but most mainstream consumers likely do.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            Have they bailed, DM? Have they really bailed? Or is it just that they’ve bailed out of the US market because they aren’t allowed to make the profit that they can because it will all be taken away by a 50-year-old law?
            Does Mazda make no more midsize trucks anywhere?
            Does Isuzu make no more midsize trucks anywhere?
            Volkwagen?
            Subaru?
            Mitsubishi?

            THAT is the fallacy of your argument and I already know that you’re going to insist that, “Sure, they make them in other countries but there’s simply NO market in America for them.” If they’re profitable in other countries, why can’t they be profitable here? We already see how Ford is trying to dodge that law. We already see how Mercedes is dodging that law but not every brand you named can dodge it the same way. You’re right, the demand isn’t large enough to counterbalance the cost of even DODGING that law. Not with that many different competitors, anyway.

            BUT, there is demand and were these companies able to achieve even a $5K profit off their smaller trucks, they would be here in a heartbeat and that difference happens to be the cost of paying a tax or building/leasing an assembly plant and hiring workers at American pay scales.

            Meanwhile, you’re going to continue insisting that two different body styles represent the same truck. For the owner, they don’t. You state, “Regular cabs are only being dropped in America for the way our cheapskates, fleet, and bottom feeders abuse and take advantage of small truck OEMs.” Where is your proof? General Motors has stated that there simply isn’t enough demand for regular cabs to warrant continued manufacture–which goes 180° counter to your opinion. You’re going to insist that there is no difference between a crew cab and an extended cab–yet while I agree that crew cabs are the most popular now, extended cabs still have enough demand to maintain production.
            It’s YOU who “oversimplify like a madman to prove you’re (wrong) points.” Just because you want your road whale crew cab doesn’t mean everybody wants one. Just as every car maker in the world has at least started to build 4-door versions of nearly every model, some have already begun going the other way–returning to 2-door versions of their 4-door lines. BMW has done it. Mercedes has done it. Soon–within 10 years at most, 2-door cars will be common and the 4-door will be again relegated to “family car” status.

            “I’m not saying all consumers demand the most towing, payload, capacity, volume, seating, and HP for they’re dollar,” yes you are. “… vs a slightly more compact exterior (at a similar price point after rebates) for ease of parking and more useful garage, but most mainstream consumers likely do.” Because they have little choice in the matter. If they want American, they have NO choice in the matter. This is what GM has set out to do; give those customers who WANT a smaller option in an American brand the type of vehicle they really want. Where I live, a town that could be called a ‘sleeping’ community for big-city commuters, what trucks I see are not typically used for carrying things and with the exception of regular-cab styles all overlap their parking areas both front and back–forcing snowplows to operate more than two feet away from the curb which narrows an already narrow suburban street into 1-½ lanes and have caused many face-offs between delivery vehicles (including school buses) and privately operated vehicles where one has to reverse to let the other through. The average pickup truck has simply become too large to retain its status as a “personal” vehicle. Many states have enacted laws relegating pickup trucks to Commercial status, whether they are used for such work or not.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @Vulpine,

            “Or is it…they aren’t allowed to make the profit that they can because it will all be taken away by a 50-year-old law?”

            To put it simply, no. Import (branded) OEMs have been happily building cars in North America without any kind of Chicken tax for more than 30 years. HAPPILY!!! The only difference between those import (branded) cars, made in NA, (Honda, Subaru, Toyota, Nissan, Hyundai, VW, etc) and small pickups is those cars are cheap to build and sell in big numbers. Those cars are very much in demand. That’s a world of difference.

            But how quickly you forget the mini-truck craze/fad/invasion. Around a million were bought up per year. The Chicken tax was in full effect then too. What was the difference between then and now? Other than cut-rate import (branded) trucks were very much in demand.

            Things/trends change, but the law hasn’t. The chassis/cab loophole ended in Dec, 1979.

            Small trucks can be profitable overseas, because they don’t have to sell side by side with full-size trucks that offer far better value. And far better rebates. Not to say consumers necessarily cross shop, but small trucks still live in the shadow of full-size trucks. That limits their MSRP and forces rebates too.

            Yes it gets too expensive to build vehicles in the North America when there’s not enough buyer to go around. Buyers that aren’t so much cheapskates, fleet and other rebate demanding bottom feeders. What’s a small truck OEM/dealer to do when consumers show up at the sales lot with a fist full of ads for full-size trucks dipping deep into the teen$?

            Overseas, small trucks command higher prices (and profit margins) because there’s no competition or drastic rebates. If you what a luxo truck, small trucks are all there is. And if you want maximum seating, payload, towing etc, and insist on a pickup, small trucks are all there is.

            Small trucks are far cheaper to build in North America, Mexico especially, than in Japan. Obviously Thailand wins that competition.

            But why WOULDN’T Ford try to dodge the law? You’re being silly… They’re a ‘For Profit’ company, not a charity case, like GM.

            Why are you bring cars into the conversation? BMW 2-door coupes sell for more than 4-doors of the same line.

            What GM mouthpiece marketers say needs translation. They’re sidestepping the cheapskates, bottom feeders and fleet, but to say THAT would be politically incorrect. What was Nissan’s marketing reasoning? And what will be Toyota’s (Tacoma) “official” reason??? The Nissan Hard Body out sold all others, but when Nissan killed off the regular cab (Frontier), for no apparent reason, sales absolutely tank’d.
            The Tacoma regular cab is already gone from Canada and its sales have also tank’d. Guess what will happen to Taco sales when the reg cab Taco goes off line in the US? Yep, here too. Tank’d. You watch.

            Yes consumers are free to pay the same or pay more for less truck if they want. Yes they’ve been limited to import (branded) small trucks for the last year or so, if they do. But they can if they want. GM to the rescue, for those that rather buy domestic (branded) small trucks. That’s mighty kind of them to do so, and they may actually turn a profit if enough are inclined to or prefer a domestic (branded) small truck. That’s the gamble. Hello Orkin. Hello other fleet, utilities, gov. and other stripper, base truck buyers.

            HD pickups aren’t so much for personal use, unless you’re a serious weekend warrior. But you’re talking about two different things here when you bring up HD pickups and their Commercial status when (5th wheel) towing at near full capacity and properly equipped. Not that you have to tow at level of capacity, but what does that have to do with anything?

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            So, DM, you’ve gone full circle and flat-out insist that the so-called Chicken Tax had no effect whatsoever on small truck sales–despite the fact that killing import trucks was its express purpose. Even you’ve admitted it, though as you argue yet again that it had no effect, Ford, Mercedes and even Volkswagen have complained vocally and loudly about that same tax. Let me ask you one question and I DARE you to present verifiable evidence to your answer: If the tax is having no effect, why are THREE major automakers complaining about it? As far as, “The chassis/cab loophole ended in Dec, 1979″, it obviously has had no effect on shipments because Ford tries to pass off the Transit as a passenger van while Mercedes ships their Sprinter sans underpinnings. Apparently neither one of them got that message and neither has the government, since Ford in particular has been fined more than once for trying to bypass the law–now in two different locations.

            Small trucks CAN be profitable in the States–if they can compete against those full sized trucks on an even playing field–not one where they have to pay as much as $5000 just to bring them ashore to what you call is a “weak market”. I’m not saying small trucks will take over the market; I never have said small trucks will take over the market. BUT, smaller trucks could take a big bite out of the SUV market which is filled with samples from every single manufacturer in the world–well, most of them that at least meet American safety standards. Why are all those SUVs here instead of pickup trucks? Because they can legitimately claim to be passenger vehicles first and cargo second.

            “But why WOULDN’T Ford try to dodge the law? You’re being silly… They’re a ‘For Profit’ company, not a charity case, like GM.”
            You make my case for me. If that law wasn’t there AND affecting them, why ARE they trying to dodge that law? You can’t have it both ways. That law either exists and IS affecting the market, or it isn’t and Ford is going to added expense for no purpose. As you said, Ford is a “For Profit” company and they simply wouldn’t do something like that for no reason.

            I could care less what you think “GM mouthpiece marketers say.” The simple fact is that more than one company has already stated they’re dropping standard cabs and GM just happens to be the first one doing it. That’s hardly “mouthpiece marketing”. If standard cab trucks aren’t selling (and all you have to do is look at now many 1, 2 and even 3-year-old standard cabs are still sitting on lots around the country) then that’s the model that has lost its customer base. We don’t hear of that many mid-sizers staying on the lots that long UNLESS they’re the “strippers” you’re so proud of touting. The numbers have been presented to you often enough that the so-called ‘strippers’ are the SLOWEST SELLING models, not the purview of “cheapskates”.

            WHOA!!! I didn’t bring up “HD pickups and their Commercial status,” I stated that in some states ALL pickups, from the mid-sizers up are getting Commercial plates; owners don’t have a say in the matter even when they argue they’re just going to be towing their boat to the river/lake or towing an RV. Maybe not Texas, but I live next to two different states with that regulation on the books and the one in which I live is considering it. Again, it has nothing to do with the size of the truck, it’s the simple fact that they ARE a truck because it’s next to impossible to tell the difference between a half-ton and a Medium Duty any more. It certainly doesn’t help when even half-tons can now carry or pull as much as the older MDs could handle.

  • avatar

    I hate when “Internet Car Guys” (in this case its a trucks, but its the same guys) make the argument “Why would I buy X when I could get Y for just $2500 more?” – often X & Y are compact truck and full sized truck respectively. And I don’t bother arguing with them… anymore.

    But I’m going to flip the script on them this time and not ask price wise, but size wise.

    Why would I buy a Colorado extended cab, (which only seats 4 and 2 of them are going to be pretty cramped, though 90% of the time its just going to have me in it) when I can get a Silverado regular cab (with a bench seat that seats 3 comfortably, but still will mostly have just me in it) that is actually shorter? I live in the city. Width is no big deal for parking, but that extra foot of length can make parking a real bitch. (this coming from a guy who sometimes daily drives a 1960 Chevy full sized wagon)

    Give me my regular cab small truck with a bench seat! Otherwise I like my Current Colorado (reg cab, 5 speed, 17″ wheels with factory sports package) and would buy a new one if a comparable model was being offered. Instead I’m looking at 20 year old F150, which are actually nearly the same size.

  • avatar
    DenverMike

    @Vulpine – Can OEMs be taken on their word? They’ll claim an II crash test is not “real world” when they get a “Poor Rating”, but without missing a beat, the same OEM will pimp the hell out of a “Five Star Rating” from the same institute.

    Can you be taken on your word? You’ll remind us when OEMs lobby for the Chicken tax, then complain when the same exact OEMs complain about the Chicken tax. It all amounts to OEMs chasing their tail. And or spewing excuses to save face. They have to answer to the public and stock holder that don’t know any better. You know better, or maybe not…

    Of course no OEM needs to pay a 25% tariff, and how the heck were mini-trucks such a raving success with such a tax. Other than the mainstream consumers having moved on to a multitude of segments, What exactly has changed about the tax? Niche truck OEMs can’t cope with simple requirements and so what? Who’s fault is that? People here also want Peugeots, Ladas, Citroen, etc, but who’s gonna cry for them? Watch me throw a tantrum for Tatas!!!

    And show proof new midsize reg cabs sit around unsold at dealer lots for up to 3 years . I know fleets were hoarding them when the Ranger was killed off and GM twins went on hiatus. No, they’re loss-leaders mostly built on order while they pimping multi-cabs.

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      @DM: As expected, you couldn’t present any proof, only more arguments. You really need to stop stuffing your foot in your mouth; it really doesn’t help people’s perception of you.

      “Can OEMs be taken on their word? They’ll claim an II crash test is not “real world” when they get a “Poor Rating”, but without missing a beat, the same OEM will pimp the hell out of a “Five Star Rating” from the same institute.”
      Example?

      “You’ll remind us when OEMs lobby for the Chicken tax, then complain when the same exact OEMs complain about the Chicken tax.”
      Example? Link to the quote where I reminded you of an OEM lobbying FOR the Chicken Tax. For that matter, how about linking to the last time any OEM DID lobby for the Chicken Tax. I seem to recall that it was the UAW that didn’t want it revoked.

      “And show proof new midsize reg cabs sit around unsold at dealer lots for up to 3 years .”
      I think PUTC has offered enough proof through their monthly and annual sales summaries–which shows stats like the Ford Ranger selling some few STILL, long after production was stopped; Canyon and Colorado sales LONG after production was stopped. It’s quite obvious that the least desirable truck is a regular cab–because there’s simply no room to store personal items inside where it’s secure and protected from the elements.

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        Vulpine,

        “As expected, you couldn’t present any proof, only arguments…”

        This isn’t a court of law, counsel. When you have a conversation, arguments happen with no need for proof. You must be a lot of fun at parties. If the argument makes sense, I wouldn’t expect you to dig up proof before believing, even if it’s readily available.

        You ask for an “examples” of OEMs contradicting themselves, for and against, crash test data/studies, but it seems you’re new around here if you haven’t seen them do just this. And it’s totally plausible and logical they would contradict themselves this way. You yourself know that OEMs will argue for and against the Chicken tax almost in the same breath.

        You want me to scramble around, killing time, showing you proof needlessly of everyday common knowledge (that you’re free to look up yourself) as an exercise of me chasing my tail to divert from the conversation. Because you’re all out of gas otherwise.

        You want links to OEMs lobbying for the Chicken tax, ask BAF0. He’s got more links than I could ever come up with. Again, common knowledge.

        Yes PUTC puts up articles on monthly/yearly sales and IIRC, the Ranger, Colorado and Canyon went out of production in ’11, sold remaining inventory for a few months after, during ’12 and sold zero
        trucks in ’13. What trucks and what 3 years are you talking about? And the PUTC articles don’t spell out what cabs are sold last anyways. It’s just as likely crew cabs are the last to sell or dealers can’t get rid of.

        • 0 avatar
          Vulpine

          Then just admit that your viewpoints are only opinions, Denver. Without proofs, that’s all they are.

          “You want links to OEMs lobbying for the Chicken tax, ask BAF0. He’s got more links than I could ever come up with. Again, common knowledge.”
          Actually, it’s rather common knowledge that he blames all of that on the Unions, not the OEMs.

          And I think you’d better look again on the number of Rangers, Colorados and Canyons sold in ’13. It’s more than zero–and that’s my specific point.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @Vulpine – Yeah, it’s your opinion that it’s my opinion. And that’s all you really have for an argument now. If I’m wrong show me where. The few scraps remaining by 2013 hardly prove your point. That’s nothing like 3 years. They were all crew cabs as far as you know. No one scrambled to buy last remaining crew cabs (or even super cabs) or hoarded them after they went out of production. Just regular cabs. Ask Orkin. The very last production Ranger went to Orkin.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            And yet again, Denver, you make absolute statements with no evidence to support them. Prove to me that Orkin purchased the very last Ranger sold. They may have purchased the last one MADE, but the last one made was not necessarily the last one SOLD.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @Vulpine – Suddenly the Small Pickup Mafia (SPaM) can’t figure out how to use a computer? Key words: orkin, ranger, last.

            I’m at cafe with crappy wifi, so your a big boy, figure it out. I saw the article on jalopnik or something about it.

            You’re down to splitting hairs because you’re completely out of spin. And it’s pure conjecture on your part that the base Rangers, Canyons and Colorados were the trucks dealer couldn’t get rid of.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            Nice how you so conveniently ignore the statement, “The last one made is not necessarily the last one sold.” The last new Ranger one actually sold by PUTC records was more than a year later, in December of ’12.

            Meanwhile, two Chevy Colorados and two GMC Canyons were sold in December of ’13 which appear to be the last of their generation–again WELL over a year after production ended. Why? Because the “strippers” as you so like to call them are the LEAST popular of truck types.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @Vulpine – I said “the very last production Ranger went to Orkin” as in the very last to roll down the assembly line. I said nothing about the last trucks sold ever. And as far as we both know, the last remaining trucks were hard loaded because there’s little demand for them. Almost no demand. Too much demand of strippers kills the deal for For Profit OEMs.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            Out of context you’re exactly right this time, Denver, but IN CONTEXT, you were stating, “The few scraps remaining by 2013 hardly prove your point. That’s nothing like 3 years. They were all crew cabs as far as you know. No one scrambled to buy last remaining crew cabs (or even super cabs) or hoarded them after they went out of production. Just regular cabs. Ask Orkin. The very last production Ranger went to Orkin.”

            In other words, by stating the last PRODUCTION Ranger went to Orkin, you were implying the LAST RANGER SOLD went to Orkin–knowledge of which you have no concept. You would make a great Evangelist, Denver; you happily take sentences out of context to completely change their meaning. In other words, your argument simply does not refute any of my statements and tries to divert the direction of the argument into a totally different direction; something of which you have proven very adept–until someone calls you out on it.

            To reiterate: The so-called “strippers” are NOT the favorite choice of so-called “cheapskates” since they are almost exclusively chosen by fleets. Any “strippers” left on the lots tend to sit long after their model-year production run has ended.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            @Vulpine
            You have been dragged into DiM’s the ‘simpletons’ world of deflection and misrepresentation of the original argument.

            You are being lead. He’s a troll of the worst type who gets off on this kind of stuff.

            He’s a sick F*** (this ‘f’ work has four letters and is a noun, try and work it out. This is directed to the easily offended/politically correct set, but it isn’t a swear word ;)

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @Vulpine – I was “implying”? More like you were reading things into what I said.

            “…after they went out of production…the very last production Ranger went to Orkin.”

            The very last vehicle to roll down the assembly line is always collectible and milestone, unless it’s an Echo, Aspire or something like that.

            Orkin just happens to be the #1 private buyer of Rangers and is now the #1 private buyer of Tacomas.

            But never did I say or “imply” Orkin waited until all other new (old stock) Rangers were gone from all dealers to snatch up the very last one available anywhere. That’s all in your head.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            By stating, “The very last production Ranger went to Orkin,” you were implying that Orkin purchased the very last Ranger sold,despite the fact that even YOU knew that the last Ranger SOLD sat on the lots for over a year–which was exactly my point. I don’t care who bought the last one MADE; that’s the ‘collectors item.” The last one on the lots is the one least wanted by anybody and probably sold at a real loss (not a contrived loss) for the dealership. Unwanted models–typically strippers–simply don’t sell except to a very exclusive group; a group for which physical comfort is anathema to their lifestyle or policy because it promotes laziness.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @Vulpine – How could myself, Orkin or anyone possibly track where the absolute, very last new Ranger in existence (in dealer’s stock) was located? And then supposedly secure it’s sale? For the sake of what? That’s crazy! Why would Orkin wait for the very last second to own the very last official “new” Ranger in existence at the exact moment there are no more new Rangers to buy???

            And why am I even answering such a silly scenario you’ve conjured up? Notice I said “production” Ranger. As in production line…

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            Why don’t you ask Mark at PUTC, Denver? Somehow he’s able to find out and post the sales numbers on that board; so SOMEONE had to tell him when it sold.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @Vulpine – PUTC and others have a line on what sells when. But they don’t track dealer inventory to tell you when they’re all gone or a countdown to the very last one in existence.

            When sales for the Ranger and Colorado/Canyon went to zero, that doesn’t mean there’s still not a few still hanging around dealer warehouses or hoarded by some crazy dealer hoping to cash in someday. Unmolested and new (old stock, or NOS) midsizer regular cabs will be collectible in the not so distant. future

          • 0 avatar

            Denvermike, If you think there is no business case for a 100,000 units a year midsize truck, built on a borrowed global platform, borrowed engines and an assembly plant shared with full size vans then what is the business justification for any one of these cars/trucks to exist?

            2013 total sales: Titan – 15K, Ridgeline – 17K, Crosstour – 16K, CRZ – 4000, Insight – 4000, Cube – 5000, Juke – 38K, FRS – 18K,. (Note these are yearly sales)

            The CRZ, Insight and Cube have unique sheet metal, cost under $20,000, sell less than 400 a month. The GM midsize trucks will have an ATP of $30,000, sell nearly 10,000 units a month and most importantly steal sales away from the competition. What part of this argument do you fail to understand? 100,000 a year is more than the entire plug in segment, nearly twice the entire Scion brand, and more than Lincoln. There is no question the midsize trucks will not sell in numbers anywhere close to full size trucks. Same is true for sub compact cars, that will never sell as well as midsize cars. Maybe you should convince Ford, Honda and Chevrolet to kill the Fiesta, Fit and Sonic. Should they kill the Focus and Taurus because the Fusion sells more?

            Stop comparing to what Ford and Ram are doing. Each company has its own strategy and differing priorities. What works for one will not necessarily work for the other two. The 2009 recession has made the Det 3 cherry pick only the programs that take priority. There was and still is very little money to revitalize the entire lineup. Ford for example had to concentrate on the Ford brand but Lincoln had to be put on the back burner. GM is working on improving Buick and Cadillac while Chevrolet is having to phone in refreshes (Malibu). Both have had some success in whatever paths they choose. Fusion sales have increased by 100,000 since 2009. Though the Malibu only grew by 40,000 in the same period, Buick has increased sales by 100,000 since 2009. GM and Ford no longer ape each other nor they should. GM has somewhat fixed Buick and Cadillac, so now they are entering the midsize truck segment. Ford may do the same after they fix Lincoln and Fiat after they fix Chrysler (though at the rate Chrysler is shoveling cash on the hood they may not need to sell a cheaper midsize truck). Nothing is constant in the auto market. Full size cars were popular 30 years ago. The Impala alone sold over 1 million in a year. Mid-size cars became the largest segment 10-20 years ago and now the compacts are on the rise.

            I guess we just have to wait and see how it all plays out though I would not underestimate GM’s ability to sell pickup trucks. Pickup truck buyers lean domestic and GM sees an opportunity for the taking with no domestic competition. If Toyota can sell 160,000 Tacomas in a year, I have no doubt GM will sell between 100,000 and 120,000. Mazda, Honda, Suzuki, and Nissan would kill to sell 100,000 pickup trucks a year. TTAC should put out at least one Chevy Colorado post a week to keep things interesting.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @alluster – GM will sell a lot of small trucks, that’s not a problem. The problem is who’s buying them. Fleet buyers from 1000s of industries, cheapskates and other bottom feeding consumers from every walk of life that prefer a domestic D3 offering, will converge on GM like stink on shhh… There’s most of their 100,000+ sales. Orkin may be the 1st in line. And by far, the biggest buyer of small GM trucks.

            There’s room for one of the D3 OEMs to step up, but not two. If Ford joins in the small truck market, they’re back at 50,000 units of low margin, expensive to build small BOF trucks.

            There has to be way too much factory, assembly line, platform, drivetrain, etc, etc, sharing to make it worthwhile. The Titan, Frontier and Navara share a platform. The Armanda and QX use it too.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            And that is DM’s problem, Alluster; DM and others think that so-called ‘bottom feeders’ will be a smaller trucks ONLY customer base and the point with which I most strongly disagree. The problem will be in proving it and if mid-size SUVs start to see a drop in market share, that will be pretty strong evidence that he’s wrong.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            Just a thought, but if you want to tout the Insight as an example of low volume = desirable, it might help to remember that it is being discontinued.

            I’m sure that Nissan would love to sell a lot more Titans, and that the only thing Titanic about it is the losses. But if Nissan wants to be able to play in the truck big leagues, then it needs to play the long game and keep swinging at the ball, absorbing the losses during the interim.

            I’m sort of amused to see the Ridgeline being promoted as some sort of success story. If it wasn’t just a cost amortization exercise of an existing high volume platform, then it probably wouldn’t make any sense at all, assuming that it even makes sense now.

            “The GM midsize trucks will have an ATP of $30,000, sell nearly 10,000 units a month and most importantly steal sales away from the competition. What part of this argument do you fail to understand?”

            The part about the 120,000 units, which seems to come out of some sort of fantasy novel.

            Ditto with the bit about stealing from the competition.

            Here’s a prediction: By year three, after whatever pentup demand has been fulfilled, this will be a low volume performer that, over the long run, will not have justified the several hundred million dollars that was spent on development and tooling, plus whatever is spent on marketing and promoting it.

            Your 120k figure can’t possibly happen unless other segments lose significant market share. And I’m quite sure that you haven’t done the math for that, or figured out how exactly this is supposed to take those sales. This is typical GM fandom — aggressive estimates that fail to materialize, followed by aggressive incentives that are needed to move the unwanted inventory.

  • avatar
    DenverMike

    @Vulpine – Just because fleets mostly go for the base strippers, doesn’t mean they’re the ONLY ones that show up at the dealer wanting the lowest common denominator of trucks. Fleets don’t have exclusive rights to cheapskate models. They’re not the only bottom feeders. Not by a long shot. The regular cab Tacoma is practically the lowest common denominator or cars period. An awful lot of consumers will sorely miss the regular cab midsizers. Not just Orkin and other fleet buyers. Hundreds of industries and tens of thousands of buyers wanting regular cabs or what ever is the next lowest common denominator once they’re gone.

  • avatar
    Vulpine

    Denver, stop trying to distract from the message: the reason most vehicles stay on a new car lot long after their model year is ended is simply due to the fact that they’re the unwanted models; the ones that are typically the loss leaders; the ones that have next to no comforts. In other words, the “strippers”. When it comes to pickup trucks, these “strippers are typically the single-cab, nothing but work trucks that only an Amish would love–if it were black.

    I don’t agree that “an awful lot of consumers will sorely miss the regular cab mid-sizers.” A few, yes; but I’m betting that number falls lower than 5% of the mid-size market and I’m betting even now that single-cabs make up less than 10% of the full-size market. You look out on the road on any one day and the only single-cab pickups are typically well over 10 years old while even 20-year-old extended cabs are surprisingly common. I’m also noticing that those older extended cabs are typically in much better physical condition than their single-cab sisters. In fact, I’ve got the best-looking 20+ year old single cab in my region and it’s a ‘survivor’, not a rebuild or restore. The reason for that is the simple fact that it spent half its life under a carport–not driven.

    I bought the truck I did out of necessity, not desire; needing a truck within two weeks that was big enough to carry the specific load already committed. It barely made that two-week deadline and still needed other repairs before I could properly register it. I wouldn’t have bought it or any other single cab had I time to actually look for a better choice. But that doesn’t mean I would have bought a crew cab either–that’s simply too much wasted space for the purpose which a truck is designed.
    Crew cab perfectly describes its purpose–to carry a crew. If it had been intended for a family daily driver it would have been called a Family Cab, no? Family Cabs are currently the most popular pickup model–but I’m not sure for how long.

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      @Vulpine,

      “…the reason most vehicles stay on a new car lot long after their model year is ended is simply due to the fact that they’re the unwanted models…”

      That’s a great deduction there… Who’da thought…?

      “…the ones that are typically the loss leaders; the ones that have next to no comforts. In other words, the “strippers”…”

      The loss leaders are mostly built on order from the consumer or fleet buyer. And dealers will order a sprinkling here or there, to lure prospective buyers for the complete upsell once they arrive on the lot. They don’t last very long if at all. It’s the loaded up top luxo trucks that hang around forever. Those are more likely impulse buys and dealers have to stock and may combinations, options/packages and colors as humanly possible. With stripper trucks, just plain vanilla white. One manual trans and one automatic. If a buyer wants metallic blue, tuff cookies. Order it buddy!

      And consumers rarely buy with an emphasis on comfort. They take comfort in buying the cheapest thing on wheels that’s still a new vehicle. Especially in this segment. Or everyone would be riding around in luxury cars, SUVs and trucks with full electronic gadgetry, air ride and leather everywhere.

      “…When it comes to pickup trucks, these “strippers are typically the single-cab, nothing but work trucks that only an Amish would love–if it were black…”

      It’s not just about loving what you drive. Especially if you’re buying it for work or your workers. Loving what you didn’t spend takes president in this segment especially.

      You can “bet” all you want and take a good guess what % regular cabs are to the mix of cabs. But you’re definitely way off. Especially when talking about the lowest common denominator of trucks. You know they attract fleet, cheapskates and bottom feeders from everywhere and too many industries to list. Retirees, young 1st time buyers, as gifts from grand parents. And from buyers from most segments of small cars too.

      Your personal and anecdotal evidence is meaningless here. You’re looking at the world thru your SPaM goggles anyways.

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        “The loss leaders are mostly built on order from the consumer or fleet buyer.”
        FALSE. Loss leaders are exactly that; purpose ordered ‘strippers’ by the dealership so they can have a car priced at well below average without losing too much money on the sale–if any. They are by no means ordered by an individual OR a fleet since to even place an order they must put money down on the purchase before the order is sent in.

        This is the kind of statement that demonstrates your complete lack of logic when discussing markets; you don’t even now how dealerships operate, much less the manufacturers themselves. You prove it yet again by saying, “It’s the loaded up top luxo trucks that hang around forever.” How can you even imagine that, since those are both the biggest profit makers AND the most popular on average? WHERE IS YOUR LOGIC?

        “And consumers rarely buy with an emphasis on comfort. They take comfort in buying the cheapest thing on wheels that’s still a new vehicle. Especially in this segment. Or everyone would be riding around in luxury cars, SUVs and trucks with full electronic gadgetry, air ride and leather everywhere.”
        And they aren’t? You sure couldn’t tell that by the trucks around where I live. Those big, expensive trucks are the Cadillacs of today as far as status symbols go. Those who aren’t using their truck for REAL WORK are using them solely to show off to their friends, neighbors and anyone else who will look at them. More often than not they’re hot-rodding around, showing off all their big power–even when its a diesel. There’s a whole industry toward ‘tuning’ diesels for even more horsepower and torque–on trucks that never, EVER carry or pull a load. They’re just burning rubber and blowing smoke. If they’re not at the drag strip showing how fast they can take the quarter-mile, they’re at the county fair showing how far they can pull that sled.

        Sorry, DM, your view of the trucking market is all skewed. You’ve got some serious stigmatism because you think right is left and left is right.

        • 0 avatar
          DenverMike

          @Vulpine – Dealers don’t require a down payment from me on special orders unless it has oddball options they’ll have problems selling if I don’t end up buying it.

          The high end, loaded luxo trucks are not the most popular small trucks. Not by a long shot. What makes small trucks so popular with fleet and other bottom feeding consumers is they’re the cheapest and smallest. They’re the cheapest cars too, if you don’t count subcompacts.

          Take off your SPaM goggles already. The high end luxo trucks are obviously what dealers want to sell the most of, but if you were right, OEMs would be pee!ng on themselves to join the market, not sidestep it. But to even think about selling the high end luxo trucks, dealers have to stock all kinds of combinations of options, colors and special package/groups.

          Consumers will not wait around for a special ordered high end luxo truck, even without a down payment. They’ll just drive to the next dealer. They have very specific wants and needs when it comes to high end luxo trucks.

          And small trucks are not considered when consumers want a truck that’s a replacement for luxury cars including Cadillac and German luxury. And muscle cars too. Small trucks are what their employees and help drive. Get a clue.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            @DM: And of course you buy a “stripper” every time, right? ( /s )

            As for the rest of that, yet again you try to divert the discussion by stating that only “cheapskates” buy smaller trucks. The more you insist the Colorado/Canyon will be a failure, the more I hope they blow away the RoadWhales™. While I don’t expect it (and never did if you really pay attention to my arguments) I do expect them to do a lot better than you simply want to believe. Both you and PCH insist there’s simply no market for a smaller truck and I know for a fact that there is–though much of that market wants even smaller than the Canyon/Colorado.

            Too bad for you.

  • avatar
    AlternateReality

    Is the next “deep dive” segment going to focus on Corvettes? I hear Bowling Green has some lightly used models available for review, minor spelunking required.

  • avatar
    DenverMike

    @Vulpine,

    “…much of that market wants even smaller than the Canyon/Colorado.”

    If your research and anecdotal were right and Americans really wanted even smaller mid-size trucks, why do the trucks keep on getting bigger and bigger? Go figure…

    But we do know for sure, base small trucks are as entry level as you can get and still own a truck. And the smallest truck you can get if what you say is true. But being the starting point for truck is going to attract the cheapskates, fleet and bottom feeders like no other. They all zero in and converge on the smallest and cheapest. And move in for the kill… Unfortunately, they’re the backbone of the small truck market.

    “..yet again you try to divert the discussion by stating that only “cheapskates” buy smaller trucks…”

    I didn’t say “only”, but a majority including budget minded private consumers, governments, municipalities, utilities, and 10s of 1000s of stripper buying small business that don’t even qualify as “fleet”.

    “The more you insist the Colorado/Canyon will be a failure, the more I hope they blow away the RoadWhales™. While I don’t expect it…I do expect them to do a lot better than you simply want to believe. Both you and PCH insist there’s simply no market for a smaller truck and I know for a fact that there is…”

    That really depends on what you mean by “failure”. A success in plain sales figures, sure but thin on profits, if at all.

    “The more you insist the Colorado/Canyon will be a failure, the more I hope they blow away the RoadWhales™…”

    See I don’t know where this became personal for you. It’s just business for the rest of us. If small truck OEMs can succeed and thrive, awesome. If not not. For GM, this may be personal too. But businesses that can’t separate the personal from the financial, often fail.

    But we’ll see what happens when the GM twins hit the market. And if there’s new life in the segment. Or small truck buyers just moving from one brand to the other, chasing the cheapest. But hey that’s what we do.

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      @DM:
      “If your research and anecdotal were right and Americans really wanted even smaller mid-size trucks, why do the trucks keep on getting bigger and bigger? Go figure…”
      We all know the answer to that one and it’s four words that spell out C.A.F.E., not any real demand for bigger and bigger.

      “But we do know for sure, base small trucks are as entry level as you can get and still own a truck.”
      Are you trying to say all small trucks are going to be “base” or just that BASE small trucks are entry? Nah, according to you all smaller trucks are “base” trucks, even if they’re luxo models. When’s the last time you went to Toyota and looked at their SR5 model? Granted it’s not at the level of the King Ranch, but it’s far better than their base model in almost every way. And we have no idea as yet just what packages the Colorado/Canyon twins will carry. From what I understand there will be at least three trim levels. The thing is, the base-level pickup is the REAL pickup–the rest are basically Buicks and Cadillacs with an open bed and their pricing shows it.

      “That really depends on what you mean by “failure”. A success in plain sales figures, sure but thin on profits, if at all.”
      Yeah, and Apple’s iPhone is a complete failure because it only has a 20% market share–despite making 78% of the profits. Androids–despite having 75% of the market only make 22% of the profits–if that much. In other words, you have no idea what their profits will be because you have no idea how much they’ll cost to build. I will make it simpler for you; the smaller trucks will cost less to build because they won’t have to use all those expensive, fancy metals to lighten their weight. They’ll make more profit pound-for-pound than the current line of full-size pickups.

      “See I don’t know where this became personal for you. It’s just business for the rest of us.”
      RIIIIght! You’ve gone out of your way for the last two years to insist there can be no chance of smaller trucks in the market, despite evidence–a lot of evidence–to the contrary. You’re the one whose made it personal by NEVER PROVING IT! Every bit of evidence you’ve linked in that period of time has been private, personal opinion blogs whose viewpoints agree with yours; never have you linked any of the major industry reviewers or even Wall Street analyst who claimed there was no market for smaller trucks. Obviously the demand is there and the mere existence of the Tacoma, Frontier and now the Canyon/Colorado prove it. What I EXPECT is that the double-C twins will prove the market WANTS an American-branded smaller truck, even if it’s just badge-swapping a foreign-made model the way these same companies have badge-swapped many of their cars. (You do know that many Buicks are Opels, don’t you? That many Fords came from UK, Euro and even Turkish assembly plants?) The most popular compact trucks of the ’70s and ’80s were the American branded Japanese trucks–practically selling side-by-side with their Japanese twins. Once the “Big Three” started producing the Ranger, S-10/-15 and Dakota the Japanese market pretty well fell through the floor. The first Dakota was almost an ideal size for most Americans even then, which is why Ford and GM eventually brought their own models up to that size. Then, as I stated earlier, CAFE got into the act and rather than trying to improve economy, the Big Three just kept upping the size to avoid the economy limits and THAT is what killed the mid-size trucks.

      “But we’ll see what happens when the GM twins hit the market.”
      Yup. You’re going to have to wait too.

      “And if there’s new life in the segment.”
      I expect to see an abject apology to all those you’ve been calling “the small truck mafia” in plain type both here and on PUTC if there is.

      “Or small truck buyers just moving from one brand to the other, chasing the cheapest.”
      You never could just leave well enough alone. You think that just because they’re smaller people want cheaper–not just a more compact size.

      “But hey that’s what we do.”
      That may be what YOU do; that may be what all your friends do. But that’s not what WE do as individuals–we buy what best meets our needs and desires, whether that be the cheapest beater on the market or the most expensive.

    • 0 avatar
      Les

      “If your research and anecdotal were right and Americans really wanted even smaller mid-size trucks, why do the trucks keep on getting bigger and bigger?”

      ACKT!

      Pffblt!!

      OH FOR FU-‘S SAKE!!!

      EVERYTHING Automitive is getting Bigger! ..and Bigger.. And Bigger ..And BIGGER …AND BIGGER!

      Trucks are getting Bigger.

      4x4s are getting Bigger.

      SUVs are getting Bigger.

      Family Cars are getting Bigger.

      Sports Cars are getting Bigger.

      Even Hatchbacks are getting Bigger.

      This is the truth of the automotive industry, and Has been the truth of the automotive industry since it’s BEEN an Industry and not a niche goods purveyor. Vehicles haven’t overall shrunk-down industry-wide since the last huge shake-up during the oil crisis in the 70s, typically what instead happens when a model bloats it’s way out of it’s original market is not to try and shrink it back down but to introduce a New model that fits the old model’s original segment… before it too bloat-bloat-bloats.

      That’s where we’re at with full-size pickups. They’re eminently capable at doing big jobs but too big and clumsy for everything else. Too tall to fit in the garage, too wide to go down narrow roads without scraping the hedge, too long to be easily parked, too tall to get into easily without side-steps, too tall to reach into the back bed easily, just too damned Much and that’s what trucks are going to continue to be like until a major paradigm-shift happens to the industry (fat chance)… or… they’ll start introducing smaller pickups to fill the voids left by the mainstream product bloating it’s way to the top, pickups like say… oh, I dunno.. the Colorado/Canyon.

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        @Les – Why would you care or complain about the size of full-size trucks? Worry about bloated mid-size, which is what you’re in the market for anyways. Sorry, the market has spoken. Either that or nobody (at the OEMs) is listening to those that whine, but never buy any trucks. But the millions of full-size truck owners/drivers seem to be very happy with what they have. Tell me they’re not. They’re perfect if you ask me. Mine is. That’s why i bought my F-150. What truck do you currently own?

        • 0 avatar
          Les

          It’s not the market that’s making the Everything mondo giganto huge, it’s the nature of the beast and it’s been like that since almost forever. Some people do want Bigger OMG HUGE, some buy them because that’s all that’s available, some buy them because they don’t really need trucks and just want a status symbol and don’t know any better.

          My first car as a 1995 Chevrolet half-ton, about the same size.. maybe slightly smaller.. than the upcoming Colorado/Canyon. Regular cab, short bed. (I actually wanted an S-10, but at the time the only ones available locally were manual trans and at the time I was intimidated by stick-shift.. if I had it do do over again I’d have had an S-10 4×4 with a 5-speed)

          I don’t own a pickup now. I own a Jeep Patriot, because the kind of pickup I want generally isn’t available to me for a price that’s reasonable. My granfolks have a new F-150 and it is a pain in the butt. It makes a reasonably good emulation of a 1960’s family sedan on the inside, but my granma has difficulty getting into it even with the side-steps they opted for, and the bed is so deep and the edge so high it’s hell trying to grab things out of it so you only wanna use it to haul big bulky items and keep small miscellaneous stuff in the cab.. which you can’t really do with work materials because that’ll mess-up the carpets…

          ..and that’s why my grandad didn’t sell-on his 2001 Silverado, in spite of how worn-out it is.

          I’ve largely ignored your little Pi-*ing match with Vulpine, because it’s boring, but your generalization about trucks getting bigger just pushed one of my buttons so I’m jumping in late in the game and I don’t really know or frankly care what it is you’re actually trying to pick a fight about.

          You like your gimundo-huge truck, fine, excellent, more power to you. What I don’t get is why you seem so intent on dropping trou and sh-*ing all over those of us who aren’t on the same, “OMG BIG! BIG TRUCKS! MOAR!!” bandwagon as you are.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @Les – Some people just like to complain, are never satisfied, have to make themselves miserable and those around them. There’s a solution for everything. Shut up and fix it.

            You don’t have to get the biggest available. Mine’s just a super cab that’s not much bigger than crew cab midsizers. About 6″ all the way around. It should really be called a “mid-size”. Stuff is hard to reach in the bed, but I really like the high sides giving it extra volume that’s hidden from view. I’ll have it loaded with expensive tools and hardware and when I park away from everybody it looks like an empty bed from across the parking lot.

            Sure maybe some consumers are buying full-size trucks under protest, but the same goes for bloated mid-size trucks. And the same goes for bloated Civics, Sentras and the like. And bloated Camrys, Altimas, Taurus’ and such. But you can always step down to a smaller class.

            Seems like everyone voted and a few don’t like the results. Most look happy to me. Although your absence from the truck market is really showing them…

          • 0 avatar
            Les

            @DenverMike

            “Sure maybe some consumers are buying full-size trucks under protest, but the same goes for bloated mid-size trucks. And the same goes for bloated Civics, Sentras and the like. And bloated Camrys, Altimas, Taurus’ and such. But you can always step down to a smaller class.”

            ….

            That was kinda..

            Sorta…

            The point I already raised.

            *sigh* Yeah, you win. You got me. Have fun trolling Vulpine, I’m out.

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      @vulpine – Are you really comparing mid-size truck profitability to iPhones and such? Phones that cost about a buck apiece to make and sell for hundred$? And at millions at a time? Sure. Sure thing…

      Regardless of CAFE pressure or demands, American consumers aren’t into smaller trucks they’ve never really been into them except for a short short time in the mid ’80s. Maybe their cut-rate pricing had nothing to do with it…

      Things change, and trends come and go. I miss the parachute Pantz the most.

      But I never use words like all, always, never or none. There’s some high end luxo truck buyers, but not enough to subsidize the fleet, bottom feeders and other cheapskate that seek out the lowest common denominator of trucks. And of most cars not counting subcompacts.

      Yes there’s room for 2 or 3 niche players in the small truck market, but that’s pushing it. Similar to the compact roadster market.

      But there’s no CAFE overseas and trucks like BAF0’s BT50GT are no shrinking violets. They’re fully bloated too. Riddle me that…

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        DM: Yes, and you fell for it hook, line and sinker. With your facetious statement, you proved you know absolutely nothing about markets except what you are told that agrees with your own viewpoints. You have no idea WHY the iPhone sells so much so you blow it off as “cultists”. Well, you have no idea WHY people want smaller trucks so you blow them off as “cheapskates”. You may miss the Parachute Pantz–but you certainly missed the parachute. You’re falling fast and don’t have a thing to grab and save yourself. Even this statement, “But I never use words like all, always, never or none,” is false because you have stated with absolute terms that there is no worthwhile market for mid-size to compact trucks and that ALL smaller trucks are purchased by “cheapskates”, which include fleets and misers. You definitely make absolutes every time someone disagrees with your viewpoint.

        Let’s just sit and wait a while to see what really happens over the next couple years, hmmm? Don’t even MENTION your opinion of the mid-size truck market in that time and only discuss the differences between different members of each CLASS. Don’t compare larger to smaller, compare smaller to smaller and larger to larger; apples to apples and oranges to oranges. I will do the same until YOU, slip up. I don’t think you can go even one week, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and wait for your mistake.

        Oh, and don’t think you can get away with it by using some other username either here or on PUTC; I will respond to ANYONE who is not Denver Mike on that subject until Denver Mike slips up.

        • 0 avatar
          wstarvingteacher

          What is PUTC?

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            pickup trucks dot com.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            PUTC is a site where trolls roam free and unchecked. Vulpine goes under the same name there, but also freely goes under the names DWFields and Roadwhales™. I’d say he’s bipolar, but he’s tripolar…

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            And as you can see, Denver Mike LOVES his straw-man attacks. Where he hides his multiple usernames, I don’t and clearly stated that RoadWhale™ is my permanent PUTC user to go with my Roadwhale™ website. Unlike most there, I’ve never made any bones about using a different username and made it quite clear they are all mine. As demonstrated by the fact that ONE of those mentioned is my real-life name.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @Vulpine – Name anyone, ANYWHERE that shares my exact views on ALL topics. Many do agree with me on this topic (alone), obviously, but mostly they’re polar opposite on most other topics. And I’ve ARGUED with EVERYONE you can think of… So when others do agree with me, you’re so PI$$3D that you jump to conclusions without looking at their entire set of views on other subjects. But you have to ask yourself if you’re going crazy or it’s the Valiums…

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            Well, since I seem to have far more life experience than you AND I’m not taking Valium or any other form of mind-altering drug AND multiple people from very different parts of the world agree with MY opinions on where things are in the world of transportation–the problem must be with the one who disagrees, no?

            Of course not. You’re better than us. (/s)

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @Vulpine – I’ve picked out some of the various names you hide behind, which you admit to. But you cannot name a single person that slightly resembles my views, ALL my views, not a just one single topic you happen to be butt sore about.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            Do you even begin to realize how stupid you’re making yourself sound? “I’ve picked out some of the various names you hide behind…”
            Really. Not only are you saying I’m “hiding” in plain sight but then imply–effectively state that I have more that I haven’t “admitted to”. Do you know the old saying, “It takes one to know one”? By making that claim, you’ve as much as admitted that you operate under far more names than “Denver Mike” of which most of those names have been exposed by their word-for-word agreement over the course of the many different blog postings you’ve commented on. You say we can’t “name a single person that slightly resembles my views, ALL my views,” yet collating all the many different postings demonstrate that your “fan club” is you, and you, and you, and you again, and yet again YOU. You simply cannot operate so many different “avatars” and keep them separate; YOU come through in every one of them.

            And now to respond to your other rebuttal:
            “Why would I be surprised others agree with you? They’re small truck fanboys. I’m not denying they’re existence at all. Most have proven they can’t think straight. And there’s a lot of wives tales out there, especially overseas, about how artificial the Americans full-size truck market is and it couldn’t naturally occur with out a government conspiracy/intervention and bailouts/handouts.”

            You prove my point with the sentence, “Most have proven they can’t think straight.”
            Meaning, of course, if they don’t agree with you they MUST have something wrong in the head.

            And, ” there’s a lot of wives tales out there, especially overseas, about how artificial the Americans full-size truck market is and it couldn’t naturally occur with out a government conspiracy/intervention and bailouts/handouts.”
            Obviously you’ll call them “wive’s tales” because you can’t imagine that such a story could possibly be true. Yet you haven’t EVER been able to show any verifiable proof of your fantasy. You claim that “the market has spoken” when quite clearly people can’t buy something that isn’t available–no matter HOW much they want something different. I want two-door coupes based on a pretty common sedan. Can I get it? No. That brand does not make a coupe version of the car I want. I want a truck the size of the 20-year-old S-10. Can I get it? No. Nobody builds one. Why? The reasons are too many to count and there is no ONE dominating reason.

            Interestingly, there are a few automobile companies that have realized that they’ve been ignoring a very vocal group that simply won’t buy a sedan, no matter what brand or what kind of performance it offers. New coupes are now starting to enter the market–again. They’ve realized that they’ve been ignoring a very vocal group that doesn’t want 20-foot-long pickup trucks that stand 7-feet-tall. New, smaller trucks are now starting to enter the market–again.

            Your views–your opinions–aren’t the only ones and are not necessarily valid when seen in the stark light of reality.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @Vulpine – It took me a minute to realize DWF was Vulpine. You didn’t exactly state that you changed your username. Very shady. When you changed it to RoadWhales, I knew in a instant it was you bouncing around to yet another username. Casual readers have no reason to think your point of view isn’t shared by several different bloggers. It’s completely deceitful to not put it in your title. Something like: “Vulpine aka DWFields aka RoadWhales aka SPaM…”

            It would be crazy for me to go under a different username. What would be the point? I couldn’t be myself them risk getting discovered. Stick to one name and don’t drag it thru the mud.

            At the same time, you accuse but cannot come up with a single username or persona that remotely sounds like me on varying topics. Even on this topic, no one has my exact point of view, similar yes, but your fragile ego can not accept the fact that many here and at PUTC oppose you and your rants that lack any kind of logic or market understanding. Yep, it must be a single person acting as many… At least to your deluded coping mechanism. You obviously suffer from delusion.

            And BAF0 doesn’t even try to hide the fact that he’s crazy. What a surprise, he gets no respect. You corner him with facts and logic and he resorts to insults. He’s admitted to using several username on PUTC. “apollo 13″ comes to mind. He went by “AL” here on TTAC one day last week. BAF0 has such a unique and abstract point of view that it was a dead giveaway. He didn’t deny it and even answered for “AL”. “AL” was never heard from since.

            You and BAF0 are both frauds. I mean besides trolls.

            You guys are definitely a very vocal group, but OEMs know that a lot of noise online about more choices in the small truck class and even smaller pickups doesn’t quite translate into strong sales. Not unlike the compact diesel wagon with a manual trans. They’re way ahead of you.

            There may be millions that want a compact diesel wagon with a manual trans, and more, smaller, mid-size trucks, but that doesn’t mean they want one new. Used maybe, and as a 2nd car, but who said anything about NEW??? That’s the trap that OEMs won’t fall into.

            Were talking about very limited markets, like the compact roadster segment. There’s room for a couple OEMs that have it down to a science.

            “…people can’t buy something that isn’t available…”

            Seriously, we’ve had plenty of 2-door couples. Sales were strong, but the market has changed. When consumers largely reject thI em, they go away. See how that works? You want OEMs to bring them back, based on what?

            You vote for what’s on the menu 3 times a day. If there was a true demand, we’d still have all sorts of choices. We’ve had small trucks of every description too. So I’m not sure what you expect from OEMs. They don’t listen to bloggers. They listen to sales.

            GM joined the small truck market, but don’t get your hopes up. Now it’s overcrowd. I hope that’s enough for ya. Something tell me it never would be and you never will.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            “It took me a minute to realize DWF was Vulpine. You didn’t exactly state that you changed your username. Very shady. When you changed it to RoadWhales, I knew in a instant it was you bouncing around to yet another username.”
            That merely shows your lack of observation skills–because in both cases I clearly stated that I was changing the name to fit with a website dedicated to discussion. Since I began talking about trucks more than anything else AND I’d taken to calling full-sized trucks RoadWhales™, I took the domain name and created a truck-only site.
            Hardly sneaky.

            Cannot or will not? You have more names than I wish to count and Big Al from OZ has already named the majority of them in multiple places (though I will accept that he may be giving you credit for a couple of other people as well). I’m too tired of arguing with you to research through two years of discussion on PUTC and 6 months here on TTAC to bother with the effort. One thing I have noticed, he does get more respect than you want to claim; all the disrespect comes from the many yous and what few others agree with you. He offers a viewpoint based on far more real-life experience than you will EVER achieve and you do everything you can to belittle that experience. YOU don’t know what’s going on even in other parts of this country, much less other lands. You are far more of a fraud than he is because all you know is your tiny little piece of land and not even much of that.

            Speaking of ‘limited markets’, let me ask you a question:
            My father in law is a farmer/mechanic in Pennsylvania. This is major farm country where MOST of the farms are farmer-owned, not corporate. This is a state with over One Million Miles of paved roadway; some in better shape than others but few in really great shape. I will acknowledge that he rarely gets out of his own quiet little farming community and many would call him a ‘hick’, little better than a ‘hillbilly’. Yet he has commented to me repeatedly over the last year that the Toyota Tundra is becoming a very popular full-sized pickup truck.
            My question? Why? This is a community that until very recently didn’t even LOOK at foreign brands on the farm. They drove either Chevys, GMCs, Fords or Dodges. Now he sees farmers and construction crews driving Toyotas for every kind of task (please note I am just talking about full-size trucks here). You explain to me why Toyota is suddenly becoming so popular with people who actually USE their trucks.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @Vulpine/DWFields/RoadWhales/SPaM – Who exactly did you announce it to that you had besmirched yet another name and were starting over clean with a brand new username? BAF0? The rest of your SPaM troll mates???

            No one else got the memo…

            What names has BAF0 come up with? “Pch101″? “Mikey”? “Hummer”? Basically anyone that makes him look like a fool? I guess that could be a VERY long, long, long list!!!

            Got any names you came up on your own? Let’s hear them. This should be good! For someone that’s so adamant, they should be at the tip of your tongue…

            U full of SH!T much???

            The Tundra is a good truck, so why wouldn’t it have increased market share in certain isolated pockets of America. Actually all trucks that are still in production increased their market share over last year, except for the Titan, over 2012 sales. The Tundra increased the least though. +11% for the Tundra vs 26% for the Ridgeline and 21% for the Ram, the top 2.

            news.pickuptrucks.com/2014/01/best-selling-pickup-trucks-december-2013.html

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            I rest my case. You’ve just proven to everyone that you don’t pay attention to posts you don’t think I’d comment in. It’s there, all you have to do is look for it. In fact, I think you’ll find that I posted the announcement on two different threads.

            And while I’ll agree with your numerical assessment of overall growth, that doesn’t explain why some are seeing far more Tundras than others. Pennsylvania, by the way, is not an “isolated pocket”.

        • 0 avatar
          DenverMike

          @Vulpine – Well one of us is insane because I’ve never said:

          “ALL smaller trucks are purchased by “cheapskates”.

          If this is what you’re reading, your mind is playing tricks on you…

          Obviously it’s a ratio, but it’s not a good one for small truck OEMs.

          And I don’t blow off EVERYONE that buys small trucks as cheapskates. Just Fleet and other bottom feeders that target the cheapest trucks in America. They converge/pounce on the small truck class like it’s going out of style. And it is going out of style. Small truck OEMs are trying to ditch the cheapskates by cancelling the regular cabs they love so much. Well they’ll have to cancel the mid-size extra cabs too. They can’t really separate themselves from the fleet, cheapskates and other rebate demanding bottom feeders, no matter what they do.

          Again, I’m not saying cheapskates make up 100% of small truck consumers, but enough that it kills what ever profits are gain by the minority of high end luxo midsizer buyers.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            “And I don’t blow off EVERYONE that buys small trucks as cheapskates. Just Fleet and other bottom feeders that target the cheapest trucks in America.”
            Which, as you’ve said many, many times are the ONLY types of people who buy smaller trucks. You’ve proven my point with your own words–again.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @Vulpine – Again, I’ve never said “the ONLY types” or “EVERYONE” that buys small trucks are fleet, bottom feeders and or cheapskate consumers. It doesn’t even make sense that I would say something like that. If you’d calm down and read what I actually say, you’d see things totally different.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            When three very different people from three very different parts of the world agree so completely about how poor your reasoning skills are you have to wonder: is it them, or is it YOU?

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @Vulpine – Why would I be surprised others agree with you? They’re small truck fanboys. I’m not denying they’re existence at all. Most have proven they can’t think straight. And there’s a lot of wives tales out there, especially overseas, about how artificial the Americans full-size truck market is and it couldn’t naturally occur without a government conspiracy/intervention and bailouts/handouts.

  • avatar
    DenverMike

    @Vulpine – Yes OEMs need to move their full-size truck design studios to the heart of Pennsylvania farm country… Got it!

    But who’s gonna keep an eye out for when you announce your username changes? When do you schedule your new username coming out parties? I missed the last 5 or 6. Got links to your past ones?


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