By on March 24, 2014

2015-Chevy-Colorado-3

Today’s quote of the day comes from GM’s Jim Cain (not to be confused with our own Tim Cain), who is quoted by Automotive News as making some rather bold predictions for the upcoming Chevrolet Colorado mid-size truck.

Speaking to AN about possible cannibalization on the part of the Colorado, Cain said

“We’re not worried about the Chevrolet Colorado attracting would-be Silverado customers…The people who should be worried are the ones who orphaned their mid-size truck customers, and those who sell trucks that are about to be rendered obsolete.”

I’m not sure which trucks will be “rendered obsolete”. The Tacoma? The Frontier? The V6 F-150? The GM full-sizers that have to be redesigned in 2018 due to what many observers agree is a botched launch?

As someone who prefers smaller vehicles and lives in region with high gas prices, the emotional appeal of a mid-sizer is there. But the business case is weak. Market share for smaller trucks is just 225,000 units, in a truck market worth 1.6 million units overall and a total car market with a SAAR of around 16 million. And the majority of that one segment belongs to just one truck, the Toyota Tacoma.

The main selling points of a smaller truck, namely price and fuel economy, have been eroded by increasing full-size fuel economy and lower prices. Anyone who has seen the new GM mid-sizers knows that they aren’t all that mid-size: they have a footprint similar to a GMT900 pickup, as opposed to a Ranger. And too few Americans have the sort of space constraints – the kind that necessitate these trucks in world markets – that would make a mid-size truck successful.

Corporate communication strategy dictates that the sort of tough talk that Cain is relaying is essential to their messaging, especially in such uncharted territory. But it’s difficult to take take in these claims with a straight face, especially when every other factor indicates a different outlook. Of course, I could be wrong. Maybe the Colorado is a game changer.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

259 Comments on “QOTD: Chevrolet Colorado To Render Other Trucks “Obsolete”...”


  • avatar
    I've got a Jaaaaag

    It could, doubtful, but it could. It is nice that manufacturers are slowly stepping away from the “You need a full size truck with a V8 mentality” they’ve had for the last 15 years. I was pleasantly surprised to learn recently that the Escape with 2.0 ecoboost has a 3,500 pound towing capacity.

    • 0 avatar
      NMGOM

      I’ve got a Jaaaaag – - – -

      1) If GM really believes such nonsense and acts on it, then the only thing that’s going to rendered “obsolete” is GM. Watch Ram and Ford continue to gain market share: they already have. The Ford F150 didn’t get to be the largest selling vehicle in the US for the past 32 years by having no frame, a 4-cylinder, and wimpy performance. Americans are hungry for what has essentially become the new family sedan, — an echo of the 1950′s and 1960 with BIG BOF, V-8, high-riding cars of the era.

      2) If you have serious toys to haul and loading work to do, there the is NO practical substitute for a full-size pick-up truck. (I know: I have both.) Check the specs yourself. And the fuel mileage has not been so greatly different between a full-size and an intermediate size truck.

      ———

      • 0 avatar
        TW5

        The American middle class is hungry for financial suicide, and Detroit is happy to finance manufacturer-assisted-suicide on a 144-month term. The culture of the $50K fullsize commuter truck is not going anywhere, but into a shallow unmarked grave.

        If GM is betting that Gen Y will not be able to afford $40K-$50K fullsize trucks, who could bet against them? I’m not sure those customers will choose lifestyle trucks, but we will see.

        • 0 avatar
          mkirk

          So because someone got a 144 month loan on a Aston GM is doing it too? Source?

        • 0 avatar

          Gen Y (me) just needs a good reality check. One can still get a really nice 4×4 F150 crew cab for the low $30s when all the dust settles. If we learn how to live without every possible technology feature as well as settling for regular cabs for those one passenger folks (most without families) or extended cabs then you can dip well into the $20s. People have greatly confused their need and want list for a monthly payment (without enough interest in leasing these babied rigs).

        • 0 avatar
          NMGOM

          TW5, again – - –

          Please see my full comment WAY down below, near the bottom.
          I tried to respond to you at 1:19 AM ……
          …. but the comment didn’t “take” , for some reason.
          Now it shows up down there instead of up here…

          Essentially, it said:

          “1) 2013 Ram Express Quad Cab (AT) = starting $26,195.
          (http://www.ramtrucks.com/en/ram_1500/#express)

          2) 2013 Nissan Frontier Crew Cab (AT) = starting $23,080.
          (http://autos.yahoo.com/nissan-truck/frontier-crew-cab/2013/)

          3) EPA Ram 1500 (AT ) (V-8) (6.4 bed) = 14/20
          (http://www.edmunds.com/ram/1500/2013/?zip=54914&ps=new&sub=quad-cab)

          4) EPA Nissan Frontier Crew Cab (AT) (V-6) (5.0 bed)= 16/22
          (http://www.edmunds.com/nissan/frontier/2013/?style=200465011#pricing-pod-anchor)

          Differences in purchase price and fuel mileage for comparably equipped vehicles are VERY small. The only reasons for getting a mid-size truck (like the Colorado) are:
          1) Intense use as a commuter, so that the extra 2 mpg matters;
          2) Smaller width to fit into tight garages or other spaces;
          3) Availability of a Manual Transmission (my case);
          4) No need for heavy hauling or massive towing.

          Yes, by going wild with options and accessories, you can run the price of Ram through the ceiling, but you don’t have to do that. Frankly, if the Ram had come with a Manual Transmission (notice the capital letters?), I would not have gotten the Frontier.

          ———————”

  • avatar
    gtrslngr

    Ahhhh … yes … the ‘ new ‘ Chevy Colorado … which is in fact the OLD Chevy Colorado stretched and pulled and with a bit of ‘ plastic ‘ surgery and a mechanical upgrade or two

    The real question in light of the last two weeks being … will the Chevy Colorado … like its other siblings including the Silverado … try and kill you as well ? Knowing the project manager first hand as I do … all bets are … it will

    Seriously GM marketing mavens .. the only thing about to become ‘ obsolete ‘ is possibly GM itself

    • 0 avatar
      CoreyDL

      …. cool ….,,

    • 0 avatar
      CJinSD

      The part about new GM products still trying to kill you seems pretty prescient today.

      http://ktla.com/2014/03/23/suv-erupts-in-flame-during-test-drive-in-anaheim/#axzz2wuL8jSFh

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      @gtrslngr – the new Colorado has nothing to do with the old Colorado. It is the Global Colorado tweaked for USA consumption. GMC went to great lengths in their PR to state that the USA Colorado is almost completely different than the global but I do not believe it. That is PR hyperbole to appeal to the “America is best and the rest of the world sucks” types that would not buy a Brazilian engineered and Thailand tested and built truck.

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al from Oz

        @Lou_BC
        You are 100% correct.

        GM is also placing spin on this vehicle to distance itself from the global Colorado. American it is, but yet mainly from Brazil. Brazil is in the America’s;)

        It’s very much the same vehicle, with a lighter chassis, different body panels and dash.

        • 0 avatar
          mr_min

          Please educate me how either position can be made? Its the same as the global Colorado or it is not the same?
          Because I’m missing something:
          1. Who has crawled underneath the global car and the Merican version, driven them and compared them? Because if you haven’t how can you conclude it is or isn’t the same car.
          2. At what subjective point does a vehicle become “identical”?

          These are the big question I put to the BB.

          • 0 avatar
            Viquitor

            Well the doors are the same, the dimensiona are also pretty much the same, the dash is not the same but the components go on the same places.

            I know I did not answer your question directly, but these are clear evidences of a very high degree of similarity, to say the least.

            And here’s another clue for you all, the walrus was Paul and that Hummer H3 truck was also developed in Brazil.

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            @mr-min,
            They are calling it a “lifestyle vehicle” A lot changed, payload less than half of the Global Colorado, towing downgraded as well. Same capability as US Tacoma.

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            The H3 was developed in Mishawaka, Indiana and manufactured in Shreveport, Louisiana.

            I know I was close to someone in development.

          • 0 avatar
            Viquitor

            @Hummer the HT3 was outsourced to Brazil. That also included the south african version.

  • avatar
    eggsalad

    A long time ago, General Motors sold 50% of new cars *worldwide*. They could get away with being arrogant, and maybe they deserved to be.

    The dominance is long gone, but the arrogance remains.

  • avatar
    PeteRR

    They should call it the “Hyperbole”.

  • avatar
    CoreyDL

    It’s never wise for some exec to over-hype a new model that way. These sorts of declarations ALWAYS come around to bite you later.

    • 0 avatar
      bomberpete

      “Corporate communication strategy dictates that the sort of tough talk that Cain is relaying is essential to their messaging, especially in such uncharted territory. But it’s difficult to take take in these claims with a straight face, especially when every other factor indicates a different outlook. Of course, I could be wrong.”

      Unfortunately, I suspect you’re right. Like previous and similar chest-thumping from GM, it looks like it was fully vetted by Communications. They never learn to just shut up until the launch.

      On the other hand, a “social seller” at Oracle named Jill Rowley got fired for telling AdAge that her company had no Cloud strategy until she came along. The response to the article was positive, but Oracle got bent out of shape at how they were portrayed, and perhaps at Rowley’s ego. Reading the story, it’s unlikely she went thru “channels” like I’m sure every GM exec does.

      http://www.prdaily.com/Main/Articles/Oracle_fires_employee_after_Ad_Age_interview_16331.aspx#

  • avatar
    danio3834

    It’s Small Truck Week on TTAC. Watch the Compact Pickup Jihad duke it out with the Brown Wagon Brigade.

    • 0 avatar
      thelaine

      Word

    • 0 avatar
      Pch101

      We could negotiate a peace accord (not an Accord.) Perhaps a diesel wagon with a bed attached to it could bring these warring factions together.

      • 0 avatar
        greaseyknight

        It was called a Subaru Baja, they never had a diesel as far as I know but I’m sure a EE20 could get swapped in, don’t know if they ever came in brown.

        • 0 avatar
          Pch101

          No, I’m referring to something that has both an enclosed rear cargo area AND a bed in the back.

          (Of course, it can’t be too large, and a stick shift is a must.)

          • 0 avatar
            05lgt

            It shoudl be BROWN, but otherwise:
            http://blog.caranddriver.com/the-continental-meeting-a-giant-new-technologies-and-classic-coolness/

            This Tissier Citroën DS conversion is it.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            The Citroen comes close, but there’s no interior cargo area behind the passenger seats.

            The perfect vehicle requires a wagon body that opens up onto a bed. With a diesel, it should be able to tow 10,000 pounds while getting 60 mpg with a headwind.

        • 0 avatar
          Truckducken

          Most of them quickly turned rust brown!

          • 0 avatar
            Bruce the K

            Pch101: Studebaker Lark Wagonaire? (with some kind of turbo-diesel dropped in it?) I think you could get factory beige (Sahara or some such thing) but I don’t know about brown. ;-)

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            That Studebaker actually comes close to realizing the dream. It’s a shock that they still aren’t in business!

  • avatar
    87 Morgan

    As an owner of a small truck, 11′ frontier, rendering them obsolete should not be real tough. It guzzles gas, has a mediocre ride, turning radius that rivals an aircraft carrier, I could go on. But, it does fit in the garage and is by and large a useful truck.

    I just don’t want another full size truck and would love a mid size rig that could get better mpg than a suburban. Here’s to hoping they get it right crew with a MT.

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      After watching not one, but several full-sized trucks attempting to make U-turns at intersections over the weekend while my own vehicle was able to make the same turn with room to spare–I’m sure many full-size owners are wishing they had something with a shorter wheelbase. The envy was quite visible in their eyes when I didn’t have to back up to complete the turn.

      • 0 avatar
        OldandSlow

        You ain’t seen nothing until you’ve spent time behind a Quad Cab King Ranch with a long bed as it attempts to negotiate the switch backs on a mountain pass that is just a BLM unpaved shelf road.

        I expected the behemoth to launch itself off edge of the shelf road into the canyon below at least twice.

        • 0 avatar
          Drzhivago138

          One good thing about those behemoths–once you’ve learned to turn around in one, everything else is easy in comparison. Like going from our 1978 Ford L700 to my sister’s Focus.

          • 0 avatar
            Onus

            This^

            I just drive a regular cab, long bed truck.

            Give me a car and i can get it into some pretty crazy spots that normal people wouldn’t think you could get in.

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        @Vulpine – Every selection has its limitations. The guy that opts for the hefty 180 lbs girlfriend is gonna have limitations, like riding her around on his crotch rocket, sports bike. But that’s not the only sport there is. Totally worth it in so many different ways! Ask me how I know…

      • 0 avatar
        LALoser

        +1. How about the truck/SUV that goes like crazy on the straight away, but has to creep thru curves and come to a dead stop before making a “sharp” turn.

    • 0 avatar
      mkirk

      Crew cab long bed?

    • 0 avatar
      redav

      I used to own a Ranger (c 1989), and I quite liked it. I often wish I still had one like it.

      I also used to drive my father’s last-gen Ranger (c 2000). It was a pile of crap. My RX-8 gets better gas mileage than that sorry POS.

      I saw the new Colorado at the local car show. It is not a small truck. If it weren’t next to the Silverado, I would not have known it wasn’t a full-size truck. It won’t fit in my garage. I doubt it gets better mileage than the Silverado. I doubt it will be cheap to buy. I don’t see a reason for it to exist.

      Now, if they offered a truck like my old Ranger, then we’re talking.

  • avatar
    rem83

    Well, it’s pretty exciting that you’ll be able to get a small diesel engine in a pickup – but knowing GM, they’ll price the cheapest diesel option well into the 30s, invalidating any reason to buy this truck. A Ram quad cab with diesel starts at about 33k and my guess is that’s GM target. They’ll pretend it’s a bargain because they’ll throw in some luxury features the RAM doesn’t have at that price.

  • avatar
    johnhowington

    let me know when it can SAFELY tow a 2000 lb flatbed carhauler with a 4000 lb vehicle sitting on it.

    • 0 avatar
      eggsalad

      Why? If you need to haul a 6,000 lb. load, this isn’t the truck for you.

      But not everyone needs to tow 6,000 lb., and not everyone is you.

    • 0 avatar

      This notion that truck=towing is a bizarre one. Vans and SUVs can do heavy towing too. The point of a pick-up is it has a bed. Hard to tell, I know, with the tiny, mostly symbolic beds on four-door people carrier trucks these days.

      • 0 avatar
        slance66

        Typhoon has it exactly right. Towing? Who cares about towing. Currently, I need to pick up some patio furniture at BJs and need a truck to do it. My wife’s RX350 isn’t big enough. I also need to buy a bunch of 2 x 4′s for some work in my garage. I also need to take some old scrap, MDF and other stuff to the dump. This stuff happens constantly.

        So this truck, in GMC Canyon form, has some appeal. I wouldn’t consider a Tacoma, because the engine is ancient and it gets worse gas mileage than a full size SUV and some full size pickups. The ride is also terrible. For the life of me I don’t know why the 3.5L V6 isn’t an option in the Tacoma.

        Meanwhile, I don’t want a full size truck that has 4 inches of clearance on front, back and top in my garage ans which consumes 1.5 parking spaces. It’s like driving an aircraft carrier. I do need the four doors.

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          @typhoon, @slance66 – correct.

          For some reason people want more than they actually need but in the case of 1/2 ton pickups unless you get a regular cab base model truck you have virtually no capacity.

          Crewcab 1/2 ton trucks are the most popular configuration and they average around 1300 lb capacity. The PR says that one can tow 10-12K depending on configuration but if you load a typical family of 4 and pets and some gear on the pickup you are pushing 800 lb or more. A 10% tongue weight (the lightest one can go with) means you can only tow a 5K trailer.

          If you add options and go to fully loaded with options that drops capacity.

          A recent test done by pickuptrucks.com with the mpg leading Ram Ecodiesel Laramie CrewCab 4×4 had an actual cargo capacity of 490 lb. They looked at the ratings and weighed the truck. It was rated at a pathetic 880 lb but options removed another 390 lb.

          You have to remember that passengers are factored into payload.

          Modern 1/2 ton crew or double cab pickups are SUV’s with a sundeck. They are no different than SUV’s in capacity – you can carry cargo or passengers but not both at the same time.

          Most people don’t even look at or let alone know about the cargo capacity rating on the door tag.

          Small trucks will have a tough time in the market as long as the buyer believes 1/2 ton trucks are vastly superior.

          Supersizeme applies to trucks too.

          • 0 avatar
            Sigivald

            “Small trucks will have a tough time in the market as long as the buyer believes 1/2 ton trucks are vastly superior. ”

            Given what you said in the first 3/4 of the post, the idea that a 1/2 ton *isn’t superior* for anything involving any cargo at all is hard to justify…

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @Lou_BC – Who’s to say how little payload is left once you similarly equip a Colorado 4X4 Crew cab with special options groups and load with passengers and their gear?

        • 0 avatar
          Sigivald

          “Towing? Who cares about towing”

          People with trailers.

          Not most people, at least not most of the time, no.

          But people who already want to tow things, or think they might, say, get a boat or some quads or something like that… they exist, and they spend money on trucks.

          • 0 avatar

            I don’t doubt it, but saying reasonably sized trucks are a non-starter because of towing is overstating the importance of that niche. They’re a non-starter because manufacturers don’t want to build them (less margin) and people don’t want to buy them (not macho enough), rarely because of capability.

            I think people deliberately overemphasize towing on this discussions because it’s the one actual truck thing modern full-size monstrosities are undoubtably capable at; their girly man extra-short boxes and ridiculously high load heights are embarrassed by twenty-year old Rangers. I’m sure the leather is quite supple, though.

          • 0 avatar
            Carlson Fan

            I’d say towing is a pretty big part of why people own PU trucks. My PU came from the factory with a reciever hitch installed, a dedicated transmission temp gage on the gage cluster, a 7 pin wiring harness for towing trailers with electric brakes, a tow/haul switch on the gear selector, ect ect. If towing wasn’t a big deal I doubt they would have spent the time and money to build/offer the truck with all those standard features.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @Sigivald – I was using towing to show how pickup truck PR ignores the obvious.

            If you want to look at cargo capacity, the math is basically the same. If you own a crewcab 1/2 ton, you can carry cargo or passengers but not both at the same time.

            Ford does have a HD 1/2 ton heavy haul option which gets you a different frame, 7 lug wheels, LT tires and a crewcab capacity around 2300 lb.

            The best you can get out of Ram is if you buy a base model crewcab Tradesman with 5.7 and 3.92 gears yielding 1,443lbs cargo.

            That is poor considering my 2010 F150 Supercrew 4×4 is rated at 1540.

            If you want to buy a 6.2 V8 GMC will give you 2,007 lb cargo and 12K tow in a crewcab.

            The Tacoma Double Cab V6 4×4 is rated for 1,050 cargo and max tow of 6,400. They run into the same problem. 10% tongue = 640 lb on truck and 15% = 960lb.

            A large percentage of buyers are clueless and want a replacement for the Impala’s and Crown Vic’s of the ’70′s. 1/2 ton pickups are the new V8 luxobarge. Capacity for most is a non-starter.

            The global version of the Colorado has tow haul capacities comparable to our “max capacity” 1/2 ton pickups but I suspect lawyers will neuter capability once they enter the USA.

          • 0 avatar
            Scoutdude

            @ Lou BC I guess you got the wrong Super Crew then. If you get the one with the 6 1/2′ box and equip it right (5.0 or 3.5EB) you get a payload of 2,620 lbs and 7,900 or 8,400lb lb tow rating. So you can put a 1/2 ton of people in the cab, a 1/2 ton of junk in the bed and still be able to put 10% of the weight of your 5,900 or 6,400 lb trailer on the hitch, ok someone has to loose 20lbs if you want to do the 6,400lb trailer with your 3.5EB equipped truck.

    • 0 avatar
      ajla

      This truck should handle 6K fine.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        @Scottdude – The max haul F150 with the EB3.5 and 5.0 have slightly different ratings.
        I’ll confine my reply to the F150 Supercrew 157 inch WB with 6.5 box 4×4 with the max cargo and max tow package:
        5.0 V8 –
        MAX
        cargo = 2,325 lb
        tow = 9,180 lb

        EB3.5
        MAX
        cargo = 2,305 lb
        tow = 10,978 lb

        I did not get the wrong truck as max tow and max haul were not my goals. I wanted to tow an 5K trailer and family on board.
        Why overbuy?

        How many F150′s do you see with 7 lug wheels?

        If we confine the discussion just to crewcabs – if one wants max haul one can only get it in an XLT or Lariat.

        Anyone wanting to max tow should get it with max haul. The tongue weight even with an equalizer hitch will eat up all of your cargo capacity.

        My results were pulled from Ford Canada’s 2014 data. USA specs may differ.

        I’ve only seen 1 max haul SuperCrew in the last 3 years. I see lots of reg cab and extended cab max haul F150′s.

        How many people out their look at the door tag? or even know the ratings for their pickup?

        Most 1/2 ton crewcabs can haul gear or tow or carry people but not combined.

        I already posted the max capacities for Ford, GMC, Ram and Tacoma in crewcab 4×4 configurations.
        They are a tiny portion of sales.

        • 0 avatar
          Scoutdude

          The specs I posted were for the USA XLT F150 SuperCrew 6.5′ bed but in 2wd form. The addition of the 4wd components does account for the lower payload ratings.

          So if you want to tow and haul either passengers, cargo or a combination of both it certainly can be done in a F150 SuperCrew.

          Certainly not everyone wants to do that which of course is why they offer other versions.

          You are right that many people don’t pay attention to what their truck is rated for. I see way too many people who look at the rating of their aftermarket hitch, ball or ball mount and claim their truck can town that much.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @Scoutdude – if one wants max capacity in a Ramthey need to get a base model Tradesman but it is 700 lb less than the Ford.
            Chevy is the closest to Ford but needs the 6.2 to get 2K cargo and 12K towing.

            It can be done but not many trucks are sold in that configuration.

            I live in Northern Canada so a 4×2 is out of the question.

  • avatar
    ablessin

    As a long time Tacoma owner, I just don’t understand the hate everyone puts on this Colorado and GMC counter part. I can’t wait to have a modern option in this size segment and am planning on purchasing the diesel option when it comes out. Even a 10 year power train designed Tacoma stickers in the $30k’s. It may only be a 225,000 unit market right now, but based on current info I’d say they could nail 60% of that market in a couple years, and with a modern offering possibly get 100% of the 50% gain in units sold for this sized truck.

    Even if that entire gain is taken away from full size offering sales, if it’s taken away fairly evenly from Ford, GM, and Dodge, and GM picks up 80% of the sales, that’s a huge win! If only Ford brought their international Ranger into the mix I’d have a whole segment to drool over…. Oh well, we’ll see!

    • 0 avatar
      JMII

      My worry is the same as rem83 – this might be the perfect truck but it will price itself out of the market. I’m just happy someone (anyone!) is trying to bring a mid-size truck back into the fold. My Dakota has 96K on it and one of these days I’ll need a replacement. A small diesel is what I want. I don’t want a RAM regardless of price… its just too darn big. However getting me to buy a GM product is going to be very difficult.

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      ablessin, don’t worry. If these new GM twins ever come to market, Toyota will upgrade the Tacoma series to surpass even the latest and greatest from GM.

      Without any competition there was no incentive for Toyota to modernize the best-selling midsize pickup trucks on the planet.

      • 0 avatar

        WHy highdesertcat? I think the Tacoma is related to the global Hilux, and that PU has come under attack from many, many competitors the world over. So much so that many think the Hilux is no longer the king of the hill. I think PUs have a longer shelf life than cars, but Toyota is surely taking their sweet time to upgrade their Hilux.

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          @Marcelo de Vasconcellos – IIRC, the Tacoma shares little with the global Hilux.

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al from Oz

          @Marcelo
          The US Tacoma is actually using an extremely similar chassis to the Chinese Great Wall pickup. Both are based on the Toyota Surf.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @BAF0 – The Tacoma, Frontier and Colorado are not wildly different from globals. The Navara is one of your top sellers and the Frontier is a top seller here. Same truck except for the emblems and other trivial things.

            VW talks a lot, but wheres the Scirocco? And the Polo? What chicken excuse does VW have for denying us those???

          • 0 avatar
            Quentin

            The Toyota Surf is/was very similar to the 4Runner. Even the frame is quite different between the Tacoma and the 4Runner/Surf. The 4Runner/Surf is on a fully boxed frame of the 150 series LC Prado while the Tacoma is a c-channel frame and has been since the Tacoma’s inception. I’ve read that the c-channel gave a better ride than the old Toyota Hilux pickup and that was a better fit for the consumer market here. The only thing that that Tacoma and 4Runner/Prado/Surf share these days are the 5AT, transfer case, and some other running gear like that. Engines are completely different (1GR single VVT versus 1GR dual VVT that resulted in a major overhaul). Body styling is similar, but no parts have gone back and forth since the early 90s.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            @Quentin
            The 4 Runner and Surf are identical. The global variants came with a diesel as well as the V6 and I-4.

            The Taco and Great Wall pickup chassis is based on the 4 Runner/Surf. The drivetrain (gasoline) has been Mitsubishi and the body from a mid to late nineties, Izuzu pickup.

            I have yet to find out about the diesel Great Wall drivetrain/engine.

            The body panels from the Great Wall don’t interchange with the Izuzu.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            @DiM
            There is no such vehicle’s as a global Frontier or Tacoma. The Navara has similarities as the up and coming US Colorado.

            The new US Colorado has a lightweight chassis and suspension in comparison to it’s sibling global variant.

            The Tacoma is different to the Hilux. The Hilux has a different chassis it is fully boxed.

          • 0 avatar
            Quentin

            How is the Tacoma based on the Surf if the 4Runner/Surf have a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FRAME than the Tacoma? Look here.

            2010 Tacoma: http://www.villagetoyotaparts.com/images/parts/toyota/fullsize/511189J.jpg

            2010 4Runner: http://www.villagetoyotaparts.com/images/parts/toyota/fullsize/511995B.jpg

            I’m sure they carry some driveline hardware across, but they are on completely different production cycles, different frames, leaf spring vs. coil spring rear suspension, completely different interiors, completely different bodywork. They shared engines for a little while, but that isn’t even common anymore. The 4Runner/FJ/Prado are platform mates. The Tacoma is not.

        • 0 avatar
          highdesertcat

          marcelo, Toyota has always been slow to upgrade their vehicles as long as they still sell. This is not limited to only vehicles destined for the US market.

          It is no wonder then that Toyota vehicles all over the globe have come under attack from other brands.

          These new GM midsizers will be the latest and greatest from GM and are bound to be GM’s best effort in order to unseat the Tacoma.

          Automotive history has shown us time and again that when confronted by a viable threat to sales Toyota will commit to outdoing and outselling their competition.

          • 0 avatar

            yeah, I think that’s the case. or else they are running into trouble. They are not head and shoulders above others anymore, specially as pertains to reliability, so I think that they’re taking specially long this time. I know you don’t get or want the new global Ranger, but that truck has established a new template. The Hilux has aged decades in light of it.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            Personally, my belief is “the more the merrier” but from an automaker’s standpoint, that’s not always viable since the automaker needs to sell enough of them to at least break-even.

            There may come a time when Ford may decide that the Global Ranger will find a market in the US and Canada and sell in sufficient quantity to make it worth their while.

            I have no doubt that the new GM midsizers, if they ever make it to market, will sell a lot of them. This will no doubt inspire Toyota to upgrade the Tacoma to where it once again surpasses the best from GM.

            The worst that could happen to Toyota is that the current Toyota owners should leave the fold and buy another brand. To prevent that, Toyota has to watch the competition and then come out with something even better.

            It is also my belief that the new GM midsizers will be GM’s collective best effort and more revolutionary than GM’s fullsizers.

            The big hype from GM when introducing their new fullsizers was exactly that – hype. The trucks were evolutionary, not revolutionary, and as such fell way short of expectations, all around.

            There’s no doubt in my mind that the intro for these new GM midsizers will be nothing short of spectacular and focused on buyers who need an occasional pickup utility with the frugality of a daily commuter.

          • 0 avatar

            Hey highdesertcat! That’s why I like talking to you. always so reasonable. I believe the Colorado is a neat product, probably not class leading, but much better than previous effort. As to selling or not, or the suits declarations, that’s another story. And it could be said, why do these guys feel the need to always oversell everything? As has been said, the Colorado is a prettier S10, which, while neat, is not earth shattering.

            But I agree, very strongly, the more the merrier. The consumer can only win.

        • 0 avatar
          RobertRyan

          @Marcelo,
          The Tacoma built on a less capable chassis and it is another “lifestyle vehicle” in other words can do very little compared to a Hilux. Still the Hilux is now ancient and much better vehicles out there.

  • avatar
    Kyree S. Williams

    I don’t think so, partially because I don’t think that GM will be able to price it competitively, and partially because I like big trucks and I cannot lie.

  • avatar

    It is pretty much a passive-aggressive at Tacoma and Frontier, and not much beyond that.

    • 0 avatar
      bomberpete

      It’s another example of GM’s famous “Throw That S–t to the Wall and See What Sticks” product planning philosophy. There is no product marketing philosophy.

    • 0 avatar
      mkirk

      So in being the only companies in the US to offer a midsize truck the past several years they abandoned them? Purely non logical statement here, but I don’t care if this truck gives me oral sex every time I turn the key, I am not going to buy a GM product. Every damn thing they make is the best thing ever until it comes out and it is competitive at best or tries to kill you at worst.

  • avatar
    krhodes1

    Seems like sheer size is a reason to not buy a current full-size truck. Price is not THAT relevant to folks who buy new, and neither is fuel economy evidently. The Feds care waaaay more about that than buyers do. They are just too darned BIG now. Buddy of mine just bought a new house. And it is a NEW house, just built. His few year old F150 doesn’t fit in the garage. Just a crewbab with the usual bed (7′?) and it is 6″ too long to fit. He likes owning a truck, and is really interested in the Colorado if it fits. He is the typical suburban air-hauler, though he did just buy a 4-wheeler so the thing might actually get some use!

    • 0 avatar
      bomberpete

      Today’s pickups remind me of the mid-Seventies. Some of the garages in our upwardly-mobile suburban neighborhood simply couldn’t fit those bloated 19-20 ft. Electras, Ninety-Eights and Town Cars.

      • 0 avatar
        geeber

        In rural parts of Pennsylvania, brand-new full-size pickups and SUVs are the vehicle of choice for those in the upper-income brackets. Poorer people buy used ones.

        The cumbersome size isn’t an issue, as there is plenty of parking at home, at work and at most shopping plazas. Nor do they care that they don’t fit into a typical garage. Either people can afford to construct a very large metal garage on their property, or their standard garage is filled up with ATVs, motorcycles, lawn tractors, etc., anyway.

        • 0 avatar
          bomberpete

          Even among relatively affluent people back then there wasn’t as much disposable income for all those toys. Plus we did worry that the cars would rust if left out.

        • 0 avatar
          Sigivald

          Yeah, who puts a *truck* in a *garage*?

          “Is truck. Can get damp.”

          • 0 avatar
            bomberpete

            When your $50K pride and joy has King Ranch leather, fancy paint and stripes, custom wheels, Foghorn Leghorn running boards and rarely sees a day of hard labor, I’d say that keeping it in the garage matters.

      • 0 avatar
        AllThumbs

        Exactly right. We had a ’73 Caprice that was about a foot too long for our garage. I remember my dad standing in the driveway looking at it trying to figure out what to do. In the end, it stayed in the driveway, since we couldn’t leave the garage open all the time.

        I have a uncharitable sense that many of the owners of the gaudy beasts that are U.S. model pickups over the past ten years prefer leaving them out in driveways or on the street as landscape bling. I said it was uncharitable, but I stick by it, since trucks have turned into cruise ships.

        • 0 avatar
          bomberpete

          Yeah, I remember those days. My old man didn’t measure the inside of the garage before buying that 1975 Buick LeSabre dreadnaught with 5mph bumpers and 227″ length. He just assumed it would fit the way the last LeSabre did. It barely cleared.

          11-year-old me had urged them to get the Century. Instead of saying “I told you so” I showed rare intelligence and bit my tongue.

          C’mon Captain Steubing — The Love Boat soon will be making another run

      • 0 avatar
        mkirk

        I want my F-150 Brougham then!

    • 0 avatar
      Dan

      Where would you like to make them smaller, then? A useful bed isn’t getting any shorter. Neither are two rows of seats.

      The four seat Colorado is all of 5.5″ shorter than a extended cab Silverado and four of those came out of the bed.

      • 0 avatar

        Since this is GM and they own the Avalanche patents, they could make it reconfigurable. That may help the versatility. Won’t help the price, I’m afraid, but it’s at least something. Remember that this is already unibody, so cab and bed are one, as required of Avalanche style gate.

      • 0 avatar
        Luke42

        Make the hood shorter.

        My minivan has a hood that’s too short to see from the driver’s seat and packs 269HP, which is more than enough to move a midsize truck.

        Put a van-style front end on a midsize truck. Then put in a small diesel and a 4wd system that can handly dry roads or some light offroading (but which is really there to compensate for the variable weight distrribution), and you have a kick-ass form-over function multipurpose tool with a quad-cab, a useful bed, and decent parkability.

        Those long-nosed jacked-up full-sized pickups make too many concessions to fashion. The roomy engine compartments are nice to work in, though, if I remember to bring a stepladder…

        (I’ve owned three pickups now (mini sized Dodge D-50, ranger, and fullsize F-150) – and I’ll drive a box truck before I go back to the fullsize again. Too many compromises, and the lack of AWD or full-time 4WD finished breaking the deal. If I do find some reason to own fullsize truck, it’ll be converted to a flatbed with drop-sides post-haste )

        • 0 avatar

          Sounds like an argument for Ford to cut Transit Connect like Merc does with Sprinter truck chassis.

        • 0 avatar
          Dan

          The long nose is mostly an illusion of RWD proportions.

          Your Sedona is 77″ from front bumper cover to steering column. A Silverado is 83″.

          The Tundra has a cab forward, van style front end. It’s 78″.

          • 0 avatar
            Sigivald

            “The Tundra has a cab forward, van style front end. It’s 78″.”

            Cab forward, van style … Tundra?

            Am I missing something here?

        • 0 avatar
          Prado

          I’m all for form over function, but I doubt there is that much excessive length in the hood of pickups. RWD requires a longitudinal engine, where an I4 requires as much length as a V8.

          • 0 avatar
            Luke42

            Compare an F-150 to an Econoline.

            The Econoline has a similar layout and underpinnings (econolines can even be converted to 4WD using parts off of the F-series trucks for $11k or so), but it has a much smaller schnoz. It has, therefore, less wasted volume.

            A chassis van with a flatbed should be a foot or two shorter, and offer much better sight lines. Yeah, it would like a commercial truck, but pickup trucks are supposed to be more about practicality more than fashion, right? LOL.

          • 0 avatar
            Dan

            Two feet shorter?

            An Econoline is one foot shorter up front than an F-150 and at least some of that would likely be compromised away if it were tested for fuel economy or crashing into things. Besides that, they suck to work on and sit in.

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      Here’s what I wouldn’t buy… A garage too small for a damn Town car! Mine’s a normal 12′w X 22′ long ‘single car’ garage. At least I thought that was normal. But no one is forcing a full-size crew cab with a 6.6′ bed either. Why is it All OR Nothing with you guys? …can’t decide… Yaris or full-size, full boat truck???

      Put a 12″ lift on it and monster tires and complain it won’t fit parking garages while you’re at it.

  • avatar
    87 Morgan

    Why does the price have to be sub 30? I went to toyota’s web site and configured a truck that I would most likely purchase and came up with a 36,995 MSRP.

    They sell enough of these trucks to continue offering them, so why would GM fail if they were to offer a similar sized truck with a diesel that will provide superior economy as compared to the toy or nissan offering in the mid size market. Most likely superior enough to over come the gas/diesel price differential.

    Seems to me this is truck is a winner. I don’t however discount GM’s ability to screw up any product they can. Every now and again the f up people go on vacation and they sneak a product to market though that is of high quality and priced correctly.

  • avatar
    OldandSlow

    “Market share for ‘smaller trucks’ is just 225,000 units, in a truck market worth 1.6 million units overall and a total car market with a SAAR of around 16 million.”

    The smaller trucks were single cab models with a 4 cylinder engine and for the most part have disappeared from the market due to low demand.

    What’s left are “mid-sizers” – the Frontier and the Tacoma. In a quad cab they’re definitely as long, if not longer than a full size, single cab pickup.

  • avatar
    dal20402

    It just amazes me that so many people are willing to use the current full-size trucks as their daily drivers. The problem isn’t cost or fuel economy. It’s SIZE. The damn things are so big that they are oppressively clumsy anywhere near a city, and they don’t fit in most people’s garages. And no one but me seems to care.

    • 0 avatar
      mcgiv33

      Each to his own,right? I had a Tacoma for a bunch of years then recently traded it in for a ’14 Tundra (fits in the garage by the way). Gas mileage wasn’t much worse, cost after rebates about the same if not better. While I don’t use the bed for work (just boat towing, house repairs, etc.), the Tundra drives so much better than the smaller one (IMO) and I’m still able to take it everywhere I went with the Taco. Is it big, yes, is it more than I need, sure, but why not have the better truck if everything is about equal?

      • 0 avatar
        galanwilliams

        +1 I don’t own a truck at the moment, but am a perpetual “shopper” for my next one. As you said, unless you absolutely cannot fit the full size truck into what you need to do or where you need it to go, there is no compelling reason to get one… the minimal economic benefit (if any) of purchase price and fuel economy are easily offset by the realization that you can have a roomier, more useful vehicle for a few bucks more, and likely a much larger (and lucrative) market when the time to sell it comes. Heck I even went with the 8′ bed on my last truck, because it only cost a few hundred more – and appreciated that extra capacity more often than I regretted the extra length. My mistake was a regular cab – I will always look for at least the extended cab version going forward, just to have a place to stash grocceries or personal items if nothing else.

    • 0 avatar
      johnhowington

      let me explain. mid size pickups died on the vine because nobody wanted to buy them. it frankly doesn’t get more complicated then that.

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        It’s not just that no one wants to buy them. They mostly attract the bottom of the bottom. And fleet buyers love them a little too much, being the lowest common denominator of trucks. Almost the LCD of cars too.

      • 0 avatar
        Russycle

        This. People who NEED a truck don’t want to compromise on a smaller vehicle to save a few bucks. People who WANT a truck are shopping image, and a smaller truck doesn’t do it for them. I had a Ranger for a day a while ago and really liked it, but I wouldn’t base a marketing strategy around that.

    • 0 avatar
      IHateCars

      “…And no one but me seems to care.”

      That should tell you something then, shouldn’t it?

      • 0 avatar
        Luke42

        It was pretty crazy when I was looking to replace my Ranger, and nobody wanted to take my money.

        I drive a minivan with a trailer hitch, now.

        I would kind of like a small truck for household tasks and to do some adventuring with a lightweight truck camper, but the truck I’m looking for doesn’t exist yet. Or maybe it’s the Colorado. *shrug * Either way, the car industry left money on the table when I was shopping. *shrug *

        • 0 avatar
          danio3834

          I think you pretty well showed why automakers don’t offer small trucks anymore. The minivan can do what they do, better for that type of clientele. Your minivan could just as well tow a small camper trailer in lieu of a drop in bed unit. I can’t imagine one that would fit in the back of a Ranger would be very useful anyway.

      • 0 avatar
        dal20402

        It tells me that evidently no one cares about any of these:

        - Garaging the truck (which keeps it in much, much better cosmetic condition)
        - Parking in any parking garage, anywhere
        - Parallel parking, anywhere
        - Fitting in standard parking spaces even outside of garages without contortions to open the doors when your truck is 2″ from the line and less than two feet from the next car

        I do all of these things with my car every single day.

        The last time I rented a full-size truck (Ram 1500, crew cab, standard bed) I parked it in my garage for fun. There *was* enough clearance on top of the truck, but only by a few inches. The entertaining part was that with the front bumper touching the front wall of the garage about 3′ of the truck was hanging out the back. My 195″ full-size sedan fits just fine.

    • 0 avatar
      Sigivald

      Yes.

      No one but you cares about keeping a truck in a garage.

      I don’t find my F250 all that oppressively clumsy to drive in the suburbs (I would NOT take it downtown, but I never go downtown anyway), myself.

      I wouldn’t DD it because it gets absolutely terrible fuel economy compared to my Corolla, plain and simple.

    • 0 avatar
      bryanska

      And I love living in the city, and trying to squeeze between two pickups in a city parking garage. Makes life fun for us.

  • avatar
    toxicroach

    I don’t think this is too controversial.

    The Tacoma and other mid-size trucks are very old. A modern competitor in the segment will render them obsolete technologically.

    A mid-size truck from an American manufacturer that actually gets decent fuel economy outside of the EPA labs, fits in a normal garage, and is 100% capable of doing what the average user wants it to do shouldn’t have all that hard of time getting sales. I don’t know why the MSRP of the Colorado keeps getting compared the final transaction price of a truck. Of course the final transaction on the Colorado will have some bend to it.

    • 0 avatar
      Pch101

      “A mid-size truck from an American manufacturer that actually gets decent fuel economy outside of the EPA labs, fits in a normal garage, and is 100% capable of doing what the average user wants it to do shouldn’t have all that hard of time getting sales”

      There aren’t many sales to get, and Toyota is the king of the segment, with considerable brand loyalty. That doesn’t add up to a lot of volume for GM, which is an issue for what is likely to be a fairly low-margin vehicle.

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al from Oz

        @Pch101
        You are really a pathetic person, aren’t you?

        You try and act worldly and yet you have not one iota about what occurs outside of the one horse town you live in.

        So, what’s will be the difference between this and a Taco/Frontier?

        You don’t have a clue, this would make your comment redundant.

        It’s quite simple to research before you make those ridiculous comments.

        If ever a movie was about you it should be titled……Clueless.

        • 0 avatar
          Truckducken

          Al, that seems a little harsh. I think Pch is right to be skeptical, given GM’s US track record in this segment. Even if the new GM mid-sizers are best in class with Toyota-like reliability and longevity, it’s going to take the market a while to warm to them. There’s a lot of negative brand equity to overcome. I’m glad to see GM return to this market – it can’t hurt – and am hoping they finally succeed.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            @Truckenducken
            I don’t think so.

            The guy like DiM both treat anything that is not from the US with irrelevance and disdain.

            This guy really needs to do some research and understand how to interpret data and information.

            He tries to present himself as an authority on vehicles and yet he’s limited himself by his ‘American Exceptionalist’ attitude and approach.

            It’s good to be patriotic, but not to the point where you can’t distinguish the difference between reality and hope.

            Hoping and wanting doesn’t make for the truth.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            “I’m glad to see GM return to this market – it can’t hurt”

            This experiment is going to cost several hundred million dollars, which could have been spent somewhere else. Add up those losses and unnecessary initiatives, and you end up with shades of Old GM.

        • 0 avatar
          mkirk

          Did he edit his post or something? If not, then you sir are way out of line

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            I didn’t read his comment, so I’m not offended.

            However, I am somewhat offended that you’d refer to such a bloated windbag as “sir.” Take it back, or else I’m going to have you sent to Area 51 where you’ll be forced to sleep in the back of Norm’s SAAB.

          • 0 avatar
            mkirk

            Well, the Saab probably has better seats than the Buick, but still.

        • 0 avatar
          Scoutdude

          @ Big Al as usual you have to resort to personal attacks and/or name calling to “prove” you are right. Meanwhile you keep projecting your ideas of what life is like in the US, what people in the US buy or will buy, why they buy it and how they use it.

          While I don’t always agree with PCH he has way more insight as to what Americans do and want in his pinky than you ever will.

          • 0 avatar

            > Meanwhile you keep projecting your ideas of what life is like in the US, what people in the US buy or will buy, why they buy it and how they use it.

            Apparently Big Al talks about America the same way he talks about engineering.

    • 0 avatar

      I agree with Toxicroach a modern design in this segment should do well.

      I think this is a good move for GM, it utilizes more of its worldwide products in more worldwide markets.

  • avatar
    GoFaster58

    I’ll be trading my 2000 Ranger on a used Ford Ranger. Everything else is just too big.

  • avatar
    Pch101

    “Corporate communication strategy dictates that the sort of tough talk that Cain is relaying is essential to their messaging, especially in such uncharted territory.”

    In this case, the interview was with Automotive News and Cain is part of the sales team, which would suggest that this was largely a cheerleading exercise for the dealer network. Wave your pom-poms, G! M! G! M! Gooooooooooooooooo team!, etc.

    They need the dealers to get excited about this, and there is a real risk that the dealers will find the Colorado to be an annoyance, something which takes up space that could be consumed by a higher margin Silverado.

    • 0 avatar
      geeber

      Maybe GM figures that all of the internet posters who buy brown, diesel-powered station wagons with six-speed manual transmissions will want a compact pickup to park beside it.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      @Pch101 – no point having a higher margin Silverado when they aren’t selling well. Sales are down in the USA IIRC 5% and down 15% in Canada.
      One can blame the weather but that is just BS.

      If anything the Colorado will cannibalize Silverado sales if it turns out to be a better truck and it most likely will.

      GMC did screw up by not releasing the Colorado/Canyon with a diesel. Ram will build market share at GMC’s expense.

      Maybe GMC deliberately held the Colorado launch in attempt to shore up what they knew to be a weak full size truck.

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        I realize that you small truck fanatics refuse to believe it, but few large truck buyers are particularly interested in smaller trucks. Those buyers like the size — the automakers are building them large for a reason.

        You may as well argue that the Scion tC has a shot at the 911 market because the Toyota gets better fuel economy. The full-size truck market is not just about the bed in the back, as the pricing disparities and high sales volumes should make clear.

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          @Pch101 – I currently own a F150 SuperCrew. I’ve also owned a F250 for 15 years. I’ve had a few Rangers too. I spent 21 years driving 1 ton van and chassis cab conversions.
          I’m not fanatical about any truck.

          I buy what meets my anticipated needs at the time of purchase.

          Small trucks and the contracture of their market is related to many things. I’m not fixated on blaming that contracture on one reason nor do I ignore other factors.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @Lou_BC

            <"I’m not fixated on blaming that contracture on one reason nor do I ignore other factors."

            Like never having bought a new small truck yourself? Why are you so special that you expect everyone else buy one, but won't step up to the plate yourself? Are you waiting to buy a clean used one? Like most all small truck fanboys waiting for 'used'? Just like brown manual diesel wagon fanboys?

            You vote for what's on the menu 3X a day. When you finally get around to ordering rhubarb pie for the 1st time, who's fault is it, it's no longer on the menu???

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            In that case, if we can avoid the jihad, then it would help to start by beginning to see that tacking a cargo bed to the rear of vehicles does not automatically result in all of them being in direct competition with one another.

            Full sizes compete in a different space from the compacts. To a large extent, they don’t compete directly against each other, nor is there much movement from one segment to the other. GM is right to say that cannibalization won’t be much of a factor — many of the Silverado/ Sierra buyers will simply not be interested.

        • 0 avatar
          bryanska

          Have we considered what market researchers (me included) call non-cat users? In other words, people who haven’t previously bought a pickup?

          I am operating on the logic that some very smart people work at GM, despite what we want to believe. Any Fortune 500 company fresh out of bankruptcy will have shed lots of bad employees and bad habits. It’s easy for us to say otherwise, but somehow we know better? I don’t believe we do.

          I think the Colorado is a calculated risk. What are the sales targets? IHS predicts 60k in Y1, LMC projects 50k. GM hasn’t released targets but expects better performance than prior-gen (between 36k and 128k over the run). Let’s assume a sales target of 75k in Y1.

          So… is it crazy to assume 75k from a one-vehicle (toyota) segment of 250k? Not really. Say 50% steal from Toyota, 25% new non-category users from below, and 25% category users from full size. I challenge anyone with a business degree to NOT come up with rough plans to make these targets. Respective to those targets, here’s the default marketing implications, all of which make enough sense: 1) the Toyota is old, 2) there’s a strong product here which we all admit and 3) this board has enough full-size users who “get it” (you only need 25%).

          So a media mix might address all three in different channels. Given realistic targets and a couple of smart MBAs, and this thing writes itself. Sales is a big unknown: can they arrive sober enough to remember the marketing message AND be incented to not steer traffic into the Silverado? Advertising would be key: can the agency properly lay out the case in a memorable way?

          Anyway, you can see how there’s a good case to be made. Whenever I hear the Internet loudly and pithily dismiss something, I’m immediately skeptical and start looking for a reasonable explanation.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            The segment has been on the slide for years, while the demographic factors that spurred the earlier compact truck boom have largely disappeared. Combine that with the low profit margins, and it doesn’t make for a very good bet.

            GM has consistently made terrible product decisions over the years, usually erring on the side of bloat and volume at the expense of profit. There is such a thing as doing too much, and that sort of sprawl is embedded in the General’s DNA.

          • 0 avatar

            > The segment has been on the slide for years, while the demographic factors that spurred the earlier compact truck boom have largely disappeared. Combine that with the low profit margins, and it doesn’t make for a very good bet.

            Due to the nature of t̶r̶u̶c̶k̶s ̶machismo compensation machines, the compact/full/ranch-supersize segments are almost like the three cheep/popular/splurge trims. Seems people only want compacts for bottom of the barrel prices.

          • 0 avatar
            bryanska

            Tacoma sales have been increasing for four years.

            GM knows something; when you say “GM has consistently made terrible product decisions over the years” I don’t know where that’s coming from. Since the bankruptcy they’ve been on a tear except for Malibu and Silverado. All the naysayers about the XTS, Encore, Enclave, Regal, Verano, and the entire GMC brand have been proven wrong. Their track record is at least decent and certainly not “terrible”.

            I wish someone would write up a table with all GM product launches since bankruptcy, and what percentage failed to meet sales targets. After hearing auto enthusiasts howl about the XTS and Encore and being proven decisively wrong, you’ll forgive me if I err on the side of GM here.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Which earlier demographics were interested in compact trucks?

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            In the old days, one pitch for compact trucks is that they were fuel efficient, cheap and youthful.

            nicoclub.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/521-4.jpg

            These days, the smaller trucks are cheaper than the average car, but they aren’t among the lowest priced vehicles on the market.

            Compared to the norm, their fuel economy is no longer particularly good. (We no longer have the gas guzzlers to which to compare them, and the trucks themselves have gained more power.)

            The small trucks started out as a sort of VW Beetle alternative, and that’s obviously no longer the case. The market has moved on, even if some of those who post here have not.

      • 0 avatar
        geeber

        What Pch101 said. The problem with the Silverado/Sierra isn’t size.

        They aren’t selling because GM priced them too high, GM initially failed to produce enough models with the drivetrains preferred by many buyers, and the level of change compared to the outgoing model wasn’t sufficient.

        Having the Colorado/Canyon on the showroom floor won’t address those factors.

  • avatar
    Trend-Shifter

    Last week I caught a Ford mid-sized pick-up on I-75 south of Detroit with manufacturers plates on it. I got a few pictures too! (However being my Dad retired from Ford I do not want to release them to lower their competitive advantage) I am sure pictures are already out there anyway.
    That said, this 4 door mid-sized truck is absolutely beautiful! You need to see it in person.

    I do not know if it will be offered stateside or not, but if they do it will surely cannibalize everybody, including Ford’s own breadwinner.

    • 0 avatar
      bball40dtw

      We won’t get it in the next 5 years at least. They could be testing a diesel engine, transmission, or anything.

      The best car pre-production or new car spotting territory for the big three is 1-75 between Saginaw and Toledo on Sundays. Every time I come back from Northern Michigan on a Sunday, I see something. This month, it was 4 Transits, 3 Ram Promasters, a couple 2015 200s bookending a camo’d Challenger, and a few camo’d Caddys.

    • 0 avatar

      Probably the global Ranger, to my eye it is a fine looking truck.

  • avatar
    PRNDLOL

    Obsolete huh? I’d like to introduce our dear friend Jim, and his wife Kraco Cain!

  • avatar
    rudiger

    Here’s the thing about the new Colorado – it’s not that special. Since it only comes in one configuration (4-door), if GM had done something unique with it, it might be worth the outrageous price they’re going to want for it. In fact, GM missed a golden opportunity by not making the Colorado a small Avalanche with the versatile ‘mid-gate’ option.

    If the Colorado had been designed as a small Avalanche, they could have justified what will surely be high, Avalanche-like pricing. But, as it is, there likely won’t be anything on the Colorado anyone will pay a big premium over, say, an equivalently equipped and priced Tacoma (even though the Toyota will still have an ancient drivetrain).

    It will be the 2014 Silverado all over again. Man, did GM screw the pooch on that one with big price increases for a brand-new truck that looks virtually identical to the old one.

  • avatar
    Scoutdude

    I think they probably meant to say that we are making a truck that is obsolete before it even reaches the market.

  • avatar
    bills79jeep

    Has anyone discussed the possibility that this could be the “New 1500?” When cars go through model bloat, they slot a smaller car below it that is the same size the first one was 20 years ago. As the F150/1500 trucks continue to grow, and it’s tough to sell a new model that’s smaller/can’t tow or haul as much/has less features, is there room for a entry level smaller mid-size truck? Call it the Ford F1 or Chevy C/K, bring out some hokey retro marketing, profit.

    • 0 avatar
      Drzhivago138

      In terms of capacities (towing/hauling), and overall size (except for width), it does match where the C/K 1500 was when the 400 models came out in 1988. But it won’t ever be considered a “real” half-ton pickup truck in most people’s minds, and it’s that perception that really matters.

      FWIW, Ford did consider bringing the T6 Ranger over here and calling it the F-100 (which would have made sense, since it did have an actual half-ton capacity), but they decided putting money into EcoBoost was better.

      • 0 avatar
        bills79jeep

        I guess the “real” pickup question is what I’m getting at. If you call it the Colorado and market it as the small truck, you reap what you sow.

        If Chevy can figure out how to sell it as a big boy truck (which it is) while still highlighting the advantages of it’s more restrained size, they may have a hit. I’m not saying this is an easy task, but that’s why the ad folks get paid the millions. I’d start with keying in on payload and towing capabilities combined with fuel economy. If that doesn’t work, have Seger pen up a new man-jingle.

    • 0 avatar
      bomberpete

      Agree. It was MPG standards that made this work 30 years ago when the Ranger and S-10 came out. Of course the chicken tax tariffs helped, but those two knocked the Toyo/Nissan/Mitsu-Dodge compact pickup market for a loop, they were decent products for their time and had patriotic appeal.

      I have no idea what GM needs to charge to make a “reasonable” profit on Canyon/Colorado or what market really exists for it. I suspect if they price it “right” that there will be demand. Overprice it and you’ve got…the current Silverado/Sierra.

      Shouldn’t that recent experience suggests it makes more sense to sacrifice some short-term high pricing to make sales inroads and be perceived as a success? Isn’t that’s how Toyota ate up the Germans with the Lexus LS, the Cadillac that GM should have built? Once the reputation and demand was built…boom, price increase.

      Of course, this is GM we are talking about. Such “strateregy” (to quote GWB) may be beyond them.

  • avatar
    Jan Bayus

    I was stuck in a parking lot waiting for a new F-150 Super Duty take 9 minutes to wrangle its way out of a parking space at a local Target. I have seen the new Colorado and it is not a small truck, but I can see it being a hit. My friends drive trucks to “haul stuff” but end up hauling nothing but golf clubs and they complain about getting 13MPG. The new Silverado is a big truck and like the Ram and Ford are too big for most people. Some guys need that size trucks (in reality not too many) and smaller vans and trucks will be the norm.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      @Jan Bayus – F150 is not a SuperDuty. Do you mean F250 or F350?

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      There’s limitations for sure. But you would also have a tough time keeping up with canyon carving sports cars.

      @Jan – It should only take a few seconds to realize a big truck is a tight fit in the front row parking between the planter and shopping cart corral. If it took 9 minutes to get out of a space, it surely took just as long to get in. Yes you have to walk for about 10 or 20 seconds more by not snatching the space right at the front door, but you quickly adapt. Actually you can cover a lot of pavement in that time. Some people aren’t meant to be truck people.

  • avatar

    I don’t know if it’ll render other trucks obsolete as there are better out there. I don’t know how closely the Colorado is related to the global S10 on sale here in Brazil, and I don’t know how closely the Tacoma is related to the Hilux also on sale here, that being said I’ll say:

    As a general about town car of all the global mid-sizers on sale here (Chevy s10, Toyota Hilux, Ford Ranger, VW Amarok, Nissan Frontier, Mitsubishi L200), the Ranger is the best around town sort of PU. The S10, Hilux and Amarok are sort of equal in this application, coming down to a general preference for ride, which is different in each case. The Frontier and L200 lag in this regard.

    As a work PU, I see a lot of S10s used for farm work and this kind of thing. Here, there are a lot of mines and in that application the clear winners seem to be L200 and Hilux though I start to see some S10 with emblazoned mining company logos.

    I don ‘t know what that means exactly, but I am sure the new S10 (again not sure if related to the Colorado) has become competitive again on its own merits. It seems to serve various purposes from work to leisure. It’ll be interesting to watch the market performance of this PickUp.

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      Hey Marcelo! The midsizers don’t really meet expectations, at least for American truck buyers (not counting fleet, and base, stripper truck lovers). Nothing wrong with mid-size trucks, per se, but the supposed price and mpg advantage of midsizers is marginal if at all, when compared to similar full-size trucks. Surprising, really. Buyers really have to want and prefer the slightly smaller sized truck (dimensions).

      • 0 avatar

        Hey DenverMike! I’ve been convinced of that. It seems the global mid-sizers cut into the healthy margins enjoyed by the larger trucks so I don’t see an invasion of them of the US anytime soon. That I believe is the main reason you won’t be seeing many of them there. Unless of course the Colorado starts outselling the Silverado. But, if the Colorado is close to the S10, it seems like people here like them, so I believe some will like them there, too.

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al from Oz

        @DiM
        So, what makes the ‘American’ truck buyer different?

        This is coming from a guy who stated that there is a large full size pickup market in Spain. Have you opened you F Series dealership network in Spain yet?

        • 0 avatar
          mkirk

          They prefer larger trucks with more options than buyers in the other parts of the world and see a truck as viable personal transportation.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            @mkirk
            Then why has the global midsizers increased in size, capability and most importantly refinement? This increase across all areas has been very significant.

            I do know in Australia a country with a comparable income to the US most pickups are mid spec to high end.

            The US isn’t the only country in the world where people want ‘more’. This is a common human trait.

            What determines a vehicle market is economics (affordability), regulations (chicken tax, CAFE, etc) and environment/infrastructure.

            The US has the ingredients to allow for this.

            But the economics is changing and so are the regulatory controls.

            A steel midsizer will be a damn sight cheaper than a aluminium full size truck.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            Al-

            I’ve been a passenger in a Global Ranger that was equipped with the 3.2L Powerstroke. It is an excellent truck with an excellent engine. I wish we had it here, and I am sure some people would buy it.

            However, I drove an 2014 F150 FX4 3.5L Ecoboost SuperCrew all last week. There is no way I would buy a top spec Ranger over the FX4. I don’t know what the out the door price difference would be, but I honestly think its worth it. That’s just my personal opinion, but I suspect many feel that way.

            Going back to my C-Max makes me sad, but saves me $$$$ on gas.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            @bball40dtw
            Judging by your past comments you are quite a dedicated full size fan boi.

            Also, judging by your past comments you are one of those who can’t believe that the US road barge cars of old are gone and dusted. What caused their demise?

            The same is going to happen to full size trucks. CAFE is the problem.

            Aluminium full size trucks will become quite an expensive toy.

            Stop looking at the past.

            As for your Ranger ride, well I drove an Amarok, Hilux, F-150, even a 3/4 Powerstroke and many, many more pickups, trucks and cars. I prefer my BT50.

            The dedicated fan boi’s don’t realize that what they want isn’t what the future holds for the majority.

          • 0 avatar
            mkirk

            Al, CAFE is not going to kill the truck market. You are leaving a very important piece out of your calculations…politics. Too much money to politicians from the auto industry for CAFE to be allowed to strangle the industry’s cash cow.

            An aluminum bodied F150 with one of those midsize trucks diesels will give one 90 percent of the fuel economy of that power train in a midsize truck. That is a sacrifice most will be willing to make for the bigger truck.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            @mkirk
            Look at the cars in the US. It occurred to them.

            From what I can gather there are several train of thoughts by differing manufacturers in the US to tackle CAFE.

            The first appears to be the Titan/Tundra route. That is to build a ‘sort of Class 3′ half ton pickup.

            The second is the GM/Ford route, to build aluminium pickups.

            The third appears to be the Fiat line, which is to have a diesel, steel pickup.

            I think GM is hedging with the Colorado and I do think they’ve made the correct choice.

            As much as people talk about the size of these vehicles, they are still a large vehicle, even by US standards. How many cars sold in the US are as large as one of these Colorado’s?

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            I am no fan boi. I want the Ranger in the US. I want CAFE to go away. However, the F150 is a much more comfortable place to be for a family. That doesn’t mean everyone needs one. It just means it has become the defacto family vehicle in the US since the demise of the large sedan. I welcome the Ranger into the US. Ford won’t do it though. Its cost to build isn’t much different from the more profitable in the US F series.

        • 0 avatar
          DenverMike

          @BAF0 – No difference in American buyers per se. But mid-size trucks get compared to the value proposition of full-size, even if buyers aren’t exactly cross shopping. Like I said, potential small truck buyers maybe were hoping for much better value and mpg, when held to the standard of fullsizers. Kind of different when there’s just cars and small trucks to chose from. Yes full-size pretty much ruin it for midsizer trucks.

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    I do think the new Colorado will be a very large hit in the US.

    It’s about capability and how much you need. It’s all well and good and marvelous the full size 1/2 ton pickups, but when a very viable alternative which can offer the refinement that has been offered to a full size and not mid size is there people will generally make a logical choice.

    The Taco and Frontier are not viable full size alternatives. Their only grace will be the connection and reputation they have had in the past, like in Australia with the Hilux/Navara, this Colorado will give them a good run for their money.

    I figure many sales will transfer over from the large and medium SUV/CUV segment to the Colorado.

    Sales will be definitely be canabalised from the full size segment as well.

    This vehicle will shake up the US pickup truck market.

    Then, the Ford Ranger, VW Amarok and BT50 will come and these again are a better vehicle than what we consider the new Colorado to be, mediocre.

    • 0 avatar

      Hey Big Al! In Brazil at least, running and maintenance costs on the S10 are lower than Ranger and Amarok. It also seems to use better design than the Hilux. Except for use as a non-work PU, in which case the Ranger and even the Amarok may be better, market perception of the S10 seems to put it above mediocre. Of course different markets value different things, but I think the new S10 is quite competitive. Again, don’t know how closely related the S10 and Colorado are.

    • 0 avatar
      Scoutdude

      I just don’t understand why you think that people who are buying a mid or large size CUV/SUV will purchase a Colorado. Can it carry more than 5 people? Is it good for making runs to the grocery store? No and that is what people in the US who buy a CUV/SUV buy them for or in the case of large models to be able to tow their toys while carrying 4-7 people and a lot of their luggage in a dry secure area.

    • 0 avatar
      Quentin

      None of the payload numbers have been released for the Colorado in the US. They’ve claimed “best in class”, but that class is Tacoma and Frontier. I have my doubts it will be, on paper, a full size truck replacement.

      As far as large and medium CUV/SUV buyers going to the Colorado, you are out of your mind. Large and medium CUVs are purchased here for hauling kids around. The medium SUV is practically dead. Large SUV buyers are hauling kids and a boat (instead of just kids like the large CUV buyer). People love the offering of full time 4WD in the CUVs. As far as I can tell, the Colorado is a part time transfer case. I was fine with the part time box in my 4Runner, but many on the forums lamented the loss of the multimode transfer case with a center diff that let them drive in 4WD all the time if they wanted. For people to leave their CUVs, the Colorado HAS to offer full time 4WD.

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al from Oz

        @Quentin
        The Colorado will not be a full size replacement, but more of an alternative.

        Many who buy pickups are buying them as SUVs. So many of the full size capabilities are never realized.

        The US Colorado is reported to have a 6 800lb tow capacity. So I would assume it will have at least a 1 600lb + load.

        The diesel version should get well over 30mpg on the highway and they pull like a freight train with 510Nm of torque and 147kw.

        So, someone looking at a full size who tows now and then, has 1.8 kids and goes camping and fishing would be a potential customer.

        Four cylinder FE with V8 torque, ‘gotta love it’.

        • 0 avatar
          DC Bruce

          I think it will be an interesting experiment. That much tow capacity will allow you to pull your boat on weekends and carry some family and stuff, too. Although perhaps, being an American, I should know; I don’t know how this works for CAFE purposes with respect to fleet averages. Assuming some logic in the system, which separates “light trucks” from “automobiles” perhaps there is some benefit to increasing the “fleet” fuel economy by adding smaller trucks to the mix. That said, for GM not for Chrysler, their newest “1/2 ton” trucks’ capacities overlap to some degree with their “lightest” equipped “3/4 ton” vehicles, (i.e., those with the gasoline engine and the numerically low rear axle ratio). So, perhaps in GMs view, “cannibalization” might not be a bad thing. I don’t see people buying these on price, however. I seem them buying them because their size is easier to handle and, perhaps, because they use a little less fuel.

        • 0 avatar
          Scoutdude

          Sorry but you are wrong about people buying full size trucks as SUV alternatives.

          As far as the 1.8 kids thing of my kids friends the norm is that they have at least one sibling. My son has one friend that is an only child, most have 1, 2, or 3, siblings but the norm is the 2 child household. So you need a vehicle that can legally fit 4 in the back, because when you go some place on the weekend they often want to bring friends along and it gets tough to say sorry Suzy but it is Tommy’s turn to have a friend come along. Then there is soccer practice, dance and field trips. Even though my kids are getting older and one is driving the 3rd seat in our SUV still gets used, though not as frequently as it used to. Had gas prices not gone up as much as they have I would have bought another one but since the gas prices went up we got car for the commuting duty and trips where we don’t need the extra passenger capacity, cargo space, or towing.

        • 0 avatar
          DenverMike

          @BAF0

          >”at least 1 600lbs + load.”

          Isn’t that the base truck (regular cab stripper) ‘payload’ that won’t even be sold in America?

          >”30mpg on the highway”

          One would hope, for a little diesel in a little truck, but can we even expect a 24mpg real world average?

          • 0 avatar
            mkirk

            “One would hope, for a little diesel in a little truck, but can we even expect a 24mpg real world average?”

            Double it with the Trifecta Tune

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            >DiM

            >Are you finding the ‘greater than symbol’ great to use?

            >Trying to emulate agentsex or r u a mad 10th grader?

            >It good of you to be original.

            >I’ll give you and idea to follow as well.

            8-Try that symbol, it suits you. Can you work out what it represents?

        • 0 avatar
          Quentin

          Tacoma tows 6500 and only has a 1300lbs payload. Frontier is under 1400lbs. I expect the Colorado will be just over 1400lbs. Heck, some versions of the Ford Raptor had less than 1000lbs payload capacity.

          I doubt we’ll see 30miles per US gallon unless they did a lot of aero work on this truck.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            @Quentin
            We are getting over 30mpg on the highway now with the 2.8 diesel. Our truck is even heavier.

            It wouldn’t surprise me if a 2wd US Colorado will get 34mpg.

            With my 3.2 Duratorque (Powerstroke) I’m getting about 30-32mpg at highway speeds in a truck that weighs 4 800lbs.

            You guys who don’t have this stuff will be very surprised at what they can achieve.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @BAF0 – 30+ hwy mpg on going down hill with a back wind means about nothing. Doubtful that translates to more than a 24 mpg EPA average. Likely a lot less.

            But there’s nothing magical about global trucks, compared to our Frontier and Tacoma. If there was great demand, consumers wouldn’t have a problem with whatever you think the Frontier and Tacoma’s shortcomings may be.

            The Nissan Navara is a top seller OZ, but is nearly identical to the Frontier. Same truck. Good enough for OZ, but dismal sales in the America. Nothing wrong with it, just not much demand here. And no regular cab, kills the deal for most small truck buyers.

            The Tacoma is a great truck too, just not a lot of demand aside from being the only real choice in America currently. The only regular cab, basically. Once the regular cab is gone, so will most of the Tacoma faithful.

            It’s just a dying segment is all. There’s nothing for the Colorado to “shake up”. America is done with small trucks, for the most part. Niche market from now on. They hit big for a short time, but so did Big Hair bands. I did love me some Firehouse though…

            I don’t see a renaissance of either.

          • 0 avatar
            Quentin

            Al, you use a different gallon that is 20% bigger than the US gallon. Your 30mpg Imperial is only 25mpg US.

          • 0 avatar
            Onus

            Quentin,

            I imagine Al knows what a us gallon is and is converting from L/100km.

            Australia is like 99% metric. They switched over in the late 70s and did so successfully ( unlike cough Canada ). He has been converting units for us quietly as most of us here are American.

            30 mpg seems reasonable from a small diesel. I can get 22 on the highway with my much heavier f250, and much larger engine ( 7.3L )

          • 0 avatar
            Quentin

            I’m aware Aus uses metric. They still use the imperial gallon for some things just like we use 2L for sodas but buy milk in quarts and gallons. I’m not 100% convinced he converted to US gal. Only he can answer that. (My car, for example, will output in L/100km if I change a setting… vehicles in Aus very well might do the same thing and it would be imperial if so.)

            I’m simply skeptical of his claims. I’ve gotten 25mpg over a whole tank on a round trip in my recently departed 2010 4Runner. That doesn’t mean that is what I saw day to day nor what I claimed my mileage was. Day to day was around 21mpg because I have pretty nice driving conditions (few stoplights, pretty steady driving).

            This Colorado has a 200hp diesel… which isn’t particularly weak or small in a vehicle that isn’t particularly light (4300lbs). While they may have a 30mpg tank here and there, people will average in the mid to upper 20s just like people claim they have 50mpg tanks out of a Jetta TDI but on fuelly, everyone with a TDI after 2008 is averaging 38mpg. So, bigger engine, extra 1000lbs, 2x frontal area, mid to high .3x drag coefficient, knobby tires… that doesn’t sound a recipe for 30mpg in a 4WD version, 6800lb towing capable version.

          • 0 avatar
            Onus

            I hopped on fuelly. Some guy getting 28mpg, some getting 20mpg, some getting 24mpg. It’s all over the place. No 30′s though individually on fill ups some did pull over 30.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            @Quentin
            Because many of the aircraft we use are US in origin and we measure fuel in litres, the fuel is then converted into lbs and/or US gallons.

            As for my understanding of weights and measures, I’m very conversant. It’s part of my job, everyday.

    • 0 avatar
      mkirk

      It ain’t gonna shake up jack $hit.

  • avatar
    VCplayer

    Oh GM, why do you do this to us? It’s like you’re following the same recipe over and over hoping it’ll turn out right this time.

    1. Design vehicle in what is probably a niche segment.
    2. Make sure you give it to at least two different brands.
    3. Completely swing and miss at all of the selling points for people in the niche.
    4. Lots of cheerleading about what an important segment this is.
    5. Dis Ford, because.

    We know how this ends:

    6. Disappointing launch numbers.
    7. Dissapointing year-long numbers.
    8. Decontenting.
    9. Cancelation.
    10. Repeat!

    Good thing GM got rid of all its debt and can keep this up for another decade or two. Maybe someone will care about the Malibu or Equinox at some point.

  • avatar
    mkirk

    I don’t need this to render my Frontier obsolete. As next year will mark a full decade for the current model Nissan already rendered it so. It’s a basic truck so the simpler the better in my book. I hope this truck succeeds but I doubt I’ll buy one

    • 0 avatar
      TW5

      Nissan have the appropriate midsize truck/SUV business model. Clean-sheet redesigns rarely make big enough improvements to justify the cost. Keep proven models in the lineup, and refresh when appropriate.

      Nissan also offer manuals in the Frontier and Xterra, which is an added bonus.

  • avatar
    slance66

    Maybe I am off on this, but I think this is just an evolution in the change of mindset for the American consumer, that big=good. It’s been the same with cars for many years, and while that has largely been corrected, it’s only now happening with CUVs and SUVs. And they are the hottest thing on the market. People now realize that a small car or small CUV can be a luxury car just as much as a giant luxo-barge. Now the same can be taken to the truck market, with a smaller truck that is as nice inside and looks as good as a large truck, for less money. Nobody has ever offered that in the U.S. market. The Tacoma, for all its reliability, is very utilitarian, the ride is terrible, and the engine is ancient and inefficient. The others are even worse.

    • 0 avatar

      Now that is a good point. I think it’s quite evident that the American car consumer has changed over the last few decades and would appear to be more open than ever before to smaller cars. It remains to be seen though.

      • 0 avatar
        bomberpete

        I agree that there’s definitely a paradigm shift taking place in passenger cars. In particular, the mid-size has almost completed obliterated the big sedan, the CUV supplanted the SUV, compacts are well-equipped and comfortable, and even some subcompacts are no longer penalty boxes.

        So far though, no one except GM has defied the Bigger is Better formula for pickups with fresh product.

        The outdated Tacoma and Pathfinder are really just legacy products, with the tooling long paid for. They’re the equivalent of the Ford Crown Vic. That will change if GM actually has a hit and revitalizes a dead segment.

    • 0 avatar
      Reicher

      I got to see the Colorado at the Toronto Auto show and I thought it looked pretty good but damn it was long. The 4 door model they had was just as long as the Silverado. I was like….wahhhhhhhhh?

  • avatar
    7402

    Can you close the tailgate on a 4×8 sheet of plywood?

    It ain’t gonna make other trucks obsolete….

    • 0 avatar
      mkirk

      And cue all of the small car drivers telling you why that is not important. Agreed though.

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      @7402
      So what percentage of US pickups have an 8′ bed nowadays?

      Not many. They are largely SUVs, not like the pickups of old.

    • 0 avatar
      dal20402

      You could close the tailgate on a 4′ by 8′ sheet with an ’80s Toyota long bed. People value cabin space over bed space these days but there is no reason you need a 6000-lb. 21-foot-long truck to carry sheets of plywood.

      • 0 avatar
        Reicher

        my used 94 Dakota with the long box did it too. It came in handy many times.

      • 0 avatar
        Drzhivago138

        Close the tailgate on an 8′ piece of plywood resting in the 7′ long bed? The math’s a little screwy there. Until the T100, no Toyota pickup in America had longer than a 7′ bed.

        The Dakota, on the other hand, was 8 full feet of usefulness. Chrysler made a big mistake discontinuing the 8′ bed in ’98. After that, it became little more than a slightly-larger Tacoma/Frontier with the fuel economy of a Ram.

  • avatar
    el scotto

    -smack- POP!Buzz, Hum; dialing in my machine of Great GM mistakes. GM will probably price a 4door LTZ Colorado with-in less that 2000 dollars of a similar Silverado LT. Some, for many reasons stated here, will be happy not spending that extra 2k. The rest will spend the 2k and go with the bigger truck. The Silverado is gonna be 10k off of sticker price anyway. No, it won’t render the Tacoma “obsolete” nor will it be Derek’s much beloved “game changer. It will offer us another choice. Good times in the truck-shire. A Baruthesque tale of how the college homecoming queen and her court all fit in the bed of the Colorado and where drinking; nay, cannon-balling, sour mash whiskey on a warm fall evening would complete this saga.

  • avatar
    mkirk

    Well they have that core group of satisfied and loyal buyers of the last Colorado so this should go well.

    The jackassary is strong in this thread. IThis will be a dud. take it to the bank

  • avatar
    ajla

    “The people who should be worried are the ones who orphaned their mid-size truck customers, and those who sell trucks that are about to be rendered obsolete.”

    At GM all eggs are equal to chickens.

    • 0 avatar
      mkirk

      I think the only company to truly orphan their midsize buyers was GM when they killed the last Canyon/Colorado. I was a Nissan midsize customer in 2013. There may not have been a ton of us, but there were more than over at General Motors.

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      Fleet customers are the biggest orphaned small truck buyers. Orkin is the biggest one of all, but now is Toyota’s problem. That’s a prime example of who small truck OEMs are fighting for.

  • avatar
    Jimal

    What a surprise; the same exact people making the same exact arguments and exchanging the same insults. You all have gotten so predictable. Bertel couldn’t kill this place but calcification just might.

  • avatar

    Those missing the point in the truck size debate are arguing that a trucklet carries a whole load of nothing more efficiently than a fullsize. It’s pretty obvious the actual buyers weren’t aiming for efficiency for their daily commute.

  • avatar
    NMGOM

    TW5 – - –

    Oh, pifffff ….

    1) 2013 Ram Express Quad Cab (AT) = starting $26,195.
    (http://www.ramtrucks.com/en/ram_1500/#express)

    2) 2013 Nissan Frontier Crew Cab (AT) = starting $23,080.
    (http://autos.yahoo.com/nissan-truck/frontier-crew-cab/2013/)

    3) EPA Ram 1500 (AT ) (V-8) (6.4 bed) = 14/20
    (http://www.edmunds.com/ram/1500/2013/?zip=54914&ps=new&sub=quad-cab)

    4) Nissan Frontier Crew Cab (AT) (V-6) (5.0 bed)= 16/22
    (http://www.edmunds.com/nissan/frontier/2013/?style=200465011#pricing-pod-anchor)

    Differences in purchase price and fuel mileage for comparably equipped vehicle are VERY small. The only reasons for getting a mid-size truck (like the Colorado) are:
    1) Intense use as a commuter, so that the extra 2 mpg matters;
    2) Smaller width to fit into tight garages or other spaces;
    3) Availability of a Manual Transmission (my case);
    4) No need for heavy hauling or massive towing.

    Yes, by going wild with options and accessories, you can run the price of Ram through the ceiling, but you don’t have to do that. Frankly, if the Ram had come with a Manual Transmission (notice the capital letters?), I would not have gotten the Frontier.

    ———————

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      1), 2) and 4) alone meet my typical use habits, though 3) is a strong benefit. On the other hand, I wonder what the Nissan would do with that Ram V8 under the hood and different gearing? Want to bet it would get another 20% gas mileage improvement?

  • avatar
    LALoser

    Just saw an ad banner right here on TTAC offering $7,500.00 or so in discounts for a full size Chevy, 4X4, V8…that will catch fire and have a knock-on effect of the Colorado. Or so it would seem.

  • avatar
    ponchoman49

    If my buddies Frontier is anything to go buy it and the Taco are already very obsolete starting with the abysmal fuel economy with the V6.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Authors

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