By on June 18, 2014

2015-Chevy-Colorado-3

Small pickup fans considering the 2015 Chevrolet Colorado or GMC Canyon may like what they see once they comb through General Motors’ Fleet Order Guide, including more power and other niceties.

Autoblog reports the two midsize models will receive a 2.5-liter, direct-injected I4 good for 200 horsepower and 191 lb-ft of torque in extended cab models with either a six-speed manual or automatic, and a 3.6-liter V6 delivering 305 horses and 269 lb-ft of torque through a six-speed automatic for those who prefer crew cabs. Towing capacity for the extended cab twins is expected to be 3,500 pounds, 7,000 pounds for the crew cab variants.

Inside and beyond, occupants can avail themselves of the trucks’ infotainment system — in either 4-inch or 8-inch form, depending on trim chosen — rearview camera, as well as options like locking rear differential, hill descent control et al.

Future owners can have a look for themselves into what’s available for either the Canyon or Colorado. Meanwhile, diesel fans pining for information on the 2.8-liter Duramax will have to wait until 2016 to learn more about the powerplant.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

54 Comments on “GM Fleet Order Guide Reveals More On 2015 Colorado, Canyon Twins...”


  • avatar
    LALoser

    After these are out about 90 days or so, I will get one.

  • avatar
    danio3834

    Hmm, going from and extended cab to crew doubles the towing capacity? What gives?

    • 0 avatar
      xflowgolf

      That seemed counterintuitive to me as well. Same wheelbase available. Less weight devoted to cab hauling.

      Reading through the wording again though, I think the answer is between the lines. The paragraph states…

      “a 2.5-liter, direct-injected I4 good for 200 horsepower and 191 lb-ft of torque in extended cab models”

      vs.

      “a 3.6-liter V6 delivering 305 horses and 269 lb-ft of torque through a six-speed automatic for those who prefer crew cabs”

      So it would seem to be more a result of the packaged drivetrain, and not the cab configuration. So the next question is… can one get the V6 in an extended cab configuration? …or are you stuck with a crew cab only to get the V6? It would seem they’re missing a “workhorse” segment if they don’t offer an extended cab with the fullsize (read usable) bed and the big motor.

      • 0 avatar
        Hummer

        Longer wheelbase means better trailer control. The added weight is icing on the cake.
        Either way 7000 lbs sounds a bit generous to me.

        • 0 avatar
          PrincipalDan

          @Hummer, the old V8 Dakota was rated for 6500 lbs, I’m sure the Colorado/Canyon will be fine with 7,000.

        • 0 avatar
          danio3834

          Looking at the order guide pages themselves, the ext cab and crew can be on the same 128″ wheel base depending on box configuration. As xflowgolf points out, the difference in tow ratings are based on the powertrain selection. I4 models = 3500lbs, V6 = 7000lbs.

          It does appear that the V6 can be had in the ext cab.

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al from Oz

          The US Colorado has some differences in comparison to the global variant.

          The chassis is one area where weight saving for the US model has occurred.

          I do know our version have a tow rating of 7 800lbs with the 2.8 diesel.

          The V6 gasoline engine will move that weight considering the power it develops.

          But I do think the FE will be atrocious towing that kind of weight.

          The 2.5 judging by it’s tow capacity is on par with a front wheel drive car, so I’d expect it to have a real lightweight drivetrain.

          Even our 2.7 gas Hiluxes have a larger tow capacity.

          Even a Chinese Great Wall has a larger tow capacity with a 2.4 Mitsubishi based engine.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @BAFO – You have no DOT equivalent. OZ leaves capacity ratings for trucks entirely up the OEM’s sense of humour!

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            Btw BAFO, What time does Vulpine/DWFields/RoadWhales start his shift?

          • 0 avatar
            danio3834

            GM rated the towing capacity of these trucks using the SAE J2807 towing standard, where it’d be a fair guess that the models you quoted didn’t. So not an apples to apples comparison.

            http://articles.sae.org/12607/

            “The Colorado/Canyon are SAE J2807 compliant and are expected to offer more than 6700 lb (3039 kg) payload and towing capacity.”

        • 0 avatar
          RobertRyan

          Correct. Gutless engine for a Pickup, diesel a whole lot better

  • avatar
    -Nate

    Wait ~

    These are not yet available ? .

    I’ve seen them three times in Los Angeles going South on the I-110 freeway .

    -Nate

  • avatar
    Hummer

    I wonder how long it will take before they throw the 5.3 into it.

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    If any country drops a V8 into a Colorado and/or a Ranger it will be Australia.

    We will lose our V8 Holden and Ford utes, plus we don’t have those funny regulations that make it unsavoury to have a V8, ie, CAFE………………………yet.

    Plus we like our V8 utes.

    • 0 avatar
      CJinSD

      From 2009 to 2012 GM offered the 5.3 liter LH8 in the Colorado in the US, so good luck being first.

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al from Oz

        @CJinSD
        Somehow I don’t think you have this model Colorado…..yet????

        I did read where someone saw three on the LA Freeways, probably test mules.

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      @BAFO – CAFE only considers mpg, not engine size/cylinders. A V8 just needs to get equal or better mpg than a the V6 it replaces. Usually the V8 option has a 1 mpg penalty on the otherwise exact same V6 pickup or SUV.

      And the V8 gets better mpg when put to hard work or just driven hard. The EPA/CAFE doesn’t consider this either.

      If a (potential) V8 midsize pickup came with overdriven gears (final drive in the axles), say 2.73:1, it could easily exceed the V6′s FE by 1 or 2 mpg. Then the consumer could swap-in gears, if their needs exceed the 2.73s multiplication.

      But there’s a definite need for a V8, any time vehicles exceed 4,500 lbs, dry weight. Never mind a 12,000+ lbs combination that this trucks is rated for.

    • 0 avatar
      RobertRyan

      Big Al from Oz,
      Cannot see why anyone would want too. The Global Pickups and “performance cars” are contradiction in terms The best performance cars are just that cars

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al from Oz

        @RobertRyan
        Yes, I do think the only real performance pickups are the Falcon and Commodore utes.

        I’m looking at GM and Ford fitting a V8 to one of these new globals for Australia, in Australia.

        So, long as it isn’t like the F-150 Tremor performance pickup…….98mph???? “That ain’t performance” a Great Wall is faster.

        • 0 avatar
          RobertRyan

          @Big Al from Oz,
          Taking away the fanboy bravado, the US versions do not sell very well. Speaking to an ex-Ford Enigineer, performance is going to mean cars not anything else. The ex Holden engineer who left to design sophisticated suspensions for RV’s, is back with Walkinshaw to work on modified cars for Holden and possibly other GM brands.

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        @Robert Ryan – We’re not talking about muscle trucks to set the 1/4 mile on fire. Just properly spec’ing an engine for a truck’s given weight. Dry weight plus any normal load. Never mind at full capacity.

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al from Oz

          I thought the big DiM quote of the decade was “AMERICAN PICKUPS ARE SUVs WITH A BALCONY”.

          Are you trying to state that your pickups are in fact a truck??? Hardly, they are a car alternative, look at the Fiat 1500 Ram.

          Hmmmmmm……DiM, how often do you change your spots???

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @BAFO – Nice try, but any pickup should at least have an engine that’s matched to the job at hand. It doesn’t matter if it’s pulling a max weighted box trailer up a 6% graded in death valley, at 115 degrees fahrenheit with a strong headwind for long stretches or doing the mall crawl on a spring morning with the family on board.

            A fully optioned pickup that normally comes in at 5,000 lbs, wet weight, and a 12,000+ lbs CGVWR needs a V8 at the absolute minimum. Plain an simple. Anything else is stup!d, wasteful, if not dangerous!

        • 0 avatar
          RobertRyan

          Straight Line? No they actually handle unlike the Lifestyle vehicles.

  • avatar
    mcarr

    Still don’t know the 2 bits of info that will determine the success of this truck:

    1) Fuel Economy
    2) Price

    Towing capacity figures are mostly marketing driven. I wouldn’t want to have to tow a 7,000 lbs travel trailer with the V6 model, but a 5,000 lbs flatbed trailer would probably be just fine.

    • 0 avatar
      APaGttH

      I always believed in a 20% pad.

      That is if I want to tow 8,000 pounds, I need a truck rated to tow 10,000 pounds. If I want to tow 4,000 pounds, I need a truck rated for 5,000 pounds.

      I’ve always used that rule of thumb to take load, ambient temperature, weather/wind, elevation and elevation change into account.

      So I wouldn’t get a Colorado to haul 7,000 pounds – in my mind 5,600 pounds is its maximum capability.

      • 0 avatar
        mcarr

        Yes it will tow 7,000 lbs, but will it tow it in a headwind on a 95 degree day?

        I do like the 20% rule of thumb. I’ve towed enough to know that I like to have more than enough truck for the job.

        • 0 avatar
          DenverMike

          That’s right. And it’s never a good idea for what you’re towing to greatly outweigh your truck. Even under ideal conditions.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @DenverMike – “And it’s never a good idea for what you’re towing to greatly outweigh your truck.”

            I don’t see a huge problem in the commercial trucking industry.

            If your trailer doesn’t have brakes I do think that legally you can’t be over 40-45% of the weight of the tow vehicle.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @Lou_BC – Commercial truck drivers have passed a battery of tests. And pickups are hardly ‘scaled down’, 80,000 lbs big rigs. Far from it.

            First you’d have to start with a 5th wheel attachment (only) and tandem duel wheels on the back of the pickup, air brakes, engine brake, HD cooling, etc, etc.

            You’re talking pickups that don’t come with integrated trailer brakes. Even when so equipped, going into a bend too hot for the given situation, the heavier trailer can easily overpower the light rear end of the pickup, and guess what happens next…

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            @DiM
            You’ve hit the nail on the head in the differences between our trucks and your trucks. Our trucks are trucks and not ‘occasional’ use multi-purpose vehicles with this comment.

            Even our “little” trucks that can only carry 20 000lbs (without even considering towing) are designed much stronger than a HD.

            Your starring comment;

            “Commercial truck drivers have passed a battery of tests. And pickups are hardly ‘scaled down’, 80,000 lbs big rigs. Far from it.”

            We use pickups as a multi-purpose vehicle as they are intended to be.

            Our driver training is more comprehensive as well for all heavy vehicles.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            They can design them tougher than HDs, but you’re still talking little wheels with bearings and everything else that’s also small scale. Including small brakes. If the load is not also small scale to match, you will have a problem. No doubt about it.

            Use the right tool for the job. Or suffer the consequences. The way trucks are rated is the only difference between here and OZ. You have no US DOT equivalent. An OEM can slap any capacity rating they wish on their little trucks, Down Undah…

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            “Use the right tool for the job. Or suffer the consequences. The way trucks are rated is the only difference between here and OZ.”

            US Lifestyle Vehicles are built as just that, they are glorified station wagons. Global 1 tons are are built to do hard work constantly.

  • avatar
    Lou_BC

    Do we really need V8′s in a truck? Most like the thought of being able to tow or haul but for most it is fantasy as opposed to fact.
    I had the chance to test drive a Ram 1500 crew shortbox 4×4 with the gasser Pentastar V6. I liked the power and the transmission shifted smoothly except for a few down-shifts into first at a traffic light. It was a rough shift that felt like a driveline clunk. The truck also had a rattle from the tailgate on a gravel road.
    Not good for a brand new truck.
    That test drive reaffirmed my distrust of any Chrysler product.

    • 0 avatar
      PrincipalDan

      Rough shifts equal long life.

      Smooth shifts, short life. (Generally)

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        @PrincipalDan – and you consider a downshift that sends a clunk through the drivetrain a sign of a product that will last a long time?

        • 0 avatar
          DenverMike

          @Lou_BC – There’s never a reason for downshifts to be clunky or harsh unless you’re forcing it to engine brake.

          Now upshifts that seem rough, even at part throttle, are what’s known as “firm” or “positive” shifts. They do extend the life of the trans and it’s the mushy “smooth” shifts then wear down the clutch packs prematurely.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @DenverMike – engine braking does not put a hard shudder through the drivetrain.

            I tried engine braking with the Pentastar down a steep hill, it needs a few more downshifts to control the descent as compared to my heavier 5.4 powered F150. I found the same issue with the Ecoboost F150 I had for 9 days. It needed to be in at least one lower gear than my 5.4 to hold speed on a steep hill.

            That is the biggest flaw I see with the smaller engines. Poor compression braking in a heavier vehicle.

            The Ecoboost easily compares to V8′s when it comes to torque. I found that revving the sh!t out of the 3.5 EB a complete waste of time. In that respect it was similar to my 5.4. Both engines do not perform as well at higher revs.

            I liked the EB3.5 power characteristics but in many respects I do prefer V8′s more because of being raised around V8′s like the 390 FE.

            I haven’t had the chance to drive a new 5.3 or a 5.0. Dyno runs show that both engines need higher rpm’s to get things moving. That in itself tends to show that not every V8 is ideally suited to a truck. That does depend on the power characteristics one likes. I like the 5.4 power characteristics and don’t like those of the 5.3.

  • avatar
    Vulpine

    We still don’t have any specifications on the actual size of the truck. Every view I’ve seen offers no realistic references outside of GMC’s images side-by-side with their full-size and larger, while an in-person look had both the Canyon and the Colorado on pedestals making them look bigger while again not offering any real visible comparison. I still don’t know how small this truck will be other than to say it ‘looks’ about the same size as my 1990 F-150–which is still bigger than I like and why I’m hoping to pick up a ’94 Ranger in a couple more months.

    With that said, if the truck is visibly smaller than its immediate predecessor, then the smaller engine may be absolutely perfect. At 200 hp it should have everything the light user would need for power and still offer decent fuel economy. Again though, this assumes it’s also lighter than its predecessor. 3800 to 4200 pounds should be a near ideal weight for this truck and that engine as a 200-horse V6 was quite peppy in three different 3600 pound coupes I used to own (crashed, stripped timing gear and worn out–in order). All three also gave me high-20′s to low 30′s fuel economy. That stick should help it even more as YOU get to control your own shift points.

    I’ll be looking at it when it comes, but if it’s not small enough, there will be no trade.

    (Edit)
    On followup, looking at the sheets provided through the other site, the extended-cab short bed is only THREE INCHES shorter overall length than my 1990 full size, with a near-six-foot roofline and bed width is even WIDER than my old F-150 between the wheel wells. Ah well, call it a dream shattered. I’m betting in about 5 more years the Silverado/Sierra will be dropped entirely–for the C-twins.

    • 0 avatar
      Dan

      GM published most of the specs last year and the weights early this spring, all 18 feet and 4500 pounds of them, and you know that perfectly well because you’ve commented two or three hundred times by now how disappoint you are that GM failed to recognize the hundreds of thousands of buyers lined up to pay 2015 money for a Datsun hardbody reincarnate.

      But carry on pretending not to know if that’s what it takes to keep hope alive that it will meet your standards.

      For craigslist tire kicking 8 years and two owners from now.

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        Jumped the gun, didn’t you? I edited the comment even before your ‘scathing’ reply came out. It tells me you read the first sentence and didn’t bother to read the rest.

  • avatar
    canddmeyer

    I read elsewhere direct inject engines are having issues. Not so sure I’d want to be a guinea pig for GM.

    • 0 avatar
      ajla

      I haven’t really heard a lot bad about the 3.6L DI and it has been out for a long time now. I have heard of a few timing chain problems on the early non-DI 3.6L Lambdas.

      GM’s cylinder deactivation was trash for awhile (don’t know if that is fixed), so the 3.6L Colorado might end up having better longevity than the 4.3L Silverado.

      Now the Lexus 2.5L and some VW Group DI engines I’ve read bad things about carbon buildup issues.

      • 0 avatar
        bts

        Cylinder deactivation has been out on the 5.3 V8 since 2005 so they’ve likely fixed any issues with that. The 4.3 V6 is heavily based on the 5.3 V8 design so I’d wager it’s more reliable than the 3.6.

        • 0 avatar
          Carlson Fan

          Pretty sure the AFM(Active Fuel Management) wasn’t offered in the 5.3 until 2007 when the GMT-900s were launched.

          As an owner of a 2007 Tahoe with the AFM, I wouldn’t call it trash. The switch from V4 to V8 is absolutely seamless. The reality is that little 5.3 just doesn’t have the torque to stay in V4 mode long enough to make much of a difference fuel economy wise. The bigger issue is the oil consumption problems due to the 4 cylinders shutting down. Ours is using roughly a quart every 2K with just under 95K on it.

  • avatar
    el scotto

    I’m just waiting to see what the price difference will be between the Colorado WT and the Silverado WT. If it’s less than 3k; GM lost a golden marketing opportunity. Wait! This is Gm; they’ll find new and improved ways to mess this up. Sorry to the Chevy Luv/Ford Courier Jihad. The days of cheap (in many ways) little trucks are gone.

  • avatar
    bts

    I wonder why GM didn’t choose the 4.3 L V6 from the full size trucks to be the optional engine. With cylinder deactivation I’d think the 4.3 would have better fuel economy than the 3.6, and is likely cheaper to build since it’s a pushrod design.

    The Silverado 4.3 beats the Traverse 3.6 by one MPG in the city when optioned to be a similar weight.

    http://autos.msn.com/research/compare/default.aspx?c=0&i=0&ph1=t0&ph2=t0&tb=0&dt=0&v=t118033&v=t117937

  • avatar
    Lou_BC

    I too am puzzled as to why GM did not use the 4.3 in this truck. Is the 3.6 smaller or has a much smaller flywheel and bell-housing?
    The Colorado/Canyon engine choices may not cheaply adapt to the 4.3/5.3/6.2 drivetrain architecture.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributing Writers

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