By on March 31, 2015

2015 Chevrolet Colorado front side 1

The Chevrolet Colorado is a good little truck, certainly sturdy enough, leading me to believe that it is a capable enabler of various human endeavors that involve catapulting, hurtling, or generally straining one’s body across hill, dale, snow-capped extremity and Ace Hardware parking lot alike.

But its obvious novelty—one that so enraptured a certain publication’s staff to bestow it a pair of calipers that will hardly strain the Colorado’s 1500lb-plus payload—lies in its rejection of the idea that every pickup truck must be the approximate size of a Normandy landing craft.

That’s right—our cars are creeping ever so bigger, ever so clumsier, and if all cars must expand then trucks must do so exponentially, until comes the day when a Silverado rear-ends a Ram, causing Santa Monica to fall into the ocean. But we can do good to admit, even against American exceptionalism, that not every man, woman, and child needs a full-sized truck. (Are those black helicopters I’m hearing?) Until the day that we stop believing in the weirdness of the front-drive mini-truck, a Southern Hemisphere vestige as bizarre as cuy chactao and the Plymouth Scamp, this conveyance in Red Rock Metallic is exactly what some of us deserve: a vehicle that can’t haul as much, can’t tow as much, can’t be ordered with High Country leather the color and texture of your grandfather’s elbows—but something so refreshing that it snaps us awake from thinking that every new pickup needs to be bigger, squarer, more chrome-laden, more ready for ramming than the last hulking beast it replaces.

And yet, the Colorado still manages to dwarf a jellybean F-150 from the Clinton administration—that tenth-generation F-150, has a 10-inch shorter wheelbase and length in its smallest configuration than even the shortest Colorado. Think about that.

Long truck is long.

Long truck is long.

Meanwhile the Colorado seems to defy spatial logic. It looks enormously long but feels small; it feels narrow but it’s hamstring stretching tall; it’s long and narrow and tall but it drives with surprising nimbleness. Yes, even this four-doored long-box. (Remember when such trucks only belonged to railroad companies?) Those coming out of a full-sized Silverado will find little culture shock within its cabin, which is scaled down, sure, narrower now, but never snug and never cramped.

I didn’t get a chance to take the Colorado off-road, or to Colorado, or even to the nearest Canyon. Instead, I drove it around Los Angeles, committing occasional errands, then a sprint up the 101 Highway to a stupendously lavish hotel where the valets asked excitedly not about what I would be driving but about what I was.

The 3.6-liter V6 is a stout little engine, usually relaxed—but ask it firmly and it’ll muster up 305 horsepower with enthusiasm and a nice noise. The six-speed automatic transmission takes some time and a lot of throttle to react, but when on the move it’s plenty smooth. Brakes are very controllable and very powerful, and the accurate and evenly weighted steering isn’t just pretty good, for a truck—it’s pretty good, period. Body motions are nicely reduced to the occasional rumble and jostling, reinforcing the feeling that it’s Like A Bob Seger Song.

Plenty of USB ports! Switchgear feels reassuringly imbued with quality.

Plenty of USB ports! Switchgear feels reassuringly imbued with quality.

Inside, it’s a quiet place to be. Nice and roomy. MyLink dominates the center console, same as in your Impala, y’know—all square buttons and sharp gradients, homely but effective. The flat, two-color gauges are easy to read but also gravely stark. Seats are firm like a doctor’s waiting room, while the rear bottom cushions flip up to stash various unmentionables, just like the Silverado’s. The leather-wrapped steering wheel is terrific to behold.

The rear benches flip up, but clearly not in this photo.

The rear benches flip up, but clearly not in this photo.

Praise to Corvette for its trick temperature gauges, an idea so neat it’s trickled down to every Chevy product, with a retrofit for the 1987 Celebrity Eurosport VR available sometime next Monday—evidently the same people who design showerheads figured out the Colorado’s automatic climate control, because the temperature swings wildly from the ass-freezing cold to Florida-esque mugginess within a single knob click.

The Colorado starts at a hair over $20,000. Which is good. Because the one I tested was nearly twice that—and for $38,870 you get sweet darkened five-spoke wheels ($1,000), leather seats ($950), MyLink ($495), lane departure and frontal collision warnings ($395, and remember, the life you save could be mine), and another thousand-dollar luxury package, which means the aforementioned touchy automatic controls and chrome bits. Humans love shiny things, and pick-em-up truckers even more so.

Sure is shiny!

Sure is shiny. And handsome. But also shiny.

Macho posturing aside, the Colorado is far more accessible than any full-sized truck out there—small enough for a city, even one with four-lane boulevards, yet big enough to trick you into seeming invincible. Chevrolet’s marketing department imagines armies of scruffy young men in artfully cuffed denim and Target Merona plaid shirts staining their pits as they heave entire REI storefronts into the back, giving hardly a worry to the optional factory spray-in bedliner, before cranking the Black Keys through the seven-speaker Bose audio system (a $495 option!) and setting off to reclaim their manliness in lofty and Walden-esque ways, or at least tubing at Mt. Baldy. I don’t disagree with any of that. I know I’ve certainly helped load plenty of tents into tiny pickups during my time with Boy Scout Troop 227 of Shrewsbury, Massachusetts, before heading off to summer camp and bounding down dirt roads at McRae-aping speeds while passing branches play drum solos off the A-pillars. Big trucks lumber, small trucks bound.

That would make a pretty good bumper sticker. Get me Chevrolet’s marketing department.

2015 Chevrolet Colorado front side 2

“The new Colorado: guaranteed to fit into 65% of Los Angeles parking garages!”

We imagine such possibilities of vehicles like the Chevrolet Colorado, the Nissan Frontier, the Toyota Tacoma—both of which are getting upgraded, soon enough—and, of course, it may be the nostalgia portion of my mind that remembers the 2001 Nissan Xterra of my childhood that enabled so many trips, so many adventures, so many ideas of taking the next off-ramp from the 101 and winding up thoroughly and wonderfully lost, so far away from water. Is it a truck, or a call to arms? The easy-access Colorado carries forth a go-get-’em lifestyle that that sneakily guilts us into getting off our asses, to take up mountain biking or drywall installation.

Which makes sense—because pickup truck.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

211 Comments on “2015 Chevrolet Colorado: Reviewed!...”


  • avatar
    Gregg

    It is strange that such a huge vehicle can be called “small.” Other than “full-sized” pickups, there is nothing else out there this big.

    • 0 avatar
      redav

      Indeed. When I first saw the Colorado, if it had not been next to a Silverado, I never would have guessed it was not a full size.

      As to the comparison of a ’90s F-150, the shortest version of the Colorado won’t fit in my garage (I’m limited to just over 200″). This thing is too long by a foot.

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        A 16′ garage? Doesn’t that rule out some Subarus? You didn’t notice it before buying?

        I’d rather have a one bath for 3 bedrooms. Wait, I DO!

        • 0 avatar
          redav

          :sigh:

          The garage is a standard modern garage of 20 ft. However, space is required to be able to walk around the car. And space is required for storage of other items that can’t be put anywhere else. The remainder is what’s available, and that fits about 200″.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            I guess this is why some have garage sales? So they get rid of junk and park something bigger than a Smart in there? Saturday is best, from what I hear. But the “standard” garage is 22 ft. Anything less is a variation, remodel or big tool shed.

          • 0 avatar
            IHateCars

            Agreed….standard modern garage in new builds is typically 20′ long, sometimes shorter. We just bought a new home (currently being built) and the “double car” garage that comes with it is a little under 19′ wide and 20′ long…some models are smaller. And that is typical practice with most builders in my region. Otherwise you have to go to custom build.

            Makes it a PITA to park my Raptor, wife’s FX35 and my bikes in the garage!

          • 0 avatar

            Mine is 20, not 22, and it was built like that in 2003. I happen to know that because a Kolb Firefly with wings folded takes up 19 feet. The worst part is that only one pen is full 20 feet, because the water heater and A/C unit occupy a part of the other one. It leaves about enough space to fit RAV4 in there.

          • 0 avatar
            BrunoT

            GM isn’t going to reverse engineer trucks to fit in the tiny garages of people who want to shove a lawnmower in front of their truck. Need space for other things besides vehicles? Do what I did when I had a house with a small garage, and fork over a couple thousand for a storage building. If they sold a Ranger sized pickup it would not sell well. That thing wouldn’t have the capacity of a truck, and there are plenty of cheap crossovers that could haul as much weight more comfortably than a tiny truck. Toss a liner in the back and you can haul brick and fertilizer in one. I have a F150 and a 2,000 ft garage now. Because I needed one. But the Colorado, as is, could tow my loads and haul my stuff adequately. A smaller truck could not.

      • 0 avatar
        Carlson Fan

        In MN, we call that a shed not a garage.

      • 0 avatar
        dbar1

        You need a new house/apartment/city. You cant fit a regular cab/short bed in your parking space!

        My house built in the 70’s fits my double-cab standard box with 2 feet to spare!

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          Why does garage size always comes up when talking pickups?

          It must matter to some but is it really that bloody important?

          If that is someone’s biggest worry I seriously doubt that they would ever consider any pickup truck.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            “Why does garage size always comes up when talking pickups?”

            Why? because it offers a sense of scale that most homeowners can relate to. When I hear people say they won’t buy a truck because it can’t fit in their garage–or through their garage door opening–that makes it pretty clear that it’s too big to be a practical family vehicle…which so many commenters here are saying they have become.

            Strangely, I almost never see families in crew cab pickup trucks. 99.9% of the time I see one or two males almost no load in most-recent models. Granted this is anecdotal evidence, but it seems that pickup trucks are about 80% Big Boy Power Wheels and 20% Real Work vehicles.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            The same is true with sedans. How often is the whole crew/family riding in sedans? 2 times a month? And should we have a look in the trunk to see if it’s packed full??? Lame arguments.

            But when asked for the specifics, or gawd forbid, pictures of these mythical undersized garages, commentors scatter. Usually they admit these “measurements” don’t count the boxes of junk piled up.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            Funny, dude. Really funny. I see sedans full up a minimum of twice a week and never, but NEVER see the truck filled up unless it’s a family on vacation towing a thirty-foot travel trailer. Not even on Sundays.

            As for not seeing pictures… Well, it’s kinda hard to post a picture on a website that doesn’t permit them. Neither TTAC nor PUTC allow pictures to be posted in the comments. Probably for good reason.

          • 0 avatar

            Because HOA, that’s why.
            http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2015/01/lawsuit_pickup_truck_not_welcome_in_fayetteville_development.html

          • 0 avatar
            an innocent man

            >Why does garage size always comes up when talking pickups?<

            Some of us see garages as a place to park our vehicles. Some see them as an attached shed. No one is right, no one is wrong. It's all good.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            Some places will not let you park a pickup truck, no matter how fancy or expensive, anywhere on your own property unless it is in your garage, with the door closed, out of sight.

            These often are the same places where you cannot keep your garage door open unless you’re right there working or present in the direct vicinity.

            Ordinances are often really weird. No such restrictions in the wie-open spaces of Southcentral New Mexico. My vehicles are now parked on the street and driveway since I converted my garage to an additional living space.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @Vulpine – Really? Your anecdotal traffic observations? But you can post pictures here from anywhere that has a url. We’ve all done it. You’ve done it.

            Wanna see one?

            02varvara.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/01-crying-baby.jpg

            You load them on a site like flickr and there you go. If you can’t figure that out, who helped you get HERE???

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            “Why does garage always comes up when talking pickups?”

            Why would I buy a vehicle — the second-most-expensive thing, and most expensive depreciating asset, I’ll ever buy — and then rob it prematurely of its value by leaving it outside where the sun will oxidize the finish, the rubber parts will rot, and the mechanical components will suffer extreme temperature cycling?

            I’m not going to buy a vehicle unless it fits in either my garage or, at a minimum, my carport which can protect it from sun and most rain. A current full-size truck wouldn’t fit in either because it’s too wide.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @HDC – Some HOAs are getting crazy. They probably required/forced minimum garage space for big SUV and pickups inside. I won’t buy a HOA home. My sister’s city won’t allow any curb parking of ANYTHING after 10 PM. I’ll stick to “county” too. I love it. City streets/curbs/lights, 2 acres but right outside the city’s boundary! Completely surrounded by tract houses (suckers!).

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            dal20402, I don’t know if ANY garages will house a full-size pickup truck, unless custom built.

            The house in town where I live now came with a Double garage, one large wide door, but couldn’t house anything taller than a sedan.

            Both my Tundra and the Sequoia are too tall to fit through the entrance although inside the garage there is plenty of room to fit both s!de by s!de.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            DM, I know what you mean. My sister in West Palm Beach, Florida, has that problem and her house is a stand-alone, with a brick wall all around their property. Still, city ordnances prescribe what the owners can and cannot do.

            My sister in Kent-Des Moines, Washington, also has similar restrictions although their home is also a stand-alone, surounded by a brick fence. But no such restriction on their second home in Ollala, or her husband’s family home in Vancouver, BC.

          • 0 avatar
            thelaine

            “Strangely, I almost never see families in crew cab pickup trucks. 99.9% of the time I see one or two males almost no load in most-recent models. Granted this is anecdotal evidence, but it seems that pickup trucks are about 80% Big Boy Power Wheels and 20% Real Work vehicles.”

            So?

            Same with muscle cars. Same with luxury cars. Same with most cars. So what? Why the pickup focus? Why not get on the S Class thread and say they are wasteful? It doesn’t make sense to single out pickups as wasteful just because no one will sell the one you want.

            Most people get more house than they need. Good for them. Congratulations on prosperity and a comfortable life.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @HDC – It must be real hard to feel like you’re living in a FREE society when even on your own property, there’s always someone barking what you can and cannot do. I’ve got a 7′ block wall all around and gates with big “BEWARE OF DOGS” signs in case Code Enforcement wants to wander in.

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            HDC, I’ve seen plenty of large suburban houses with tall multi-car garages that would work fine for a pickup.

            My narrow one-car garage in an inner-ring suburb is (just barely) tall enough for a stock truck, but too narrow unless I fold both mirrors (in which event I can’t see as I back up). My carport has a standard-size parking spot with a wall on one side, so a wide vehicle would infringe on the neighbor’s spot.

            My condo association is much more permissive than many of the HOAs you all are describing, even though all the owners are actually sharing a building. I can’t imagine living in that sort of community.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            thelaine, often people buy more house than they need or can realistically afford, but that is because a house is often their greatest asset and the core of their net worth.

            BTW, I strongly advise people to buy more house than they can afford. Those people who were sweating it when they bought that outrageously priced $100K house a couple of decades ago are now cashing out and becoming instant millionaires.

            More recent California millionaires moving to AZ, NM, TX, CO and NV than at any time in recent history.

            And FWIW, prices of houses are only expected to rise for the next two decades. Basically, you can’t go wrong buying real estate and holding on to it.

            My wife’s dad started buying distressed housing in 1972 after he retired from Civil Service, and has profited enormously from the real estate business. His kids, grandkids and great-grandkids will be reaping the benefits, but “he built it, and they came.”

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            DM, such are the consequences of a “free” society where a small minority dictates what the members of American society must do, think, and believe in.

            Forget about religious rights and beliefs. Forget about freedoms and your life, liberty and the pursuit of your happiness.

            There’s precendence for that. Pre-war Germany during the 1930s! And we all know how that turned out.

            My German mom’s family (not Jewish), fled Germany for America in the early 1930s for exactly that reason.

            As potato farmers the state started telling them what they had to produce, how much, what they got to keep, and what they had to believe in, in return for —- nothing.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            dal20402, Agree on the newer housing with the taller garage doors and bigger foot print. Many of them in my area have THREE or FOUR car garages.

            I don’t live in one of those. Where we live in town today was built in 1971/1972 according to deed records.

            When I lived in the desert, I built two huge covered car ports to house my vehicles, as I built and expanded my home from 1980 – 1996. No garage doors, but covered space, out of the sun.

          • 0 avatar
            nrd515

            My 2000 Sierra Ext cab barely fit in my garage. I had to park perfectly straight. If I didn’t, either I couldn’t walk behind it with the door closed, or, if I was off a little bit more, the garage door would hit the back bumper. I didn’t even think about it before I bought it. After it was wrecked in 2003, I replaced it with a 2003 Ram 1500 Quad Cab, which was able to be parked pretty much half assed without worrying about the door closing. That truck was better in every way than the Sierra.

          • 0 avatar
            BrunoT

            Maybe they want to be able to park their truck in a locked garage. Come resale time in some climates that could translate to thousands of dollars vs letting it sit outside. Then there’s crime, snow and ice accumulating on it, damage potential from branches and such during storms. Plenty of reasons. I lived in Florida for a year w/o a garage and it F’d up my BMW’s paint so bad I took a huge hit selling it.

    • 0 avatar
      psarhjinian

      What surprised me about most pickups—but especially the Colorado—isn’t so much the size but the height.

      I’d love for someone knowledgeable to give an authoritative explanation for the height thing. Near as I can tell, it’s a combination of a) big rims, b) frame height and c) suspension travel (where b) & c) are down to inflating towing capacity) but I’m nowhere near knowledgeable enough to say that with any authority.

      • 0 avatar
        Sigivald

        4WD.

        Even if you don’t have it – and most/almost all of them will – IIRC you get the 4WD ride height even if you don’t have the notionally-offroad suspension.

        In other words, C) again, but not just for towing capacity.

        (A? Well, big rims usually also means smaller rubber, these days, not necessarily a larger tire OD.)

      • 0 avatar
        redav

        I don’t know either what’s really driving the ride height. However, 4WD can’t be it because older small pickups are available with 4WD that aren’t jacked up. Wheels definitely are getting bigger, but that doesn’t necessarily mean the body has to be higher, although it certainly simplifies design (and likely drops weight) to do so. Wheel size–really the tire OD more than the wheel–plus suspension travel dictate the required room in the wheel well, and that would drive up hood height and the top of the bed. I’m sure there’s an aesthetics component–people like their trucks big and manly. I’m also sure there’s a pretense of offroading which would push up the ground clearance all around.

        • 0 avatar
          Hummer

          Older 2WD trucks sometimes used different frames, many times also had a completely different front end setup, making it more similar in setup between the two lowers cost. Don’t forget GMT400 trucks used different rim sizes between 4wd and 2wd trucks as well.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        psarhjinian – I suspect that design orthodoxy is part of the reason. People just like tall beefy looking trucks. Box sides have gotten higher so blending iin the lines probably adds to it.
        Roll over crush standards have meant thicker roofs.
        BOF tends to mean a higher body.
        Long vehicles like trucks have poor breakover angles so minimizing that limitation means not dropping the frame down too much in the middle to keep the cab lower.
        Using 4×4 chassis for both 4×2 and 4×4 also contributes to height. Wheel size has grown to allow for larger brakes.
        1/2 ton trucks used to have 15 inch wheels now the smallest is 17 for a 1/2 ton. My F150 came with larger stock tires than my 1990 F150.

      • 0 avatar

        You need to see HiLux. We get them visting from Mexico once in a while, and that thing is narrower and taller than Tacoma.

      • 0 avatar
        BrunoT

        Ground clearance for off road use, of course, plus they learned that the “lowrider” 2wd trucks of the past didn’t look right, and generally they sit about as high as a 4×4.

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      “It is strange that such a huge vehicle can be called “small.” Other than “full-sized” pickups, there is nothing else out there this big.”

      Hear! Hear!

    • 0 avatar
      RobertRyan

      They are getting or have achieved the same size Globally, like a US 1/2 ton of the 1990’s or early 2000’s

  • avatar
    johnhowington

    the interior looks absolutely dreadful.

    • 0 avatar
      VW16v

      Have you seen the inside of a Tacoma? Now that is dreadful. Mismatched plastics and 1980’s looking bits and pieces.

      • 0 avatar
        ponchoman49

        I just looked at a 2014 new leftover Taco. The interior looked like something from 20 years ago and was very cheap, especially the thin hollow headliner, the hard plastics, the wobbly floppy visor mirrors and the tinny wafer thin sheet metal.

        • 0 avatar
          joeaverage

          And $35K for the crewcab 4WD Tacoma with the old school interior. In my mind trucks should still cost $18K.

          Don’t see the point – for most people – who own trucks but use them like a car. Just buy a decent but light utility trailer with a locking top. Mine weighs 400 lbs empty and can carry half a ton. Perfect for family camping trips and hardware store trips. There are at least ten American trailer brands out there that have creative trailer solutions. Some I like better than others and some are insanely expensive – but they would still pay for themselves compared to a $35K+ pickup truck used about 15-20% of the time as a pickup truck. Trucks are expensive to fuel, expensive to buy tires for, expensive depreciation, etc. Just buy a trailer and chances are it’ll be worth a fair amount of it’s original purchase price five or ten years down the road. Keep it out of the weather when it isn’t being used and it’ll last “forever” (decades).

          I’d like to have a pickup again but can’t see the point for my needs. Won’t endure the cost. Nothing to prove, none of my personal style is wrapped up in driving a truck. A trailer gets the job done and the rest of the time we can drive our family hauler (CUV or sedan) and that is better suited for what we do day in and day out.

    • 0 avatar
      duffman13

      I saw on at the DC auto show. It did not impress me. The thing that really got me was the overall cheap feel of it, and this was a fully optioned auto show special. The most notable part was how cheap the doors sounded closing, which I would never expect out of a truck.

      The Tacoma with cloth interior was a nicer, more ergonomic place to sit, and even the Frontier had more substantial door and switchgear feel.

      • 0 avatar
        dbar1

        HAHAHAHHAHAHA.

        So the triple-sealed doors didnt sound good closing? Man you are a worse troll than D-bag-weight. Go ahead and pay more for a taco with a structurally flawed frame and anemic V-6.

        • 0 avatar
          Carlson Fan

          He’s like the RAM version of Z71 Silvy!…..LOL

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          dbar1 – GM changing over to triple sealed doors was needed. The GMT900’s were real bad for dust and grime getting into the cab.

        • 0 avatar
          mnm4ever

          I really like these trucks, and they may feel a little nicer inside than a Tacoma, especially at the higher trim levels. But the problem is they are not cheaper, the Toyota costs less across the board from the cheapest truck on up, and that is going by TruCar pricing, not MSRP.

          Not to mention, the Toyota will have insanely high resale values and will be running as well at 200k+ miles as it does when brand new. And the interior, while not fancy, is definitely hardy on the Toyota, everything will likely still be working fine. I am not sure I can say the same about the GM truck, and have you seen the resale values of the last Colorado? Unless Chevy starts offering some deep discounts, I would still get a Tacoma over this.

        • 0 avatar
          30-mile fetch

          That anemic V6 will get to 60 within spitting distance of this Chevy without much improvement in rated mpg. Whether it irritates you that Toyota’s supposedly archaic and soon-tot-be-replaced 10-year old engine performs nearly as well as Chevy’s new pride and joy will probably depend on whether you do things like post HAHAHAHAHA in all caps.

        • 0 avatar
          duffman13

          I’m not trying to troll anyone. Those were my observations from the auto show. The Colorado felt cheap in a bad way. The Taco may not be the best truck in the world, but it felt entirely more solid and ergonomic.

      • 0 avatar
        joeaverage

        A friend recently bought the Tacoma 4-door 4WD. I really liked it until I heard the $35K price. True it’ll last and the resale value will be nice but wow – $35K…

        • 0 avatar
          mnm4ever

          $35k would be for a pretty much loaded up version, or perhaps for the TRD Pro model. But still, I think the cheapest 4WD Double Cab is going to be around $29k.

          But its the same for the Colorado, the cheapest 4WD crew cab you can get is $30k and that is in WT trim with no options. Loaded up is even higher than a top of the line Tacoma. I am not sure they will ever throw $8-10k on the hood of these like the full size trucks, the markups are not nearly as massive.

      • 0 avatar
        sgeffe

        I sat in the Colorado at the Auto Show, and while everything felt current-idiom GM quality, one thing REALLY caught my attention: the steering-wheel controls are membrane switches instead of actual buttons! WTF?! How long are those going to last?

        If I had to guess, right through the end of the warranty before they bust open!

        I wish the bean-counters would just — count beans! ;-)

    • 0 avatar
      MeJ

      I recently attended a car show and sat in the Tacoma and the Colorado.
      The Colorado was much nicer.

    • 0 avatar
      dbar1

      It looks fine. It’s a truck, not a $150,000 Merk thats supposed to be wrapped in the skin of unborn unicorns.

    • 0 avatar
      BrunoT

      It’s a truck that starts in the low 20’s. It could be better yes, but it’s A PICKUP TRUCK.

  • avatar
    VW16v

    Good review. But, it would be nice if a lower end model could have been tested. Like a crew cab, short bed, 4 cyl. Less then $27k model. At $38k it almost seems pointless, you might as well get a full size pickup.

    • 0 avatar
      Chocolatedeath

      I had a chance to test just that model at a local car show here in FL and its underwhelming. The 4 felt over maxed at best. The interior was ok for a truck and the brakes were really good or atleast they felt good to me.Its a good looking truck and I can see how many will buy it.

    • 0 avatar
      Carlson Fan

      MSRP is a meaningless number on a GM truck. What I paid for my ’04 GMC FS wasn’t anywhere near its 42K+ MSRP. Not even close.
      Plan on paying 20-25% less for high end models..

    • 0 avatar
      BrunoT

      The V6 is so cheap it’s almost a no-brainer to get it. You’ll get it back at resale, and the fuel cost difference, real world, is not very much. Heavy vehicles and 4’s often require a heavy throttle, which eats into the theoretical mpg numbers. You can get a very nice one for far less than $38K. With discounts, I’ve priced a crew cab V6 with a few options for about $30K. Getting leather is the single most expensive thing you can do on these, as it requires a slew of other less useful packages to get it.

  • avatar
    ezeolla

    “…that tenth-generation F-150, has a 10-inch shorter wheelbase and length in its smallest configuration than even the shortest Colorado.”

    But that shortest Colorado also has a back seat, while the F-150 only has one row. An extended cab F-150 of that generation is about the same length as the current extended cab Colorado

    • 0 avatar
      Carlson Fan

      Very good point. There is a brand new GMC Canyon parked along a road I drive everyday. In extended-cab form it is not that of a big truck. Definitely smaller than a fullsize and noticeably smaller than a Taco. Park that extra cab GMC next to the old Ford Ranger and there really isn’t any noticeable difference in size.

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        “… noticeably smaller than a Taco”

        Really? You believe that?
        *Toyota Tacoma Access Cab Overall Length: 208.1″
        *Chevy Colorado WT Extended Cab “long box” (standard): 212.7 (WITHOUT rear bumper)

        * Toyota Tacoma Overall height (4×2): 66.1″
        * Chevy Colorado WT Overall height (4×2): not given on Chevrolet’s website.

        * Toyota Tacoma Overall width (4×2): 72.2″
        * Chevy Colorado WT Overall width (4×2): Not given on Chevrolet’s website

        By no means is the Colorado “noticeably smaller than a Taco”, though I will grant that they’re roughly the same size for the 2015 models.

        • 0 avatar
          Carlson Fan

          A Taco is noticeably wider than a new Canyon or Colorado. And that is what I meant by notably smaller. Easy to mistake a Taco for the 1st Gen(T100 based) Tundra. Height and length, sure they are about the same.

          The Taco shares more in common size wise with the old Dakota than the new GM trucks.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            As I remember from previous discussions, Carlson, the Colorado is either 74″ or 76″ not including the mirrors in width. That would make it the same width as the Taco, or close enough not to make any difference. The only reason it may look narrower than the Taco is the styling itself.

          • 0 avatar
            Dave M.

            From Edmunds – Tacoma v. Colorado
            Front head room
            40.2 in.
            39.5 in.
            Front hip room
            53.6 in.
            54.2 in.
            Front leg room
            41.7 in.
            41.7 in.
            Front shoulder room
            57.7 in.
            57.5 in.
            Rear hip Room
            55.2 in.
            53.4 in.
            Rear head room
            38.5 in.
            38.3 in.
            Rear leg room
            32.6 in.
            35.8 in.
            Rear shoulder room
            59.3 in.
            56.1 in.
            Width
            74.6 in.
            74.2 in.
            Height
            66.1 in.
            70.6 in.
            Length
            208.1 in.
            212.7 in.
            Ground clearance
            8.1 in.
            8.4 in.
            Wheel base
            127.4 in.
            128.3 in.
            Maximum towing capacity
            3400 lbs.
            7000 lbs.
            Maximum payload
            1175 lbs.
            1460 lbs.
            Gross weight
            4900 lbs.
            5500 lbs.
            Curb weight
            3725 lbs.
            4010 lbs.
            Angle of approach
            27.0 degrees
            17.4 degrees
            Angle of departure
            20.0 degrees
            22.1 degrees

          • 0 avatar
            gtemnykh

            Seems that the Colorado wins big on rear leg room, which is good to hear. I can sit behind myself in a crewcab Tacoma, but just barely (I’m 5’11”).

            But oh man that Colorado approach angle is laughable! I hope that’s simply due to that stupid lower air dam that needs to be ripped off pronto, if only for the improvement in appearance.

            Also, is that for the new, redesigned tacoma with the 3.5 and ugly-stick beating? Those are also cursed with the ‘black plague’ lower air splitter. Surprised the ground clearance is so low for both of them, I could have sworn Tacomas were always in the ~10 inch range, like a 4Runner.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            @Dave M.: I can already tell you there is one mistake in that listing. Front legroom in the Colorado is significantly longer than the Tacoma–or at least much better engineered. There is not enough room in the Tacoma for my wife to sit comfortably behind the wheel. She is six feet tall with long legs and she says she feels cramped in the Tacoma with the seat all the way back and can’t comfortably reach the pedals; she’d be driving with her heels off the floor and her thighs pressed against the steering wheel, even with the steering wheel itself at its highest position (when adjustable). The Colorado offered her a much more comfortable reach to the pedals while the seat itself still has one or two clicks to go on its track. There is no way the legroom would be identical.

            Rear seat room is unimportant as I would almost never be carrying any living thing back there but a dog who likes to lie on the floor.

            But the overall argument between the Tacoma and the Colorado was that somebody (not naming names) claimed that the Colorado was visibly smaller than the Tacoma. All you’ve done is proven that person wrong.

    • 0 avatar
      dbar1

      Thanks for correcting him.

      “The trucks today are too big!”

      No, they are not.

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        Pickup trucks today are simply too big. They are ungainly at best and there are places where they are simply too large to access; not all of them urban, either.

        • 0 avatar
          Carlson Fan

          You drive a Fiat 500 and think PU trucks are too big. Who’d have guessed.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            You forget, I sold an F-150 to buy that Fiat for my wife. At over six-feet tall (my wife) that full-sized truck scared the heck out of her when driving it on rural roads. I drive a Jeep Wrangler JKU which is enough smaller to make a difference. I would willingly drive that ’05 Gladiator concept because it is ENOUGH smaller and has far superior maneuverability.

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          Looks like 2,066,389 Americans disagreed with you in 2014.
          Actually, add another 173,826 to that total since you think “mid-sized” pickups are also too big.

          • 0 avatar
            Luke42

            Those 2 million Americans aren’t me any more than they’re Vulpine.

            I’ve owned 3 pickup trucks: a 1986 Dodge D-50 (Mitsubishi version), a 1998 Ford Ranger, and a Jellybean F-150.

            The Jellybean F-150 was just too damn big. It might have been better in a different trim, but it was too tall to make loading and unloading the bed easy. It was too long to maneuver comfortably in an urban area (where I live) — I *can* maneuver it in an urban area, I just don’t want to. Overall, my Sienna is a better truck for my particular circumstances.

            A lot of the F-150s limitations were put in there for machismo, at the expense of practicality. Trucks need to lose the long nose and oversized wheel and move to a van-type front end – thin will make room for the two passenger rows, without sacrificing the cargo area. Lower the load floor to the height of a table (30″ or less), and I’ll be a truck guy again.

            Those two million people who like trucks with compromised practicality… Well, I ain’t buying one.

            This Colorado is a step in the right direction, but it still has too much space wasted on the schnoz that isn’t wasted on actual commercial vehicles like the Ford Transit or the Savannah. They could probably have cut close to a foot off of the length of the vehicle (or added it to the bed), if it weren’t for the fashion statement that this truck han to make…..

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            And as I said before, how can you know where there is nothing on the market to offer a comparison? The closest available comparison is by simply looking at the SUV/CUV market, where ALL sizes sell well and midsizers that are notably smaller than mid-size pickup trucks are far more popular than full-sized SUV/CUVs.

  • avatar
    Hummer

    People are really overplaying the whole “big” thing, it’s all in the design, the footprint has been more or less the same for fullsize trucks since the 70s. The difference is the people that grew up driving Large vehicles can’t understand why everything is so small compared to vehicles in the past, and those driving small vehicles can’t understand why everything is larger. We’re both affected here.

    As far as the Colorado goes, the front end needs to be redone, unless selling trucks to minivan buyers is the target, the dollar tree plastic bumper needs to go. The console shifter is also gimmicky, it’s an already small truck give the users leg room and put the shifter on the column where it belongs.

    • 0 avatar
      redav

      I disagree. When trucks were cargo movers instead of people movers, extended cabs weren’t nearly as common. An F-150 under 200″ OAL was common. The shortest Colorado is now ~214″. The most common F-150 is now just under 240″ OAL. And then there’s height. I think modern full size trucks have hood & bed tops at over 5′. My mother can’t even climb into an F-150 anymore.

      • 0 avatar
        Hummer

        Tall yes, the 60-70s 4 door pickups with 9ft beds, however were probably even longer than anything made today. But yes, I’ll give you that they are tall as all hell, which really does no one any favors, at least as far as this and the half tons are concerned anyhow.

        • 0 avatar
          psarhjinian

          The bigger difference between this and, say, the K2XX fullsizers is width. Long this may be, but it isn’t nearly as wide across.

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            I agree, I think the problem with these trucks is they are just so needlessly tall, they may even be taller than my H2, which has much taller tires and unlike the Colorado I actually have ground clearence, and from the pictures I may even have better visibility.

      • 0 avatar
        dbar1

        Yes, they combined cargo movers and people movers. It’s called the 21st century.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        redav – adding doors and seats to 1/2 ton pickups are what heralded their transition from work truck to multipurpose family vehicle. That change was also responsible for the pickup sales boom.
        Statistically the most common pickup regardless of size/capacity class is the crewcab.

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      That argument is false, Hummer; today’s full sized trucks are measurably larger and visibly larger than the ’70s models in every dimension by at least 10% (making it 25% larger in volume and weight according to a prior discussion claiming the Colorado was that much smaller than full-sized. The real figures came out to only 15% smaller).

      As for the appearance, I have not liked the fake ‘Big Rig’ look of full-sized pickups since that fad started around ’99. To me the new Colorado’s style is a refreshing change and far more appealing to the eye. If I were forced to choose a truck from what is available today, I would choose the Colorado over any competitor as much for its looks as its relative size. But what I want needs to be another 25% smaller.

      • 0 avatar
        Sigivald

        Well, let’s look at a 1973 K10 (because that’s the generation that lasted until the 80s, and because the K is more comparable to modern truck preferences as being 4wd, and a K10 so as to not inflate anything).

        Chevy says – https://www.gmheritagecenter.com/docs/gm-heritage-archive/vehicle-information-kits/Chevrolet-Trucks/1973-Chevrolet-Truck.pdf – it’s 211″ long [with the long bed], 72″ tall, and 79.5″ wide n/i mirrors. (244″ long for the Crew cab C30; no K Crew that year).

        The 2015 Silverado is … 78″ tall, 80.5″ wide, and 224/258″ long (reg/crew).

        Not even 10% taller, a mere 1.5% or so wider (1″? Nothing.).

        The only real increase is in length; 13″/14″ … 5% longer for the Crew, 6% for the regular cab.

        “At least 10%”? Not for the Chevy.

        Honestly, the only obvious at a glance change is the length, which is not insignificant.

        And I bet it’s all in interior cab comfort and not-dying-in-a-crash.

      • 0 avatar
        Hummer

        In every way huh? According to wiki the longest Silverado availible today has a wheelbase of 153 inches, now to me, that sounds shorter than the 166 inch wheelbase I could buy a travelette in.
        Your making an outlandish statement for something so easily found on the web.

        We can talk about them growing in height easily, but growing in every dimension isn’t the case.
        Also I’m not defending any particular look, I’m just agonizing the minivan/crossover nose that really makes the vehicle age poorly.

        *Note I’m not sure if the Silverado page accounts for 3/4+ vehicles, but regardless the travelette+ 8 ft bed (misspoke earlier saying it was 9ft, that’s a bit before its time) was available as a halfton.

        • 0 avatar
          AmcEthan

          i have a 1998 f150 extended cab long bed 2wd.
          i also have a 1978 f250 ranger extended cab long bed. the 98 is nearly a foot longer, but not near as wide. the length of it makes it much harder to park and drive, even if it is only a foot difference. also, for being 20 years newer, it gets the same mpg with its 5.4 as the 78 gets with its 460. will add though that the 78 is fully loaded, other than 4×4, but its equiptment match the 98 as a base model, witch it is. evolution is amazing.

    • 0 avatar
      Luke42

      I disagree. I grew up driving vehicles large and small. I’ve owned three pickup trucks in various sizes and I deeply appreciate their practical value, but don’t currently own one.

      What I don’t understand is why I can’t find a pickup truck that matches *my* purposes. They all concede too much practicality to fashion.

  • avatar
    S2k Chris

    I’m not a truck guy, but I kinda like it. I think it looks good, though ungainly with the long bed. It’s the kind of thing I picture myself driving if I wasn’t into cars. Then I realize at $38k, there’s no way I’d buy this if I wasn’t into cars, I’d probably drive a $25k Accord EX.

    • 0 avatar
      CoreyDL

      Agree, too much money for this sort of thing. The interior still looks like you took a penalty for not buying the full size model.

      • 0 avatar
        dal20402

        Remember, this is GM, which strongly resists spending actual money on truck interiors. The full-size interior looks just as cheap.

        • 0 avatar
          Carlson Fan

          The interior on our ’07 Chevy ‘Hoe is nicer in a lot of ways than what’s in the ’14 Audi A4. So you must think Audi interiors are cheap to. And the current trucks smoke the GMT-900 interiors which were huge leap forward over the interior in my GMC GMT-800 PU. But after 11 years and 160K that interior is holding up great.

          Please tell me what you drive that you think has such a great interior. I’d like to know your measuring stick.

  • avatar
    GoFaster58

    I still want a “small” Ford Ranger! Ford was stupid not to continue the Ranger in it’s current size. Now that everybody else is going super size on us it only makes more sense for the “small” Ranger. So GM now has 4 different pickups while Ford only has one and Dodge looks like it will have two. Wakeup FORD!

    • 0 avatar
      Scoutdude

      Ford has two and they are in the sizes that sell the best L and XL.

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        Kind of his point, Scoutdude. If the only sizes are Large and X-tra Large, you can’t know how well a smaller size will sell. How about giving us a choice in truck sizes like we have in clothing sizes? S, M, L, XL, XXL (medium duty as in Class 5 and 6) and XXXL (true heavy duty as in Class 7+)

        • 0 avatar
          Drzhivago138

          The S would probably (have to) be FWD/unibody. Not that I’m against that. Modern Dodge Rampage, anyone?

        • 0 avatar
          DenverMike

          People have their reasons for demanding the $1.29 medium drink at Mcdonalds when the Large is just a buck.

          When the smaller, less capable, just as thirsty and more cramped pickup costs slightly MORE after fullsize rebates, don’t be surprised when it’s rejected by most. Bigger is usually better, but please give us good a reason to go “smaller pickups” and no V8s. What’s in it for me?

    • 0 avatar
      Sigivald

      Hmm.

      Who knows Ford’s market research better?

      You?

      Or Ford?

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        “Who knows Ford’s market research better?
        You?
        Or Ford?”

        Me. Market research can and usually does ‘cherry pick’ their sources. Rather than asking ALL vehicle drivers, regardless of type, they ask current pickup owners who in most case will emphasize “bigger is better”. They ignore a LOT of people who are driving other types of vehicles but WANT a true, small truck.

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        Exactly. Ford abandoned the segment because they because they hate money!

        /sarc

        • 0 avatar
          redav

          But did Ford see an equivalent jump in F-150 sales when they discontinued the Ranger? Or did those sales go somewhere else?

          It seems the Colorado sells in decent numbers, so one could think that there is a market for them that is exclusive of larger trucks, and that Ford forfeits those sales by not offering a product. Maybe Ford is wise to do so, maybe not.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            Something like a third bought Escapes, a third stepped up to F-150s and the rest were gone for good. So that makes it about a wash, profit wise. But that assumes the Ranger was profitable. It probably was, only because the tooling, R&D, etc, was paid off so long before.

            Since GM stepped up to the plate, that’s a bigger reason to not bring back, bring in the Ranger. The US likes smaller pickups to a small degree, but not enough of the higher-end smaller pickups to offset all the base strippers we love so much! Whaz up,Orkin?

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            redav – Ford expected that most personal use Ranger buyers would go to a small SUV or econobox.
            They expected commercial buyers to buy the Transit Connect or F150.

            Did Ford loose customers?

            In relation to the old Ranger, I don’t think that they cared.

            They aren’t in the business of spending a billion dollars to keep Vulpine and 12 other guys happy.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            “They aren’t in the business of spending a billion dollars to keep Vulpine and 12 other guys happy.”

            There must be a lot more than ’12 other guys’ if Hyundai is seriously considering bringing out a compact truck nearly three feet shorter than the shortest Colorado.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @Vulpine – You’ll know they’re serious when they do it, or have a working mule. Otherwise it’s marketing hot air.

            But I’m sure a Hyundai pickup would be longer than you think. And if it were to your liking, you’d wait to buy one used, like most small pickup “enthusiasts”.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            True, Denver, we’ll know for sure then. But the fact that they’ve already gone so far as to build a concept and are most assuredly paying attention to commentary on any auto site that mentions them pretty much says they’re serious enough to actively consider it. I’ll even grant to you that the Jeep Gladiator isn’t a sure thing even after 10 years now, but Jeep also still mentions it and shows off other pickup concepts at Moab nearly every year, so they’ve not abandoned the idea either.

            That said, there is a very visible way to compare the lengths and somebody did just that by realizing the specified tires on the Santa Cruz just happened to be the same size as those on a Colorado. He then superimposed profile pictures of both vehicles based on that tire size. I have a copy of that image and the rear bumper of the Santa Cruz comes even with the rear axle of the Colorado extended cab version while the top of the roof comes to the middle of the side windows on the Colorado. I might agree that when all closed up the bed of the Santa Cruz is only four feet, but when the tailgate is opened and the bed extender stretched out, it supposedly gains another 12 to 18 inches. AND it’s an extended cab with about 15 to 18 inches behind the driver’s seat as pictured. My point is that at a rough guess by that photo comparison, the Santa Cruz is a full three feet shorter and about 8-10 inches lower at the roofline. With the rear axle a full tire diameter farther forward than the Colorado, it also doesn’t need to sit as high to have a similar breakover angle off road and the shorter nose means a significantly higher approach angle. I would guestimate the departure angle may be similar.

            So, DM, IF Hyundai builds this thing, it will undoubtedly be smaller than any so-called “mid-sized” pickup and likely incredibly more useful for the DIY crowd than any full-sized pickup.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      GoFaster58 – the Ranger would of got larger and heavier to meet safety requirements. Ford wasn’t willing to spend the money on the Ranger to keep it current. I’ve owned a few Rangers and I’m not loosing any sleep over their demise.

  • avatar
    CoreyDL

    It’s unfortunate, again I find myself wondering if there was a required word count for this review. The largest paragraph in the review (number three) is 11 lines of – just words. Words which don’t mean anything, or contribute to the review.

    Paragraph five is not especially helpful either. Several sentences explaining “big, small, tall, small, big” without the assistance of numbers, which might help give some sense of scale here (the obvious comparison being the equivalent Silverado version). Take a Timm Cain note, and give us some dimensions!

    • 0 avatar
      johnhowington

      excellent point. TTAC is no longer the truth about anything except car salesmen selling cars.

      • 0 avatar
        TrailerTrash

        But in fairness, it is cleverly written and that is one thing I miss about the original/founder of this site, RF. Nasty as all get go…but funnier than hell and really witty.
        This coming from somebody banished…
        There should be no penalty for good writing IF you get the facts as well.

        • 0 avatar

          It’s the same tired, trollish feedback, nothing is ever good enough for them yet there is little in the way of constructive feedback. I think Blake is doing an outstanding job and bringing a fresh perspective to what has become a rote, tiresome format niche of auto journalism. I think all of our reviewers manage to do a good job at covering the entire spectrum, from Alex’s detail oriented look at a car to Blake’s, which is more in the tradition of Automobile Magazine/the UK mags.

          • 0 avatar
            TrailerTrash

            this is the gift of creative writing. And to make it in these pro ranks, you need to bring the creative side.
            This is what separates the THEM from the US. I can toss in crap here and there, but in no way have the skill set to offer great writing and the knowledge.
            Kudos to those that can.
            This is the problem with anybody willing to put themselves out into the public eye these days. From writing to music to politics…it sure gets ugly fast in the 24/7 news cycle and Internet free for all!!
            Get ready for the trash-talk coming back.
            Blake, I am sure, has the skin to laugh it all off. Unlike myself.

          • 0 avatar

            Not all creative writing is good either. But I won’t stand for non-constructive criticism that adds no value from an anonymous commenter. Any coward can launch into a drive-by attack of someone’s work product. You don’t need to leave your name, but you better add value to the discussion instead of “TL:DR no spec sheet no care”.

          • 0 avatar
            CoreyDL

            I’m hoping these aren’t really directed at me this time, just unfortunate reply placement.

          • 0 avatar

            It’s just a general comment. I know how to get in touch with you :)

          • 0 avatar
            CoreyDL

            Lol! True.

          • 0 avatar
            gtemnykh

            I’d say the feedback is pretty constructive, and pretty loud and clear: give us more tangibles, more details. Some of us haven’t been anywhere near these things and want to know what it’s like to sit in the back, whether it lives up to fuel economy ratings, and other perfectly practical and obvious concerns. If that comes across as too harsh, then Blake has my sincerest apologies.

          • 0 avatar

            Sorry, Derek, but I disagree. Certainly, Corey could be a little more diplomatic. I thought about replying with “cut the new guy some slack” before you became defensive, but now I must mention that reviews that say “imbued with quality” unironically belong to glitzy magazines. Granted, I got the gist about the 300 hp-class engine and the longcat-style proportions, so review made its point. But writing-wise, it could be made significantly more concise.

  • avatar
    Lightspeed

    It definitely looks bigger than the Sierra I used to drive for work in the 90s. Around here, the big-truck thing has gotten so bad we’re seeing highway tractors with pickup beds in suburban driveways. I have no idea how my dad ran his plumbing business with a 1/2 ton Econoline.

  • avatar
    gtemnykh

    A paragraph dedicated to describing scruffy young men but no mention of observed fuel economy or rear seat comfort/legroom, and not a single shot under the hood… c’mon now!

    • 0 avatar
      Russycle

      +1. I don’t care what demographic/lifestyle box the reviewer thinks this vehicle fits in, I want to know about about the vehicle. What’s so trick about the temp gauge? The coolant temp gauge or the display on the HVAC knob–which admittedly looks pretty slick, but do I need to read a Corvette review to find out how it works?

      Not that there’s not some good stuff here, but could do with less fluff.

      • 0 avatar
        Maymar

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJBRpylC9-Q

        GM’s been pushing the demographic/lifestyle thing pretty heavy – I don’t mind that being completely mocked (yes, that video is about seven kinds of odious).

        @gtemnykh – fuel economy reporting is sort of rough, unless it abnormally derives from EPA ratings, because all that ever comes of it is someone piping up “my ’92 Scotsman Thriftmaster gets 40mpg, I don’t get what’s the big deal,” or something like that, completely overlooking that at best, they’ve probably only gotten high 20s, like that one time they spent 5 hours at idle speed, in a vehicle that’d be destroyed in an accident.

    • 0 avatar
      Sigivald

      Under the hood shot?

      Who cares?

      *No user serviceable parts inside*, like any modern car.

      (Observed fuel economy is only interesting if it deviates from reported, and even then mostly if it’s drastically lower or at all higher – I expect Slightly Lower from reviewers here because they’re all leadfoot.)

      • 0 avatar
        gtemnykh

        Well it’d take 1 sentence to report fuel economy, remarkable or not. It took a better part of a paragraph to delve into the marketing.

        Some of us still change our own oil and filters, so oil filter location and air filter accessibility is not irrelevant. Also, access to battery terminals.

        I liked Murliee’s approach to looking over under-hood wire routing and fasteners/clips, it gave a decent idea of how much the manufacturer sweated the details.

        • 0 avatar

          That’s exactly what people should be telling him not “U SUCK U SHILL !!!111” and things of that nature.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            Derek Kreindler – I’m not too concerned about a detailed breakdown of dimensions other than what does the door tag say it will haul. Interior ergonomics is important. I want to know about visibility especially out of the side mirrors. Empty and loaded ride is also important. Run it down a rough paved road and a bunch of gravel roads. Hard-core offroad work doesn’t matter since a pickup isn’t the best tool for that playtime.

        • 0 avatar
          ajla

          “I liked Murliee’s approach to looking over under-hood wire routing and fasteners/clips, it gave a decent idea of how much the manufacturer sweated the details.”

          +1. This was a common feature on TTAC reviews way back in the Farago era and I’d like to see it return.

          We’ve also had some reviews recently where a particular feature/quality flaw or triumph is specifically mentioned but there is no accompying photo. Ronnie’s reviews are really good about getting a picture on the details he mentions (tight panel gaps, misaligned trim, etc).

        • 0 avatar
          joeaverage

          Thank you gtemnykh. My thoughts exactly.

          I recall the oil filter on my parents’ mid-80s S-10 Blazer was a PITA. The spark plugs swap on my V-6 Chevy was a PITA a dew weekends ago.

          This truck any better?

  • avatar
    gtemnykh

    It would have been nice to have have the Silverado’s base 4.3 V6 as the top engine in this midsize, but CAFE strikes again. Also an option for a real manually locking rear differential rather than GM’s ubiquitous G80 ‘slip then grip’ unit would be on my wishlist. I saw a few of these down in Mexico last week, with the stupid lower chin spoiler taken off they actually look pretty decent.

    I just built a quad cab short bed 4wd WT trim truck (3.6,6A) with the basic convenience package to get cruise control and some stupid power liftgate (why), and the auto locking rear diff which is thankfully a standalone option, and it all rang up at 31,630. This is for a very basic truck with steel wheels. Not bad I guess, assuming something like $5k would be on the hood. When I was looking at Tacomas a year ago that’s about what a Shortbox quad cab Tacoma TRD cost (about $28k after haggling), and that’s basically the top trim short of the gaudy ‘Limited.’ The Tacoma also has a composite bed which wouldn’t need the $500 spray in bedliner that would be needed to be added to the colorado price to reach parity. Perhaps the Colorado drives a lot nicer to justify the price. I worry about the lack of low end punch with the 3.6, but again I’ve never driven one.

    • 0 avatar
      Hummer

      +1 on the 4.3, the 3.6 is not a truck engine and should be left for the Malibu or Impala, the 4.3 would have been perfect for this truck.

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        This is emissions worship combined with a cheaper cost per unit on the motor since it is shared with cars.

        • 0 avatar
          gtemnykh

          I feel like the 4.3 would really give the Chevy a solid edge on the Tacoma, particularly since the Tacoma has regressed to a 3.5L now. People who wanted a burly, torquey truck motor would gravitate towards the GM. Right now there isn’t that differentiation. The 4.0L Frontier getting killed off or replaced (probably) will remove the only other contender for serious power in the segment.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            I agree.

          • 0 avatar
            TrailerTrash

            Why did they regress to the smaller engine?
            The reality might be they had to. The size doesn’t worry me that much. How it works for this vehicle is what counts…to me.
            I think what concerns me more the 6 speed trans. I kind of thought the GMs were going to the 8 speed.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Among other things, OHC vs OHV in a truck matters to people (esp “GM” people).

          • 0 avatar
            Carlson Fan

            I always said if I could have taken the 4.3 out of my buddies GMC Sonoma and put it in my ’93 Toyota PU, I’d have the perfect truck,

          • 0 avatar
            joeaverage

            305HP isn’t enough in a vehicle with DIY grade towing/carry capabilities?

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            My sentiments exactly, Joeaverage. But some just have to show off.

            If big-horsepower trucks are so great, why aren’t they out on the city streets pwning all these rice-rocket street racers? I understand the need when they’re used as real, working, trucks, but a rolling office doesn’t have the need. Super-power in a rolling office will never get used.

            It wasn’t all that long ago when having 300+ horsepower under the hood meant you were an OTR driver or driving the strongest of the muscle cars. Now even the measly Jeep Wrangler comes with 300 under the hood factory stock!

        • 0 avatar
          wstarvingteacher

          I cannot say what the new 4.3 is like but the old one sure was a winner. Had one in my S10 and never did manage to kill it or find a job it was designed to do and couldn’t. I wondered about that when this one came out;

          • 0 avatar
            gtemnykh

            I also have only heard good things about the old “3/4 of a small block” V6. Now the fuel injection spider on the older trucks up through the later part of the 90s, that’s a different story. And other ancillary things that feed or run off of the engine are a different story (notorious fuel pump failures, etc). But the motor itself was a solid lump, and I believe it lives on in marine applications where it likewise has acquitted itself well.

            The new generation of 4.3 looks like another rock solid motor, if I was buying a fullsize chevy I wouldn’t feel short changed if I bought one with the V6.

          • 0 avatar
            Carlson Fan

            The old GM 4.3 as a marine engine has an excellent reputation for performance and reliability. They are still used by MerCruiser & Volvo Penta.

            No complaints about the one I ran in my ’90 Celebrity for 5 years.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        I’m ALWAYS amused by the “it’s a car engine” comments.

        Really?

        Does the Colorado have an inferiority complex because of it?

        The 6.2 Ecotec…….. where did that engine first appear?
        Last time I checked the Corvette was classified as a car.

        Ummm….. Ford 5.0 V8. It’s in the F150 and Mustang.
        So is it a car engine in a truck or a truck engine in a car?
        That must mean it sucks!

        Ford 3.5 Twin Turbo Ecoboost………. That was designed for the F150 and has found its way into SUV’s.
        Does that mean it is the best truck engine since that is what it was designed for???????

        Wasn’t the V10 Viper engine a truck motor ?

        The whole car engine versus truck engine debate is hilarious.

        • 0 avatar
          thelaine

          Lou, is that anything like describing a car engine as “agricultural?” I never thought that was very helpful, but I have seen it used a lot. If you’ve ever driven an old tractor, the description doesn’t compute.

          I would like to see a TTAC article on meaningless or lame car review cliches.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            thelaine – agreed. Truck engines did exist in the 50’s and 60’s and for the most part they met your agricultural definition.

            I still encounter the occasional guy that thinks anything over 5.7 litres is a big block engine.

          • 0 avatar
            NoGoYo

            If you drove an IH, there was a possibility that you actually did have an agricultural engine!

            I’m fairly sure the 345 V8 was used in tractors, and I’m sure those old long-stroke Diamond series engines were.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            The IHC 392, 345, and all the inline sixes were also used in their agricultural machines.

            That’s why parts were so plentiful and readily available.

            My first truck bought with my own money was a 1962 IHC 4-door flightline pickup truck in olive drab, bought from the US Air Force.

        • 0 avatar
          gtemnykh

          For me it has nothing to do with it necessarily being associated with a passenger car, more so the fact that a lot of these sub-4.0L V6s that are seen across the board not just in midsizers but in fullsize trucks all seem to be really soft on the low end, in terms of torque right off idle. Sure they all boast 260+hp at peak, but that is largely irrelevant for a truck. The solution is of course torque manipulation through gearing, namely these new transmissions with many gears that allow for a really short 1st and 2nd, and tight spacing between gears to keep things on the boil.

          I guess this works, and returns good fuel economy when unloaded. There’s just something righteous about the way something like an old Ford 300CI big six just shrugs off even the heaviest loads and just idles away from a stop. Likewise the Chevy 4.3, which has a similarly meaty low end.

          I guess people looking for that experience in a Colorado will pony up for the emission system laden diesel. I’d just prefer the relative simplicity and low servicing costs of the OHV 4.3.

  • avatar
    kkop

    “Inside, it’s a quiet place to be. Nice and roomy”

    The pictures say otherwise.

    So many numbers and comparisons in this ‘review’ but this is all you can muster to qualify your opinion on interior room? How about letting us know how tall you are so we can form an opinion instead of having to guess?

    Also, all this rambling about size and general hatred towards trucks is getting old. I buy fullsize trucks because they are roomy _inside_. Tacoma, Frontier and other smaller trucks are not for anyone over 6′, certainly not in the back seat. This one doesn’t look like it breaks that cramped mold.

    • 0 avatar
      Carlson Fan

      Check out the Fast Lane Truck review on youtube where they test a new GM twin, the Tacoma and Frontier back to back. Their comments are that the GM truck feels a lot more spacious in the inside than the Taco or Frontier.

    • 0 avatar
      TrailerTrash

      The ONLY way to find this out for yourself is to actually go and sit inside.
      If you rely on the reviewers for actual size…you will only end up with the Taurus/MKS “is narrow” group think.
      Hell…these are only good for so much anyways…you always need to see and drive all of these yourself.
      Thank GOD mfrs do NOT build to suit the reviewers!!!! The cars would suck.
      If I had relied on that Taurus info/OPINION I would never have gotten mine and been mislead by this standard copy/paste type review.
      There is always the mfr spec sheet and then your time inside the car/truck.

    • 0 avatar
      MeJ

      I sat in one recently. I’m 6’4″ 250lbs.
      I put the seat back (not all the way) and
      was perfectly comfortable.
      There was ample head, leg and shoulder room.
      Help?

    • 0 avatar
      Dan

      I sat in one for a couple of minutes at the car show. It’s big where it needs to be, and nowhere else. The footwells are deep and there’s generous seat travel and reasonable headroom. There’s enough hip and shoulder room for a big guy. I’m 6’3 250 and fit fine.

      At the same time, there’s none of that airy and open feeling of space to spare you get in a real truck. The B pillar is right up against your shoulder and the headliner is awfully close to your ear. The center console is very narrow and you’re elbow to elbow with a passenger. The far door is an easy reach.

      It’s night and day better than the Tacoma with its shallow floorpan. I haven’t been in a Frontier in years but I remember really wishing the seat would go back 2 more inches. The Colorado is genuinely livable.

  • avatar
    Zackman

    Clear the roads, because the General is on a roll!

    Nice to see that their vehicles keep getting better. A long time coming, too. Even though I’ve been driving Chevys since 2004, I’m not a blind fan-boy, but I want GM to succeed like most everyone else. GM, Ford and especially Chrysler have to up their game to survive if they know what’s good for them. I wish all three the best.

    A good, less-than-full-sized truck is just what is needed for all the complaints about the full-sizers and how large they have become. Now it’s Ford’s turn, for their old Rangers were unbeatable – I owned 2 of them!

  • avatar
    rileyru

    OK… Which one of you edited the Wikipedia page that was linked in the article, to include in the variants section a “Cletus Edition”? I drive an F150 and have been known to wear camo but I ain’t Cletus!

  • avatar
    PrincipalDan

    And yet, the Colorado still manages to dwarf a jellybean F-150 from the Clinton administration…

    Yeah I’ll just keep my standard cab, long bed F150, thanks.

    • 0 avatar
      gtemnykh

      As time goes on, I’m starting to like the 97-2003 jellybean F150s more and more. They were perhaps the apex of trucks getting to the point of being comfortable daily drivers, without too much bloat, and none of the I’M A TOUGH TRUCK oversized grill and overly blocky front end styling. They’re very handsome trucks IMO. Bed heights, especially on the 2wds, were still very manageable. They hold up pretty well to boot, prematurely wearing balljoints can be fixed by reengineerd Moog parts, and the mod motors have withstood the test of time, despite some issues with exhaust manifolds cracking (not cheap to fix) and the 5.4s blowing plugs out of the heads, they still rack up insane mileage.

      I wouldn’t mind a base model rwd reg. cab short bed with the base 4.2 V6 and a stick shift as a decent little weekend hauler.

      Of course I’m also partial to the GMT400 GMs, I’d argue that the 4.3, 5.0, and 5.7 were better truck motors overall, making more low end torque. Torsion beam front end is also sturdier than ford’s take on IFS, I think the only people that have issues is guys who wheel theirs hard and start to break tie rod ends. A beat up ’94 C1500 W/T with the 4.3 and 4AT at my old job was a perfect parts runner, easy to hop in and out of, and had a perfectly soft and comfortable ride. A guy in my apartment complex has a well worn in but non-rusty reg cab long bed W/T with a 5spd as his weekend rig much like I have my 4Runner, and I’m not gonna lie, I’m kind of jealous.

      • 0 avatar
        PrincipalDan

        Biggest problem with the 1996 to 2003 (2004 for the “Heritage” model) F150s is there poor crash ratings. I’m glad that mine is not a daily driver anymore.

        Don’t get the V6 – the 4.2 was known to have weak crankshafts at certain points in the model run to where crankshafts would actually snap. The 5.4 V8 was a gas guzzling pig for the small amount of extra power over the 4.6 V8. So get the 4.6. My truck is a 4 speed auto (because I bought used and couldn’t be as choosy as I wanted) but the manual would be sweet just because of the greater amount of control.

        • 0 avatar
          Sigivald

          Also, I have learned to distrust the Ford Modular/”Triton” engines.

          Something about having to replace one with only 130kmi on it because it decided to catastrophically fail, and finding that the rebuilders (Jasper, in my case) have a nice big list of “how these pieces of junk fail and how we fixed the problems”.

          (My SuperDuty doesn’t have the *same* 5.4 as in a Jellybean F150, but close enough.

          The 2V has most of the same problems as the 3V.)

          So, yeah, if you want one, get the 4.6 – its issues are comparatively minor.

          • 0 avatar
            PrincipalDan

            Everyone I know with a 4.6 found them to be as solid as an anvil and having owned my truck for 8 of the 10 years since it left the dealer lot (I bought one of those Heritage models used) I has been pretty darn dependable. I’ve replaced an alternator and battery but otherwise everything else is plain old maintenance.

            If GM had bothered to stick the Atlas 6 in their full size trucks instead of keeping the old 4.3 V6 in production until the new 4.3 DI V6 was released then GM would have gotten serious consideration for my dollars. Straight 6 truck? Yes please.

          • 0 avatar
            mikeg216

            You sir are talking out of your ass, between the 4.2 the 4.6 and the 5.4 the 4.2 had the least issues. And that’s per ford

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            I got the 4.6/AODE in ’04 because I’ve seen them put though hell in taxis, Tijuana and otherwise, plus E and F-150s for the last years in 20 years in some. I’m switching from 30K oil change intervals to 40K b/c mine proved they can take the abuse and more.

          • 0 avatar
            PrincipalDan

            @mike, lighten up Francis.

            It is some of what I have heard and my experience. If the internet relied on facts the whole damn thing would collapse.

      • 0 avatar
        Carlson Fan

        The GMT-400’s were never offered with a 5.0 to my knowledge. Once TB fuel injection appeared around in the mid to late 80’s, GM did one of the smartest things ever, and got rid of the 5.0 in their 1/2 ton trucks. If you ever drove one of the carbureted versions they were the biggest dogs ever. They only point of the 5.0 recently is so that MerCruiser and Volvo Penta can charge you more for the 5.7.

        • 0 avatar
          gtemnykh

          They most certainly did put throttle body injected 305s in the earlier GMT400 trucks, a slightly oddball middle man motor that I don’t necessarily see the point of.

          • 0 avatar
            Carlson Fan

            I was looking at 87/88 Blazers at one time and they all had the 5.7 TB. I’ve never seen a TB 305 in any 1/2 ton GM PU or SUV but I guess that doesn’t necessarily mean they didn’t make them.

          • 0 avatar
            gtemnykh

            “L30” engine code, they put them on the pickup trucks until the end of the GMT400 run in 1998 (Vortec 5000), and in fullsize vans right through 2002. Replaced by the 4.8 V8 in GMT800s.

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        Nobody here took me up on my offer of a ’90 standard-cab long-bed when I was selling it. 5.0EFI under the hood, too. I’m trying to imagine that truck now as a “resto-mod” with a modern eco-boost, 8-speed tranny and all-new suspension. Might even be a decent truck, then. Albeit still too large for me.

  • avatar
    Mandalorian

    It’s a pretty decent truck. No major faults. However the pricing scheme is ridiculous. We know GM will deeply discount it, but an MSRP of $39k is ridiculous. That’ll get a Crew Cab Ram with 4×4 and a Hemi.

  • avatar

    I quite like it. For me, full-sized trucks are way too large, but this is nice. I saw it at the local auto show a couple of weeks ago and the representative standing next to it had a conniption when I said out loud—but not to him—that the sticker price was positively ludicrous. I think he was a salesman from one of the local Chevy dealers, and you all know what Chevy dealers are like…

  • avatar
    mikeg216

    interested when it has the truck 4.3 and the 8or 10 speed and $12,00 on the hood and not a minute before

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    I do like the exterior looks of the US Colorado. The interior I do believe is done in the usual global GM fashion, of not quite up there.

    I have read a few commnets regarding it’s height. The average new global midsizer sits around 72″ plus in height. The height is great for added cab room as the occupants do sit more vertical, this I find comfortable.

    The length of the Colorado with the six foot bed is really to long to make it a worth while off road machine. The shorter wheel base Colorado will be the best off road.

    The diesel when it is released will make a great vehicle that will attract many people.

    The Colorado is large enough for most average family needs. It can tow a decent load, carry a decent load, move people around comfortably and the V6 is more than powerful enough.

    The are the ideal SUV/Car replacement and the cab chassis will offer business a great platform to build a great “little” work truck.

    I do predict the Colorado to do very well. Already last month it has sold better than the aluminium F-150.

    I wonder when Ford will want the global Ranger for the US market. The aluminium F-150 will not cut it on it’s own.

    • 0 avatar
      Hummer

      “I do predict the Colorado to do very well. Already last month it has sold better than the aluminium F-150.”

      Do you even hear yourself?

      55,000 F150 sales VS 6,500 colorado sales

      So your saying that less than 11.8% of those F150s were the new generation? Really?

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al from Oz

        @Hummer,
        I should of stated the Colorado Canyon has already been selling more than the aluminium F-150.

        I do think I did state ALUMINIUM. Since when does steel fit in with this?

        I suppose you are just like your twin……DiM. Not to bright.

        • 0 avatar
          Hummer

          Really?, I specifically built my post around the fact you were specifically nit-picking just aluminum, that’s why there’s a percentage. I can’t even comprehend how stupid what you just posted is.

          And if we want to include the Canyon, that percentage your suggesting the Aluminum F150 sold, out of the 2 generations is less than 16.4%. So you are suggesting, that you have actual numbers that are publicly available saying that less than 16.4% of F150s sold in February 2015 were the new generation?

  • avatar
    thelaine

    I don’t know why people describe pickups as if they were gargantuan. A crew cab F-150 standard bed pickup is not small, but it is not huge. I realize it is perception, but my perception is that they are just large, useful vehicles. Lots of commenters must live in Metro areas where space is at a premium. They don’t look so big in rural and most suburban areas. I also think there are people who just think they are wasteful, so they exaggerate.

    • 0 avatar
      Hummer

      Spot on, the past 30 years has basically been void of extra-large vehicles, and I suppose that’s why so few know the actual size of pre 70s crisis cars.

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      @thelaine,
      It’s how you use the word, what context.

      In the EU and many Asian nations it would be excessively large.

      And in all honesty most are just wants and not necessities, even a midsizer, CUV, SUV, etc.

      Many lose sight of what is and isn’t.

      I would describe a current midsizer as a large vehicle in comparison to what the “norm” is in other vehicle segments.

      In the pickup world a midsizer is just that a midsizer, in the car world it would be a very large vehicle.

      • 0 avatar
        thelaine

        No argument Big Al. They are not marketed where they will not sell. However, I noticed the “it’s more than you need” comments mostly appear in pickup threads. Unless you are really hurting financially and cannot even borrow money, you almost always buy more vehicle than you
        need.

        Pickups just bring out the scolds where luxury cars and muscle cars mostly do not. I think the size criticisms are often based on that “church lady” moral disapproval.

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          thelaine – agreed. No one mentions that the Hellcat has too much power or a Veyron is too fast. People seem to think that the only real purpose of a crewcab pickup is to haul 5 or 6 sweaty labourers around and a box full of tools and building supplies.

          Since extra seats and doors have been added to pickups they have become the Swiss army knife of the automotive world. They can be your daily driver, soccer mom van, SUV, cargo hauler, toy hauler, tow rig and even hot rod all in one.

          I don’t question whether or not there is a pseudo-save-the-whales pretense for buying a Prius or a midlife crisis Viagra no longer works need for owning a Hellcat.

          • 0 avatar
            thelaine

            Lou
            Yep. I can drive my 4×4 crew cab PU to the mountain trails to hunt in the morning in the snow or muck, then drive directly onto the freeway, pick the kids up from school, stop at home depot or the grocery store and do it all in spacious comfort and with a smooth and powerful 5.7 liter V8. And I got all that magic for 27k brand new. What’s not to love?

        • 0 avatar
          IHateCars

          Thank you! Agreed 110% thelaine! I drive my Raptor through downtown *gasp* pretty much daily *ack*! How do I do it? Black Magic? No….I pay attention to what I’m doing…it’s not that difficult to navigate. And like you mentioned, below, it’s a jack of all trades vehicle that can do pretty much anything that I ask of it and I enjoy driving it. In fact, it’s a far more pragmatic vehicle than all of the truck naysayers would have us believe who say that they have a station wagon, sports car and trailer to fulfill their needs rather than those wasteful trucks! Tsk, tsk!
          I use only one vehicle…I’m saving the planet! Yay!

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      I’ll tell you why I describe modern full-sized pickups as though they were gargantuan: THEY ARE! I parked my 1990 F-150 right next to a 2014 F-150 and the newer truck DWARFED mine–and mine was much too big for my needs. My first pickup truck was a Mitsubishi Sport (think Dodge D-50) which was much lower, shorter and narrower. I simply have no need for a gargantuan truck and find them all too big, too clumsy and overall too much of everything EXCEPT useful. Maybe if I needed to carry eight or ten bales of hay regularly, or a cord of wood every other week or have some other real need for carrying capacity I would think differently; but my needs are nowhere near as frequent as that–maybe two weekends of carrying large tables to events and intermittent needs to carry things simply too big to fit inside an SUV–even my Jeep JKU with its top down. I’d have to take the top off completely to manage some of the loads I do carry and there’s no way I can carry 22-24 eight-foot-long tables in a Jeep Wrangler.

      Even the Colorado is too large for my needs–having parked my F-150 next to one at the Chevy dealer when they came out and discovering it was certainly no smaller and still stood taller than my now 25-year-old former truck. And no, I don’t feel like renting every time I need one because honestly I don’t always know when I will need one before the fact. I’m currently waiting on my 92-year-old stepfather to finally let go of his ’94 Ranger (with only 30,000 original miles on it (plus or minus).

      Are full sized trucks wasteful? Certainly not for everybody, but for some they’re simply more than they would ever use. On the other hand, while they give you great command of the road, they pretty much need a four-lane highway to turn around–especially the crew-cab models–and you can’t even drive them into some parking garages due to ceiling heights that used to be more than sufficient just twenty years ago. Personally, when driving one I feel like I’m rattling around like a peanut in a tin can, though I stand nearly six feet tall and weigh 200 pounds. Oh, yes, their seats are comfortable, I’ll give them that–but it doesn’t help when you can’t even see to parallel park and your truck is as long as the parking space itself–or nearly so.

      Give me a truck weighing in at 3500 pounds or so, stands only five feet tall at the roof and no more than fifteen feet long–including the six-foot bed. A proper extended cab with clamshell doors–like the Colorado’s–with a simple bench and no floor clutter (meaning those abysmal storage boxes/bench supports of the Colorado’s) and I would be more than satisfied.

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        @Vupine – You’re not even thinking straight. The Suby BRAT was 15 ft long with a 5 ft bed. And you want an extra cab too?? That leaves a 3 ft bed!

        Parking garages have a 6 ft, 8 inches clearance minimum. Fullsize SUVs clear that with room to spare, including 4X4, luggage rack and one size tire upgrade.

        The Colorado is still a small truck, despite height and lengths you can opt for.

        Your ’88 F-150 2wd sits squat and low to the ground with puny 15″ tires. The Colorado forces 4X4 suspension/wheels/tires on the 2wd, so what were you expecting? It sits high and narrow for its length, so the rest is an illusion on your part.

        • 0 avatar
          Vulpine

          “The Suby BRAT was 15 ft long with a 5 ft bed.”

          — In response: “The BRAT’s chief selling point was its ability to offer truck utility in a small, car-like package. In 1985, the vehicle measured just 174.2 inches long, 64.4 inches wide and 56.3 inches tall. Ground clearance was 8.3 inches, whereas wheelbase was 96.7 inches. )Read more : http://www.ehow.com/info_8340649_subaru-brat-specs.html)
          Kind of stretching the specs there a bit, aren’t you? Nearly a full 6″ shorter than 15 feet.

          “Parking garages have a 6 ft, 8 inches clearance minimum.”
          — False. What that may be today’s standard, SOME parking garages have a clearance of only 6ft, 2″ and some of the oldest have a flat 6ft clearance. As I said before, there are some garages that a full-sized truck simply won’t fit into.

          “The Colorado is still a small truck, despite height and lengths you can opt for.”
          — No. It is a small-ER truck, but it is not small by any definition of the word. There are many mid-sized SUVs that are significantly smaller in length and height than the Colorado. Had the Colorado been sized to match the Chevy Traverse, I would have been much more interested.

          “Your ’88 F-150 2wd sits squat and low to the ground with puny 15″ tires.”
          — I see you have a poor memory too. I had the 1990 XLT Lariat on 16″ WHEELS. While I admit I didn’t have to step as high as my Jeep to climb into it, it still stood with a 6ft roof and had a minimum of 8″ ground clearance; by no means was it “squat and low to the ground.” My Jeep, by the way, has 10″ of ground clearance at the axles, factory stock. “Squat and low to the ground”, by the way, would be 5″ or less of ground clearance.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            I rounded off to see if you’d snivel.. Yup! But is 6″ length enough for your X-cab? Nup! But I know you would seek out the 6′ garage just so you could cry to management. That’s IF you could find a subpar garage.

            And 16″ wheels gives you what, a half inch of height?

            What’s the difference between a ’90 and ’88 F-150? So why bring it up?

            Good arguments as usual though!

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            You know, Denver; I like your style. When you can’t argue legitimately, you attack the speaker. Sniveling? No. Stating facts? Yes. And while you might be right that 16″ wheels only add ½” to the radius of the WHEEL, the tire itself matters on tread width and profile. If you really want me to, I can dig up the data on the size tires I put on it to give you a more accurate tire radius. Maybe it was lower profile for better handling, or maybe it was higher profile for softer ride and better ground clearance. You don’t know so your blanket dismissal of my arguments is facetious at best.

            What’s the difference? Look it up for yourself. Granted, the body didn’t change, but there were other changes just as there are today. The simple fact that you missed the point about having larger than 15″ wheels due to the model means that there were very probably other differences you ignored. Remember, the XLT Lariat was very nearly the top-of-the-line model back then. Now it’s merely a lower-middle model.

            And I don’t have to play with IF on parking garages; there’s a reason certain urban fire companies have low-bodied rescue vehicles in their fleets.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            Meh. The Lariat added tu-tone paint and misc trim to the XLT. But you’re arguing pointless minutiae in hopes to discount the bigger points. You sound like a cut-rate lawyer, pushing hard on small technicalities.

            “Low body” rescue vehicles would be 4X4 Fullsize pickups with just a 2″ lightbar.

            How do you think tow trucks, AAA for example, get into parking garages? (Drrr..) Yep, the Navistar, Hino, F-650, etc, trucks won’t fit. Just the F-350s, 3500s or F-550s and Ram 5500s with flip-down lightbars.

          • 0 avatar
            mnm4ever

            You guys are arguing over inches, its silly, and not even that hard to prove, the numbers are easily all over the internet.

            Full size trucks have been about 79″ wide forever. The bed lengths are about the same. The cabs have gotten longer to make them roomier, especially in the back, and safer. So yes, they have grown longer by a foot or so. The real difference is the height. The market prefers the 4×4 look and everyone wants bigger wheels and tires, so trucks are taller. If you don’t like it, then lower the suspension and fit smaller tires like the trucks used to have and you basically have the same size vehicle.

            As for the Colorado “dwarfing” Vulpines F150, I doubt it. The Colorado extended cab is 213″ L x 74″ W x 71″ H. The 1990 F150 extended cab is 216″ L x 79″ W x 72″ H.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            Who is arguing over minutiae? For that matter, maybe you should do a little more research on rescue vehicles; they carry a full box with innumerable first-aid, fire and recovery tools intended to save lives wherever they may be in danger. The ones for big cities tend to have said boxes no higher than the roof of the truck chassis they’re mounted on.

            You might also pay a little more attention to the tow trucks you mention. They still have to be low enough to drive under the overhead beams AND short enough to maneuver for the tow in tight quarters. The F-350 is about as large as they can go and even then they’re on a custom, lower, suspension designed for light-duty towing. You’re certainly not going to see even an F-350 rollback go in there and carry the car out.

            But again, that’s beside the point. The argument all along has been that the Colorado is “SMALL”. It. Is. Not. Small. It is effectively the same size as my 25-year-old F-150 was.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            So you answered your own question. Pickups have no problems using parking garages. If they can’t get in, neither can rescue equipment and tow trucks. If that’s not a fire/safety hazard and zone violation, what is??

            Mine’s a 4X4 with a 2″ leveling kit and 33″ BFG tires. Still way under the limit. If we’re talking 120+ year old brick building “basements” some have to park in, there’s more “modern” garages near by. Those ancient buildings/landmarks aren’t likely open for public parking anyway. But you really had to duck when riding a horse in there in the 1800s, I guess..

  • avatar
    APaGttH

    Local GMC dealer by my house has yet to get a Canyon in – they have two on order – both loaded out.

    I’m guessing that GM still has inventory/pipe issues in some regions. I have yet to see one in the flesh – this would be an interesting vehicle for me if I ever replaced the beater van for something new with an intention for home improvement hauling.

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      Someone at work bought one in sedan flavor with a long bed. I’m surprised he doesn’t have a tug to help him pilot it out of the parking lot. Talk about coming with length.

  • avatar
    Steve Biro

    “I still want a “small” Ford Ranger! Ford was stupid not to continue the Ranger in it’s current size. Now that everybody else is going super size on us it only makes more sense for the “small” Ranger. So GM now has 4 different pickups while Ford only has one and Dodge looks like it will have two. Wakeup FORD!”

    +10 to GoFast58. All I can add is that when the time came to replace my 2003 Ranger XLT (standard cab, standard bed, 4 cylinder, 5-speed manual, 2WD, 25mpg in town, 33mpg highway and 27-28mpg average), all Ford had to sell me was an F-150. Too big, too heavy, too thirsty, too expensive. Never mind EcoBoost. Result: No sale. I could care less about what’s popular with professionals (who understandably need such trucks) or amateurs with compensation issues. Many of us want and need a small pickup.

  • avatar
    TAP

    @ dbar1,
    That $10,300 discounted price on your Chevy points up the gargantuan margins involved in the truck biz. A sizeable profit was made.

  • avatar

    I think it looks fine. Better than the full size as not so chrome-y. And kudos to the author, I think that steering wheel looks great. I was thinking of that the other day when I drove a friend’s (Brazilian) Cobalt (review coming soon), the steering wheel they use looks dated. And a bit odd,”time for a refresh”, I thought. Hope this extends down. I don’t know why every car needs a three spoke steering wheel. 4 spokes is actually pretty good.

  • avatar
    eggsalad

    Back in the old days, you could walk into a Chevy dealer and pick a C-10 or an Impala. Equipped comparably, they cost about the same, had the same engines, got about the same MPG.

    It’s a different world today. Cars and trucks are different things entirely. There’s no such thing (in the US) as a truck that can do what a car does, and vice versa. Trucks get horrible MPG compared to cars, and there’s no way around that.

    I wish it could be different. I wish I could buy a small, FWD, car-based “ute” that got about the same mileage as a car does. That’s possible in a lot of places in the world, but not in the US. That makes me sad.

  • avatar
    RS

    Real world MPG’s of this Colorado?

  • avatar
    Frylock350

    This truck is just begging for the CTS’s 3.6L TT with the 8L90 powertrain option in the shortest wheelbase as a Colorado SS or GMC Syclone! Crank up the boost to deliver 480hp and charge a reasonable price. That would gather GM tons of great positive press including mentions of how the old Syclone could outrun a Ferrari.

    I personally would be interested in the Canyon twin if it offered either the 5.3L or 6.2L V8.

    As for fitting in garages I have a 20′ garage and I was always able to park my GMT900s and b-bodies in it (both of which are longer than this Colorado). My K2XX Silverado might fit, but I haven’t tried yet. It’s right at 20′ long, so it’ll be a close call.

  • avatar
    Vulpine

    Hmmm. News just in: Reason For Express Van Sales Delays: Colorado – Plant May Go 24/7
    Automotive News (http://www.autonews.com/article/20150302/OEM/303029970/pickup-rollout-pinches-supply-of-gm-vans)

    Apparently something is happening that GM didn’t expect. Based on all the uproar about how “bigger is better” in pickup trucks, GM appears to be scrambling to build far more Colorados than they planned on.

    • 0 avatar
      Carlson Fan

      Good. Maybe the person/people who came up with the 3 tier truck strategy at GM know what they are doing.
      Historically GMs small truck has always been a joke compared to their fullsize offerings. They finally have a small truck that can compete with their fullsize on an engineering/refinement/build quality level.

      Some of this may be pent up demand or it may not. We’ll have to wait and see how it’s selling in 3-4 years. FS crew cab PU’s aren’t going to enjoy the sales success they have today forever. Isn’t gonna happen. The market will change, and something is around the corner to take its place. There could very well be shift from FS to MS trucks. Or not.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributors

  • Matthew Guy, Canada
  • Seth Parks, United States
  • Ronnie Schreiber, United States
  • Bozi Tatarevic, United States
  • Chris Tonn, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States
  • Moderators

  • Adam Tonge, United States
  • Kyree Williams, United States