For once, the brochures are right: nobody in their right mind buys a small truck for motoring pleasure. A small pickup is a way to get to and from outside activities, like kayaking, rock climbing, schlepping a DLP TV, fencing in the back forty, running a few bales of marijuana across the Mexican border (closed course, professional driver), etc. While full-size pickups mollycoddle their drivers in the hopes of luring owners who don’t actually need them, their smaller siblings have stayed true to the genre’s hair-shirt-on-leaf-springs roots. But even at the low end, there is a hierarchy….
Aside from the imminently breakable, fake chrome plastic decoration across the front (begging for aftermarket machismo) and the resulting insectoid bisected headlights, the Colorado is a decent looking truck. There’s no deference to the wind tunnels, and isn’t trying to Dodge pickup protocol with a sheetmetal ode to eighteen-wheelers. The Colorado’s squared-off, almost military lines are kinda cool, in an old school hardware store sort of way.
The interior is exactly what you'd expect: basic, functional, plastic. Our test truck was a four-wheel-drive crew cab (four door). If you called shotgun too late, this is the version you want. While most small pickup’s rear seats are best suited to small boxes of inanimate objects, the Colorado crew cab’s back chairs are spacious enough for two six-foot humans.
The Colorado’s double-walled bed is as unadorned as the obelisk in 2001. Tie downs? We don’t need no stinkin’ tie downs! (Unless, of course, you do.) In any case, our crew cab provided a 5’1” bed. If hauling is your thing, the standard-issue Colorado's bed extends a foot further, delivering deeper storage and higher overall payload than its rivals. Both beds offer two-tier cargo loading and tailgates that are both lockable and removable– but not at the same time.
The base Colorado holsters a 185-horse 2.9-liter DOHC four-cylinder engine hooked-up to a five speed manual (yay!). Our 4WD Crew Cab came with a 242-horse, 3.7-liter inline five-cylinder mill mated to a four-speed Hydra-Matic slushbox (boo!). The Crew’s odd-cylindered powertrain stumps-up plenty of stump-pulling power, but those 242 ft.-lbs. of twist arrive with all the alacrity of Santa Claus to a two-year-old.
It’s the damnedest thing. You put the Colorado in drive, mash the gas and go nowhere. Seriously: the engine revs up and truck stays put. The delay lasts [the better part of] a second, but it’s enough time to wonder whether you’ve done something wrong; placed the transmission between N and D or brushed a hidden switch that takes the Colorado from four to no wheel-drive.
When the drivetrain finally pulls out of the station it performs adequately, in terms of moving the truck. But the Colorado’s fuel efficiency is like my fantasy golf game: sub par. The Crew Cab Colorado’s EPA-rated at 15/20 mpg. Hello? The Silverado’s 315hp, 5.3-liter Vortec V8 clocks in at 16/20 mpg. Although the Colorado's fuel efficiency is class average, and you can always opt for the more frugal four, you'd kinda hope for better. Or a V6.
Anyway, in normal driving, acceleration is more-than-merely adequate. BUT… in passing situations, the transmission steps down, then steps down again, in an entirely disconcerting way. There is a big ole gap in the tranny’s understanding of your desire to get past that New Beetle and the amount of time available for the job.
The Colorado’s handling is surprisingly good, especially in Z71 trim (Insta-Trac on-the-fly 4X4 command buttons, front underbody shielding, gas-charged monotube shocks, jagged tires and stickers). The wee beastie corners evenly, without drama. And the Colorado’s independent front suspension and front torsion bars deliver a ride that ain’t half bad– for a truck. It appeared off-road worthy, though we didn’t get a chance to play scrabble for purchase.
The Colorado is what I call a Gap truck. The pickup’s seats have ample space between your bottom and the floor. The gaps in the wheel-wells leave room for meatier tires and plenty of turning radius. It’s remarkably easy to twist the Colorado through a gap in between Prii at Target. And then there’s that lovely gap between its price and the sticker whacked on its full-sized brethren.
But then there is that other gap; the one between the Colorado and its competition. While the small[er] Chevy has antilock brakes, tire pressure monitoring and air bags aplenty, other small trucks are similarly appointed AND they respond better all the way around. Their center consoles click when you close them. Their gear selectors need only half the distance to effect a change. And they go when you want them to.
At the right price you could ignore the Colorado’s Crew Cab’s thirst and mechanical laziness. But anyone who does so rewards incompetence, and pays the price at the pump.
67 Comments on “Chevrolet Colorado 4X4 Crew Cab Review...”
Back to TopLeave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You can also login using Facebook Connect.
Having owned and driven an identical ‘06 GMC Canyon crew cab 4×4 for 21,000 miles, I have a few comments about your editorial based upon hard-earned experience.
I traded in a late model Silverado for the Canyon. Let me assure you, there is a vast, yawning chasm between the EPA estimated gas mileage of the Silverado and what I actually achieved. And mysteriously, vice versa for the Canyon. I just returned from a trip to Victoria, BC yesterday in the Canyon. Gas mileage was a very respectable 25 mpg, and that was carrying a street bike one way at 70 – 75 mph the whole way. I never ever actually got more than 15 or 16 with the ‘rado. Which is why I made the trade to begin with. This is by far the best gas mileage 4×4 I have ever owned, and I have owned a considerable number of them.
Powerwise, the Canyon is at least respectable, if not superior to the V8 Silverado. Yeah, the tranny does hunt annoyingly and yeah, the Canyon truly was sluggish when it was new, but a sufficient break in period has done miracles in the power department.
There is also a “lovely gap” in price between the Canyon and its small/midsize competition. $30 large for the small Toyota? $40 bigs for a Honda pickup. Are you serious?
We (Conus USAF base) own dozens of these as fleet workhorses. They are decent replacements for the previous S-10/Isuzu model, and many of the previous generation’s problems (such as front brake “sproing!”) have been fixed, but remain lackluster beasts at best, about equal to what Toyota or Nissan was selling 10 years ago. The 5 cylinder engine has a history of mechanical problems, while the 4 cylinder is solid. Gas mileage is sub-par on both, noticeably less to the 3.0L V6 Rangers also in service here.
When my Cherokee gives up the ghost, a small crew cab pickup will likely be just the thing I’m looking for – something that can haul any future kids as well as my constantly broken motorcycle. I’ve been real disappointed with the Colorado reviews – they haven’t been too kind. I think it’s a real sharp looking truck, but just comes up short in too many categories. I’m pulling for it, though, because a small truck is high on my list of vehicles to buy int the next 3-5 years.
I’ve never figured out the logic of the 5-cylinder engine. It has the power of a 4 with the economy of a 6. Really dumb idea.
I’m the owner of a 2005 GMC Canyon. Very basic truck, no bells or whistles. I-4, RWD, 5 speed manual. So far I’m very pleased with it. The I-4 has lots of grunt. I get 26-29 mpg on the highway and around 20 mpg in city. It’s plenty roomy inside and in the bed. Although, the plastics in the interior are hard and cheap (but rugged). My only real complaint is that the brakes have a “grabbiness” to them. I’ve taken it to the dealer who issued a “GM is aware of the problem” letter, but no fix. Anyone else have the same problem?
My primary complaint with the Colorado was always the low 4,000-pound tow rating – which was barely any better than fwd cute-utes like the RAV4. It appears that the 2008 model has a higher 5,500 pound tow rating, which is a substantial improvement and could potentially attract a number of new buyers.
I have the same problem with the Colorado as I do other “small” trucks: Price. $28k for this thing? You can get a full size, V8, 4WD truck for the same price and lose 1MPG fuel economy.
Maybe if small trucks were actually small, they’d be worth purchasing. Right now, there’s little reason for these mid-sizers to exist.
Very creative review. Anyway, the Colorado is OK by itself but it’s a pale shadow of the S10, especially the ZR2-optioned S10 that I drive. S10 is fully instrumented (temp, oil press., volts) while the Colorado has only temp. S10=250 ft-lbs from the 4.3 V, Colorado=242ft-lbs from the I-5. Both have torsion bar front suspension for the 4×4’s, so no improvement there. S10 has 4 tie-down hooks in the bed. The manual trans option has been deleted with the I-5, whereas S10 V6 had a manual option. There is also no wide stance option for the Colorado, even though it exists as the H3 chassis. I find the S10 cabin much more pleasant, but that’s merely subjective.
However, all that is moot if the rumored Colorado V8 option shows up!!!
This past summer I cross shopped small trucks and found the Colorado attractive but lacking in both value and utility.
I was looking at nicely equipped 4×4 CC models.
The Colorado simply cost too much once optioned up. Though I think a basic extended cab 2wd model is a good value, the price just ramps too quickly and too much once you start adding what you want – in the 25-27k range even after supplier pricing and incentives.
Ford Ranger? They still want the same money for a 10 year old truck. No amount of stickers or cladding can cover up what is a ridiculously dated platform. I’m amazed anyone buys them. By far the shortest consideration time.
Dodge Dakota? Sorry not my cup of tea. Dodge was the only one that didn’t even merit a dealer visit.
Same with the Ridgeline. Not really a truck, way too expensive.
Toyota had a nice (though not at all exciting) truck but an inflexible dealer network offered very little under sticker pricing with arrogance to boot. Also required premium gas somewhat offsetting the higher mileage rating. Nice truck, but too expensive and very bland. This is the truck for people who really want a car.
So, I ended up in a Nissan Frontier. A nicely equipped 4×4 Auto crew cab model with a long (6ft) bed, power and a sunroof ended up at 25k all said and done, within a stones throw of a similar Colorado, if not cheaper. With that I got a 263hp torquey V6 with a 5 speed auto, a factory coated bed with a track tie down system, and have been getting 20mpg all day long. Not to mention 6,500lb towing (admittedly a stretch) and the regular length bed. I will admit that a good bit bigger and not exactly the same.
I love GM (which is hard to do these days), and going foreign really hurt me. The last pickup I bought was a 2001 ZR2 S10 – a truck I loved but was just a total pile in terms of build quality.
The domestic offerings in this segment are just terrible.
At least GM is finally dropping a V8 in them. If they can keep the price reasonable it’ll make them a whole lot more fun/functional without any real compromises.
I think there is a serious market for small, reliable and frugal pickups that isn’t being addressed. The Tacoma is too huge now, the Ridgeline is more of an Accord with a pickup bed which leaves the Colorado/Canyon. I don’t think there is anything else.
Many manufacturers have small pickups in other markets and they would do well to sell them in North America. I saw the new Toyota Hilux recently, and man, that thing would kill if it was sold here. Saying that, if Ford (bring back the Ranger) and GM focused some time and energy (and $) on this segment, it could be a profitable one, you know, building something that people want.
“It has the power of a 4 with the economy of a 6.”
The Toyota Tacoma’s 4 banger has 162 horsepower, so the Colorado has some 80 horsepower and thus a staggering 50 percent more. In fact, until 1992, Ford’s tire-shredding V8 powered Mustang GT had a mere 225 horsepower, 20 less than the “underpowered” Colorado.
- Jeep Liberty 3.7 V-6: 210 horsepower;
- Ford Ranger 4.0 V-6: 207 horsepower;
- Jeep Wrangler 3.5 V-6: 205 horsepower
One symptom of Anti-American Derangement Syndrome apparently is the inability to perform basic math.
Anyone who actually thinks that you only lose 1 mpg by buying a full-size truck does not have much experience with either a Colorado or a full size truck.
I was told by a salesman, who really wasn’t kidding, that a fullsize Dodge Ram with a Hemi would get 20 mpg. My coffee went right out my nose as I involuntarily erupted in a painful spasm of laughter.
My real world gas mileage with my Canyon has convinced me.
Actually, the Ridgeline is the Baja version of the Pilot which is the wagon version of the Odyssey.
I’m interested in what the TTAC staff and posters think about the V8 powered Canyon?
Will an extra 80 horsepower and gobs of extra torque change your perspective at all?
What would it have to be priced at to make you overlook the cheap trim and “meh” attitude GM seems to have towards it?
Would it be okay mated to the 4 speed auto, or is an M5/A5 mandatory?
I’m not being a “homer” here- I’m truly interested in whether or not the V8 option will make a difference to buyers/journalists.
Sajeev: I agree, there no longer seems to be a lot of point to the smaller pickups, as they cost nearly as much as the full-sizers and barely get better mileage (usually only 1-2 mpg).
If ’small’ pickups are going to remain a viable market segment, I see three ways they can go – the first and most obvious would be to use a small diesel and bring the mileage up to the mid/upper-20s with a decent tow rating.
The second would be to give up on towing, go with a unibody truck and maybe even switch to FWD (or AWD, like subaru). I realize the Subaru Baja didn’t go over well, but what if they made a utilitarian version with a regular cab and a 6-foot bed? While they no longer make the Rampage or VW Sportruck, I think that the current gas prices might support those types of vehicles. Actually, I think VW might still make the Sportruck in South Africa…though it’d have to be extensively updated before it could be sold here. Or, VW could import the Caddy or Caddy Maxi – sell both a van version and pickup version, put in the TDI and suddenly we’d have a 30-40mpg small pickup with a higher payload than most half-ton trucks.
The third option is to go visit our Australian friends and bring back some Utes…I’m not exactly sure if they’d replace the smaller trucks, but I still want to be able to buy one.
radimus: That’s fantastic! Couldn’t have said it better myself.
Larry P2 – I’ve driven nearly every pickup out there, and yes…there really is only a 1-2mpg difference between most small/mid-size trucks and full-size trucks. The smaller trucks have the largest advantage in city driving, as they are lighter…but on the highway they don’t have much of an advantage at all, as weight is less of an issue and the larger V8s in the full-size trucks can turn at lower RPMs and return decent mileage. There’re a fair number of full-size trucks that can return 20mpg or better on the highway (including the Hemi Ram), as long as you drive at a reasonable speed…once you get to the 70-80mph range the mileage can drop off drastically. A good rule of thumb is to keep the RPMs below 2,000 on full-size V8 trucks to get decent mileage – though what speed that is will obviously depend on the gearing. On some trucks it’s only 55-60mph, so it comes down to if you’re patient enough to drive that slowly.
Personally, I’m not that patient and typically drive 80+ mph – so I get horrible mileage with both full-size and compact pickups. The last time I put miles on a Colorado I got in the 16-17 mpg range for highway driving, and since most of the full-size half-ton trucks I’ve owned got about 14-15 mpg on the highway the Colorado was approximately 2mpg better.
I’m very pleased that you guys chose to review this vehicle, as it has been my target for my next vehicle…but…I don’t know…
I currently have a 98 Blazer ZR2 4.3 5-speed w/130k on it. It’s been good to me and was a hell of a smart purchase–god bless used domestic car values. I get 17-18 in the city and 19-21 on the highway, no BS (I drive it easy unless 4-wheeling). I use it as a pickup 1/2 the time, throwing nasty stuff in the back frequently, and now it smells. Bad. So I figured a 4-door pickup would be great, and a used Colorado would fit the bill…but man I am disappointed on what I read about the 5-cyl.
For those of you who know, what are the reliability issues w/the 5cyl? I have heard people say they are trouble-prone, but have not heard specifically what is wrong. I wonder if the 4 can move the vehicle sufficiently enough for occasional off-roading, hauling my small 2,000lb boat, or even schlepping 4 adults across town? Anyone had experience w/the 4-cyl 4×4 crewcab?
It does have 185hp…and hell, my Blazer has only 190. But I’m sure it’s way down on the torque.
The Toyota Tacoma’s 4 banger has 162 horsepower, so the Colorado has some 80 horsepower and thus a staggering 50 percent more. In fact, until 1992, Ford’s tire-shredding V8 powered Mustang GT had a mere 225 horsepower, 20 less than the “underpowered” Colorado.
Too bad the Colorado has to rev like a 4-cyl Tacoma to make any power. Revving aside, mid-size trucks should do themselves a favor and act more like said Mustang GT: 300+ lb-ft of torque @3500-ish rpm on regular gas is right on the money.
Back to the 5-cyl motor:
242hp @ 5600rpm is off the mark, even when you grab a passenger car V6 (Toyota/Nissan) and try to truck it up. But this was a truck motor from the git-go, right?
242lb-ft @ 4600rpm…yeah, that’s not workin’ for me either. Drop the rpm peak about 1000revs and then we’ll have a good truck motor.
In the mid 80’s and 90’s, we had a decent pool of small, economical trucks to choose from: Nissan, Mazda, Toyota, GM, etc. All had the footprint of a mid-size car (compact car by today’s standards), 4 cylinders and a 5-speed manual as standard, and were cheap to buy/operate.
I believe there is still a significant market for this recipe, especially with today’s fuel prices. I am one of those ‘white-collar handymen’ who occasionally needs to haul minor stuff but also needs an economical daily driver. Choice was so limited that I ended up getting a minivan.
Any chance GM could fit the Trailblazer’s inline-6 into the Colorado?
Why the I5? Are the beancounters playing CAFE games? Do they sell enough of these to justify the engineering / logistics / support?!?? It’s too freakin’ weird…
The I6 is too long and too expensive for a Colorado.
The I engines suffer from poor fuel economy for their output. On paper the output looks good but the lack of low end grunt kills them for truck guys, who want and often need that torque.
And the lack of small trucks is the market’s fault. Now that fuel economy and practicality are coming back, you’ll see the big 3 react a couple years after the first company does.
How much more expensive could the I6 be? The I5 is basically the I6 minus one cylinder, I don’t understand how it could be much more expensive? Its the additional cost of materials really that high for an extra cylinder?
Why on earth can’t we (civilians) get a Jeep J8 with the pick up body on it.
I can see the I-6 being a packaging problem. The Ford 4.9L straight six was great: plenty of grunt and extremely durable. But it was a big motor.
Just like several other GM products, the Colorado needs a GEN III small-block to set it apart from the pack. Hell, the puny 4.8L will do just fine.
It’s not the delta from the I5 to the I6 that’s the problem (though it isn’t negligible), just packaging.
Also I think the I6 would hit a wall where it is just too expensive of an engine for the platform. The small block might actually be cheaper than the I5, which has such low production.
Why GM ever decided to design an inline 5 has always been a mystery to me. I’ve been wondering how anybody could have possibly thought the I5 would be a good idea ever since I read about it in Motortrend back in 2001 or 2002. I can’t really think of any reason why GM didn’t design the engine bay of the Colorado to fit the I6 in the first place, the 270hp out of the I6 would have been class leading at the time as well
First off, very good review. It’s not often that a car site can review a truck without making snide comments about suburban pickup buyers. I know I’m not the only white-collar worker (lawyer) in Colorado who drives a pickup, and it’s mainly because of my recreational pursuits. For example, next week, I plan on throwing a couple of dead quadripeds into the back of my Tacoma. Try doing that with a Touareg!
In any case, this review encapsulates what is missing in the small truck market today. I think it also highlights what is happening to the domestic market share: The Colorado is a “me too” vehicle that does nothing very well. The domestic manufacturers need to realize that just being “good enough” isn’t good enough.
The sad thing is, there’s not a whole lot of options for the small truck buyer like me. The Tacoma is nice but too big, and way too pricey. The Dakota is for all intents and purposes a “full size” truck (making the Ram an “Oversize” truck), The Ranger isn’t available with 4 doors (and please don’t mention the Exporer Sport Trac. I just ate lunch) and the Frontier is just about as bloated as the Tacoma. Try to find one that will break 20 mpg in 4wd form is difficult, at best.
Speaking of 4wd, am I the only one who gets incensed at seeing all the low-hanging plastic on 4wd trucks? It’s like these people have never actually seen a 4wd road.
In any case, I remain hopeful that some manufacturer will come out with a reliable, capable, economical 4wd small truck before my ‘04 Tacoma wears out.
Both the Ford Falcon One Ton Ute and the Holden Commodore Ute / cab Chassis Ute would be ideal for the U.S. Market. I could be wrong, but I believed the reason they could not be imported (aside from the BA/BF series Falcon platform being unavailable in LHD) was tariffs put in place at the behest of lobbying by the UAW; to restrict the importation of trucks (given the direct assault on their bread and butter). Please correct me if I am misinformed. My business requires pickups, and F350 Super Duty’s have been admirable workhorses. However…
The price of Diesel in Northern California, whilst lower this year, has been consistently priced some 10 to 20 cents per gallon above Premium / Ultimate. I have purchased a new truck every year the past three years, the 03 and 04’s have over 160k miles each already, the 96 is up to 1.3 million. All on original engines and transmissions. But the mpg (although offset as a business cost) now hurts. Midsize would cut the mustard in 80% of deliveries, but again, the midsizes on offer have little benefit in mpg. The Dodge / Freightliner Sprinter cab chassis interests me, and the Ford LCF gets better milage than super duty’s, but is cab over (bye bye legs in an accident). A Ford Transit cab chassis diesel is the mainstay of the English construction / contractor fleet, and somehow manages to make do with much less HP, although more torque down low. Yet Ford thinks anything out-working an F150, regardless of size, would be financial suicide for them to import.
Euro and Australian spec toyota hi-luxes are available with 2.4 and 3.0 turbo diesels, and are seen on Australian roads in plague proportions. Again, if they were available here, they would suit perfectly. Gobs of torque down low, and 25mpg at minimum. I second the comments about the Ford Ranger, its had its run. Even the Mazda B series that spawned it has been put to pasture. I came to the conclusion some time ago that there is just no interest, on the part of ANY manufacturer in the U.S.A in seeing consumers driving truly fuel efficient vehicles. Starting with commercial fleets would make more sense, and have a bigger impact on the national consumption of oil.
I await the 09 Diesel F150 with baited breath, and keep my fingers crossed for Isuzu 4cyl diesels showing up in Chevy Canyons. Or maybe Toyota will swallow its pride, can the Tacoma and bring the Hi-Lux and Land Cruiser pickups that perform heavy duty applications and weekend warrior duty without breaking a sweat for consumers that almost the entire planet has access to, except for NA.
vw needs to stick one of there TDI engines into a small pick up!
On the compact pickup front, I know that Nissan signed an agreement in June 2006 to build a compact pickup for Suzuki to sell in North America, said truck to hit dealers next summer as an early 2009 model. Am I wrong to hope against hope that this will be more (or, more accurately, less) than a rebadged Nissan Frontier?
Larry P2:
Unless you live in Canada a small Toyota pickups do not cost 30K, and the Ridgeline does not cost 40K. Those numbers about 10K too high.
Make sure you arent comparing Apples and oranges here. A comparably equipped Tacoma crew cab 4×4 will set you back at least $28 thou, and probably 30 when similarly equipped to this test Colorado.
Only the V-6 powered Tacoma ain’t a reviled GM product, so it will not be announced on these pages that it “guzzles gas frantically like a V8 with the power of a 4 cylinder” even though it produces six less ponies than this lame-o GM-built Colorado.
It is a Toyota, after all.
And can someone hurry up and provide substantiation to the claim that the I5 is “trouble-prone?”
I was looking at small trucks last weekend. I found on a dealer lot a regular cab Tacoma with a 4 banger and a 6 foot bed. Sticker was $16k (maybe closer to 17) The truck didn’t look bloated to me, but all the 4 door 4×4 versions look bloated.
As for Ranger, I have one, and don’t often say nice things about it, but to be fair, it does have class leading gas mileage, and as dated as the platform is, it’s still just as good as anything else in it’s class- unless of course you wanted a crew cab with a useless little box on the back. You can also get them with a 7 ft. bed – you know, for those 2 or 3 buyers who actually plan to haul something.
A diesel option in this class would make an awful lot of sense, so we’ll look for Toyota to do that.
As for Ridgeline, I’m a Honda fan but the Ridgeline is just a ridiculous vehicle.
In the USA you can get a 4×2 Tacoma with a 4 and manual for $14,000. In Canada you can’t get ANYTHING for $14,000, but that’s another story. I don’t see why you would need to look any further than that if all you wanted was something reasonably economical to haul around your dirt bike. Granted it’s ugly as ****, but it’s not for show.
The I5 has had serious problems with piston slap, that GM has screwed many owners over on by saying “that noise is normal” right up until the warranty runs out.
I had a GMC Canyon, a clone of the tested vehicle for almost 3 years and 41,000 miles. Some observations:
- Ours was the older 3.5 liter inline 5, rated at 220 hp. No mechanical problems with the engine. Power was okay at higher rpms but a little thin in the low/midrange. Not good for a pickup. In my opinion, this is a step down from the 4.3 liter pushrod V-6’s used in the S-10 predecessors.
- We got 24 mpg on a trip from Michigan to Florida, with speeds generally from 70-80 mph. We had a tonneau cover, though, which may have helped aerodynamics on the highway. City mpg averaged 16-17, which is better than our current AWD Acadia (14-15 mpg).
- This truck was used to tow a 3800 lb boat/trailer. It was average at best. More torque would have helped here.
- Steering was light years ahead of the Trailblazer we once had, which led to more confidence when towing.
- Agree with the interior comments. Not luxurious or aesthetically appealing, but with a couple of kids in the back seat always trying to find new ways of destroying things, the durability was appreciated.
- The only problem we experienced was when the truck was new, there was a water leak in the cab that soaked the carpeting and eventually stunk whenever it subsequently got wet. The dealer fixed the leak and deodorized the carpet, but it should have been replaced.
All in all, not a bad vehicle, not a great one. My biggest complaint would be the engine. I would like to see a 4.8 liter V8 or a small diesel to provide adequate torque for towing.
I just spent about an hour on Google, as a concerned owner of a GMC Canyon, trying to find anything ….. anything that supports the above’contention that the I5 has “piston slap” issues.
I scoured through pages of Google search results and could find literally no substantiation for the claim. There is, however, plenty about the GM Vortec V8’s notorious problem with piston slap. The Silverago that I traded in on my Canyon had it in spades …. until I changed the viscocity and brand of oil and voila’ …. problem eliminated. This is a quick and cheap solution that was lost in the stampede to a class action lawsuit against hated GM over the issue. The truth of the V8 Vortec piston slap controversey is this: GM used very high performance, revolutionary, lightweight pistons that produced much more power and greater gas mileage for a given engine, a fact that was lost when the stampeded for the courhouse began.
Does anybody remember the Toyota “sludge” issue? Both GM’s piston slap “problems” and Toyota’s “engine sludge” debacle are completely products of the fertile imagination of ingenious trial lawyers.
Go to any hot rod show and wait until a line of high dollar hand-built hotrods roar to life: invariably, they ALL have piston slap on startup.
Then I suddently realized that the “arguments” against the Canyon/Colorado trucks are a constantly shifting, moving target and that no matter how easily one can refute the facts, it really doesn’t matter.
The real argument here is that they are produced by GM, and that instantly, permanently and irrefutably condemns them.
Larry P2:
I haven’t seen the reliability reports on a Colorado so I can’t address the supposed issue of the I5 piston issues but I stand by my assertion that there is no real “price gap” between the Colorado and it’s competition as you stated in the first post.
The Tacoma 4×4 Crew Cab (with a V6) costs about the same as the Colorado tested here. Even if we accept the estimate that a comparably equipped Tacoma will cost 30K, that’s a less than 2K difference between the vehicles.
I realize now that my original post was poorly worded. I meant that the 10K overestimate as stated in your first post applied only to Honda pickup. Even in it’s most expensive trim w/ navigation it stickers at 35K. The least expensive crew cab model starts at 28K on number.
On average it seems like a less than 30K truck. (Keep in mind that there are no options on the Ridgeline, thus 35K is as expensive as it could possibly get.) Again quite close to the truck tested in this review.
I’m not much of a truck guy and since I’ve never even driven a new Tacoma I wouldn’t be a good judge of the merits of the three aforementioned vehicles, however, my point was that the price gap between them was not as large as you originally mentioned. Certainly, there is no such thing as a 40K Honda pickup. In fact, I highly doubt there’s anyone who even paid close to 35K for the fully loaded navi-version.
Larry P2 :
GM’s entire family of Atlas engines when they were introduced had this issue. The problem is far more evident on an inline engines than a V. Do you know what piston slap is? Changing the viscosity of the oil is not going to make up for GMs inability to use a vernier to measure two parts to see if they fit together! Any IDIOT can see the scoring on the skirt of a piston that has been slapping in the bore of a cylinder. The fact that no all of these supposedly identical engines had the problem is only more evidence of GMs hit or miss worksmanship. Even my lawn mower does not have piston slap on start up or otherwise.
P.S. The Toyota sludge issue was real enough for Toyota to fix it.
A 5.3L Canyon = very low 14second 1/4 mile truck. With a PCM tune, mods a 5spd manual 2wd should break 13’s.
I had a no-frills 2wd Toyota pickup in the early 80s that was a regular cab, long bed and diesel engine. My brother is still driving his 14 year old S10 (another no frills 2wd model). Those trucks had a good footprint size IMHO; I wish they made something that size again.
Go to any hot rod show and wait until a line of high dollar hand-built hotrods roar to life: invariably, they ALL have piston slap on startup.
That is because many of the rods have stroked engines, with very low rod ratios. A tremendous amount of thrust is directed into the cylinder wall, causing the piston slap against the side of the cylinder. Most street engines do not have these extreme rod ratios and the associated slap.
The pricing discussion is a really difficult one to have because getting an apples to apples price is really tough.
The amounts the various makers will knock off of sticker is a big range, local markets determine what truck configurations are actually available, and the domestic suppliers have a much more piece meal approach to options, not to mention each truck in the segment has different levels of option content. Add all this together and it makes sense nobody can seem to agree on pricing.
My general thoughts are that the Ridgeline shouldn’t be included at all, the Toyota acts as the baseline, Nissan is maybe 2-3k less, and the domestics are maybe another 2k less. This is if you cut through all the crap, option the configs as similar as possible, and presume good out the door pricing.
I’d also like to add that the people defending the I5 are doing it by quoting output numbers. It’s not that simple, and if you drove all the trucks discussed or used them under load it would make a lot more sense. The I5 feels like a dog compared to what Toyota and Nissan have under the hood. It doesn’t have the low end torque and is hurt by the 4 speed. I really feel GM fell into this same trap during development, comparing numbers to the old 4.3 and thinking it’d be just dandy. But truck buyers think about a little more than just published HP numbers…
The team that designed the dash should be reassigned.
Decent little truck, I had a fraternity brother with the GMC version. It was good for us, we could stuff a good bit in the back that we couldn’t otherwise, most of us had cars.
If I were into the smaller trucks, I’d think about grabbing one of these when my chance for a company car comes up. But seeing as its free, then I’m gonna go ahead and shoot for a Denali Sierra.
During my too-many trips to the Chevy dealer for warranty work on the Silverado (not a bad truck but not good, either) I wandered the show room and lot peeking and poking at the new vehicles.
Spent many hours doing this killing time just to hear “Can not replicate the problem” as spewed by service writers to cover an unwillingness to actually diagnose warranty-covered defects, wanting instead, I suppose, for defects to jump out and bite them on the nose (corporate GMC did not care about lousy warranty coverage by dealerships I visited).
Anyway…. I looked long and hard at the Colorado in all its manifestations… there was a lot of them for sale and I see very few on the road in the Omaha Nebraska area.
I noticed a lack of body rigidity. Couldn’t judge the frame but the cab and bed sure seemed to be flimsy. A slight upward push on an open door caused flex in the “B pillar” or whatever that upright aft of the door is called.
The hood, the tailgate, so many areas appeared to be flimsey, as if they were not well-attached.
On a general level, a subjective opinion reached by the poking…..the Colorado just seems to be a cheaply made trucklet that will not endure long if used as a pick-up is used by those actually making a truck “work” as some folks buying a truck expect.
The Colorado’s seemingly-to-me el cheapo construction may be fine for the suburbanite-type using it mainly for transportation with minimal hauling, towing etc. but I do not expect the critter to last as long as a beefier full-size pick-em-up truck.
And, after the continuous problems I had with warranty coverage regarding the 2004 Silverado I would be hesitant to buy another GMC/Chevy product…. but my problems could possibly be rare or a “regional thing” that others may not experience.
Thank you Antipodean, for bringing up the excellent Australian small truck options. Wish we had them here in NA.
And I concur with Dynamic88, while the Ranger has most definitely had its day and is now quite dated, it was way ahead of its time when introduced and has soldiered on for me (and my employer) admirably through several iterations. Solid, dependable, rugged, no frills, if lackluster. Still regularly see legions of them on the road here in the Deep South. A new Ranger would be just about perfect.
antipodean: You are correct, the US has a 25% tariff on pickups – which (along with our diesel emission standards) works to prevent all the interesting and/or fuel-efficient trucks from being sold in the United States.
AFAIK the 25% tariff has nothing to do with the UAW. I believe it’s called the “Chicken tax” because it has something to do with retaliation for some other country’s taxing of our exported chickens. Mr. Farago has commented on it in the past, he may know more. In any case, I seem to recall that trucks were the first “transplants” to be assembled in the US for this very reason.
Incidentally, Ford of Argentine makes a very cool looking 4-door Ranger with a 2.7l Turbo Diesel. I don’t know how difficult it would be to bring that to the US but I can’t believe it wouldn’t be a big seller if they did. I’d seriously consider one!