By Michael Martineck
October 3, 2007 -
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.
Subscribe to Newsletter
More Reviews65 Responses to “ Chevrolet Colorado 4X4 Crew Cab Review ”
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 » Show All Reverse Order
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 » Show All Reverse Order
Leave a Reply 
Back to Top
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Digg
del.icio.us
Blinklist
Furl
Netscape
Google
NewsVine
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Technorati
YahooMyWeb
Windows Live
POWERED
October 3rd, 2007 at 8:39 am
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?
October 3rd, 2007 at 8:50 am
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.
October 3rd, 2007 at 8:52 am
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.
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:03 am
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.
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:09 am
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?
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:16 am
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.
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:34 am
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.
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:43 am
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!!!
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:44 am
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.
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:47 am
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.