Oddly, I looked at a couple at Carmax today alongside the new and old Tacoma and Ranger, and found base models to feel more comfortable than higher levels. For example, the split-bench front seat has a cloth center armrest, while the captain’s chairs have a plasticky center console. I would seriously consider the split bench for that reason, not to mention it can (conceivably) seat six people.

A few things to consider that haven’t been mentioned yet:

This truck did badly in IIHS side-crash tests. Structural strength was particularly poor. Don’t buy this truck without side-curtain airbags, at the very least. If they come out with torso airbags at some point, get those too.

This truck gets electronic stability control standard for the first time for 2009 MY, making the new model years less likely to roll over.

The Colorado Crew Cab with four-cylinder engine costs virtually the same amount as a Toyota Tacoma Access Cab with four-cylinder engine. It delivers economy within a mile per gallon of the Taco.

The Chevy is extremely small and light: It’s much smaller than the Tacoma and Frontier, especially in width. It is not meant for those looking for a small full-size.

In short, I think that the Colorado can be a good truck for some people if they check the right boxes, especially because it’s the only compact truck that is available with a four-cylinder crew cab configuration.

As to the competition, while the Frontier and Dakota are definitely larger, I thought the Tacoma was still close to the Colorado and Ranger in size and, with it’s much higher build-quality reputation, the compact truck that was the class leader. I’ve compared the three trucks and it’s not too difficult to justify the higher price for the Toyota.

Of course, at the Tacoma’s higher price point, it’s also not too tough to make the switch to a base Silverado (supposedly the current full-size class leader).

Frankly, my biggest beef with both the Colorado and Tacoma is the lack of a standard fold-down center armrest in the base versions. At least you get one in the otherwise craptacular Ranger (as with all the full-size pickups).

So, we’ll get to see just how much of the poor sales performance and review feedback can be resolved with more motor. Chevy will in essence, be saying “put up or shut up” to those who said the I5 was their only beef.

To be fair to the Colorado, its only true competition is the Ford Ranger, which imho it has nicely beat. It is also better than the S10 it replaced, enough that the tons of faithful S10 owners see it as an ok update.

The problem is that to the people who truly cross shop the slightly bigger offerings (Frontier, Tacoma, Dakota even) decide they are a better value.

But in the truck world, there are just not that many people cross-brand shoppers.

Case in point: I will make a prediction here and you will hold me to it. The upcoming small Mahindra diesel pickup, like the Chevrolet SSR, will be a major, catastrophic sales flop that will make Mahindra a very brief presence in the United States. Remember when the entire automobile journalistic fraternity begged and pleaded with GM to build the SSR? And so they have similarly gushed rhapsodic about the Mahindra diesel.

THe Mahindra will fail for several reasons, not the least of which is this embarassing snippet from the review on the Mahindra Scorpio: “115bhp @ 3800rpm. More importantly (at least for a two-and-half-ton SUV), the mill stumps up 28.3kgm of torque between 1700-2200rpm.” Why the article would describe the horsepower the usual way but the torque in metric terms says a lot about the agenda on this site. Yet it could not hide the fact that the thing will top out – empty – at around 80 mph.

It will be an oversprung, ill-handling, choppy riding, miserable buck-boarded suspended nightmare because Mahindra thinks small pickup buyers, and many on this board agree, want an artificially inflated load and tow capacity. The general public doesn’t. Heck, you could take a Smart Car and beef up the suspension to the point where you could tow 7,000 pounds with it, and have your fillings knocked out of your teeth the 99 percent of the time when driving it empty.

The diesel-powered small truck will be slower than a candied turd and completely run out of breath at 80 mph. Freeway on ramps will be a dangerous ordeal. Sure you will be able to tow a full-size boat with it, as long as you don’t mind miles-long trains of irate motorists backing up behind you up hills at 10 mph. Nobody that can afford a full-size boat will even consider a Mahindra.

What kind of people will buy Mahindras? People who think that diesel power will deliver good fuel mileage but have no real need for a pickup. As petroleum prices steadily increase, many potential Mahindra buyers will consider the effect of their ego on their pocketbook, and will buy a Smart Car instead.

That will be an excellent choice, because the Mahindra’s fuel mileage is pathetic. Again, from the gushing review: “We achieved around 11 to 12km per liter of diesel. (translated: assuming that they were buying diesel in imperial gallons, that is only about 20 mpg) The Hyundai Terracan with its bigger (and better) engine delivers the same fuel economy.”

“Still, the Mahindra and Mahindra Scorpio is a complete package: a refined cruiser, a capable mountain mule, and a competent highway cruiser.” (!!!!)

And it should be added, since it is not made in America, its really horrible and glaring deficiencies can be well-hidden by being expressed metrically.

‘Doing’ a V8 Colorado/Canyon and actually offering it as an RPO are two entirely different things.

The flat statement that the Colorado/Canyon will be getting a V8 for production (although it makes a lot of sense, given that the engineering has already been done) sounds more like idle speculation by enthusiast rags based soley on the same chassis H3 getting the 5.3L for 2008.

I’m still waiting for some enterprising company (maybe even GM?) to bring the Avalanche’s disappearing midgate and 4-doors into a mini-truck platform. I would seriously be tempted if they did.

In thinking about the rapidly-evolving future of light duty pickups and what I believe to be the harbingers of the future: Ridgline, Canyon/Colorado, Subaru Baja et al, there were several thoughts that came to mind.

These pickups are critisized for their truncated beds. And the Honda even has a lockable trunk in the bottom of the bed, made possible (horror or horrors!!) by its Independant rear suspension. Yet these small beds are clearly the result of Crew Cabs and emphasis on passenger comfort and amenities over hauling space. I have hauled, and not for myself, full 4×8 sheets of plywood and sheetrock in my old Ford just one time in two years. 99 percent of what I have actually hauled in the Ford could have easily been hauled in my CC Canyon. And I guess if I really needed to haul a full pallett of plywood or sheetrock again, I have noticed that every building supply around here offers free delivery. So I think most light duty pickup owners would do well with something like a Subaru Baja or even smaller as long as the passenger room wasn’t too drastically effected.

I think the Baja and the Ridgeline – with their front drive architecture, unibody construction and four wheel independant suspension – will handle better and more safely, be more nimble for everyday driving, ride more comfortably and be totally suitable for 99 percent of all light truck buyers. The Canyon, with its 4,000 pound towing limit, clearly errs on the side of comfortable ride and handling when the bed is empty; the bane of all small, oversprung trucks that artificially pump up the load and towing capacity by ridiculously overspringing their miniscule rear axles.

And it is very clear to me that 99 oercent of truck owners drive around 99 percent of the time with an empty bed.

They are doing a V8 Colorado/Canyon.

No surprise that Ranger sales are up over 50% this year in Canada.

A similar Colorado at the Chevy store next door is more powerful, must more thirsty, and it costs about $3000 more (and it’s butt ugly).

Although it did take GM some major re-engineering (the firewall had to be modified) to stuff the 5.3L into the same space as the Colorado’s 3.7L I-5, it does show that GM can do it. Since the engineering is there, one would think it would be an easy, logical step for them to install the better performing (in all aspects) 5.3L V8 into the Colorado, as well.

Which brings me to my point. I own both a Canyon and an older full size Ford with the legendary 300 6, so I know a thing or two about lowend torque versus high revving horsepower. It is said that the Ford straight six will “either pull it, or pull it apart.” Yet the motor was a sales failure, based on the fact I believe, that most people who buy a pickup use them neither to tow or haul anything particularly heavy. Neither the Ford Straight 6 or the longed for GM 4.3 V-6 could pass current emissions or fuel economy standards.

Having owned both a wheezing 2.8 and a doggy 4.3 engined S-10, I have no doubt that the Canyon I own is a drastic improvement in both usuable power and full economy. I feel sorry for anyone who would resort to pulling anything particularly heavy with an S10.

I live in a virulently redneck part of a red state. Once in awhile, I wonder through the Walmart parking lot and peek in the bed of newer full size pickups now and then. The vast majority of them have no scrapes, scratches, mars or any other indication of heavy hauling in their pristine, unmolested beds. And while I occassionally see full size pickups pulling gigantic boats, almost unanimously those trucks are 3/4 ton or one ton behemoths with diesel propulsion. The half tons are invariably pulling a brace of jet skis or a pair of dirtbikes, if they are pulling anything. Well within the capabilities of a Canyon.

Ultimately, that is why the Ford 300 six is defunct and the Colorado/Ridgelines are the future of light-duty pickups, I believe. Maybe not now, maybe not next year, but soon.

However, from what I understand recent free-trade agreements mean that Australia is now exempt from the pickup tariff…so perhaps that means that we’ll eventually see some of the Australian utes sold here.

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.

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.

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.

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…