GM Fleet Order Guide Reveals More On 2015 Colorado, Canyon Twins

Cameron Aubernon
by Cameron Aubernon
gm fleet order guide reveals more on 2015 colorado canyon twins

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

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

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

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

Join the conversation
7 of 54 comments
  • Zip89123 Zip89123 on Jun 18, 2014

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

    • See 2 previous
    • Carlson Fan Carlson Fan on Jun 18, 2014

      @bts Pretty sure the AFM(Active Fuel Management) wasn't offered in the 5.3 until 2007 when the GMT-900s were launched. As an owner of a 2007 Tahoe with the AFM, I wouldn't call it trash. The switch from V4 to V8 is absolutely seamless. The reality is that little 5.3 just doesn't have the torque to stay in V4 mode long enough to make much of a difference fuel economy wise. The bigger issue is the oil consumption problems due to the 4 cylinders shutting down. Ours is using roughly a quart every 2K with just under 95K on it.

  • El scotto El scotto on Jun 18, 2014

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

  • Bts Bts on Jun 18, 2014

    I wonder why GM didn't choose the 4.3 L V6 from the full size trucks to be the optional engine. With cylinder deactivation I'd think the 4.3 would have better fuel economy than the 3.6, and is likely cheaper to build since it's a pushrod design. The Silverado 4.3 beats the Traverse 3.6 by one MPG in the city when optioned to be a similar weight.

  • Lou_BC Lou_BC on Jun 18, 2014

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