By on September 4, 2014

2015 Chevrolet Colorado + GMC Canyon

As full-size pickups do their best to eke out as much fuel economy as possible, the upcoming Chevrolet Colorado and GMC Canyon are set to deliver a combined 21 mpg once they leave the lot for the road.

Autoblog reports the GM twin mid-sizers will net owners 18 mpg in the city and 26 mpg on the highway in two-wheel drive models equipped with a six-speed auto mated to the 305-horsepower 3.6-liter direct-injection V6. For comparison, a Ram 1500 4×2 with the Pentastar 3.6-liter V6 sending power to the back through an eight-speed auto offers a rating of 17/20/25; the outgoing Ford F-150 4×2 with its 3.5-liter EcoBoost V6 and six-speed auto delivers 16/18/22 mpg; and the Chevrolet Silverado C15 4×2 brings 18/20/24 mpg through its larger 4.3-liter V6 and six-speed auto.

Those wanting all four wheels to do the climbing up that hill will find the Colorado’s and Canyon’s ratings falling to 17/20/24 mpg, though they still best the Silverado K15 4×4 (17/20/22), Ford F-150 4×4 (15/17/21) and Ram 1500 4×4 (16/19/23).

As for trucks closer in size to the duo, Jalopnik subsidiary Truck Yeah says the two-wheel drive models are more than able to throw down against the Nissan Frontier 4×2 (16/18/22 mpg) and Toyota Tacoma 4×2 (17/19/21 mpg).

GM adds that a 2.8-liter Duramax is in the offing for 2016, with figures ready for perusing closer to launch time.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

146 Comments on “GM Mid-Size Twins Best Similarly Equipped Full-Size Pickups In Fuel Economy...”


  • avatar
    johnhowington

    It surely sell spheres deep into the hundreds of units per year.

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      Personally, I think you’ll be surprised at the real numbers when they come out. GM has already reported orders for over 40,000 of these from the dealerships.

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        That’s 40 trucks per dealer. 20 are for waiting fleet customers and 20 to last them most of the (model) year.

        • 0 avatar
          Vulpine

          Perhaps. Perhaps not. We don’t know, do we? And exactly how many Chevy/GMC dealers are there? By your calculation, that’s only 2,000 dealerships across the country. I have 10 Chevy/GMC dealerships within a 25-mile radius–not counting other GM brand dealerships that don’t carry trucks. I don’t even live in a big city where there’s almost guaranteed to be more.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            I estimated 1,000 dealers. How did you get thru Lyfe Maff? Point is 40,000 trucks isn’t much at all.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            Ok, you got me. Your, “20 are for waiting fleet customers” overwhelmed the rest of your statement.

            I personally believe you’re far short of the real sales numbers–at least for a couple years. Overall I expect a rough 15% of all the truck market after that unless the Ranger decides to enter the park again and the Tacoma/Frontier finally get upgraded. Maybe mid-sizers will take an overall 20% of the truck market if that happens.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            This will clarify how many dealers GM has:

            This is from Sep 29, 2013
            “GM (GM) had 4,355 U.S. dealers at the beginning of this year, 31 percent fewer than at the end of 2008, according to the Automotive News Data center.”
            http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-30/gm-u-s-dealer-profit-surges-to-9-in-10-validating-cuts.html

          • 0 avatar
            Xeranar

            Ouch, as Lou beat me to it the 4K GM Dealers average about 10 per dealer. Now that can be misleading as the truck outlets in major cities push far more iron than the average dealer shilling Cruzes. But at just 10 per dealer on initial order means it’s getting a tepid response, which is normal since the collective zeitgeist deserved or not has been away from mid-size trucks.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            @Xeranar:
            I think we can discount about 1/3rd of those 4300 dealerships as Cadillac with no trucks. That leaves 1/3rd for Chevy cars and trucks and 1/3rd for Buick/GMC. Granted, this is a VERY rough estimate. What this does do is compress your figures somewhat–to about 15 units per dealer on initial order. Granted, that’s still a small number on a per-dealership basis, but the combined total roughly matches the number of trucks Chevy sells in any given month. If the dealerships didn’t think they’d move that many in a 2-4 week period, they wouldn’t have ordered so many. After all, that’s only two truck loads to start and once they get a feel for what their customers want (not counting any special orders that may be included in this initial order) we’ll probably see more delivered to the dealerships pretty quickly.

            As a very brief example, my local Ford dealership keeps about 15 new F-150s in stock and about 15 used pickups of all brands. About 15 miles away their sister lot carries about 30 of each while two other Ford lots in other directions each tend to carry about 25-30 new trucks at any given time. Meanwhile, my local Chevy dealer keeps about 50 new pickups while the GMC lot carries only about 20 or so–which correlates to the typical brand split we see in the monthly sales reports both here and elsewhere.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            Order numbers are gamed, folks. Jack Baruth explained aspects of how this works:

            https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2012/02/avoidable-contact-dealer-vs-manufacturer/

            There are strings attached to allocations. A dealer doesn’t get the good stuff without taking some of the dogs. Dealers don’t simply get exactly what they want; compromise is necessary.

            What will matter is what the customers buy, not what the dealers order. This is particularly true with the domestics, because GM will end up providing extra spiff to sell them if that’s what it takes.

            For the dealer, there isn’t much risk here because the OEM will take most of the hit if these things turn out to be lot poison, while being able to access some of the best inventory such as the Z28 and the High Country Silverados will make up for the rest.

          • 0 avatar
            Xeranar

            I acknowledged that some dealers are more heavily involved in cars vs. trucks and that the majority of trucks are sold by truck-focused outlets. So an inner-city dealer on the coasts may have 1-2 Colorados but a big suburban dealer in KC may have 20-30. It’s hard to tell but just pushing out 40K for the initial roll out is more or less a modest response to the market.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            On the surface, the 42,000 figure is impressive, irrespective of the number of dealers.

            Compare it to the likely days of inventory, not to the number of vehicles per dealership. If GM sells 160,000 units annually, then that would be about three months worth of inventory.

            But again, the data needs to be put into perspective. Allocations are not deliveries, and the OEM will push inventory in order to boost the allocation figures. For GM to sell ~160k units per annum would require surpassing Toyota to become the leader in the segment, practically overnight. That is simply not realistic.

            Those who want to buy one of these probably ought to wait. If GM actually builds around such a high figure, then the incentives should follow.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            These numbers are on par with the Ram Ecodiesel initial order rate and those have sold well despite the engine premium and fuel premium.

            Time will tell.

    • 0 avatar
      carguy

      “hundreds of units per year”

      The decidedly below average current Colorado used to sell at a steady 2,500 units a month so refreshed product would be expected to sell at 3,000+ unit/month for some time.

    • 0 avatar
      toxicroach

      Good lord, those are terrible numbers.

      I was really pumped for these trucks, but the critics called it. There’s virtually no reason to buy one of these aside from it being slightly easier to park.

  • avatar
    OldandSlow

    No word yet on the stated MPG for the 4 banger?

    I imagine that fuel economy was 1/2 of the reason for introducing two new mid-sizers. Stated fuel economy for the V6 is uncomfortably close to a Pentastar with an 8 speed Chrysler ZF.

    I wonder what the real world MPG will be?

  • avatar
    kvndoom

    Those trucks look HUGE compared to the 98 Sonoma I used to have.

  • avatar
    thornmark

    Remember the Chunky chocolate bar? These are the pickup editions.

  • avatar
    igve2shtz

    The EPA estimated fuel economy might not be that far off of the full-sizers, but I for one, still applaude GM for building these trucks. My requirements in my Ranger replacement: Small size, 5000 pound towing, 1000 pound cargo, decently priced. I played around with the configurator, and was able to have a nicely appointed 4×4 Crew Long Bed for around 32,000. A similarily equipped F150 or Silverado was 40,000+. That’s why I like the mid-sizers. All the capability I will ever need in a tidy package, and at an obtainable price.

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      The Ram Express 4X4 Quad cab is $32,700, has a roomier cab and bigger bed than the crew cab, long bed Colorado/Canyon, nicely appointed. Same price. After rebates you’ll pay more for the Colorado/Canyon. Many don’t mind paying more for less, but most would have serious issues with it.

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        If you really want to make a point, how about at least comparing like for like? Or is it that you wanted to emphasized the $32,700 and not the fact that the Ram Quad Cab has even more room in the cab than the Colorado Extended Cab? Oh, that’s right; the Colorado Extended Cab would be several thousand dollars LESS than the Ram then, wouldn’t it, while access to the rear of the cab would be infinitely easier as you wouldn’t have a front-hinged door in the way of that access.

        • 0 avatar
          DenverMike

          There is no “like for like”, except on paper. The Colorado’s extended cab “rear seats” are unacceptable for adults. Even midgets.

          The Quad cab is about equal to the crew cab Colorado, in combined front/rear legroom, except seats 5 or 6.

          The extended cab Colorado does give you room to recline the front seats, or golf clubs, small ice chest, backpacks, etc, but so do regular cab fullsizers.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            My point exactly–you refuse to match body styles. You also refuse to acknowledge that people buying an extended cab HAVE NO NEED TO CARRY ADULTS IN THE BACK SEAT. Why would ANYONE want four full doors if they don’t ever plan to carry anything bigger than a 100-pound dog back there? For that matter, I would probably even remove the jump seats except that they can serve as a shelf to stack relatively fragile components inside the cab. A couple of 3-ball bowling bags could fit fairly nicely in there and be easy to pull out with the clamshell door arrangement while the Ram’s mock-4-door layout would make it much more difficult to do that.

            And no, regular cab full-size trucks do NOT give you that much room in the cab. You can’t even recline the seats all that much in one.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            Why would I match body styles? There’s no comparison. The midsize replacement for my extra cab F-150 (Super cab) would not be an extra cab.

            I’d barely get by with a midsize crew cab, as a minimum direct replacement, while still giving up elbow room, middle seats and storage. That’s beside a tiny bed.

            While not exactly comparable, the extra cab midsize is closer to a fullsize regular cab, than an extra cab fullsize. I’m not talking about your regular cab ’90 F-150, as current fullsize regular cabs have lots more room behind the seats.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            Because not matching body styles is NOT comparing apples to apples. You seem to think that everybody wants room to seat 5+ adults no matter WHAT they drive–even when they only carry the driver +one passenger.

            And having personally gone down to my local Ford and GM dealers, the answer is NO, the standard cab full-size truck does NOT have as much usable space behind the seat as an extended cab mid-sizer in the dimension most critical. I would NOT be able to fit my bowling bags (plural) behind the seat of a standard-cab full-sized truck. And only the Ford extended cab model makes it easy to do so; the mock 4-door layout of the GM/RAM models actually make it far more difficult than it needs to be.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            I never said I, or everyone else need 5+ seating. I just have to have the room for big dogs, tools, equipment, etc, behind the seats and room for passengers in a pinch. Regardless of why consumers buy extra cab fullsizers, not everyone can (or wants to) step down to and live with a midsize extra cab, just because Vulpine can.

            And I didn’t say fullsize reg cabs have just as much usable space behind the seats as extra cab midsize. But the difference isn’t much to speak about. And I know you will anyways…

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            “I never said I, or everyone else need 5+ seating.”
            No, you just continue to imply it by insisting to compare a Crew Cab to an Extended cab.

            “I just have to have the room for big dogs, tools, equipment, etc, behind the seats and room for passengers in a pinch. ”
            You just made my most salient point: YOU, “just have to have the room for big dogs, tools, equipment, etc,…”, not I or anyone else that wants a smaller truck. I do need room for bowling bags, shopping and occasionally my 50-pound dog in the back seat area–but I don’t need a crew cab even in a compact truck to do that; the extended cab is big enough.

            “…not everyone can (or wants to) step down to and live with a midsize extra cab,…”
            Not everyone can (or wants to) step UP to and live with a full-sized truck, either.

            “And I didn’t say fullsize reg cabs have just as much usable space behind the seats as extra cab midsize.”
            No, but you IMPLIED it by saying, “the extra cab midsize is closer to a fullsize regular cab, than an extra cab fullsize. I’m not talking about your regular cab ’90 F-150, as current fullsize regular cabs have lots more room behind the seats…”

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @Vulpine – They’re “Extra Cabs” in 2 different market segments. Go ahead and oversimplify if you like. Rational consumers know they mean 2 different things.

            If you buy a “Large” t-shirt without asking if that’s in Men’s or Women’s sizes, it might show too much of your midriff and extenuate your nipples. But you might already do that.

            But it doesn’t matter what you or I need or want a truck for. If an extra cab fullsize barely meets their requirements, a midsize extra cab would never do. If a crew cab fullsizers is what they need, they’re kinda stuck. Never mind payload/towing needs…

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            @Denver Mike: “If you buy a “Large” t-shirt without asking if that’s in Men’s or Women’s sizes, it might show too much of your midriff and extenuate your nipples.”
            Do you even know what you’re talking about? Based on this quote from you, it doesn’t look like it.

            “If an extra cab fullsize barely meets their requirements, a midsize extra cab would never do.”
            And yet again you make an assumption with absolutely no basis in fact. As I stated before, for many that “extra cab fullsize” is simply TOO BIG for their requirements, even if it’s the smallest full-sized truck available. And as everyone here already knows, I OWN a 25-year-old full sized truck that’s simply too large in size with not enough INTERIOR storage. I can’t even properly store the average briefcase behind that Ford’s seat–much less a bowling ball or 3-ball bag. The newer standard-cab pickups really aren’t all that much better–though the briefcase fits.

            And yes, let’s NOT mind “payload and towing needs”. Odds are that for the people who WANT a smaller truck, they don’t HAVE massive payload and towing needs. They may only carry 400-500 pounds in the bed or tow a 3,000-5,000 pound camping trailer (pop-up style).

        • 0 avatar
          Xeranar

          That’s grasping at straws, Vulpine. Equal doesn’t not mean equivalent. Extended cab and Quad cab are agreed upon (by and large) industry terms so if we’re assuming they’re being used as equivalent ideas an extended cab Colorado would be smaller in size than the Quad Cab but it ultimately isn’t equivalent space…But you already knew that, I guess I’m merely pointing out your original point isn’t faultless but our ontologies are driving a wedge in the agreed upon scientific format of discussion.

          Or simply put: Most people would want more space for the same money and that arguing apples to oranges in naming versus space is disingenuous.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            I never said “Equal”, Xeranar; I said “Equivalent”. What I mean by Equivalent is that their body style is approximately the same (coupe, sedan, extended cab or crew cab) and their equipment lists are equivalent–i.e. trim level with all the ‘options’ concurrent to that trim level. By NO means am I “grasping at straws”. If I want to compare two different brands of a given vehicle type, I want to match them as closely as possible to compare the differences. To purposely de-trim one just to meet a price point of a lower-priced but otherwise equivalent car, then they are no longer equivalent vehicles. Or are you trying to tell me a crew cab Ford F-150 Platinum is the “equivalent” model to the extended cab Colorado LT? In no way would the two even be comparable as they are two completely different trucks across the board. And that’s my point.

            Now, taking a Ford F-150 XLT extended cab V6 and comparing that to a Colorado extended cab I4 (base engine for each model) we get a $7000 difference between the two–all else being approximately equal for their given brands. Upgrading JUST the engine to the ecoBoost for the Ford and the V6 for the Chevy extends the price difference to almost $8,000. That’s a $111.11 difference in monthly payments–if that’s how you prefer to shop–over a 72-month contract.

            True, the two trucks I just sampled above are quite different in size and price, but their trim levels are roughly equivalent. But by no means are they assumed to be equal in capability; the buyer chooses what best meets THEIR needs for the money.

            So the ones grasping at straws are you, DM and others who don’t seem to understand WHY some people want less truck, not more. But then, very few wear One Size Fits All shoes, too. If they’re big enough to fit the average person, they’re too small for a basketball player, for instance. If they fit the basketball player, then they look like clown shoes on the average person and ludicrous on a child’s feet. I do understand those who have a NEED for size or simply want larger; but don’t expect someone who has neither the need nor the desire to agree with you.

          • 0 avatar
            Xeranar

            So? You’re upset I called you out, it’s ok. But nobody is cross-shopping an Accord Coupe and a Civic Coupe to do the same job for interior space. The interior capacity is a different class and thus 2 door mid-sizes aren’t in direct competition with 2-door compacts on interior space. This means that if a different size group offers a more appropriate sized offering then that is a more favorable comparison on space. It’s actually bringing the argument closer together on specs rather on price.

            I really didn’t feel the urge to respond to everything else since it’s a repeat of the argument of how apples are apples and oranges are oranges but you wanted an argument that proved more favorable to your view while ignoring the other arguments. If you open the door to cross-shopping by price like you did then an equivalent interior size is a completely reasonable argument to make against your point.

            Furthermore, if we are strictly basing it on pricing to meet this ethereal need the base model 2 door RAM comes in under 20K in flat white. That puts it precariously close to the starting trim level of the Colorado and Canyon. The name of the game is all about shifting what you want and frankly the mid-size truck is good at certain things but excels at few.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @Vulpine – You’re pushing the strict terminology to prove your misguided agenda.

            Like saying, LOOK! WOW! Women’s “size 10” Nike’s costs $17 LESS than Men’s “size 10” Adidas… BOTH ARE “SIZE 10’s” RUNNING SHOES!!!

            See how silly you sound?

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            No, you’re the one sounding silly, Denver. For most people, INCLUDING YOU, the size of the truck is one of the top factors for buying it, though for you Bigger is Better while for me, smaller is better. You want to know why those women’s size 10s are cheaper in your example? Because they’re smaller than a men’s size 10. The truth is that they’re really the same price in the store despite their difference in size whereas the Colorado is about 20% cheaper than the Silverado on MSRP (I refuse to take rebates into account because they are transient price cuts to make it sound like you’re getting a better price than you really are).

            Again: Some people who need a pickup truck simply don’t WANT a full-sized truck. In some parts of the US this could come out to about 20% of those currently driving pickup trucks of any size and maybe 20% or more of those driving mid-sized SUVs. If even more compact trucks came into the market (i.e. Fiat Strada and Chevrolet Montana) we could see the overall pickup market grow even more as those would likely pull from the mid-sized to compact SUV/CUV market. The problem is, you and others need to get it into your minds that One Size does Not Fit All.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @Vulpine – I didn’t say “one size fits all” or “bigger is always better”.

            The problem smaller trucks have is fullsize provide way better value. That doesn’t mean consumers like yourself will buy a bigger truck than they need or want instead. But when small trucks are seen as a bad value, they’ll reconsider CUVs, Cubes, wagons etc. They weren’t looking make much use of it’s bed, tow hitch, or GVWR anyway. Same as yourself.

            And small pickups are an even worse value when compared to CUVs, etc. You don’t have to opt for a crew cab with those. Seating for 4 is standard.

            And I won’t mention how much worse pickups ride than the car based stuff. Leaf springs, solid axles, hard shocks.

            Consumers may still desire a smaller pickup (including you and I), but getting one *used* is clearly the best way to go about it. Small pickup OEMs *love* that part…

            And I also won’t mention the fleet, cheapskates and other bottom feeders that small pickup OEMs are sooooo fond of.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            “I didn’t say “one size fits all” or “bigger is always better”.”
            Nope, you didn’t. But you imply it with every statement you make. Bigger trucks do NOT have “way bigger value” for those who don’t need the size and capacity–they’re a complete waste of money if they’re useless for the task at hand. I’ll grant a smaller one is as well, for the exact opposite reasons. If you NEED capacity–whether it be towing or hauling heavy loads, then bigger is better. On the other hand, if you NEED a smaller size to maneuver in tight quarters with a load that is physically larger than any fully-enclosed vehicle can carry or dirtier than you would want to carry in a fully-enclosed vehicle, then the bigger truck is functionally useless; the two sizes are meant for completely different operating parameters even though those parameters overlap most of the time.

            I’ve driven large trucks many times and as we all know I own a full-sized 25-year-old F-150. I’ve also driven smaller trucks many times and once owned a Mitsubishi Sport (i.e. Dodge D-50). The big truck with its 8-foot bed is great for carrying large loads with the tailgate up; it met my NEEDS at the time I purchased it. On the other hand, agility is hardly its strong point as it’s fully 18′ long ( ± a couple inches ) and uncomfortably wide for some of the roads I drive regularly. Parking in a crowded lot is difficult at best and a U-turn takes up four full lanes of highway and more. Sure, it can carry the physically largest load I’ve ever carried in my life–with the tailgate up–but I could carry that same load in a smaller truck with the tailgate down and STILL be more agile due to its shorter wheelbase.

            You ever wonder why city busses put the driver in front of the steer wheels while it has huge overhang in the rear? It’s so it can maneuver in places where a conventional-layout school bus has difficulty. In fact, some cities have taken to using European-styled short-wheelbase busses for specific routes where the front overhang is almost as long as the rear overhang and the driver still sits way up in front. They’re remarkable vehicles for tight city traffic and narrow streets. A short wheelbase is a massive advantage in tight quarters.

            Note especially what I said earlier. With your statement, “That doesn’t mean consumers like yourself will buy a bigger truck than they need or want instead.” I’ll grant I bought a bigger truck than I WANTED, but it was not a bigger truck than I NEEDED at the time–outside of the fact that I only paid $2500 for it (plus repairs). The simple fact is that because there are so few truly compact trucks left on the market in my region, I simply didn’t have any choice between Big and Bigger. It’s certainly not a “way better value” since I’ve only put about 3,000 miles on it since I bought it 30 months ago. The fuel economy is crap everywhere except on the highway (I did manage a measured 19.5mpg on the 5.0EFI under the hood) but in everyday driving I can literally watch the fuel gauge go down in the course of a 25-mile round trip. 100 miles drinks half of a 16-gallon tank. At $3.50 per gallon, that 100-mile trip is costing me 44¢ per mile just in fuel. Granted, the newer full-sized trucks are better, but not by all THAT much. It’s certainly not a “way better value” for me.

            “And small pickups are an even worse value when compared to CUVs, etc. You don’t have to opt for a crew cab with those. Seating for 4 is standard.”
            Except for the fact that I don’t NEED seating for 4–only for 2-½ and I STILL can’t carry the loads in a CUV that I need to carry in a pickup truck.

            “And I won’t mention how much worse pickups ride than the car based stuff. Leaf springs, solid axles, hard shocks.”
            How is that relevant to this discussion? Did you forget that I drive a Jeep as an everyday driver?

            “Consumers may still desire a smaller pickup (including you and I), but getting one *used* is clearly the best way to go about it. Small pickup OEMs *love* that part…”
            You can buy used all you want; I have never had a used vehicle that didn’t effectively cost me double during the first year of ownership. I don’t like buying other people’s problems AND WON’T unless I go into the deal KNOWING what repairs are needed. I hate surprises and too many used vehicles are full of costly surprises.

            “And I also won’t mention the fleet, cheapskates and other bottom feeders that small pickup OEMs are sooooo fond of.”
            Guaranteed profits on bulk sales.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @Vulpine – You always have to make it about YOU. If everyone was YOU, we’d all be driving Wranglers and only buy used pickups from the early ’90s.

      • 0 avatar
        anti121hero

        But the ram is obnoxiously huge and ugly.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        If we go on the premise that the Colorado/Canyon will have the same ratings as the competition this what Nissan has:

        Nissan Frontier 4×4 crew ratings:
        automatic – cargo 1,385 lb. tow 6,100
        manual – cargo 1,251 lb.

        Ram Quad Cab 4×4 5.7 box =
        V8 – cargo 1,485 lbs. tow 8,600
        V6 – cargo 1,705 lbs. tow 4,200

        Ram Crew Cab 4×4 5.7 box =
        Diesel Laramie – cargo 881 lbs. tow – 7,400
        Diesel tradesman – cargo 1,224 tow 7,750
        5.7 Tradesmen – 1,460 lb. tow 8,600

        If we look at the Ram pentastar:
        Tradesman 4×4 crew
        – cargo 1,686
        – tow 4,200.

        RAM 1500
        TRADESMAN
        3.6-LITER V6 24-VALVE VVT
        CREW | 5’7″ | AUTO | 4X4
        AXLE RATIO
        3.21
        View/PrintMAX PAYLOAD
        1,686lbs
        MAX TOWING
        4,200lbs
        STARTING MSRP*
        $35,195

        That is the one that will give you better mpg.

        Change to 3.55 gears and that number jumps to 7,200.

        That would be 1,100lb over the Frontier.

        The Tacoma has similar numbers IIRC the crewcab 4×4 can tow around 6,500lb and carry around 1,100 lbs.

        The full sized truck that overlap with these aren’t going to be vastly superior.

        • 0 avatar
          Xeranar

          I’ve taken to these debates being about bed size and interior size more than sheer number crunching abilities. But again, I don’t care to own a truck. The only way I would get one is if I was using it as a donor for a Willy Jeepster Phaeton kit.

          It seems like the new ‘mid-size’ is the late-90’s full-size which makes sense as those trucks were largely capable of doing average contracting work with minimal issue. But clearly there is a growing market for the larger trucks especially as lifetime fuel economy is hovering around $1000-1500 difference (in a lazy math way).

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            Think “proportion”, Xeranar, not raw numbers. A smaller truck will have pretty much everything in a smaller size–but still proportional to the overall size of the vehicle. Their price, too, should be proportional.

            No, I don’t agree that there is a growing market for “larger trucks”; it’s a growing market for trucks in general. I expect the GM twins to show at least some market shift towards more sensibly-sized trucks, even if they aren’t as small as SOME of us want.

          • 0 avatar
            Xeranar

            Sensible is a completely subjective argument term. I doubt you could get two people to agree on what’s sensible in this judgmental crowd. But then the problem becomes, Vulpine, if we chuck ‘sensible’ since it has no definition that is agreed upon what advantage do the trucks have?

            If they’re 80% the size, capacity, ability, and price of a full-size what advantage do they have? There is next to no value benefit to shrink unless all of the necessities of the truck fit within that smaller range. If I need 90% of the capacity or ability or size from time to time the value of a full-size becomes obvious. I mean the biggest two advantages of a mid-size truck are largely lost immediately in fuel savings (as lazy math dictates) and ‘driveability’ which is again a subjective ideal. I understand you’re a strong if not zealot about them I just fail to see your world view.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            “If they’re 80% the size, capacity, ability, and price of a full-size what advantage do they have?” — For those that need/want it, SIZE. A smaller truck can go places a larger one has difficulty reaching. It can carry two people comfortably and maybe two more for a short time (depending on cab style). And at 20% less cost, it also has the advantage of being less expensive than a full size. As you mentioned elsewhere here, “if we are strictly basing it on pricing to meet this ethereal need the base model 2 door RAM comes in under 20K in flat white,” but even if it were as much as 2K CHEAPER than a similarly-equipped mid-sized truck, if it’s too big to go where the driver needs it to go, he’s losing money on the deal. But since the base model Colorado is the smaller one at the SAME price, then the Colorado is the truck of choice for that person.

            SOME people (make that MOST PEOPLE) don’t really NEED all the things a full sized truck excels at; they only need it to do basic hauling part of the time and be a more convenient town & country driver the rest of the time. I, for one, do not LIKE that I have to make a two- or three-point turn in a dead-end street when a smaller truck can do it with a no-point turn.

          • 0 avatar
            Xeranar

            So to keep it simple…where are you going that a full-size truck can’t? I mean we are talking about the 1/4th ton model and not the 1/2 ton or 3/4th ton models that are built on much larger platforms, right? I could see in certain situations in the Forestry industry a smaller vehicle to get into narrow forestry roads but perhaps you can enlighten me where this much smaller vehicle would eclipse its bigger relatives?

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @Xeranar – I agree that an apples to apples comparison can be viewed as stretching it.
            There is cross shopping going on to a limited degree.

            I looked at all truck classes 5 years ago when I started looking at getting a new truck. I began with some rough parameters and went from there. Small trucks were on the table as well as 1/2 ton and 3/4 ton.
            I’ve owned every size mentioned and I did make comparisons but from a pros/cons approach.

            That is all one can realistically do.

            Decide what you want/need and decide which parameters outweigh others.

            It has been proven that men are more emotion based vehicle buyers than women. Often the choice of vehicle is highly irrational.

            I see that everyday.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            The advantages to the small truck are also its flaws depending on buyer point of view.

            I have owned both and the smaller size is a definite advantage in urban settings. it is also an advantage if you happen to do some off-roading. There is a bit of a mpg advantage and insurance costs tend to be cheaper.
            The disadvantages are less cargo capacity, less stable at speed on more “open” gravel roads/winter roads, and less room inside.

            Stating a larger truck has a tow/haul advantage is silly since there will always be a truck with a higher capacity. Weight classes are legislated.

            The interesting thing is that the more time I spent in the backcountry and the further away I went the more I found the small truck to be at a disadvantage. It did not have the capacity to carry everything I wanted to bring for a 2-3 week trip into “no where”.

            Unfortunately most of these debates focus on one side trying to prove they are right (human nature I guess) as opposed to having a realistic discussion about pros and cons.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            @Xerenar:

            First, I’m going to agree with Lou_BC for his points; the advantages/disadvantages are based on the BUYER’s needs. I’ll also agree that depending on circumstances, a smaller truck IS disadvantaged–specifically if you need to carry large or heavy loads. I’ve never argued that point. However, that doesn’t eliminate the small truck as a product.

            The small truck’s advantage is far greater in the urban/metropolitan environment where agility is critical; the ability to maneuver easily in tight spaces and pass through gaps in traffic no larger vehicle could manage. Being able to park in a garage or lot where the space between rows is barely wider than the length of the modern full-sized truck. Haven’t you ever seen someone trying to get into a space that’s too small for their rig or watched them trying to back out and have to see-saw three or four times before they can get turned enough to pull free? Meanwhile, someone in a Kia Soul squirts right into the place that bigger vehicle just left (and weren’t you so *pissed* that they did). Or maybe you needed to make a legal U-turn on one of those streets divided by a concrete barrier/high curbs and had to make it a 2-point turn in front of heavy traffic because two lanes weren’t wide enough. Smaller really does have an advantage in such situations. Believe me, there are times when a short wheelbase, narrower body and lower roofline is far more important than how much it can carry/tow.

    • 0 avatar
      scialpi27

      Agreed, great towing capacity to MPG ratio. Truly a beautiful tow truck

    • 0 avatar
      scialpi27

      Agreed, great towing capacity to MPG ratio. Truly a beautiful tow truck

  • avatar
    Drzhivago138

    “Chevy C15” and “K15”? “2×4”? Who proofread this?

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      @Drzhivago138 – I didn’t know that GM went back to the C and K designations. 2×4 – lumber in the box?

      you have to cut them SOME slack, this is after all is said and done “The Truth About Cars” not trucks. LOL

      • 0 avatar
        Drzhivago138

        They didn’t, AFAIK, at least not in marketing designations. Probably still for serial numbers.

        And as for the other:
        First number=how many wheels the vehicle has.
        Second number=how many vehicles drive (or can drive) the vehicle.
        Logically, the second number cannot be any larger than the first. Hence, 4×2, 4×4, 6×4, 6×6.

        I’m not denigrating the content here, either; it’s just that I notice these things more than a normal/average/sane person.

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          @Drzhivago138 – I can be that way with some stuff. I occasionally drive my wife crazy because of it.

        • 0 avatar

          I got the designations from FuelEconomy.gov:

          http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/PowerSearch.do?action=noform&path=1&year1=2015&year2=2015&make=Chevrolet&model=Silverado%20C15%202WD&srchtyp=ymm

          http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/PowerSearch.do?action=noform&path=1&year1=2015&year2=2015&make=Chevrolet&model=Silverado%20K15%204WD&srchtyp=ymm

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @Cameron – right you are.

            Odd.

            No one else uses the C and K designation.

            Wikipedia says this:
            ” The C/K was Chevrolet and GMC’s full-size pickup truck line from 1960 until 1999 in the United States, from 1965 to 1999 in Canada, from 1964 through 2001 in Brazil, from 1975 to 1982 in Chile.”
            That is when they changed to Sierra and Silverado and GMT800, and GMT900.

            The only place I could find a “K” designation was for the current GM platform.
            Wikipedia said this:
            “GM dropped the GMT and changed to K2XX”

  • avatar

    It is not fair to compare the least fuel efficient midsize configuration to the most fuel efficient full size configuration. MPG is important but is not a deal breaker. Midsize trucks appeal to the set of buyers who have abandoned the full size segment. Not a lot of them, but enough of them to make the effort worthwhile. These buyers want an easy to park, better handling, better turning nimble truck.

    A modern truck that is 20% more fuel efficient with 40 more HP than a Frontier/Tacoma is all that matters.

    • 0 avatar
      Hummer

      There not comparing the most fuel efficient fullsizes to the least fuel efficient midsizers.

      Otherwise the Ram ecodiesel would show them up.
      The 4.3l chevy is also better than the numbers given here for the silverado.

      No need to nitpick, especially incorrectly.

  • avatar
    Carlson Fan

    I sat in the Chevy at the MN State Fair. Nice truck. It had cloth seats so I’ll assume it was the lower trim level. GM needs to make sure that the interiors of the mid sizers are as nice as the full-size trucks. If they look and feel cheaper on the inside than the Sierra/Silverado they’ll lose sales.

    I think the diesel is going to sell really well provided the pricing isn’t too outrageous and the fuel economy is there.

  • avatar
    danio3834

    One. Measly. MPG.

  • avatar
    gregaryous

    The 26 hi way MPG is only 1 mpg better than Ram V6…!
    Not enough to switch to these twins.

    I bet after initial pent up demand is satisfied n new F150 is hottest seller in the market… GM will Not sell 100,000 of these Twins because they won’t beat new F150 mpg n the hot 2.7 v6 EcoBoost… Plus superior power n capability!

  • avatar
    canddmeyer

    Give me a 6.0 or 6.2 engine in a 1/2 ton and I’ll buy. If I wanted a six I’d buy a Dodge diesel.

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    I’m surprised at the pre-orders number, over 40 000.

    That’s impressive for a dying market segment;)

    As for the FE argument, it seems some of the fanboi’s are out and about.

    An equivalent full size 1/2 ton is $10 000 more expensive. That’s a lot of fuel you can buy. But wait…………..It’s already 1 mpg in front of the Pentastar Fiat Ram. Maybe I should do my maths again;)

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      The “equivalent” fullsize is not $10K more. Actually you pay slightly less for the equivalent fullsize, after rebates. We’ve been through this before and there was a TTAC article specifically about that. Selective amnesia?

      • 0 avatar
        Hummer

        Denver, this is the guy that thinks an escalade is suppose to be an offroad competitive vehicle. A vehicle which (obvious to everyone else) has absolutely 0 focus on offroading.

        With that line of thinking it wouldn’t surprise me if he tried to compare his midsize diesel trucks to a 3 series BMW.

        • 0 avatar
          DenverMike

          @Vulpine – Taking away “20 to 25%” of the fullsize pickup market by these twins, is a bold statement. Just the 1/2 ton market is a million+ annually. Delusional!

          You seem to think the midsize pickup market is stronger than it is. This isn’t 1982. Ram must know the same thing Ford does. Any new entries to the midsize market will mostly divide it up, and not necessarily pull consumers from other segments. What’s in it for a happy CUV owner to trade it in on pickup? And why not switch to an F-150 if they do???

          A $5,000 difference would would be sizable if consumers actually cross shop the segments. But of course stepping down from a crew cab fullsize to a crew cab midsize is a real let down. For $35 a month, why not have the real thing???

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            “Taking away “20 to 25%” of the fullsize pickup market by these twins, is a bold statement.”
            It takes a bold move to break the status quo and GM is doing it with these trucks. You might also note that I never stated that the GM twins would do it ALONE.

            But you also overlook another item–whether intentional or not–SOME CUV/SUV owners may actually want a pickup truck that isn’t so big and scary to drive. In some parts of the US a paved road may not be able to handle a meet between two full-sized trucks without one slipping off the pavement–maybe both. There are more than a few roads like that around where I live and in some of those cases if the wheel goes off, you are literally in the ditch and won’t be able to pull yourself out. I will grant that this is not true for ALL parts of the US.

            You, Denver, seem to think the midsize pickup market is weaker than it is; to be quite blunt you can NOT use the sales of the Tacoma and Frontier as your reference because in some parts of the US old S-10s, Rangers and other, smaller, mid-sized trucks make up about 20% of the trucks in everyday use. Many people are buying mid-sized CUVs simply because they CAN’T buy a new mid-sized pickup truck. Many people on these boards–even some who have commented on this article–have pointed out that they want a pickup truck notably smaller than today’s full-sized trucks.

            “But of course stepping down from a crew cab fullsize to a crew cab midsize is a real let down.”
            A let down in what way? If the current full sized crew cab is simply too big for their purposes, then a step down to a mid-sized extended cab might be a real boost to their ego. No longer will they need to fear those 1-and-a-half-lane truck meets. No longer will they feel lost in such a huge cabin or have to use a ladder (bumper step, Ford girlie step, etc…) to climb into the bed. No longer will they be afraid to drive to the store and park in the too-tight parking spaces. Even parallel parking will be easier simply because it IS more than a foot shorter than its full-sized equivalent. Sure, it may be a let down for YOU, but not for the people who really WANT a smaller truck.

            “For $35 a month, why not have the real thing???”
            Coke is “The Real Thing”. And I don’t price my vehicles by their monthly payment, I price by what they can do for ME. A mere $35 difference doesn’t mean that much, true–but when that $35 means you’re getting something too big to drive comfortably in EVERY situation, then you’re paying too much.

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        About that “selective amnesia”… I believe it’s yours that’s having the problem, not mine. I never said “10,000”, though I acknowledge Big Al did. However, even a $5,000 difference is significant enough to attract some buyers if the design and specs better meet their needs. However, as has been posted earlier (see xflowgolf’s comment) listing the size specs, the new Colorado is somewhat smaller in nearly every dimension from the new “equivalent” full-sized truck and even measurably smaller than its 1990-equivalent full-sized truck so will be more attractive to SOME buyers. As I stated earlier, these trucks COULD take as much as 20% of the full-size market and if Ford, Toyota and Nissan get their acts together, that could grow to 25%. Ram? For whatever reason, I think they’re at least considering a much smaller entry for a market segment that hasn’t been served for almost 15 years.

        • 0 avatar
          Hummer

          I would have a lot more support for these midsized if they didnt emulate crossover design, I mean look at the GMC pictured above, WTF is with that grill?

          And why were they designed to be so tall while at the same time hugging the ground. These remind me of all the 90s land rovers that look like they would flip over when parked, with a change in wind direction. Why oh why are they so tall yet have such small windows.

          The outdated Tacoma has better body style than these. Fullsizers are trucks designed for truck people, these are ridgeline competitors aimed at crossover buyers. So you got all of us telling you how terrible it is as a truck, and that’s not the point of it.
          It’s a lifestyle vehicle, its either going to be a niche in a niche or it will cause the creation of a new segment. The problem with it creating a new segment is that fullsizes have found that area and can reach those targets at a very low price.
          This truck will probably sell 100k the 1st year, 150k the 2nd and then drop off after the 4th as it can’t hold fleet sales for a price competitive to fullsizes since it has no cheap version. At this point everyone is going to make excuses it failed because this that and the other.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            “What’s with that grill”
            How about a more aerodynamic look? How about less ostentatious? How about clean and functional rather than trying to pretend it’s something that it’s not? No pickup truck needs a grill that takes up the entire nose of the rig and stands so tall that you can’t even see the license plate of the car in front of you (or the car itself, if it’s a Mazda Miata.) To be quite blunt, since Ford and GM have tried to emulate their MDT cousins with those huge grills, I haven’t liked a single one of them… until now. I, as one among many, actually do LIKE this more aerodynamic look.

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            “No pickup truck needs a grill that takes up the entire nose of the rig and stands so tall that you can’t even see the license plate of the car in front of you (or the car itself, if it’s a Mazda Miata”

            But this ones ok because you like it?
            There’s almost no slope on that hood, because the windows are so small your going to be sitting very low and are going to be at an extreme sight disadvantage with this design. I don’t think you understand how poor of a substitute this is to the old gone midsizers. This is trying to be a truck, like a crossover, but it is a truck, unlike a crossover. So you get an extremely poor sightline ( that to some idiot designers represents that of a truck) all to make you feel like your in a macho truck ala crossover style.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            @Hummer: Have you sat in one to confirm that viewpoint for yourself? Quite honestly the sightline out of a modern full-sized truck is far, far worse in nearly every direction–despite the fact that you sit so tall in it. The trucks shown above have at least some slope to the hood and don’t have an artificial lift just to make it look more butch. I’ll grant that the Canyon still looks too squared-off, but then, it’s designed to look more like a (slightly) downsized Sierra.

            I’m almost willing to bet that if these two DO ‘take off’, the Canyon will become the Sierra while an even smaller truck takes on the Canyon name. The Colorado may downsize when the Canyon does, but it will take it’s more distinctive (and less imposing) looks with it.

          • 0 avatar

            Hah! Liked the grill, too. Mind you, I don’t spend hours looking at pick-up pics, but when my eye hit that pic of the GMC, I actually thought, “quite good, attractive”. Of course, the whole front is too square and tall, but it does look goood. Some design at least and not just a wall of chrome in your rearviewmirror.

          • 0 avatar
            petezeiss

            “Why oh why are they so tall yet have such small windows.”

            Boom! This!

            They super-size everything else, especially the snout, only to flatten the roof until visibility will be little better than a sedan’s. AARGH!

            I’m a former truck lover and they’re making my liver bleed.

  • avatar
    Wscott97

    They should have brought back the small pickups instead. Why midsize? The price and MPG are so close that people will end up getting the full size because they think they are getting a better deal. If they brought out a small truck, they would have more of a market in buyers. People who doesn’t want to drive a GIANT truck. Delivery drivers, and younger buyers. Small pickups were popular in the 80’s and 90’s for a reason.

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      I fully agree; but there are those who insist nobody will buy them–including those of us who actually want them.

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      Small pickup buyers started abandoning the small pickup market exponentially, when they were still “small” pickups. So why would reintroducing an “80’s size” small pickup bring them all back?

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        That argument has been run into the ground and YOUR side lost because you simply could NOT prove that various forms of governmental legislation did not work to kill them off. You insist that “inflation” and “lack of interest” is what killed them, but that “inflation” was government sponsored through at least two different actions; one of which was by closing a loophole in the so-called “chicken tax”.

        • 0 avatar
          DenverMike

          @Vulpine – First, I’m not part of any “side”. But you’re a top ranking officer of the Small Pickup Mafia (SPaM!).

          But you have to suspend all rational thinking and pretend public policy and regulations CHANGED somewhere between the beginning of the mini-truck craze/fad/explosion, until the masses moved on to the next HOT automotive movement. Hint: They didn’t.

          The Mini-Truck Movement came and went, like Big Hair, Mullets, Parachute Pantz, Video/Pinball Arcades, Glamour Rock, etc, etc. No conspiracy. No CIA involvement.

          But you also have to pretend the Ranger and S10 pickups weren’t also affected and still have AMAZING sales figures and OBSCENE profitability.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @DenverMike – labeling a group like you have is a very commonly used ploy to discredit a group especially when one does not have the means to do so by any other means.
            My education requires at least 2 corroborating pieces of research based data before I can consider changing policy and procedure.

            Since you have not presented any evidence other than your interpretation of world events, I’ll have to pass.

            I’m not on any side either.

            My career is based on evidence based best practice.

            Show me concrete evidence.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @Lou_BC – “Concrete evidence” of what exactly? You provided the theories, based on absolutely nothing, and want me to disprove them??

            Prove to me Bigfoot doesn’t exist… WHERE’S YOUR PROOF???

            I just ask the simple questions based on YOUR STATEMENTS:

            What exactly changed about US policy and, or regulations between 1980 and 1990?

            Why did the Ranger and S10 suffer the same fate as “import” pickups?

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            Why Denver! Thank you for the compliment! I always wanted to be a “top ranking officer”.

            Oh, and Denver? He’s not asking you to DIS-prove his statements, he’s asking you to PROVE YOURS. This argument was run into the ground in that other small-truck thread and every “proof” you and Pch101 presented managed to confirm regulatory intervention on several fronts.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            “Captain SPaM!”. Let’s have a little wager… If the Colorado/Canyon twins don’t sell a combined 250K units for the 2015 MY, that’s your new TTAC “username”. If they do, I’ll change my TTAC and PUTC “username” to whatever you want…

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            Sorry Charlie. No deal. On the other hand, if they manage to sell a mere 100K in the 2015 model year, I challenge you to take OBaF (Outsmarted By a Fox) as yours.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            Nah, pent up government, utilities and fleet alone, have to be good for 60-70,000 Colorado/Canyon strippers.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            See? Even YOU agree that they’ll sell in significant, albeit not ridiculous, numbers. I think that between us we can agree they’ll sell somewhere between 125K to 175K in the first year. They MIGHT go higher, since I have no idea just how many ARE willing to go with this compromise size, but if it had been roughly the size of the S-10 before the first Colorado I’m betting there’d be an even bigger market for them. But that’s a different argument that we’ve carried on for a long, long time.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            So now it’s a 100,000 Colorado/Canyons? What happened to all that “stealing 20 to 25% of fullsize market” rosy outlook???

            And that’s just around 250,000 pickup sales stolen from just one segment!

            Put your “money” where you mouth is!

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            I said “Could”, not “would”. And it wouldn’t be stealing all that market from pickups–it would be GROWING pickup market off of CUV/SUV sales.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            Even 175K would be weak considering pent up demand for the 1st year. What do you think they’ll sell once things return to normalcy? And fullsize turn up the heat..

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @DenverMike – all I’m asking is evidence from experts that validate your assertions.

            My “theories” aren’t theories but FACT if multiple experts in trade law and tariffs as well as economic experts point out the effects of tariffs and VRA’s on the economy and the markets.

            It isn’t a made up theory – it is evidence based.

            Lets put it this way, if you are diagnosed with cancer, are you going to believe a neighbour that green tea cures cancer or are you going to believe an oncologist?

            So far, you’ve presented the neighbourly side of the argument. I’d like to see the oncologist’s evidence.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @Lou_BC – Just answer the questions. Put on your big boy Pantz!

            Do you need a teenage “expert” to hold your hand? I guarantee we’ve done more research on the topic than anyone or group you can come up with. If we just go by popular opinion from industry, they’ll have us believing the world s less than 10,000 years old!

            I guarantee you’re as smart as any “insider”. My questions aren’t that tough. Any 5th grader can pickup her phone and give us an intelligent, detailed, unbiased answer on the topic. Can YOU???

            Again, you’re the one with all the radical theories. Burden of proof on YOU.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            @DM:
            “Even 175K would be weak considering pent up demand for the 1st year.”
            Personally, I think that’s a bit optimistic, but I won’t argue it since I openly admit I don’t know how many will consider this ENOUGH of a size reduction. Based on the people I do know, it’s not small enough and those who want smaller aren’t all that willing to accept it. On the other hand, some of those who have full size and don’t like its bloated proportions may be more willing to drop back to the size they grew up with.

            “What do you think they’ll sell once things return to normalcy?”
            I’m thinking between 100K-125K will be the steady-state rate between them after they’ve been on the market for 5 years. Remember, I’m just talking about the GM twins and not considering any same-size competition from the other truck makers.

            “And fullsize turn up the heat.”
            How would the full-size truck ‘turn up the heat’ on these smaller trucks, simply reduce their overall size while retaining their same badges? Remember, the people who NEED smaller are not going to be swayed just because the bigger one costs less. This is proven by the fact that many commercial small-pickup operators have switched to EuroVans to get away from that bloat.

            “You always have to make it about YOU.”
            I use myself as a practical, real-world example because YOU specifically point ME out as the “unrealistic” person and ignore the fact that I represent just ONE of a multitude of individualists who do not let themselves be herded like sheep into the slaughterhouse. I refuse to believe that I am the ONLY person in America that feels today’s full-sized trucks are too big and because of my open disdain for such big trucks on today’s roads more and more people are agreeing with me.

            “If everyone was YOU, we’d all be driving Wranglers and only buy used pickups from the early ’90s.”
            This statement alone proves my answer to your previous statement. I don’t expect everyone to be ME, but you sure do expect everyone to be like YOU through your statements. Sorry, Charlie; you’re a one-off, just like me. A bunch of people may agree with you on some things but certainly not all, while they will patently disagree you on others. Once you stop assuming that everyone should think they way you do, maybe you’ll start making friends.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            175,000 units would be an outstanding performance.

            Of course, it would also be nice if there was a bunny who brought treats for the children on Easter and a fairy who paid top dollar for their teeth.

            Then again, it seems that there are some who post on this forum who enjoy full-time residence in a fantasy world and already believe in such things. Not everyone has a close and personal relationship with reality.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            “it is evidence based”

            You’ve now had several days to type “inflation 1980” into Google.

            The only evidence that I see is that you type a lot, but don’t read much. (Oh, and your research skills are appalling, too.)

            Of course, if it makes you feel better, then perhaps we can blame all of the other price increases in the early 1980s on the chicken tax.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            Already done, Pch101, and evidence demonstrates that federal regulation was pretty much the CAUSE of that inflation.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            I already posted my evidence that you and Pch have not been able to refute.

            I’ve posted my evidence that contradicts your assertions.

            If I’m wrong why aren’t there any experts challenging the information I poted. That one law review article dated mack to the Clinton Administration.

            Surely someone would of refuted it by now especially since it was published in a law Journal.

            Experts in their field who are licensed and credentialed at the highest levels need to keep active to maintain their credentials. One way is through publishing articles in “Peer Review” Journals.

            If those articles I posted were false someone would of refuted them.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            This whole thread makes me wish there were no pickup trucks at all.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @Lou_BC – I’m still waiting for anything resembling “proof”. And you obviously can’t answer the simplest of questions, not even to backup what you state repeatedly. Hit and run statements is all bring.

            You provided opinion based nonsense that goes nowhere towards proving “governmental legislation worked to kill off small pickups”. Just opinion on what caused pickup truck prices to soar, even though import brand pickups ended up priced LESS than domestic brand small pickups.

            Provide some kind of real proof and answer the darn questions. Or let me speak to your supervisor, BAFO.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            I’m forced to conclude that membership in the small truck jihad requires a lobotomy.

            If you can’t be bothered to understand what inflation is, why it occurs or when the US has experienced it, then you could avoid humiliation by not talking about it in the first place.

            You could Google the basics in five minutes — God knows, I’ve told you more than once where to look for the information — but you’d prefer to type for hours and pretend that it didn’t happen. You couldn’t look more dimwitted if I had paid you.

            It is your responsibility to learn basic history and economics. Maybe you should use those trucks of yours to drive to the library, so that you can learn something for a change. You obviously passed the typing course, but there’s much more to learn.

  • avatar
    chainyanker

    Look for these on a future list of cars that re-bankrupted GM. Too many horses in the race.

    • 0 avatar
      Drzhivago138

      How so?

      • 0 avatar
        chainyanker

        GM’s insistence on filling every possible niche of the market no matter how small (with multiple entries, of course) and focus on specialty low-volume vehicles (Volt, SS, any 2-door Cadillac, performance Buicks, etc.) that supposedly everyone wants and no one buys. Meanwhile, they mostly ignore important segments like mid-sized sedans and crossovers with the also-ran Malibu and Equinox.

        “God gave man a brain and a penis and only enough blood to run one at a time.” GM will eventually have that problem with their money.

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          “God gave man a brain and a penis and only enough blood to run one at a time.” GM will eventually have that problem with their money.

          that applies if you happen to be John Holmes.

          Are you implying that GM is the biggest dick on the block?

  • avatar
    Drzhivago138

    I saw one of these at the SD State Fair and was completely blown away–because I hadn’t seen one in the flesh before. It seemed to be just as high-quality as the Silverados the Chevy booth had there–which was more than I could say for the original Colorado.
    Both my parents commented how small it was. That’s right–small. Out here in flyover country, an F-150 SuperCrew 6.5′ bed is dwarfed by even a medium-sized tractor. FWIW, I thought it was decently sized, especially as a crew cab/6′ bed model, but I could understand where they were coming from. Crew cab midsize=extended cab fullsize.

  • avatar
    xflowgolf

    In the line of thinking that these are as big as full size trucks used to be, I decided to do my best “apples vs. apples” comparison of the smallest new Colorado available. A 2WD Ext. Cab w/ 6.2′ box, available only with the 2.5 4-banger. Since there’s no standard cab Colorado, I looked back 20 years at a 1994 C1500 Ext. cab V6 with 6.5′ bed:

    Colorado:
    L: 208.2″
    W: 73.2″
    H: 78.7″
    Curb Wt.lbs.: 3959
    HP/Tq.: 200/191

    1994 C1500 ext. cab:
    L: 218″
    W: 77.1″
    H: 70.4″
    Curb Wt.lbs.: 4100
    HP/Tq.: 165/236

    Not too shabby. Still 10″ shorter, 4″ narrower, and 100+lbs. lighter than a 20 year old ex.cab fullsizer.

    Just don’t compare it to an S-10 from 20 years ago. ;)

  • avatar
    hiptech

    First I want to restate the title of this story “GM Mid-Size Twins Best Similarly Equipped Full-Size Pickups In Fuel Economy.”

    That said, why should this be a surprise? If these are a smaller class of truck they should be lighter and more fuel efficient.

    The second point I want to make is those comparing this to larger full size competitors for the same or similar money are viewing this incorrectly. Would anyone compare BMW 3 or 4 series with a Chevy Impala, how about a Fiesta ST with a Camaro (maybe MT or C&D might)? The point is these are all very different size and model segments who prices could potentially overlap but have distinctly unique personalities and purposes…

    • 0 avatar
      Hummer

      Wouldn’t it make more sense to use examples in the same class?
      ie 5 series vs 7 series

      I can’t see, all things equal, the 7 series not eating through the 5 series sales if the prices were made equal, as well as equipment with the caveat you get a better engine, better styling, no cumbersome center console shifter, and obviously more room.

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        It’s your caveat that kills your argument, Hummer; every one of those ‘conditions’ are subjective in nature. If they’re going to be “equivalent” vehicles, then all their features should be equivalent as well–such as power-to-weight ratio, interior quality and instrumentation/infotainment. Between a 5-series and a 7-series with otherwise identical configurations for the same price, I would question where they skimped to pull the 7-series price down. However, since the 5-series is visibly smaller than a 7-, I would probably take the 5 simply because it is smaller and less ostentatious.

        • 0 avatar
          Hummer

          Honestly I know nothing of BMW so that’s that.

          Are top spec Colorado and top spec silverado similar power to weight? No. Are bottom spec vs bottom spec similar? Probably not.

          Are fullsizers skimped anywhere that cause them to be so close to midsizers pricing?, absolutely not as losing fullsize sales is much more dangerous to GM than the success of an almost non existent segment.

          Of course you would take the 5, and similarly I would take the 7 as it supports our own sides for our given arguments. But not everyone uses the size of their garage to make the decision on what to purchase. I can fit at least 2 tractor trailers in the barn I keep my trucks in, doesn’t mean I have to keep a single vehicle in there.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      @hiptech – you are correct in many respects. If one looks at GVW classes these trucks are class 1. 1/2 tons are class 2, 3/4 ton and 1 tons are class 3.
      We will always see small trucks approaching the limits of 1/2 ton trucks in cargo and towing. in some cases there will be overlap. That is no different than 1/2 tons versus 3/4 ton trucks.

      The irony of all this is the fact that no one seems to sh!t all over 1/2 ton trucks by saying why buy one when a 3/4 ton is much more powerful and capable.

      We’d all be driving F^ckin’ Freightliners if we took that argument to its logical conclusion.

      • 0 avatar
        Dan

        “The irony of all this is the fact that no one seems to sh!t all over 1/2 ton trucks by saying why buy one when a 3/4 ton is much more powerful and capable.”

        Because the additional capability of a 3/4 ton over a 1/2 ton only comes into play when hauling a couple tons of something, which is to say for nearly all non commercial applications it has no additional capability at all.

        The extra 6-10″ of hip and shoulder room and 6″ of rear legroom in a halfton are a night and day difference in capability to to anyone who will ever use a carseat or carry more than one passenger. The Silverado is a genuinely comfortable family car when it has to be. The Colorado is, at best, a 2+2 and the “extended cab” doesn’t even do that.

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          @Dan – Most people don’t decide on which truck to buy purely out of logic and need.
          I’ve had all 3 sizes of trucks. I picked based on what matched my needs the closest. That is why I currently have a SuperCrew. It gave me room for 2 growing boys and 2 large dogs and the capacity to tow or haul what ever I imagined my family could throw at me.

          Just because many feel that there are more positives to the fullsizer does not mean that there aren’t any positives to the smaller truck.

          There are merits and demerits with every size or class of truck.

          I like trucks period.

          I like the fact that GM is coming out with these trucks. It opens the market to more choice and will force the competition to improve.

        • 0 avatar
          Vulpine

          “The Colorado is, at best, a 2+2 and the “extended cab” doesn’t even do that.”

          Which is fine by me since I don’t need a “sedan with an open back porch”. I’m perfectly happy with a coupe w/porch.

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          I do have to add the fact that we do not see this argument when it comes to cars or SUV/CUV’s.

          We have small, mid and large size CUV’s/SUV’s and no one seems to mind.

          People buy what they want based on need. Truck size and truck class should be no different.

    • 0 avatar
      hiptech

      I’ve never owned a truck before (unless you consider a Honda Odyssey a truck). But lately I have contemplated buying one mostly for homeowner/woodworking projects and occasional big box shopping. I suppose I could go to HD and rent one of theirs @ $20 for 75 minutes but it’s kind of a hassle coordinating it with other shoppers and lack of availability.

      We have 3 sedans and a 3 car garage and live in a nice urban area where there are numerous full size truck owners. My needs are simple, I don’t tow a boat, 5th wheel or cattle and have no plans to do so. My preference is for smaller and nimbler driving dynamics. When the time comes to buy one I suspect we’ll eliminate our oldest car (’93 Accord) so I can keep the truck in the garage and not receive complaints from the HOA for parking it on the street.

      With such simple needs including an expectation of reasonable fuel mileage and the desire to own a truck that will fit inside a “snug” garage why do I want more truck than is necessary?

      I get truck owners to be the most loyal as a group but much of the the convoluted logic and vitriol I’ve read is borderline wacko. I must agree with Lou_BC, if owning a Freightliner or a Mini is your thing go for it. No one here is going to successfully argue anyone out of selecting whatever they want…

  • avatar
    petezeiss

    Honestly, how can you people argue about such minutiae when we’ve just lost Joan Rivers?

  • avatar
    Dan

    How badly these compare to a fullsize has been done to death. GM will sell a fair number of them anyway, because a dealer network that size can sell anything – see exhibit 1, 25,000 Malibus every month.

    That aside, 60 more horses, a nice interior, and 24 highway compares awfully well on paper to a now 10 year old Tacoma. On closer inspection those 60 horses don’t start to come on until upwards of 4500, and the enormous zamboni air dam to hit that 24 highway will rip itself off on the first ditch, snowbank, curb, etc. Until then it will merely look stupid, note that GM removed it for most of their press shots.

    I can’t imagine many Tacoma buyers are there for the paper specs, since they’d be in a fullsize if they were, but any that there are are going to be jumping ship quick.

  • avatar
    Xeranar

    I could see it being justifiable if GM was developing a new BOF mid-size SUV to shill to the Jeep segment but otherwise unless they plan on going after the world market with these twins I don’t see a big growth segment from this. The full-size F-Series/Silverado/Ram/Tundra/Titan crowd isn’t going anywhere when the lifetime fuel savings are hovering in the $1000-3000 range (depending on how long you drive it). Fuel gets to 7 or 8 dollars a gallon permanently, goodbye to that crowd but since that doesn’t seem likely without slow inflationary measures this seems like a play to go for the world market.

    Pushing 40K units a year isn’t impossible here and may just make it a worthwhile venture if they can spring board into markets where the Hilux has dominated and start stealing some of their sales.

    • 0 avatar

      I think it’s the other way around. I could be terribly wrong, but I believe this is the North American version of the S10 largely developed in Brazil and some other GM world centers, already built in various countries around the world and sold with great success (at least here in Brazil). If the 40 000 sales you mention are attained, it’d only add to whatever it is they get around the world on the platform that underpins the Colorado/S10.

      • 0 avatar
        Xeranar

        Thank you Marcelo, I’m not up on world markets and wasn’t sure if the GM Twins were already a player there. Since they are it’s probably a forgone conclusion that they know they can push an extra 40K into NA annually which just help amortize the platform that much quicker. This is no more a game changer than Fiat dumping 500s here for an extra few bucks or any other medium production platform going into big markets hoping to scoop up a few extra units simply because the market will absorb it.

        This is totally a side note but do they still call it the S10 in Brazil? I guess so from your implication…I never did get the reasoning for such idiotic names on trucks. I understand the simplicity aspect but S10 always screamed white trash to me….Ranger was atleast cool and the whole F-Series is ingrained in my soul by force.

        • 0 avatar

          Again Xeranar, I could be wrong, though I think not. S10 as traction here. That pickup has always been the sales leader here since introd in 97 or thereabouts. Ranger is the weird one here because that could be read as a Portuguese verb, same spelling, different pronounciation and means rattle. But a letter followed by a number has more or less always been GM pick up names here. That I remember first C10, then A20, then D20. All lengendary here. THe Silverado also came but that was a flop.

          Ford I think started with the F100, that became F1000 and now Ranger, but they still have a large pickup, the F250 (no F150, don’t know why) that sells in small numbers but has survived and has as its sole competitor a Ram.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @Marcelo de Vasconcellos – GM went to great lengths pointing out that the Colorado/Canyon showing up in the USA shared little with its global version.

            I personally think that was a pile of marketing crap. They were trying to appease the “patriotic” types that traditionally buy trucks. A small American truck is tolerable but not a small foreign one engineered by Brazilians and built in South East Asia with an American badge on it. Especially after GM became “Government Motors”.

            I’m sure that frames were tweaked to meet different crash rules, body panels were definitely changed and same with interior trim but this is basically a plastic surgery centre version of the global truck.

            This truck will be amortized with all of the other ones sold in the world.

            That is the only logical way GM will make a profit from its sale. The Colorado as a global and domestic truck was part of the master plan from day one.

          • 0 avatar

            Hey Lou, pretty sure it’s true. Could also be that by now, they even tweaked a little thing here or there, even in the frame, to improve on something and be able to claim it’s different. So, yeah, it’s unique, in small bits and pieces, and design, butink th basically the same. I for one think this move (US federalization) was probably built into the original specs, but you are probably right, it wouldn’t fit into the narrative GM needs to make it palatable to Americans.

  • avatar
    turboprius

    21? Seriously? The eight year old, RWD four-cylinder Ranger we have gets 20. That was when full sized trucks got around 13 MPG with RWD. Compact (or, midsize on the outside, compact on the inside) trucks don’t make much sense to me. They’re smaller inside, cost a lot more than they should, and get nowadays worst fuel economy than their big brothers.

    The interior space is the main reason I don’t root for compact trucks. But if Vans doesn’t sell any decent styles above a Size 13, then automakers can limit the usefulness of small trucks to people that aren’t 6’5″ teenagers. (The Ranger we have is probably one of the smallest vehicles I’ve been in, cockpit-wise).

    • 0 avatar
      scwmcan

      You do realize they are discussing the six cyl. Milage here?the milage figure for the four have not been released yet as far as I know, so the six with over 150+ hp more than your ranger gets better milage than your old four cyl ranger, I don’t think that is bad at all.

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    Reading some of the comments, I do really think some will be surprised at this pickup when released. They will be sitting around with their little d!cks in their hand wondering how this all came about. Good work GM. A midsizer that can tow 6 800lbs, as good as many pickups sold on the US market.

    Full size pickups have a place, at times similar to where the Silverado Escalade parks.

    Well, the FE advantage might be larger than many comments have alluded to in this article. Again, it seems facts aren’t necessary when a paradigm is challenged, sort of like those Jihadist over in those foreign lands. Paradigmns, they seem to always distort reality.

    An 8 speed, Pentastar powered Fiat Ram 1500, mid spec is approximately $39 000 for starters, but the surprising fact is it’s highway FE is 23mpg. With some simple arithmetic the approximate difference (GM claimed) between it and the V6, 6 speed Colorado is 12.5%. Not bad.

    I will have a little chuckle to myself when these are actually viewed by the US pubic and they realise these newer midsizers could pose some challenges for the full size half ton market, SUVs and CUVs.

    I do hope GM has fixed up the p!ss poor interior, handling and steering.

    This vehicle isn’t as American as some in GM would tell. It is actually largely created in Brasil.

    I still think the Izuzu Dmax variant of this platform is the best looking. I still have an issue with those US inspired little d!ck big rig grilles.

    http://www.carsguide.com.au/car-reviews/2014-isuzu-d-max-review-ls-terrain-auto-crew-cab-27877#.VAklibvn_IU

    http://www.motortrend.com/cars/2014/ram/1500/

    • 0 avatar

      On an empty bed the Ranger and even Amarok are better. What is good for GM is that the S10/Colorado is now as good as the Hilux and better than Frontier. Loaded down, it’s in the top, probably together with Ranger and Hilux, though some say a smidgeon better than both those, while Amarok suffers.

      Internally in terms of design and layout it follows GM’s current design language that I find succesful. Some here prefer the Amarok, but tht one is typical VW fare that I don’t appreciate much. To me it beats hand down the Japanese trucks interiors that are totally dated and overly simple. Though fit and finish might be better across the whole production (GM’s seems more haphazard), I think it is appealing and less gimmicky (more straightfoward) than the Ranger’s.

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al from Oz

        Hey Marcelo
        The Amarok is a superb piece of ‘truck’. Typically German through and through. I had a look at one. But if you read my commentary I went through a relatively lengthy process to select my current vehicle. The Amarok lacks low down grunt I wanted for off road work.

        The Ranger we have at work. I’m a little disappointed in the interior quality of materials. So plastic and styled like a DeWalt radio.

        I have driven the Colorado, but not off road. On road was enough for me to delete the vehicle from my list.

        But GM and other Detroit based manufacturers are slowly improving vehicle quality. GM in particular has to fix up their interiors and in the case of this Colorado it’s on road manners.

        The global Colorado (Thai) sits between the Hilux and the Ranger, BT50 and Amarok.

        The Colorado has a little way to go to join the 21st century. But this could be because GM only spent $2.5 billion on it, VW spent $3 billion and Ford/Mazda $3.5 billion on the development and design of these trucks. It seems VW spent their money wisest.

  • avatar

    Hey Big Al!

    Basically Big Al, we agree. Except I think the best on-roads manners are Ford’s. From what I hear, the best one here for traditional (non-off-road) pick-up use. That’s why I said it’s the best loaded. Seems to be it avails itself of that rather nicely. Like I said, I do think the interior in the Ford is a bit worse thn the S10/Colorado.

    THe Amarok, I agree! But I’m sure we look at that differently, which is not a problem, just a question of taste. It is very German, in the traditional VW way and that to me is not some appealing (though I can undertand what others do).

    Hilux and Frontier are now ancient. Good trucks, maybe tougher (more time-tested) than the pickups mentioned before, but from a ride point of view, basically out classed. I’m sure the new ones will rock again when they come.

    As for using them off-road, well we don’t here. Dirt road ok, rock-crawling, very eventually, so I bow to your expertise.

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      @Marcelo,
      I think our views are similar.

      I don’t know if you guys get the BT50 in Brasil. It’s based on the Ranger with a more ‘dramatic’ style to the body.

      There are several significant differences to the Ranger. I has quicker steering, slightly different suspension tuning and somehow the diesel in the Mazda is reaching it’s peak torque at different rpm’s. This might have something to do with the engine mapping.

      The Mazda interior is superior to any pickup I’ve seen so far, a little on the busy side though. But easy to use except for the ridiculously awkward Ford Sync system that doesn’t understand what the hell it’s told to do. It has a wommans’ voice so it must be a blonde.

      The suspension I completely changed in mine with an ARB, Old Man Emu suspension, that’s springs and shocks. It has made a difference on road, a more pliant ride and the valve metering in the shock valving is different.

      A great compromise suspension for off road and on road.

      • 0 avatar

        Hey Big Al! Unfortunately we don’t get any Mazda here. Back when the market opened in the 90s, they started importing them and they developed a good reputation, but never sold that much. To play in Mercosul you must build here. Tax reasons sure, but consumers here shy away from mainstream makers that are not “local” for many reasons, most especially maintenance (costs and availablility) worries.

        Mazda’s loss, the market here is a large one and despite current slump is poised to re-start growing next year.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    The Colorado/Canyon being based on global trucks is an advantage. Both these twins will have been tested and the fact that GM can amortize their costs globally lowers the cost overall and gives GM an incentive to release this truck in the US which they would not have if they had to design this truck from the ground up for the US market. I do think these trucks could eat away at Tacoma and Frontier if their overall quality if better. At the very least these twins could send Toyota and Nissan back to the drawing boards to improve their current trucks.

  • avatar

    Lost in the noise of pointless arguments is the fact that these trucks are ALREADY the most fuel efficient gasoline trucks in the market, this before the 4cyl truck’s mpg is announced. Let that sink in. A 305 HP V6 truck is more fuel efficient than 160 HP 4cyl trucks. Once the diesel is out it will be the most fuel efficient diesel truck or any truck in the market.

    Those comparing V6 Ram fuel economy to the Colorado must have no basic understanding of physics or math. A 5000 lb truck with a bigger frontal area is not going to be anywhere near as fuel efficient in the real world as a 4000 lb, lower, smaller truck. EPA ratings don’t mean squat. Ask anyone who has purchased a Ford in the last 5 years.

    • 0 avatar
      bball40dtw

      Why is it surprising or big news that they are the most fuel efficient gasoline trucks on the market? Wasn’t that a given going in? The competition is either significantly larger or ancient.

      And I would think about buying a Colorado because I would like a truck that fits in my garage. In reality though, my next “truck” will most likely be an Expedition.

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      You missed the point of the article. A 1,000 lbs lighter truck with less frontal area should get way better mpg than just 1 mpg. EPA figures $UCK, but what else ya got? Aren’t they disturbingly inaccurate across the board?

      A 4 cylinder extra-cab midsize pickup may return worse mpg than the V6. Pickups are getting heavier need to be geared much more aggressively than cars.

      We’ve seen V8 pickups get equal mpg as their standard V6, because they need to pull weight exceeding their own.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Dave M.: An interior pic or two would have been nice. Growing up so long ago, anything made in Japan was considered...
  • Polka King: I think that this is silly.
  • Chocolatedeath: Well I must say Thank you for running with this. I did ask for it about a year ago. This went about...
  • snakebit: Amen – brsnd new tires don’t shine like the paint does, and seeing a car on a used car lot with...
  • Lou_BC: “Does the Mach 1 name really have any value?” That’s a legitimate question and I’d...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Matthew Guy
  • Timothy Cain
  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Chris Tonn
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber