By on March 8, 2015

U.S. pickup truck sales chart TTACGeneral Motors has reported 28,218 sales of their new midsize trucks since the Chevrolet Colorado and GMC Canyon arrived late in September 2014. Sales of both trucks have increased every month since arriving at dealers. Colorado volume in February was 177% stronger than it was in November; Canyon sales shot up 194% during the same period.

Neither GM pickup is the top-selling non-full-size truck in America, however, nor can GM yet claim the title when their sales are combined. Since October, sales of the top-selling Toyota Tacoma have increased 10% to 64,093 units.

That’s right, Tacoma volume hasn’t been hindered in the least by the arrival of new GM candidates.

Nissan, meanwhile, has seen sales of its Frontier – the number two truck before the Colorado took over in January, – rise 13% to 30,934 units over the last five months. Frontier sales have improved in 20 consecutive months.

Auto
Feb.
2015
Feb.
2014
%
Change
2 mos.
2015
2 mos.
2014
%
Change
Toyota Tacoma
12,372 10,942 13.1% 17,249 15,813 9.1%
Chevrolet Colorado
6,563 1 656,200% 12,505 15 83,267%
Nissan Frontier
6,106 5,791 5.4% 11,974 10,722 11.7%
GMC Canyon
2,513 4,718 1 471,700%
Honda Ridgeline
136 1,143 -88.1% 350 2,306 -84.8%
Total
 27,690
17,877 54.9%  46,796 28,857 62.2%

Despite the loss of most Honda Ridgeline sales, the segment’s February expansion was impressive. The five trucks combined for a 55% year-over-year improvement. Subtract the Ridgeline from the equation and the rate of improvement climbs to 65%. (The sketch below encapsulates what we know about the design of the upcoming second-gen Ridgeline.)

The Colorado and Canyon combined for 32.8% market share. That performance isn’t quite as impressive as the February achievement reported by their full-size siblings. The Silverado and Sierra owned 38.6% of the full-size truck segment in February and combined to outsell the segment-leading Ford F-Series.

Next-Gen Honda Ridgeline Previewed at 2015 Chicago Auto ShowAs for the small/midsize truck category’s impact on the overall truck market, the five pickups earned 15% of all truck sales. That figure is smaller than the 15.4% share they acquired in January, but it’s far greater than the 11% earned by the Tacoma, Frontier, and Ridgeline a year ago.

North of the border, GM’s new trucks did in fact manage to outsell the segment-leading Toyota Tacoma in February. But while Canada’s pickup truck market is inordinately large – trucks accounted for 20.1% of all new vehicle sales in Canada last month; 14.7% in the U.S. – the smaller set of five trucks are far less consequential, forming only 6.4% of the overall pickup truck category.

Timothy Cain is the founder of GoodCarBadCar.net, which obsesses over the free and frequent publication of U.S. and Canadian auto sales figures.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

69 Comments on “Cain’s Segments: Midsize Truck Sales In America In February 2015...”


  • avatar
    ex-x-fire

    Ford must feel left out.

  • avatar
    Vulpine

    What this proves is that the Canyon/Colorado do not qualify as “mid-sized” trucks but rather as old-school full-sized trucks.

  • avatar
    87 Morgan

    Why must they qualify as old school full size trucks? I saw a brand new one at Lowes yesterday, in green, and at no point did it look like a full size.

    I almost wonder if Toyota needs to send a thank you note to GM for bringing attention back to this segment. It stands to reason that people would cross shop other brands in the same size catagory. What I don’t get is how anyone would choose the Frontier over either the of the GM twins or the taco. I suspect the nissan dealers are buying the deals by putting too much money in trades etc.

    • 0 avatar
      thx_zetec

      Smaller than current full-size, but same as old fullsize. Hence comparison to “old school” full size.

      • 0 avatar
        Hummer

        It looks smaller than my Midsize Scout II, and in 4 door form it also looks smaller in size to the 4 door International pickups of the 60s and 70s.
        It’s tall, that doesn’t make it fullsize, just makes it look like it’s going to flip at every turn.

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        If you mean the crew cab midsize with the 6 ft bed, that’s really close to an “old school” fullsize extra-cab and 6.5 ft bed, except much more narrow. They’re still 2-across seaters.

        It’s like saying the current Corolla is the size of the old Crown Victoria, when maybe it’s the size of the old school Camry. Yeah not really.

        Basically it’s just said for mama drama.

        • 0 avatar
          Vulpine

          Keep telling yourself that, Denver. As I said, I’ve been IN one; it’s no smaller than my former reg-cab long-bed 1990 F-150. The Hyundai Santa Cruz is a true ‘small pickup’ by comparison.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            If it’s true, why are the elbows of 2 dudes riding in, reviewing a Colorado about touching/rubbing? Why don’t 4′ wide sheets of plywood/drywall fit between the wheel wells? Makes no kind of sense.

            Fullsize pickups have always been 3-across seaters and 4′ wide between the wheel wells.

            youtube.com/watch?v=WUzop7kE95o

      • 0 avatar
        RobertRyan

        “You guys don’t want F-150s like you don’t want Mustangs”
        Correct, as the article states Now if they fixed the Jeep Diesel SUV’s problems different matter

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      “Why must they qualify as old school full size trucks? I saw a brand new one at Lowes yesterday, in green, and at no point did it look like a full size.”

      Why Morgan? Because if you put a new Colorado next to a 1990 or even a 1995 full-sized Silverado, they’re almost exactly the same size–maybe just an inch or so wider. Newer full-sized trucks have grown almost 10% in physical dimension and almost 25% in weight in a mere 20 years. Even the newest Ford F-150 with all that aluminum and high-strength steel is still almost 500 pounds heavier than its 1995 predecessor. How do I know? I used to own a 1990 F-150 and read the sticker on the door jamb. The Colorado is simply NOT a “mid-sized truck”.

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        You’d better check the specs again there, cowboy. Everything about the Colorado’s footprint is way more compact, compared to the ’90s Silverado, base truck to base truck. Except now the “extra-cab” Colorado is a forced “base” truck. Or which specific trucks are you comparing?

        Yes the Colorado is still a “midsize” truck and still 2-across seater. Otherwise why would anyone buy a Colorado as wide as a Silverado, but still have to rub elbows with the passenger? Makes no kind of sense. It would be a very limited 1/2 ton (in dimensions) Colorado in terms of people and cargo holding, nevermind no V8.

        The current and old school Silverados are the same width. same inside-bed dimensions.

        • 0 avatar
          Carlson Fan

          See my comment below. The new GM twins are no wider than the old Ford Ranger. And I’m sure a 4X8 sheet of drywall won’t fit between the wheel wells in the bed, like in any 1/2 ton PU made in the 70s.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            I don’t care if the plywood won’t fit between the wheel wells, as long as they’ll fit between the bed walls and out the tailgate. It’s easy enough to lay a couple 2x4s to let them lie flat. That’s what the pockets on the Toyota’s wheel wells were for.

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al from Oz

          @DiM,
          So, you have some sort of affinity to cowboys?

          I’m learning more about you everday.

          Is you favourite movie “Cracked Ass Mountain”?

          It’s good to see you do have some liberal social views.

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al from Oz

        @Vulpine,
        I agree with you. The current and larger midsizers are a couple inches or so narrower than the old 1/2 ton pickups.

        The bodies on the new midsizers seem to narrow at the top more so than the full size 1/2 ton pickups. The more vertical sides of the US 1/2 pickup distort a little.

        I do know rear leg room and width in the cab has been increase and you can have 3 across seating.

        What I like about the new midsizers is their refinement. They are on par with a 1/2 ton now, and engines are more powerful than what was available 15-20 years ago or so.

        We have a different approach, we love our torque. So we have V8 torque with 4 cylinder FE.

        It appears carrying a sheet of plywood in the back of a pickup isn’t doing so well. Most 1/2 pickups are family trucksters than don’t work or tow. They are the sign of US middle class success, sort of like here, a Ranger and a Landcruiser or CUV in the driveway tells the neighbours your good citizens.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        @Vulpine – the size and weight gains can be easily attributed to safety standards, emissions, and capability.

        I owned a 1990 F250 reg cab 5.0V8 5 speed and I currently own a 2010 F150.
        There are a couple of inches difference just in the thickness of the doors. My 2010 is considerably more capable than my 1990. Other than the obvious length difference between it and my crewcab.

        You can fantasize all you want about 1970’s spec small trucks but the odds are pretty slim that someone currently within the NAFTA zone will want to open a plant for 70’s era pickups regardless of size.

        The expansion of the small truck market has not hurt full sized truck sales and it also has not hurt the current players. Toyota buyers tend to be very loyal so that most likely accounts for the Tacoma not loosing sales. There is obviously pent up demand for modern small trucks which explains GM small truck sales.

        I like the new Colorado and I wouldn’t consider buying one if it were smaller and/or less capable.

        • 0 avatar
          Vulpine

          “the size and weight gains can be easily attributed to safety standards, emissions, and capability.” — In other words, dodging CAFE.

          “I owned a 1990 F250 reg cab 5.0V8 5 speed and I currently own a 2010 F150.
          There are a couple of inches difference just in the thickness of the doors. My 2010 is considerably more capable than my 1990. Other than the obvious length difference between it and my crewcab.”
          — Of which I need neither the capacities nor the length. I just need a usable open bed about the size of the old compact trucks from 30 years ago and flat don’t want the size of any modern pickup truck currently available in the US.

          “You can fantasize all you want about 1970’s spec small trucks but the odds are pretty slim that someone currently within the NAFTA zone will want to open a plant for 70’s era pickups regardless of size.” — Perhaps. But if Hyundai makes the Santa Cruz and it starts selling in noticeable numbers, watch FCA and GM scramble to bring their currently-available South American models into the US.

          “The expansion of the small truck market has not hurt full sized truck sales and it also has not hurt the current players. Toyota buyers tend to be very loyal so that most likely accounts for the Tacoma not loosing sales. There is obviously pent up demand for modern small trucks which explains GM small truck sales.”
          — So far we haven’t seen any expansion of the “small truck market”, the GM ‘C-twins’ are by no means “small” and only barely come across as “smaller than full size” by today’s standards.

          “I like the new Colorado and I wouldn’t consider buying one if it were smaller and/or less capable.” — I like the new Colorado too, but I won’t consider buying it BECAUSE it isn’t smaller and as I said, I don’t need to even approach the “capability” of a modern full-sized truck. Meanwhile, I’ve looked at the Tacoma, Frontier AND the Ridgeline (current version, not coming version) and there are just too many things wrong with each one. The Taco doesn’t offer enough driver legroom, the Frontier doesn’t offer enough power (heck, even my Fiat 500 feels faster than that thing) and the current Ridgeline is simply ugly inside and out. They’re all three larger than I really want, but at least acceptable in size. The Santa Cruz, Montana/Tornado and Strada are far more appealing for their proportions and ability to fit MY needs and desires.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @Vulpine – regular cab trucks that fit what you want don’t sell. Toyota plans on stopping production of the reg cab Tacoma and the Colorado/Canyon doesn’t come in reg cab. Even full sized reg cab trucks are a low volume product.

            What you want doesn’t exist unless you buy used.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            @Lou: I didn’t say I wanted a regular cab; all along I’ve said I want an extended cab. And Hyundai seems pretty interested in producing exactly that in a properly compact vehicle that’s roughly three full feet shorter than an extended-cab Colorado with a roofline at least ten inches lower. As such, what I want may actually become a reality without having to buy used.

            For that matter, if the Hyundai does come to the American marketplace, you can be almost certain FCA’s Ram 700 and GM’s Montana/Tornado will show up about a year later. Ford? I don’t think they even have a player in the field anywhere.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @Vulpine – an extended cab truck in the size you want is basically a “big” regular cab.
            Ford has the Ranger which is too big for what you want but there were rumours of a Transit Connect based trucklet.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            Ok, Lou; let’s see if we can use a little bit of logic here, hmmm?

            * An “extended cab” truck is basically a “big” regular cab. You almost have it here. As long as there’s room to fit a pair of three-ball bowling bags even if they’re stacked on top of each other behind the driver’s seat — when it is in its rearmost position — then the cab is big enough. I have no need or desire to carry human passengers behind the front seats of the truck so anything larger than that is essentially a waste of space and money for me.

            * Ford does NOT have the Ranger available in the US and Ford’s statements make it quite clear that the global Ranger is no smaller than the current Colorado/Canyon twins, which are significantly larger than “mid-sized” and even the existing Japanese mid-sized trucks are larger than I want, though small enough by comparison to be acceptable. This is, unless this next Tacoma is as big as the Colorado which again takes it out of a true “Mid-sized” status.

            * Hyundai is clearly studying the potential for a significantly smaller truck that has been discussed right here on TTAC more than once and even on Pickuptrucks.com at least twice. Additionally, both GM and FCA already have similar-sized trucks available in South American and probably Europe or Africa and those trucks are quite popular especially in Brazil, Argentina and other SA countries while the RAM 700 is proving quite popular in Mexico. It would not be that difficult to add manufacturing capability for these smaller trucks IN Mexico, which would make them tariff-free for US markets. It’s just a matter of time.

    • 0 avatar
      Carlson Fan

      I saw a new GMC Canyon parked behind a Ford Ranger at a stoplight last week and what immediately struck me was how close the two trucks were size wise. The Ranger looked like the roof height was higher, but width/length wise both extended cab 4X4 PUs were identical in size.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        @Carlson Fan – I was at my local GM dealer to check out the Canyon/Colorado and they had a Canyon next to Sierra. I was amazed at how the looks were similar but the Canyon was obviously smaller.

        • 0 avatar
          Carlson Fan

          Lou I’m talking about the old Ford Ranger, which was considered a compact truck and competed with my ’93 compact Toy PU. I’m not sure when they stopped making it although I should know considering it was assembled in the St. Paul, MN Ford plant which was closed as soon as they stopped production of the Ranger.

          The point of my comment was that the new GM twins are really no bigger than the compact Ranger and no one would ever say that the old Ranger was as big as an older fullsize.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            Carlson Fan – I owned an ’84 Ranger which I bought new and had a used ’94. Both of which were considerably smaller than the ’90 F250 I owned. My dad had a ’77F250 when I had the ’84. It was much bigger too.

    • 0 avatar
      RobertRyan

      Good point and it appears to be growing the segment as a whole

  • avatar
    VoGo

    What is surprising is that Nissan is selling so many Frontiers. I am assuming there is a lot of cash on their hoods, because I cannot think of another reason. Maybe an owner can educate me?

    • 0 avatar
      87 Morgan

      I have one, cc 4×4 6 MT. Bought it used which is the only reason to buy over the Taco, significantly less money.

      For a used truck the price point was perfect. If you are shopping new, you would have to have hit your head in order to select the Frontier over any of the other options.

    • 0 avatar
      Pch101

      The Frontier is not a huge seller, it just happens to be in second place. Selling 60-70k units per year is not that impressive for a vehicle in that price range; the much-maligned Dodge Dart is faring better.

      The only automaker that gets high volume out of this segment is Toyota.

  • avatar
    Hummer

    Do note on that Ridgeline picture above that it has a line separating the cab and the bed hinting at BOF construction.

    The new Colorado is in no way going to be mistaken for a fullsize. Also, it may have better interior quality than its predecessors but that exterior is so boring that they have already started to blend into the background.

    • 0 avatar
      Sgt Beavis

      The next Ridgeline ‘could’ be a very interesting truck if they learned the lessons from their abysmal failures.

      I agree on the Colorado’s bland styling. The Colorado looks a bit better. However the Chevy makes a good blank canvas for customizing.

      • 0 avatar
        Hummer

        Yea, I happened across some news on the Ridgeline about a month ago and it may very well be a hit, Honda certainly needs it to be anyway. I doubt Honda would be willing to go Full-Fullsize, but if they go say GMT800 size they could capture a solid 100k sales a year. Honestly it’s all up to Honda on how it turns out, 1 cab configuration, and/or one weak V6 option and they’re wasting their money on the new model. The formula for success in the truck segment is clear, build the cheapest truck with the most availible options.

        As to the GM twins, I really don’t care for either, they look cartoonish, ridiculously tall for the narrow width they possess. But the plasticky bodies really hurt them the worst, it just throws them into the same boring design language as a 05 Camry.

        • 0 avatar
          highdesertcat

          The old Ridgeline was very, very popular in MY area, especially with the ladies. It rides and handles more car-like than any of the mid-size pickup trucks.

          At a recent barrel-race event for teenage girls to race their horses around barrels in an arena, there were five Ridgeline trucks parked on the lot with a one-horse trailer in tow behind it, all driven by ladies..

          For a truck that was rumored to be discontinued, the new Ridgeline is a pleasant surprise, and no doubt will draw a lot of niche-sales as the old Ridgelines are retired and replaced.

          Even cowgirls want a little finesse now and then and the Ridgeline pampers them with its finely cultured ride.

          • 0 avatar
            Dan

            They seem more popular than they were, the design sticks out like a sore thumb and a full decade on the market unchanged eventually accumulated a fair number of them out there. Goodcarbadcar says just over a quarter million and I doubt that very many have been crushed yet.

            The Ridge was the perfect vehicle for people who needed a light duty truck but didn’t want one. Unfortunately for Honda, they then sold it in a market that wanted a truck but didn’t need one.

      • 0 avatar
        RobertRyan

        In this segment cannot make the design too confrontational

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      @Hummer – highly unlikely that the Honda would go BOF with the next get Ridgeline.

      • 0 avatar
        Hummer

        As weird as it may seem I just observed others noting it, I would have never noticed otherwise.

        But if that line truly is seperating the cab from the bed, there’s no way it could function as a unibody, you can’t make it that thin the way a unibody works.

        I fully believe it will be unibody, simply because Honda isn’t very serious in this segment, but it’s different point of view that’s nice to explore.

    • 0 avatar
      Pch101

      The Ridgeline is essentially a Honda Pilot with a bed. It won’t be body-on-frame.

  • avatar
    Carlson Fan

    The main reason your seeing sales pick up month over month with the new GM twins is that the pipeline is continuing to fill up. Once the pipeline is full and dealers actually have some inventory on their lots they will easily outsell the Tacoma. I predict 4th quarter 2015, the Colorado will by itself outsell the Tacoma.

  • avatar
    wmba

    Goodness gracious me. What, no OZ input yet on this vitally important topic? It must be a time of day thing and they’re all abed, snoring away 12 hours out of sync.

    These boys usually never miss an opportunity to inform us of the tragedy which is the US pickup compared to global Rangers and Colorados whose frames are made out of old bridge girders, thus allowing them to carry twice as much as an F250 without even a mild grunt from their sturdy million mile specced titchy diesels.

    It’s the clown show I never miss!

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    I do know here Toyota with the rustic Hilux and Nissan with the Navara have maintained good numbers against the new pickups.

    What Toyota did was drop it’s overly expensive Hilux in price and added more bling.

    Nissan had to drop it’s prices quite significantly. A midspec Navara dropped from around $45k-$46k down to as low as mid $30k.

    The newer pickups really added a larger total to the total of pickups sold.

    The Colorado Canyon will do quite well, which will be good for GM.

    After 4 years now with these newer and highly refined mid sizers they still have yet to catch the Hilux which is still the largest single selling pickup brand here. The Ranger/BT50 is catching up.

    So the Colorado in the US will take a couple of years to catch the Tacoma, if at all.

  • avatar
    LectroByte

    Kinda thought the Colorado/Canyon sales would put a crimp in Tacoma/Frontier sales. Are the GM midsize sales cannabilizing full size sales? The Toyota and Nissan seem like really old designs now.

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      @LectroByte,
      The crimp will take a little longer.

      Look at it this way. The Colorado Canyon duo have sold more than the aluminium Ford pickup in February. This isn’t going to last.

      As for taking sales from full size 1/2 ton pickups. I do think some have been taken. A person wanting an EcoBoob or a V8 will not buy a Colorado.

      I do think some V6 full size customers would be interested in the Colorado Canyon. With 305hp I do think the Colorado would be quite spritely.

      I think GM will force Ford to bring in a US version of the global Ranger. With a less than anticipated take up of the aluminium F-150 Ford will no option but to keep pace with GM.

      I’m waiting for all of those 2015 aluminium F-150 recalls to start. Many comment on Chryslers and recalls. I’d be the Ford will beat Fiat.

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        @BAFO – Nothing GM does would force Ford to copy its ways towards another bankruptcy. More truck sales in more segments hardly guarantees more profits. GM is on its own race to the bottom again.

        Whatever aluminum F-150 sales stabilize at, that should be fine with Ford or any rational “for profit” OEM.

        Ford spoke on this here:

        caradvice.com.au/266622/ford-f150-wanted-australia/

        Or is it Monkey See Monkey Do?

        • 0 avatar
          RobertRyan

          Correct, we do not want the F150 in Australia

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            You guys don’t want F-150s like you don’t want Mustangs. And you guys pay up to $150,000 for F-150s all day long! That’s 3X what you would pay for Mustangs. And that’s F-150s with hacked up RHD conversions, no warranty, financing or dealer support!!!

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      Pickup trucks don’t need constant change. The Colorado/Canyon are bringing in non traditional pickup buyers to the segment, including hairdressers and other lifestyle buyers, plus traditional midsize pickup buyers holding out for a domestic (based OEM) midsize offering.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      @LectroByte – I had thought the same thing. The assumption made by most people was that the small truck market was a niche market where buyers were looking for cheapo deals and/or were rabid small truck fans. Most believed that the small truck market was not going to grow and if anything shrink further.
      One of the reasons I believed the small truck market shrank was the lack of R&D in the market. A lack of competition contributed to declining sales. As we have seen with the Tacoma and Frontier, their sales have improved and have not been affected by these GM siblings.

      I do not think small trucks will hurt full sized truck sales much since buyers in each class have different wants and needs. There will be some cross-shopping but that is no different than cross-shopping between HD pickups and 1/2 tons.

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        @Lou_BC – The segment is highly dependent on the whim of the lifestyle buyer. The rebirth of the GM twins brings excitement that bleeds over to the other stagnant trucks when those looking for or have their hearts set on a Coloranyon are disappointed on price, availability of strippers, or over promised and under delivered trucks.

        The ’80s Mini Truck Craze didn’t impact fullsize truck either and was highly dependent on the lifestyle, non traditional pickup buyers.

        The R & D cash didn’t go away 1st. As consumers started to abandon the mini-truck segment for the next HOT thing, that’s when capital to reinvest in the segment went away. Then it had a cascading effect.

        But another mini-truck craze is not likely to happen. That was a perfect storm. All former mini-truck players/OEMs can pour everything they have into the segment and they wont get a return on investment.

        It’s a nice little niche. Get over it. Or at least get one!!!

        • 0 avatar

          DenverMike, sort of and that is a very NA centric view. The US does not buy have an overwhelming majority in purchases in any car segment outside of the large pickup. Where does that point to the future of large American style, V8, gasoline-powered pickups? Nowhere actually. It is happening to cars (see the Cadillac hair pulling) it will happen to trucks. Meanwhile, these monster Colorado size behemoths continue to proliferate! Ban them now before they take over the world !!! (as if)

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          DenverMike – 1/2 of full sized pickup sales are lifestyle so they are highly dependant on that demographic as well.

          Any pickup not used to put food on the table is a lifestyle choice. Full sized pickup sales took off when they added a second row of seats and more doors.

          What constitutes a niche product?
          Small truck sales are now 15% of full sized sales.

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al from Oz

        @Lou_BC,
        I don’t think there was a lack of R&D in the mid sizer segment.

        The problem is the R&D is being done outside of the US and it is very hard for any manufacturer outside of NAFTA to sell, due to reasons that are polarising some of the Luddites who comment on TTAC.

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          Big Al from Oz – I agree but my comment was confined to R&D in what amounts to the NAFTA zone. It can cost upwards of 20% more to modify a global to USA emissions and safety specs so “rest of planet” R&D is moot unless the USA markets were part of the initial R&D.

  • avatar
    Rday

    Love my 06 Ridgeline it is fun to drive, pulls my trailer and handles like a sports car when compared to other pickups. WIll keep my Ridge another ten years as it does everything i need a truck to do. What a great vehicle to travel in, even with a trailer.

  • avatar
    el scotto

    I did some on-line price checking in the DC area about a month ago. A whole bunch of Z-74 crew cab 4wd top o the line Colorado’s available and hardly any other trims. All at little or no discount, while its big brother (Silverado) comes with some serious cash on the hood. One dimwitted chebby dealer wanted ‘adjusted market price above MSRP” for a Colorado. Toyota might be a tad irritated over all this; but hardly afraid. GM will end up being their own worst enemy.

  • avatar

    Regarding size the colorado twins are pretty big as far as mid sizers go.

    They are within inches of the GMT 400 fullsize trucks and almost the same size as the first gen Tundra and quite a bit bigger than the last Dakotas.

    Current twins width 74.1″
    Previous twins 68″
    GMT 400 76.8
    2nd gen Dakota 71.5
    1st Tundra 75.2
    Length wise an extended cab 6′ bed colorado is about 8″ shorter than a GMT 400 ext cab 6′ bed (the crew cab is actually longer by about 5″ )

    Calling it small or narrow seems a bit unrealistic I will admit it looks a little narrow but not that narrow it also look massive parked next to a previous gen to tell the truth I think it’s too close to fullsize I would just make the jump to a V6 fullsize my self whereas I felt the last truck made a case for itself with it’s small size oh well apparently I’m in the minority.

    • 0 avatar
      Hummer

      The 1973? – 88/91 C/K trucks were about 79.6, at least it says on the suburban page, and it’s reasonable to assume the trucks are the same.
      The 69-75 IH trucks/TravelAll were 77.6 inches wide.

      The Colorado may be only slightly narrower than a fullsize, but it does a terrible job using it efficiently. The price on these hurts them worse than anything, there’s no compelling reason to purchase a weak doll-up truck for fullsize V8 money, outside the strange desire that is midsize trucks.

      Also it’s interesting to note how close Midsize and Fullsize sedans are in width, same story over there, both being very close in size today. Mainly because the Fullsizers have shrunk while the Midsizers grew, but interesting nonetheless.

      Another POV, is GM may just be testing the waters for European lifestyle pickups to see if the market has potential beyond a few small truck fanatics. We’ll see by January 2016.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        @Hummer –
        As I was trying to point out to Vulpine earlier, door thickness has grown on pickups. The pillars have also grown in strength and the roof is thicker due to roll over requirements. That is why there isn’t as much room inside when compared to an older truck of similar dimensions.
        Airbags and all of the assorted gear that goes with them take up space. Did those old pickups even have seatbelts? Pre-tensioned retracting belts also occupy space.
        People also want comfort. Funny to hear people whine like little girls about “soft touch” plastics when I recall most of the interior of a pickup was made of painted steel.

  • avatar
    ninjacommuter

    I have a 2006 Tundra Access Cab, the last year of the “7/8ths” Tundra, and the dimensions compared with the extended cab Colorado/Canyon are very close. The Colorado/Canyon is less than an inch narrower and about six inches shorter. The Colorado/Canyon is about 400 pounds heavier but when comparing V6s the Colorado/Canyon blows my Tundra away in horsepower and torque, and with better highway economy. Oddly, the towing capacity for the Colorado/Canyon is 1500 pounds less (3500 lbs), which may matter when pulling a relatively small RV or other trailer.

    This is a good size truck with casual capability for suburban and recreational use…read a yard of mulch and no heavy towing. Otherwise these are both fine vehicles for what they are. I can only hope the Colorado/Canyon will be as reliable and boring as my Tundra (no repairs or extra maintenance at 63,000 miles).

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • SirRaoulDuke: Weedy? Certainly in the late 60s and early 70s.
  • mcs: @thormark: That’s a good question. It’s being addressed in several ways. Manufacturers are trying to...
  • Daniel J: Art, As I know you live in my neck of the woods, this is pretty spot on with Hiley. Before we got our CX5...
  • dr_outback: As a former VW/Audi/Porsche service advisor I worked daily to prevent these types of situations while...
  • Art Vandelay: That would be cool, but I’m more of a cynic so I was thinking some of the badges, none of the...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

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