By on May 14, 2015

2015 gmc canyon front 34

Today we are running two reviews of the GMC Canyon at the exact same time – one V6 and one 4-cylinder – for your reading pleasure. If there ever was a time to compare the same truck with different powertrains (and two reviewers with different perspectives), this is it.

Let’s begin this review with a disclaimer: I don’t get pickup trucks.

Having lived in or near a big city my whole life, I simply don’t understand the need or appeal of the pickup. To me they are work vehicles with cramped cabins and no trunks. Heavy and inefficient, too. They were great when I worked construction in college, where we loaded the bed with crap and trailered a skid-steer behind, but I just can’t understand why anyone would choose to drive a pickup daily. But two million Americans buy pickups every year, so clearly they must know something I don’t.

2015_gmc_canyon_canyon dash

The first thing about the mid-size Canyon (and its Chevy Colorado twin) is there is nothing mid-size about it, measuring up about on par with mid-90s Ford F-150 and significantly bigger than its Sonoma ancestor as professionally eyeballed by me when both trucks were parked nearby. Have you not been in a full-size pickup in the last decade? Go sit in one. They are huge! GM is betting that for thousands of buyers full-size trucks are just too big they won’t cry for a V8, either. This is in stark contrast to Ford and RAM who chose to go big and offer only full-size trucks, albeit with more interesting engine choices.

Unlike full-size trucks, where the cabin feels amazingly wide and one needs to stretch to adjust the radio or climate controls, the Canyon cabin feels just right. There is plenty of room in all directions for the driver and front passenger. The overall interior layout is simple and easy to use, with all switches and controls exactly where you’d expect them to be. Visibility is good but those not used to pickups may find parking and reversing a bit more intimidating – this is a vehicle longer than most SUVs. Interestingly, while windows, door locks and the driver’s seat have powered controls, the outside mirrors on this base truck do not.

This lower trim level model had the optional IntelliLink audio system with a wide angle back-up camera, Bluetooth, and USB and auxiliary audio inputs. It also came with an app to stream Pandora off your phone which worked great. However, it did not have satellite radio and the system was not too happy streaming that off my phone app. Part of this audio system upgrade is OnStar, including control buttons on the rear view mirror, which I accidentally called while adjusting my view.

2015 gmc canyon dash radio

Not surprisingly, the rear seats of this extra cab model are useless for anyone over five feet tall, but my seven year old daughter and her friends loved sitting there; they didn’t even need booster seats. My three year old son’s big Recaro toddler seat surprisingly managed to fit in there and he even had room for his little legs when the front seat was about mid-point on its tracks. If you’re serious about having more than one passenger in the Canyon, I strongly suggest the Crew Cab model.

For those insisting on the extended cab model, which should really be called regular cab as there is no conventional regular cab offered, GM has an interesting solution for those bulky car seats. Removing the headrest from the rear jump seat and inserting it into the bottom cushion extends the length of the cushion, giving the toddler seat more support. Oddly, I did not see this written in the owner’s manual and I only realized it when writing this review.

The best use of the space behind the front seat, however, is as storage. In my time with the Canyon, I had to drop off three boxes of stuff at a donation place. I placed them in the bed in the morning. Midday, I had to move them inside the cab due to rain. When I picked up my daughter from school, I once again had to move the boxes into the bed. When I parked the truck for the night, I had to move the boxes back inside the cab once again because I didn’t make it to the donation place during the day. I understand that the aftermarket offers a ton of bed caps and covers, but a lockable, waterproof “trunk-in-bed” like on the Honda Ridgeline or the RAM boxes does make sense.

2015 gmc canyon extra cab doors

The extended cab model is available only with a 6’2” bed, whereas the Crew Cab is available with either 5’2” or 6’2” bed. Whichever bed you choose, it will be 57.8” wide at floor, with 44.4” between wheel-wells, and 20.9” deep. A sheet of plywood would need to be transported above the wheel wells, with an open tailgate on long bed models. There is a light in the bed, which is not very bright, and very useful steps integrated into the rear bumper like on the Sierra/Silverado. Part of the Convenience Package is an EZ Lift-and-Lower tailgate utilizing an internal torsion bar and a damper for easier opening and closing. It works great. While the tailgate is lockable, it is not connected to the vehicle’s central locking system.

The vehicle in this review was equipped with the 2.5-liter four-cylinder DOHC engine making 200 horsepower and 191 lb-ft of torque. The rear wheel drive version can me matched to a manual transmission but a vast majority of buyers will likely opt for the excellent automatic. In my opinion, GM has always done a great job of programing their automatic transmissions and here they didn’t disappoint. That transmission doesn’t have much to work with however, as this engine seems inadequate for duty in this 4,100 pound truck.

The truck was fine in casual driving around town or highway cruising. However, when the road gets hilly or highway passing is required, it screamed for more power with the gas pedal to the floor. Like most pickup trucks on the road, the bed of mine was empty. I can’t imagine hauling anything of substantial weight or towing with it at highway speeds. If this was a car, I would say its four-cylinder engine sounds a bit unrefined, too, but it gets a pass as truck engine.

2015 gmc canyon extra cab bed long

This combination of engine, driveline, and chassis is rated by the EPA to get 19 mpg in the city and 25 mpg on the highway. According to the on-board computer I got 19 mpg driving at a leisurely pace from Boston to New York City and 17 mpg on the way back driving with a heavier foot. All driving was done at night with minimal traffic. The difference between the real world numbers and EPA is quite stark in this case and feels like it’s because this little engine had to work a lot harder than the V6 would in its place. The maximum payload for this truck is 1,470 lbs. If it had a trailer hitch, as all pickups should, this Canyon would be rated to tow 3,500 lbs. A V6 model with a trailer towing package can tow up to 7000 lbs.

The base GMC Canyon 4-cylindeer 2WD extended cab starts at under $22,000 with designation charges. The vehicle in this review, a 4-cylinder, 4WD, extended cab has a starting price of $27,935. The Convenience Package is $590; factory spray-on bed liner is $475; and the upgraded audio system is $275. Total MSRP for this vehicle, with destination charges, is $30,200. A fully loaded V6, 4WD, extended cab with a long bed model can clear $45,000.

Full-size pickup trucks, especially the quad-cab models with short covered beds, have become the modern large American sedans. They can even look like sedans from certain angles and interior can be optioned out to compete with luxury sedans. But despite what some manufacturers claim, full-size pickups are not for everyone and there is a good business model to sell smaller trucks, as Toyota has proven over many decades. GM saw that large gap in the highest volume market and filled it with what seems like a great not-so-little truck.

2015 gmc canyon extra cab rear 34

Kamil Kaluski is the East Coast Editor for Hooniverse.com. His ramblings on Eastern European cars, $500 racers, and other miscellaneous automotive stuff can be found there. He used a different camera for this review and most pictures came out crappy. He is sorry about that. 

General Motors provided the vehicle for the purpose of this review. 

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

60 Comments on “2015 GMC Canyon 4×4 2.5L Extended Cab Review...”


  • avatar
    TonyJZX

    thats a teeny tiny little LCD screen

    could be worse… there’s a car being sold here that has HUGE 6″ black and white matrix screen that looks utterly last century

    something i dont get about America… in the rest of the civilised and uncivilised world, 4,000lb midsized trucks have 2.0 to 3.0 to 3.5 litre four cyl. or v6 turbo diesels

    obviously these are enough power… i actually dont think we have many gasoline powered mid sized trucks… up to a few years ago there were 2.5 liter fours and 4.5 litre v6s but they were either hopeless with a load or hopeless with the mpg, even without a load… so god knows why they have four cyl. petrol midsized units over in the US

  • avatar
    kkop

    First:
    “Having lived in or near a big city my whole life, I simply don’t understand the need or appeal of the pickup. To me they are work vehicles with cramped cabins and no trunks.”

    Then:
    “Have you not been in a full-size pickup in the last decade? Go sit in one. They are huge!”

    Make up your mind already.

    • 0 avatar

      Huge, yes. Cramped, yes, kind of, when you’re thinking of a regular cab work truck I was used to. There was nowhere to put my lunch cooler other than the floor. And with three guys on that front bench, it got crowded quickly. But I see what you mean.

      • 0 avatar
        Drzhivago138

        Starting with the ’94 Ram (and even more so with the ’97 F-150), even the regular cabs got big. And since Ford always liked to put all their trucks on the same wheelbase, when the SuperCabs got 6″ longer in ’04, so did the regular cabs (remember that tiny little door on the ) The ’09s did away with the smaller doors but kept that inside space.

        I worked at a park once where the boss (a man of generous proportions) drove a fleet regular cab F-150. I rode in it once–it was enormous! When I positioned my seat to the same as the bossman’s, I couldn’t touch the dash without leaning forward.

        Now with the ’15 F-150 RCs being 4″ shorter, I wonder if anyone’ll notice the lost space, or care.

  • avatar
    Zackman

    This truck – both reviews – is a winner. My only negative on these is that there is no regular cab option. Neither one would fit in my garage, at least on my side in front of the workbench – and it isn’t moving. My 1996 regular cab/short bed barely did, and that’s the criteria for me, otherwise, there’s no pickup in my future – a new one, at least, for anything I buy new MUST fit in the garage.

    • 0 avatar

      Your only saving grace for getting a truck in that garage might be the Colorado chassis cab, but then you need to build/buy a smaller box.

      • 0 avatar
        Zackman

        My 2012 Impala LTZ fits in there with about 6″ to spare. I have a 4x4x4 post on the floor to make sure the door closes w/o hitting the rear bumper – it did rub against it a couple of times, though!

        • 0 avatar
          RideHeight

          Garageability is huge to me. Not watching my truck freezr/thaw out on the driveway.

        • 0 avatar
          CoreyDL

          Didn’t that scratch up your bumper when it rubbed?! My garage door is metal, so it certainly would. And the rubber seal strip always has pebbles and crap (and spiders or whatever) stuck to it.

          • 0 avatar
            Zackman

            Uh… yes it did – both sides of the license plate recess. That’s where two of the panel hinges happen to be! The bumper curved just enough to clear the rest. Can’t rub it out, either.

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        The chassis/cab wouldn’t be any shorter. The gas tank is all the way back, followed by the receiver hitch. He’d be better of just pulling off the bumper to save a few inches.

  • avatar
    30-mile fetch

    I hope that 17-19mpg highway is an outlier, because that is truly poor. Slow and thirsty would get old after awhile, even if MSRP was lower

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      Considering the way I expect he typically drives (as a ‘hooniverse’ writer) he was probably pushing the engine pretty hard–especially considering the weight of the truck. On the other hand, I’ve driven 4-cylinder vehicles that did a lot better while only 500 pounds lighter–by driving at 65mph or less. I’d say the low mileage is more due to higher speeds than any real lack in the engine itself. A bed cover would probably have helped too, but he was driving one for a review, not trying to exaggerate capabilities.

      That said, I do agree that the truck is a lot larger than it needs to be, especially with only 150 horses or so under the hood. Reducing height and length by at least 15% could make a huge difference in weight and economy.

      • 0 avatar

        Nah man, I’m old, I don’t really drive more than 15mph over the limit. On the way to NYC I was damn tired, so didn’t drive fast. In the end I was surprised that the difference between the two runs, a slow and a fast one, was only 2mpg.
        Could it be a outlier? Could the dash computer be off? Yes.

        • 0 avatar
          Vulpine

          Pretty much what I thought, Kamil. Hold it below 65mph and I’ll bet you’d see another 4mpg at least. I’ll bet I could take it at least 2mpg over its EPA rating.

          • 0 avatar

            You can probably get any car to 2mpg over EPA rating by hyper-mile-ing, but that’s not a hobby of mine. :)

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            I don’t hypermile, Kamil. I just drive sensibly–when I’m not sporting around myself. You have no idea how much fun a little Fiat 500 can be. Anyone who can achieve 25mpg with a Jeep Wrangler on a 600-mile freeway run while crossing the Appalachians on I-81 from Tennessee to DC must be doing something right, no?

    • 0 avatar
      Maymar

      For what it’s worth, I’ve driven a couple late-model Equinoxes, and with a slightly older version of the Ecotec and a few hundred pounds less, I couldn’t break 20mpg highway, even just driving with the flow of traffic. I couldn’t even beat the mileage I got from a heavier, more powerful Traverse under similar conditions.

      Fine as a car engine, but it’s just not suited to truck or SUV duty.

  • avatar
    energetik9

    I honestly don’t get trucks either, beyond work needs. I’ve owned one truck in my life as a second car and it was a Toyota Tacoma. If I did buy one again, I would think a mid-size would make far more sense and this would be a contender. That interior looks very cheap and the screen is tiny. I would think with the image they try to portray on the advertisments that they would have done more with this.

    • 0 avatar
      Hummer

      This is why people don’t get trucks, midsize trucks feel terrible to drive, they feel punishing, the ride, power, and feel just isn’t there, it’s not in the least bit do-able for most people that have driven modern Fullsizers.

      Fullsize trucks and midsize trucks are not compareable outside the obvious.

      If I wasn’t in a fullsize truck or SUV I would be in a fullsize car, I’ve driven midsizers, they suck.

      • 0 avatar
        Sigivald

        Well, I really like my SuperDuty.

        But I also had a ’94 Toyota compact truck (extended cab), and it was fine – it drove like a car. (At least, like a car from 1994, natch.)

        Was slow, but that’s because it wasn’t the SR5 – and it was only slow when loaded; it was perfectly decent empty.

        You *should* be able to make a midsize that doesn’t blow, because both full size and compact trucks can be made to do so…

        • 0 avatar
          Hummer

          Actually those little Rangers and old toyotas were fine to me, but I still haven’t found a Midsize that didn’t feel like a penalty box on the inside and drive just the same. These new trucks are no exception, the center console is ridiculous, why they couldn’t just put the shifter on the column like a normal truck I can’t figure out. Perhaps it’s a nod to the crossovers/minivans the front end tries so hard to emulate.

  • avatar
    geozinger

    The Ram boxes and the trunk in the Ridgeline are good in certain circumstances. Hopefully you wouldn’t stash something important in the trunk of the Honda and then get a load of mulch or something similar on top of it. Additionally, the Ram boxes seem a little more practical to me (you don’t have to reach down into the bed to get something out), but I guess having those precludes getting a topper of any kind on it.

    Horses for courses, I guess.

    • 0 avatar
      Sigivald

      I’m sort of surprised nobody’s selling a side-access in-bed compartment system, factory.

      I see them on cab-chassis trucks all the time, aftermarket, and they have *obvious* advantages factory; you could even keep the standard contour rather than a “big welded box” like a cab-chassis.

      There’d be plenty of room for a breakdown kit, or some tools, or maybe – depending on the size and the thickness of the bed wall gap – a grocery bag…

  • avatar
    johnhowington

    that interior is a nice throwback to late 90’s GM, i guess people still like tupperware fantastic.

  • avatar
    Speed3

    I didn’t even notice there was a screen on the dash until reading the comments and scrolling back up to check. It is TINY!

  • avatar
    Nick 2012

    The GM 2.5L 4-cyl is as soft as Tom Brady’s footballs.

    GM needs a better small displacement engine. The 2.0T would be excellent in this application.

    • 0 avatar
      davefromcalgary

      I really believe GM should 2.0T all the things. Its a fantastic motor, would be awesome in this application.

      And before DW starts in on me, not in CT6s and the like.

      • 0 avatar
        DeadWeight

        The 2.0T is class competitive. It’s a 4 banger, and in my opinion, most 4 bangers (FI or not) suck in any cars with an automatic, weighing more than 3,000 pounds or so (MY OPINION).

        But it does have piston issues. That’s a fact. If GM threw some competent QC engineers on that like Honda would have already done, they’d be able to fix that (then again, there’s got to be a reason why Toyota, Mazda, Mazda and Nissan all have resisted FI).

        And yes, it does in no way belong in the CT6 under any circumstance (or even the CTS) – I don’t care what BMW, MB, Audi, etc. are doing in this regard.

        • 0 avatar
          davefromcalgary

          Agree, its class competitive for what it is. And, its well matched to the Verano and Regal, so theres no reason it cant haul around a 3.5k# car. My lifetime mileage is 28 usmpg, which includes a lot of city and a lot of winter idling.

          I think the 2.0T is a perfect uplevel engine in the Verano, good base engine in the Regal, (I know, the only other engine is a hopped up to 300 2.0T) and no business in the Lacrosse. Similarly, if they MUST offer a non V6 option in the Impala, it should only be the 2.0T. Dump the 2.5.

          So, yeah, I think the 2.0T would be a great base engine in the midsizers. (And yes, I am aware of the piston issues, and no, I only have transmission problems, and yes, GM should have fixed it)

  • avatar
    FormerFF

    There’s a manual transmission choice? That’s refreshing.

    • 0 avatar
      Drzhivago138

      Jalopnik said it was nothing special, but I’d take every Internet review with a grain of salt:

      http://truckyeah.jalopnik.com/why-you-dont-want-the-manual-transmission-2015-chevy-co-1699196098

  • avatar
    RideHeight

    Within 10 minutes of getting this home that air dam would be up in the garage rafters.

  • avatar
    Zackman

    “Let’s begin this review with a disclaimer: I don’t get pickup trucks.”

    Kamil, a pickup truck is one of the few vehicles you can option the way you used to do with a car. Customization & personalization are kings.

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      “… a pickup truck is one of the few vehicles you can option the way you used to do with a car. ”

      Ummm… no. You’re stuck with option packages–just like any other vehicle today. Personally, I’d like to go back to a-la-carte. You order what you want without having to put up with unnecessary junk you may never use.

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        You can get very specific with pickup truck options. Even custom paint colors if you buy enough of them at a time. But try getting the V6 in a base Camry. Or the V8 in a base, Camaro, Mustang or Challenger. Dealers will order pickups with a very wide variety of popular options, plus pickups get marked down enough so that if it’s a pwr or convenience group I wasn’t looking for, who cares?

        • 0 avatar
          Vulpine

          You see? That’s the difference between you and me: I care. When I bought my Wrangler, I went in knowing exactly what I wanted and believe it or not, I got everything I wanted with one exception–choosing NOT to take a package just to get one item that would have cost me almost $2K more in the package.

          In other words, option packages have exactly the opposite effect from the desired one when I buy a car or truck. I will under-buy and install the ‘option’ myself if necessary rather than buy up and get what I don’t want.

          That’s also why I haven’t bought any new trucks. Ford is the only brand that even comes close to an a-la-carte type of system–but they do it through building 12 different trim packages and even then mix and match them so poorly that I either get a stripper–or a grossly over-loaded model for a given ‘feature’.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            Try a different dealer. Most will order each trim level with popular ala carte options. The 1st truck I looked at, at the 1st dealer had me in mind exactly.

            Rubber floor XL Super cab, with optional V8, 4×4, LSD, 3.73s, power windows/lock, cruise, fog lights, slider back window, STX appearance package including upgraded tires, alloy wheels, limo tint, monochrome and color-key bumpers/trim.

            Smart dealers know buying trends and option out trucks as many ways as possible. Base/base, well optioned base, base XLT/SLT/SE, well optioned XLT etc, etc.

            I didn’t have a red truck in mind, but it worked well with monochrome accents. It was midway between base/base and base XLT. I hate chrome everywhere and carpet in a truck gets disgusting in no time.

      • 0 avatar
        Drzhivago138

        Sadly, in the name of production line efficiency, a lot of the best pick-and-choose options are tied up in packages, but compared to other classes of vehicle, there’s still a lot you can take and a lot you can leave. An XL F-150 can be optioned up to the point where the only thing separating it from a base XLT is the lack of a chrome grille, an XLT being optioned up to a Lariat without leather, etc.

        And Zackman’s original comment was (presumably) more aimed at the dearth of aftermarket mods, addons and accessories available for full-size trucks and SUVs, more than any other class of vehicle. Not necessarily what’s available from the factory.

        • 0 avatar
          Vulpine

          @Drzhivago: And what if I want an optioned XLT but NOT the chromed grill, hmmm? Impossible! I’d have to strip the chrome and get a good paint shop to re-paint the grill and hope they can match the body color close enough to be unnoticeable.

          That’s just one example, by the way.

          • 0 avatar
            Drzhivago138

            *Pushes up nerd glasses* Ackshually, now that Ford has redone their trim levels and made FX4 an optional package again (along with “Sport” and “Chrome” packages), you can get an XLT either with all the chrome doodads or with a monochrome grille/bumpers/etc.

            http://i.imgur.com/jx5B3SC.png

  • avatar
    CoreyDL

    This is just the poverty spec one you’d only see at a rental lot or being used at a job site. 90% of them will have FAR more options than this.

    Comparing the exterior to the other review, they certainly want everyone to know you cheaped out.

  • avatar
    davefromcalgary

    See, this is where I don’t get the pricing. I could option a Crew, V6, 4×4, the way I actually want it, it comes in at 40k, and I’m ok with that. But 30K for this stripper bothers me.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    I would actually order a base Colorado in silver with a 6 speed manual and rear seat delete for 21k. It comes standard with power windows, power driver’s seat, and backup camera.

  • avatar

    $22K for a 4cylinder not-so-midsizer from Chevy. (That’s the same height and length as a Silverado)

    or!

    $22K From Dodge gets you a reg cab short or long bed 2wd with a 5.7L V8. Which is only a few inches wider, the same length with the 8ft bed, and far more useful as a truck.

    • 0 avatar
      Drzhivago138

      It’s not the same length. This is a crew cab/6′ bed. Compare apples to apples.

      That whole “durr hurr hurr real truck eight foot bed” thing is tired and worn-out. People use their trucks for a lot of other things than hauling plywood.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    If you want a larger truck then buy one but comparing a single cab full size truck to an extended cab midsize truck is apples to oranges. Some would rather have a smaller vehicle for the same price and maybe they don’t need an 8 foot bed. If you just want a truck just for hauling then save your money and buy a good used truck.

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      Yeah. Maybe if you’re lucky you really will find a GOOD used truck. I wasn’t all that lucky, but then, I never have been. With only one exception, every time I’ve owned a used vehicle I’ve ended up paying almost double the purchase price for the “pleasure” of driving it–and that includes that standard-cab, long-bed F-150 XLT Lariat I used to own.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    @Vulpine–My 85 Mighty Max was a good vehicle and it was only 2 years old when I bought it, but yes a lot of trucks have hard use and it is not always a good idea to buy one used. My point in the above remark was that comparing a full size regular cab base truck to an extended cab intermediate was not a good comparison–apples to oranges. If I really wanted a full size pickup I would have bought one. Not everyone wants or needs a large pickup.

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      I’ll agree with you across the board there, Jeff. And really, that is my point as it emphasizes the simple fact that when you buy used, you’re taking a chance that it has seen hard use.

      I also agree that comparing an extended cab model of one size to a crew cab model of another size is a specious argument; someone buying an extended cab simply never plans to have anyone behind the front seat–no matter if it’s a full-sized truck or a mid-sized one. If they don’t plan for it, they certainly don’t want to put up with what is effectively a loss of bed capacity and a waste of interior space. Considering how many crew cab trucks I see that NEVER carry any living thing larger than a dog in the back seat, that extra space is pure waste, meaning the mere ownership of it is little more than a status symbol.

      I buy what I want, true, but I almost never want more than I need when it comes to sizing my vehicles. Even my Fiat 500 met an emergency NEED to carry 3 people, with bowling bags and luggage for two of them when my Jeep developed a brake problem. There are those who refuse to believe the Fiat did it without any complaint.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    @Vulpine–I usually keep my vehicles for more than 10 years so it is better for me to get what I like. I don’t really need or want a large truck or car regardless of the price. I currently have a 99 S-10 extended cab that I bought new 16 years ago and still use along with a 2008 4×4 Isuzu crew cab and a 2013 CRV. I drive the Isuzu less than the others. In all honesty an extended cab midsize truck is all I need which is proof by the fact that the S-10 gets the most use. I would rather buy new and keep a vehicle a long time.

  • avatar
    Vulpine

    @Jeff S: I envy you that S-10; it sounds like exactly what I’ve been looking for the OEMs to bring back to the US–it’s smaller than today’s so-called ‘mid-sized’ trucks, yet a perfect size for a DIY-type of owner who simply has no desire to drive something bigger.

    I am truly hopeful that Hyundai follows through with its Santa Cruz concept and that it becomes successful enough to inspire the Big 3 to follow suit. GM and FCA already have models to compete–leaving Ford out in left field.

  • avatar

    Could it be uglier? You could not give me one of these

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    @Vulpine–I do see a market for an updated version of a compact truck along the lines of the old Ranger and S-10 but I do not see it coming from Detroit. My bet is that the Chinese and/or the South Koreans will make a compact truck for North America. Detroit is happy with their large profit margins on the large trucks and do not want anything competing with their full size trucks. I realize the Colorado/Canyon are midsize trucks but at least they are available. I do hope that enough Colorado/Canyons are sold to get GM to expand plant capacity and offer more of the base and WT trims of the Colorado.

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      Agreed again, Jeff; it will take the import brands to break the market open before the domestics even consider it–just like last time. At least this time however, GM and FCA have something already in production elsewhere that could be fairly quickly modified to US specs without having to start from a clean sheet.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • thegamper: Pure speculation on my part, but I would think as more luxury automakers get EV’s to market with...
  • Rocket: I don’t see it. For one, it’s a lot of money to spend. But more important, Toyota is all about...
  • Giskard: Unlike other cars an electric car is likely to “know” it’s plugged in. My i3s, for...
  • Lie2me: I agree, or at least greatly reduce the amount of salt used. Here in southern Wisconsin I appreciate that...
  • Featherston: +1, ajla – You’ve hit the nail on the head. I think up-engined FWDers skew “bad in...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributors

  • Timothy Cain, Canada
  • Matthew Guy, Canada
  • Ronnie Schreiber, United States
  • Bozi Tatarevic, United States
  • Chris Tonn, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States
  • Mark Baruth, United States
  • Moderators

  • Adam Tonge, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States