Last post on Oct 17, 2006 at 9:06 PM
You are in the Chevrolet Colorado and GMC Canyon
What is this discussion about?
Chevrolet Colorado, Truck
#117 of 1033 Towing, diesel, and other things...
Sep 11, 2003 (7:04 pm)
Here are my opinions...
As consumers we always want more - more space, more towing, more power, more fuel economy...
To me the new Colorado delivers on all these but towing. Many new models do not get all the nice engines and suspensions the first year. I am hoping we will see a six cylinder, a diesel, and better towing numbers in later model years.
Also, the Colorado will be very important to Chevy in order to meet CAFE requirements. Chevy cannot sell Suburbans, Tahoes, and Avalanches without balancing them out with high fuel efficiency Colorados.
As for diesels, Chevy has access to many state of the art diesels through their partnership with Isuzu. But I would not expect to see any diesel available until ultra-low sulfur diesel is mandated in 2006.
#118 of 1033 re gregburrow
Sep 11, 2003 (9:25 pm)
Your wrong about the Cafe standards, Suburbans do not effect the Cafe standard or the fleet mileage, any vehicle that weighs over 6,000 lbs doesn't affect the fleet. So the H2 Hummer also has nothing to do with GM's fleet Cafe Avg. MPG.
Sep 12, 2003 (9:15 am)
"Who wants to waste all their gas on a V-8? This I-5 engine sounds like it has V-6 power on 4 cylinder mileage. If this is true, I am sure that people will not be complaining that much about the suppossed lack of torque."
Well, my theory is, why not give us more of a choice? If you want miserly MPG, that's why they're offering the 4-cylinder, right? Few people buy trucks for gas mileage anyway. It's more than a supposed lack of torque, it is less torque (than the 4.3). Hopefully, the crew cab 4x4 with 4.10's and I-5 will have plenty of power. Sure, it's a small truck, and I'm not saying pack the 5.3 v-8 in there, but the I-6 from the Trailblazer would be pretty sweet, would it not?
Sep 13, 2003 (8:07 am)
To get a vehicle to perform well it has to be set up right. To set up suspension for good ride and handling a switch from four to six cylinders is a stretch. From 4cyl to 8 cyl seems too much. To me, and I am not an engineer, The different requirements in weight, and size, for 4cly and 8cyl engines,mean they should not be in the same truck. It would be too much of a compromise.
#121 of 1033 Funny Discussion
Sep 13, 2003 (12:37 pm)
This topic is really very ironic if you think about it. People arguing about towing and how they think the Colorado will be so underpowered and what not. The old s-10's were all dog's in my opinion, from that sucky old 2.8V6, to the old 4.3V6, to the newer Vortec 4.3, and the base 2.2, they all sucked. I have driven or owned an s-10 equipped as such over the years and found them neither very fun to drive, or all that efficient. I also owned at one time a C1500 with a manual transmission, and the 4.3 Vortec engine, and found that it was slightly improved, don't know how that was considering it had only 10-15 more horsepower, could be that the rear end gears were 3.73:1 and that the s-10 was only ever offered with 3.08 and 3.42 gears.
Back to the point, I think the base engine will very nice, especially compared with anything that Ford, Dodge, or Toyota peddles. And you must give GM credit for going out on a limb by doing something new with the I-5 engine. While it may have less torque, it does have my horsepower and thus should not have any problems with quickness. Especially when you consider that Chev will offer 4:10 gears, that should be more than sufficient for this size of vehicle.
About towing, it should tow a 5000 pound trailer with no problems, even though it is rated at 4000. My C1500 actually had a rating of 2500 pounds due to the manual transmission, but I did end up towing some 4000-5000 pound trailers before and once it got up to speed it had no problems on the highway or whatever. If you want to tow anything more than 5000 get a full size, its safer that way from a physics standpoint and you will be able to do it much easier, considering better weight on full size, V8, or even diesel engine options, heavy duty transmissions, etc.
Finally, why does Chevy have to offer the I-6 engine? I think this goes back to bragging rights and stupid issues of machismo, or being macho. You cannot pull up in your new truck with the I-5 and tell this to your buddies right? They will think you are a sissy or something? Ha ha, I just laugh at anybody who buys a vehicle strictly so they can look cool. To me, a vehicle must have a blend of looks, usefullness, and driveability, along with a competitive price versus value quotient. Its like picking a girlfriend, only a fool goes just for looks, or vice versa just personality, there has to be a balance here. I think Chevy achieves a good balance of power, looks, engineering on this vehicle.
#122 of 1033 Funny discussion indeed...
Sep 13, 2003 (3:00 pm)
I've always thought the present S-10 to have pretty useless engines. There's nothing wrong with the 4.3 really, but it's way too much engine for the casual user, and if I were inclined to tow, I'd just step up to the fullsizers. Why a little truck and then get 17mpg???
The present 4cyl is an embarassment IMO; build quality is all over the place, and for a 40-year-old design, they still have (or had, 5 yrs ago) issues with piston slap and the like.
The new family of inline engines sounds really good -- powertrain is not just a strength of GM, it is probably the ONLY strength. Consider that BMW uses a GM product in their 7-series.
Why am I even here? Well, I've got $2,500 in GM Card discounts, and in one or two years, I'm gonna have to do something with them. So the Colorado is an obvious choice, but I'm waiting until it'sbeen out for a while. At least they're making 2/4wd, 4/5cyl, and man/auto tranny available across the board. THAT is nice. Also, the size is nice, at least for my needs. If I want a big truck, I'll buy one.
Now let's hope the thing holds together like, say, a Nissan... we'll look for Honda/Toyota quality and reliability further down the road. Living as I do in a GM town, I really wish they'd get it together. There's always the Pontiac Vibe and a switch to the Subaru Credit Card if they don't.
Can someone tell me what's so important about tow rating and power? The darned S10s, once they are three years old, barely bring half of what a similar Tacoma goes for at auction. That's how shoddily many of them are built. And you worry about POWER??? The Tacoma is an old design, uncomfortable, no extra doors, ugly.... but it's built to last.
At least we KNOW the Colorado is going to be an improvement.
#123 of 1033 To Answer Your Question
Sep 13, 2003 (4:37 pm)
I really liked your response and insights on the whole Colorado truck. You know, another problem with the 4.3 is noise. I constantly could here some noise coming from the lower end of the engine I believe. It sometimes sounded like a little ping, but it kept happenning. It would not matter what gasoline grade I used in the vehicle it still made that blasted noise.
Why is towing so important to some people? Well a lot of people do tow things, but a lot of people that really need a good truck for towing loads, such as horses, contractors equipment, etc. normally step up to a tougher 3/4 or 1ton rig with a big block engine, or even better a turbodiesel, and better transmissions. If you are looking into smaller trucks, the argument about towing becomes rather silly. I used one of my pickups from the past, a 1995 Chev s-10, 2wd, for loading firewood in the bed. If you loaded that thing up, it would sink in the rear end, almost touching the stops, except I counteracted the problem somewhat by installing air shocks, and it would make a terrible groaning noise in the driveline, it got so bad that I was afraid to own the truck anymore and traded it in on a 1997 C1500, which had no problems pulling a trailer and at the same time loading stuff in the cargo box.
Really I think that people overkill on their ideas about the towing thing. Small trucks are not built to tow heavy loads, over 5000, and should be used just for smaller stuff, IMO.
I agree with you on the quality of Toyota trucks, though I think their design is bland, and they drive just terrible.
Also, I do believe that GM does make good drivetrain materials, but not on a Tracker I used to own. I think the new model Tracker contains parts made by Suzuki, more than those made by GM. I had so many transmissions replaced in that thing, it was ridiculous. Though I believe it was not necessarily GM's fault, really the fault of bad design and cramped driveline put together by Suzuki.
I also believe the Colorado will be an excellent truck, and that the engine choices will provide more than adequate performance without losing a good amount of mileage, plus the trucks look very nice.
Sep 14, 2003 (6:57 am)
The 4.3 in the S-10 is indeed offered w/the 3.73 gears, not just the 3.08 and the 3.42.
"About towing, it should tow a 5000 pound trailer with no problems, even though it is rated at 4000."
-Maybe, but who would want to explain their insurance company, after an accident, that sure, they were towing 5,000 lbs, even though it is rated for only 4,000? Not me. Not that I'd ever try to two that much with such small truck.
No, for me, I just wonder why Chevy's competition (Nissan, Toyota, Dodge, and Ford) offers 5,000 rating, and Chevy only 4,000. I'm a big Chevy fan, love their small trucks, and I hate to see this. From everything I've seen, the Colorado is going to be awesome, but this is an issue for me.
My boat weighs in at 3,200; throw some gear in the bed, a few people, and you're close to the limit. Maybe a full-sized would be better for me in that respect. Could I park it in my garage? No. It would get worse gas mileage, and would be a huge pain at the parking garage at work. Not to mention it will cost more.
Sep 14, 2003 (12:07 pm)
You are correct that the S-10 is indeed offered with 3.73 gears, though it really makes no difference, the 4.3 is ancient in design, and has a terrible power curve. In my experience the S-10 with the 4.3 would not take off that quick, but would get going about 2500RPM and then just die around 4000. The 5.7 liter engine that this was based off, had more power and a better lower down torque, but then again it is a V8.
"My boat weighs in at 3,200; throw some gear in the bed, a few people, and you're close to the limit."
All that I am trying to say is that the limit is very conservative from the manufacture's listing. As I stated above my 1997 C1500 only had a rating of 2500lbs, due to the manual transmission. I did on occassion pull a 4000lb wood trailer, plus about another 1500-2000lb's of wood in the bed. It sank somewhat in the rear, but I had good 6ply tires on it and the suspension was more than adequate. If you add both those numbers up, you will find that I was about 3500lbs over what the manufacture suggested. Did it hurt my truck, do not think so, it was running strong until the day I traded it in at 52K miles.
"Maybe a full-sized would be better for me in that respect. Could I park it in my garage?"
Why not, is your garage really a garage? I am sorry to say, but even with a 4X4, most conventional garages should be able to fit a full-size. I know people with Suburbans that put them in their standard garages, tight fit but still it works.
"It would get worse gas mileage, and would be a huge pain at the parking garage at work. Not to mention it will cost more."
Not necessarily, I have driven compact V6 trucks that seemed to get about the same mileage as a full-size, small block V8 truck. Again it involves the manner in which the vehicle is driven.
Concerning the competition, you are correct that the others have higher tow ratings, but like anything comparing the Dodge Dakota to the Colorado, or the Ranger, or the Frontier is like apples to oranges. The Dakota is a decent truck, though its V8 is overplayed, and not really all that fun to drive as some would tell you, also the gas mileage is a miserable 14MPG all the time. The Frontier and Tacoma are nice looking, though they ride like a tank in 4X4 version, and the power on each is not very good either, only adequate. The Ford Ranger has decent power and ride, but it just feels cheap and shoddy inside and out. They begin to rust really quick from small chips, this coming from friends that own newer Rangers, and they have problems with the auto transmission.
A lot of these things are true about the current S-10 as well. All I am saying is that I think the Colorado is the nicest looking truck on the compact market and seems to have a lot of nice features. If I buy it, I certainly will not be using it for towing much of anything, this hurts a vehicle after awhile, unless it is a full size that is meant to handle heavier loads.
Sep 14, 2003 (7:59 pm)
"If I buy it, I certainly will not be using it for towing much of anything, this hurts a vehicle after awhile, unless it is a full size that is meant to handle heavier loads."
You're right, and the lower the tow rating, the more it will hurt it I would think, which is why I'm bummed and will probably have to go full sized and miss out on this great vehicle. A lot of people who buy trucks actually use them for some towing, even the small trucks. It just would have been nice if Chevy had not left me out in the cold on this one.
No big deal I guess, father in law is a Chevy salesman, says to wait for the 1/2 ton crew cab coming out after January with the 5.3 (they did away with the 1500 HD and are going to make a 1/2 ton to compete with the Ford Supercrew) Should cost a few bucks more, but looks like it will fit my needs perfectly.