Sign In Join 



Chevrolet Colorado - READ ONLY

1033 messages,  Last post on Oct 17, 2006 at 8:06 PM

You are in the Chevrolet Colorado and GMC Canyon Forum. Your Host is kcram

What is this discussion about? Chevrolet Colorado, Truck


Messages Page 3 of 104
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
...
104
Prev
Next
Last
Go To Msg #
Search This Discussion

#16 of 1033
Canyon / Colorado SS Needed by fsmmcsi
Nov 23, 2002 (3:31 pm)
GM should offer the Canyon and Colorado with the 405HP small block V8, AWD, an extended cab, all of the deluxe features (plenty of sound insulation, Etc.) and a 6' bed. It would be an excellent alternative to an SUV, since all of the things which rattle and move around (or go flying in a wreck) would be outside the passenger area, but it would be short enough to fit in normal garage spaces. I would much prefer something like that to the Sierra Denali, which is simply too large, too heavy, and too inefficient.
#17 of 1033
Traded by glzr2
Nov 25, 2002 (8:40 am)
I traded in my blazer ZR2 for a Dakota Quad cab and I'm glad I did. Don't get me wrong, I loved my ZR2, the looks, engine, and offroad ability were great, but nothing beats having a four door pick-up with a V8. If Chevy were to throw a ZR2 package onto the 4door S10... I would think about it, but I would still opt for the Dakota. Why you ask... size. I couldn't get over how much more interior room the Dakota had compared to the S10 (I'm going by feel.. I don't know the dimensional difference) special in the back seat. I think Chevy needs to update the S10 and make it bigger and as far as the engine... I get the same gas mileage from the 4.7 V8 that I did with the 4.3 V6... so give me a V8.
#18 of 1033
DON'T BLAME THE DESIGNERS.... by kingquad1
Nov 27, 2002 (4:08 am)
THE COLORADO WAS ENGINEERED IN JAPAN!!!! DESIGNERS DON'T MAKE THE DECISIONS..BEAN COUNTERS DO. AS FOR DRUGS, WE DON'T HAVE THE TIME....TRYING TO MAKE SENSE OUT OF WHAT IS GOING ON IS ENOUGH!
#19 of 1033
Japan? by glzr2
Nov 28, 2002 (7:25 am)
Wait a minute.... is the Colorado the truck rumored to be designed by Suzuki? Or is GM out-sourcing the Engineering to PATAC in China?
#20 of 1033
GM please build a real mid size truck! by matsukevich
Dec 02, 2002 (8:04 pm)
Bob Lutz, HELP!
If your going to put a mid-size truck on the market be competative with the marketplace, It's a no brainer. Your engine engineers must be a bunch of wimps. Don't listen to them. Listen to your consumers, your long time customers.......Put at least the In-line 6 in the Colorado and Canyon.......Put a 6' bed on this truck. The ZR2 is a good package keep it on the new models. If your going to build a 4 door make the back seat big enough for adults, two bucket seats as an option I know would work.
#21 of 1033
The engine that ruled the world- The IN-LINE. by ncgtriangulum
Dec 15, 2002 (2:02 am)
My opinion, saying a design is bad or good before the product is personally evaluated is not a practical one. In-line engines have been around for over 100 years and have been some of the most durable engines ever built. And as we have seen with products from the past that consumer opinion is not based on sound engineering, but on emotions (whose engine is bigger) or initial cost -popularity is not always best. I prefer in-line engines that are properly designed due to reduction in parts, lower operating cost, more access to vital engine components (easier to fix), and longer life (over 300,000 miles) Marine and trucking companies have lived on in-line six engines for decades and why should a short version of five cylinders or even four be such a bad move? World War II was fought using in-lines and they went through hell-the JEEP was powered by a four cylinder and the GI's loved them. Look at any farm equipment, earth moving equipment, industrial generators, Navy (air-craft carriers!), Coast Guard, or Commercial cruise ships - you might be surprised to find in-line engines. What ever happened to the complaints on reliability, complexity, gas-mileage, how smooth an engine feels and serviceablity? Are these not factors when we purchase? And yes, they are longer and if you want a short front end on any vehicle you must make a "V" configuration. GM may actually make a "Professional grade" truck sooner than later based on industrial concepts as opposed to engine displacement or configuration. This is my opinion, try to keep the emotions out and the logic in-not always a simple task.
#22 of 1033
Isuzu D-Max=Colarado/Canyon by thecargonzo
Dec 25, 2002 (7:01 am)
Well folks, here is an advance look at the Colorado/Canyon, the Isuzu D-Max
www.isuzu-tis.com (select English at the bottom of the page, this is a Thai site, the same country the vehicle is built in).
 
As KingQuad1 alluded to earlier, these trucks have been primarily engineered in Japan. As you look through the spec pages and interiors (yes, right-hand drive)please note the following:
 
- Dimensions are smaller than the existing
S-series/Sonoma if my metric oconversion calculations are right. All the scuttlebutt earlier had these trucks growing larger. True, the Shreveport plant may be able to put bigger cabs/beds on the chassis, but I'm not so sure of a bigger cab because of the interior.
 
- The interior(though reversed), looks exactly like the one seen in all those Brenda Priddy/Hans Lehman Hidden Image spy photos of the Colorado Canyon. Hard to make a bigger cab when you are even using the same door hardware.
#23 of 1033
Inline Engine Power by jgmilberg
Dec 27, 2002 (10:34 pm)
I can't for the life of me figure out this big thing about the I5, and I4 engines, both of these engines are going to out power the current 180HP2wd/190HP4wd 4.3V6 so what's the big deal?! From what I have heard the I4 will have 170HP and the I5 will have 215HP. I dramatic improvement over the piddely little 180hp2wd/190hp4wd that's currently available. Another tidbit of information the in line engines run smoother than you could ever imagine. The I6 had to have an anti-starter grind circuit installed because they were getting chewed up starters from those that couldn't tell the engine was running.
 
A SS model would be cool though, like the old S-10 Typhoon with the turbo charged 4.3, man that was a real runner there. Oh well there are aftermarket companies that will come out with the go fast stuff we crave. Now if it didn't void the factory warranty....
#24 of 1033
by brucec35
Jan 04, 2003 (10:22 am)
I currently drive a Tundra I'm very happy with, and since I don't really like the new styling tweaks they've tacked on, I would consider the new Colorado, since I like the slightly smaller than full size Tundra and find regular compacts too small. But I'm curious why they would take the new well-respected 275hp I-6 from the TrailBlazer and cut off a cylinder for the pickup? Seems like they would save money not having to re-engineer the engine, and it would have the power heavy users would require. 225 lb ft of torque will not cut it for towing and work use, which is what I use mine for. Yet another example of GM shooting itself in the foot if my information is correct. The truck would also have to have a 6 foot bed, minimum, or it wouldn't meet my needs. They make cute-utes for people who just want to commute in a truck.
#25 of 1033
Tundra Bruce by thecargonzo
Jan 04, 2003 (1:28 pm)
Here is a paraphrase of some stuff I put on the Canyon board on why I think GM is doing what they are doing:

- If similar in size to their platform mate, the Isuzu D-max,

http://www.isuzu-tis.com

these trucks will not be as big as expected. Heck, GM is now calling the present Sonoma a mid-size:

http://www.gmc.com/sonoma

Why make a mid-size when you can market your old compact as one (Revenge of Ron Zarella?!?). Maybe GM got some good intel on the Dakota being shrunk next generation and decided not to be behind the power curve. Probably GM also read the writing on the political wall (read: CAFE) and knew they needed to compensate for Yukons/Denalis, Escalades, Silverado 1500's and the like. Might be the reason GMC, quite a while after the Colarado was announced, finally announced the Canyon. Corporate might have forced them to have a small truck so all the CAFE averaging pressure isn't on Chevy.

- The engine debate is also interesting. Again GM is going for fuel economy IMO. An exec practically said so when he was quoted as wanting to sell a lot of 2.8/5-speed combos. Owning both a vehicle with a 4.2L I-6 Vortec and one with the old 4.3 V-6 Vortec, I can attest for the new engine's smoothness and higher end power. But GM is putting in an I-5 version for mileage. Even with balance shafts it won't be as smooth. Plus, it has less torque than the 4.3. In the end it might come down to buyer's perceptions. Ford dealer's will be quick to learn "Yes, their's is nice, but OUR's has a V-6.
The 3.5L will best the 4.3 Vortec by 25-35 HP (depending on which version (2wd/4wd)4.3L is compared to) but it does lose 20-25lb-ft of torque in the same comparision. Will buyers be more concerned with torque output and engine size/number of cylinders? Ford's top Ranger engine is a 4 liter four with 238lb-ft of torque.
The 4.3 had this beat on both accounts. Of course, the Ranger out-sold it, so maybe the 3.5 will outsell it due to horsepower (8hp more). I'm not so sure though. With the I-6, GM out-muscled the 4.0 in the Explorer and even out HPed the
V-8. The advantage was clearly GM's. In this case though, I don't think the advantages are as clear cut. Especially with Ford salesman asking True-Blue American pick-up buyers if they want a "Japanese-designed pickup with one of them smaller foreign style five-cylinder engines in it."
Hopefully, GM's gambit to lower it's CAFE numbers with this truck will work, but it might be at the expense of the truck's marketability (read: fleet sales). To address the lack of a "new" six cylinder truck, GM could introduce a 4.2L I-6 powered limited option base version Silverado/Sierra when the 4.3L goes out of production, similiar to the old W/T C/Ks. Problem is GMC wouldn't want a version because it doesn't fit there "Professional Grade" upscale image. Of course, this helps CAFE numbers some more (nice since EPA just raised them) but lessens profitability on a per unit basis, which continues to make Wall Street nervous. Got to like it when Government "enviropolicy" rather than market forces effect product decisions.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Messages Page 3 of 104
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
...
104
Prev
Next
Last
Go To Msg #
Search This Discussion

New? Join Now!

Forum Tools

Please sign in.
Email Address:

Password:

Forgot Password?

Search Forums

Enter Keyword(s)

Advanced Search

Browse by Vehicle



View All Vehicles
Advertisement
Ask the Community
See What People Are Asking

Browse by Board

Browse by Topic


View All Topics

Today's Chats

Advertisement