Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Pickups Chevrolet Colorado and GMC Canyon Chevrolet Colorado 
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
|
|
|---|---|
| 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. | |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
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.... |
|
| 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. | |
|
|
|
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,
these trucks will not be as big as expected. Heck, GM is now calling the present Sonoma a mid-size:
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. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
|
GMC and Chevrolet both have previews on their sites as of 01/07. Autoweek does also. http://www.autonews.com/page.cms?pageId=253 Looks to me that GM has a winner in the redesign of the S10/Sonoma. |
|
| Did Chevy retain the full gauge package in the Colorado and GMC Canyon as they had in the S-10 and Sonoma? I cannot tell from the pictures I have seen. | |
| I don't know what the uproar is all about - the Colorado is a beautiful new truck. I don't even have a need for a pickup and I feel like I want to own one of these already. | |
|
|
|
Glad to see I was not too wrong on the overall size not being changed much compared to the old S-10/Sonoma. The main area of increase is height (suspension) and wheelbase, but only by a few inches. The width is narrower then the existing models. I'm not sure if I like the looks. The fender flares look cheap, the interior and bed scream "Japanese" and the package seems to have a "lightness" to it I don't like. The Canyon seems looks very much like a Chevy, like GMC is embarrased by it or got it stuck down their throat and didn't have the budget to design "brand character" into it. The I-4 should do well, but I still feel the I-5 could be a liability in a V-6 world. But, the I-5 gets three extra MPG over the 4.3 and these trucks will help GM's CAFE numbers, a big reason they are making them. |
|
|
I found a site that has information on the Colorado:
http://www.gminsidenews.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=4&t=97&s=a45e1441ab7f15f45457926cf38c6f23 This all the information GM has released, expect a small V-8 or a Turbo I-5 for the SS version in about 2-3 Years! |
|
You are here:
Forums
Pickups Chevrolet Colorado and GMC Canyon Chevrolet Colorado
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2010 Chevrolet Colorado
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
