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

#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.

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

#26 of 1033
Colorado and Canyon by moparbad
Jan 07, 2003 (12:11 pm)
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.
#27 of 1033
Colorado Instruments by sgtjim
Jan 07, 2003 (9:18 pm)
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.
#28 of 1033
by diploid
Jan 08, 2003 (4:04 am)
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.
#29 of 1033
New Colorado/Canyon by thecargonzo
Jan 08, 2003 (12:07 pm)
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.
#30 of 1033
Here is some info: by tahoe11
Jan 11, 2003 (10:05 am)
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!

#31 of 1033
4 & 5 cyl fuel mileage by homerkc
Jan 12, 2003 (7:20 am)
I was following links yesterday on the Colorado, and quite honestly, I don't remember WHERE I read this. I read that the ESTIMATED (pre EPA official) mileage from the 4 cyl. engine was 16 city 20 hwy! If I remember correctly, that is the mileage available from a 2wd TrailBlazer with the 6 cyl. engine. What I read must have been in error -- please, somebody, tell me it's wrong.
 
If GM wants these trucks to make up some of the CAFE gap caused by selling Suburbans and HD pickups, they have to get 20 / 24 from the 4 cyl and 19 / 22 from the 5 -- minimum.
 
If the 16 / 20 is correct, why would anyone buy small? The Silverado isn't far from that with a V8!
#32 of 1033
RE: 4 & 5 cyl fuel mileage by homerkc by jauto98
Jan 12, 2003 (8:52 am)
I believe the 16/20 mpg rating you stated is for the 5-cylinder, 220 HP motor. Look at www.gmc.com and look for the GMC Canyon link under vehicles. No word on the mileage rating of the 4-cylinder, would assume 19/26 mpg.
#33 of 1033
Colarado/Canyon Mileage by thecargonzo
Jan 13, 2003 (1:43 pm)
Why drop the six unless one of your goals is improved mileage? I read somewhere that GM expects a two to three MPG improvement over the engines the new I-4/5 are replacing (2.2/4.3). Look at annother way. Many people were predicting 15 more hp per each engine, simply based on reducing the rating of the 4.2 by one to two cylinders. True, having to run twin balance shafts at twice engine speed does cause some parisitic losses, however I think part of the power loss is due to GM tuning the engines for better fuel economy.
 
I guess will see when the Feds at the EPA test them.
#34 of 1033
Diesel for Colorado by lucyann
Feb 19, 2003 (2:17 pm)
Well if the platform for the Colorado is the same as the Suzuki D-Max. Why not deliver something that US buyers would buy and offer the small diesel engine as in the D-Max?

Messages Page 4 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