You are here: Forums Prices Paid: Buying & Leasing Experiences Chevrolet Colorado Prices Paid and Buying Experience

Chevrolet Colorado Prices Paid and Buying Experience

46 messages,  Last post on Nov 28, 2009 at 9:17 AM

You are in the Prices Paid: Buying & Leasing Experiences Forum. Your Hosts are car_man & kyfdx

What is this discussion about? Chevrolet Colorado, Truck

Messages Page 5 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 Prev Next Last

Go To Msg # Search This Discussion

#33 of 46 Re: Colorado Options [bob_gromski] by jfritsch Oct 02, 2008 (7:25 am)
Replying to: bob_gromski (Sep 27, 2008 2:14 pm) CR auto surveys (done since 1964?) are the most comprehensive thing the consumer has for auto reliability period. Some faults I guess can be made but the overall picture is probably accurate. Also the difference between the worst quartile and best quartile has shrunk over the years. Perhaps years ago the best quartile dropped 6 transmissions per hundred vehicles and the worst 20 trannys per hundred. Now it may be 3 and 10 or so. All quality has improved. Although the worst is still all black dots.   I cannot believe anyone would buy a Colorado after test driving it to the Tacoma or Frontier. (Only comparing CR figures and jd powers stuff a big mistake, the build quality and robustness diff is tremendous. Colorado nowhere near approaches Silverado, Tacoma or Frontier in quality. Similar 2wd Crew Frontiers were blown out at around 20k or so the last month or two. Tacoma managed to hold up their snotty prices as there are a lot of Toyota freaks that will pay up.   Frontier and Tacoma have powerful v6's, heavy duty towing, robust build quality etc. Dodge Dakota was tolerable with lifetime powertrain but you need at least 10-12k off its inflated 29-33k msrp to be tolerable. Ridgeline 08 awd v6 at 8-10k off all day is excellent for a 21-23k purchase and may be superior to any 2wd purchase.   A quick look and test drive at any of them would put the Ridgeline, Powerful Frontier Possibly Tacoma or V8 Dakota well above the miserable Colorado with poor towing an "V5" underpowered engine. Most people would easily see this, regardless of magazine ratings. Body roll with a 250 pound man in the passenger rear crew seat was frightening. Avoid getting tied up with Gm's marketing gimmick cards. You need a full size truck, Silverado fine. Mid size colorado and compact cars are mediocre. You're locked in.   Am sympathetic to the pinko bent perceived on some other CR stuff with but the auto survey, continued and improved for 40 years has remained relatively pure, with no gross distortions. Most useful and comprehensive survey available regardless.   Avoid the Colorado, let the test drives be you guide.   good luck --jjf
#34 of 46 Re: Colorado Options [bob_gromski] by poncho167 Oct 02, 2008 (3:42 pm)
Replying to: bob_gromski (Sep 27, 2008 2:14 pm) Anyone who is serious about and knows autos/trucks doesn't follow Consumer Reports. The company does its surveys on only its subscribing base to their rag. Who knows why those people are responding to their surveys or why they are not. What are their demographics?   I would take CR into consideration when it comes to refrigerators, lawnmowers, microwaves, drills, etc., but not auto's.   CR had their big apology a couple years ago after the company who they outsourced to test child car seats gave an incorrect report in stating 8-11 were bad.   Car/truck magazines are good sources and JD Power and Wards are also legitimate but leave CR to toasters. Replies to this message: jpf (Oct 02, 2008 9:03 pm) poncho167 (Oct 09, 2008 3:13 pm) fheiser (Jan 04, 2009 6:53 am) jpf (Jan 04, 2009 5:56 pm) and 1 more... poncho167 (Jan 11, 2009 4:32 am) jfritsch (Jan 12, 2009 8:50 am) and 2 more...
#35 of 46 2009 Canyon by catken Oct 02, 2008 (4:09 pm)
Can yoy get a 5speed man. with the 3.7 . Ken
#37 of 46 Re: Colorado Options [poncho167] by jpf Oct 02, 2008 (9:03 pm)
Replying to: poncho167 (Oct 02, 2008 3:42 pm) If you want more proof the Colorado / Canyon are crappy trucks just check out the discussion under Colorado Engine Problems. Engines self-destructing within 30-50 thousand miles does not inspire confidence in these trucks. GM would have been better off updating the S10 / Sonoma. The 4.3 V6 found in these trucks was more durable than the Colorado /Canyon 3.5 or 3.7. Replies to this message: poncho167 (Oct 09, 2008 3:13 pm) fheiser (Jan 04, 2009 6:53 am) jpf (Jan 04, 2009 5:56 pm) poncho167 (Jan 11, 2009 4:39 am) poncho167 (Jan 11, 2009 4:32 am) jfritsch (Jan 12, 2009 8:50 am) 04cad (Jan 13, 2009 7:21 am) and 1 more...
#38 of 46 Re: Colorado Options [jpf] by poncho167 Oct 09, 2008 (3:13 pm)
Replying to: jpf (Oct 02, 2008 9:03 pm) I wouldn't say they are crappy trucks at all. I drive a 1992 S10 that I just can't get rid of and yes I agree that the previous models are more heavy duty, It is a known fact based on the towing, etc. The 4.3 L is probably the most durable V6 ever made and the previous generation 2.5 iron duke and 2.8 V6 which I have were very good as well.   I have driven the Canyon/Colorado's and like them fine. I would get the base four banger. The truck has had some issues for sure with the valve seals and the front suspension but overall its an ok truck. My nephew has a 2005 I5 that has been trouble free. Not all the trucks have defects luckily.
#39 of 46 Re: Colorado Options [jpf] by fheiser Jan 04, 2009 (6:53 am)
Replying to: jpf (Oct 02, 2008 9:03 pm) Well, I think there is good proof now that not all the engine choices are unsound. I am one of the few that plans to buy one of the '09 Colorados with the V8! Gets as good or better (mostly better) mileage than the competion's V6's get. And 300 hp? 0-60 in less than 7 sec.? And let's not forget what just a mild amount of tweaking can do to improve both power and mpg. I am a little turned off by how unrefined the interior is but the truck itself is more than capable and frankly, right now, I would also like to just support an American car manufacturer. Anybody else have any thoughts on the V8? I know most think it's pointless at this time in the economy, but that's part of the reason I'm buying, it might be a fairly rare truck if no one else buys the V8. Replies to this message: jpf (Jan 04, 2009 5:56 pm) poncho167 (Jan 11, 2009 4:39 am) poncho167 (Jan 11, 2009 4:32 am) jfritsch (Jan 12, 2009 8:50 am) 04cad (Jan 13, 2009 7:21 am) jfritsch (Jan 13, 2009 2:42 pm)
#40 of 46 Re: Colorado Options [fheiser] by jpf Jan 04, 2009 (5:56 pm)
Replying to: fheiser (Jan 04, 2009 6:53 am) You may want to compare it with the Dakota (i.e. 0 to 60, etc.). I think you can get the Dakota with a hemi. Good luck. Replies to this message: poncho167 (Jan 11, 2009 4:39 am)
#41 of 46 Re: Colorado Options [fheiser] by poncho167 Jan 11, 2009 (4:32 am)
Replying to: fheiser (Jan 04, 2009 6:53 am) The V8 is really not that bad of a decision mileage wise with this lighter truck to pull around.   With the whole auto industry suffering (not just American) including Toyota's historical downslide, people are being very cautious with unneccessary purchases. I also feel that people are starting to feel guilty by purchasing Japanese vehicles because they are no better than domestic American products in most segments.
#42 of 46 Re: Colorado Options [jpf] by poncho167 Jan 11, 2009 (4:39 am)
Replying to: jpf (Jan 04, 2009 5:56 pm) The Dodge hemi engines are just ok engines. The 440 Magnum engines of the 1960's were Chrysler's prefered engine for racing. The hemi's were unreliable and inefficient. Todays hemi's are much more reliable and efficient but no where as efficient as GM's V8 engines. The hemispherical head design of the hemi is not a good design for mileage.   That V8 engine option in the Colorado will return much better mileage than a Chrysler Hemi.

Messages Page 5 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 Prev Next Last

Go To Msg # Search This Discussion

You are here: Forums Prices Paid: Buying & Leasing Experiences Chevrolet Colorado Prices Paid and Buying Experience