Last post on Dec 10, 2013 at 12:34 PM
You are in the Chevrolet Colorado and GMC Canyon
What is this discussion about?
Chevrolet Colorado, GMC Canyon, Engine, Truck
#80 of 717 Re: Valve spring and head issues [ron_m]
Apr 14, 2007 (11:35 am)
I am thinking about buying a new Colorado and found this site and all of the complaints. I am assuming (and hoping) that the majority of this is the I5 engine of 2006 and prior. I am looking at a 4 cylinder because Chevrolet does not offer a larger engine with a manual transmission - why, I have no idea, but I am not happy with that arrangement.
Anyway, late in the comments, it is mentioned about the welds. I noticed this fact myself as I was looking at new trucks on the lot. I noticed very crappy welds down the bed primarily, but not universally. Some had bad welds and some didn't. These welds seem to be due to improper settings on the welding machines, as the welds sit high and prominent with sloppy endpoints. In my opinion, these welds should sit more flush to the bed surface indicating good penetration rather than the cold and sloppy look they have.
Can someone tell me why in the world a major automotive manufacturer would have such bad quality control that no one notices this? As I said, some were really bad and some looked okay - indicating to me that they are capable of producing a good weld, but fail to notice the many trucks rolling off the assembly line with bad welds.
#81 of 717 Re: Valve spring and head issues [winmag]
Apr 14, 2007 (11:51 am)
Why would you even consider buying one of these trucks if you can visibly see poor quality control problems?
GM probably does not offer a manual with the 2k7 I5 because the manuals are built so cheap that they won't take the new hp & torque numbers.
#82 of 717 Re: 05 Colorado with a strange stuttering problem [pmurray]
Apr 14, 2007 (5:04 pm)
I just got my truck back yesterday. They had it for 5 weeks...not a gmc problem but a local dealership problem that multiple complaints have been surfacing since early 2007.
I love this truck and am torn on whether to sell it.
I definitly recommend an extended warranty for anyone who gets into a 2005-2006 that has the particular defects and VIN's that match the TEC DOC ID#1915 419.
I recommend taking your canyon in and seeing if it is one of the potential problematic ones.
If it is on the list have them do a cylinder leak down test.
Supposedly the new heads fix the problem so it should be smooth sailing once the problem is taken care of.
GMC should definitly warn folks that own the vehicles with the potential defects prior to the warranty period ending.
It is obvious that they knew there was a problem since folks have been getting work done under warranty up to 80k miles.
Bad business practice by GM for not informing the general public. Has anyone considered filing a BBB complaint and using this TEC DOC as the blatent evidence of the defect cover-up?
#83 of 717 Re: Valve spring and head issues [febrile]
Apr 14, 2007 (5:48 pm)
I forgot to mention that the truck came from the factory with front end alignment and torsion bar adjustment out of specs. It had a wind/road noise that is more obvious on the passenger side. They said they installed insulation under the interior trim, but I can't tell it's improved. My truck was swapped in from another dealer, and I didn't drive it before I signed the papers. I regret that fact.
#84 of 717 quality issues and manual transmission
Apr 16, 2007 (8:41 pm)
I guess I figured GMC was a smart enough company to attempt to actually remedy their problems, and eventually, they would get the bugs worked out and produce a reasonable product. Jury is still out on that one I guess.
That's an interesting take on why they don't offer a manual tranny for the I5. I would figure a manual transmission would be better able to stand up to higher horsepower and torque - as I assume why they don't make automatic semi-trucks or dumptrucks for the most part. My take on it was that automatic transmissions are so popular that they just dropped it as an option on the bigger engines. I would MUCH rather have a manual transmission if I was using a bigger engine to actually do something that required it - like pulling something heavy or trying to extract the vehicle from a mud hole. Too many things to break on an automatic transmission and they seem to be made for highway cruising primarily. (I have a manual on my old S-10 which has 252,000 miles and have done NOTHING to the transmission).
#85 of 717 Re: quality issues and manual transmission [winmag]
Apr 17, 2007 (2:31 am)
The problem is that 99% of the people don't want manual trannys and the ones who do tend to buy cheap versions of the vehicle so they only build the manual with the 4 cyl engine. When I worked at the factory that built the Grand Am and the Olds/Buick versions we only built about 4 manual trannys a day out of 2 assembley lines running 60 cars each per hour. By the third year we dropped the manual tranny completely as it just wasn't cost effective. The reason you see manuals on mostly foreign vehicles is they are selling overseas too which more people want manuals.
#86 of 717 High Torque I-5 engine
Apr 17, 2007 (5:03 am)
I hope no one is accepting GM's claim that the I-5 has the power of a 6-cylinder with the economy of a 4-cylinder. The 4.3L V6 in my '01 S-10 would run circles around my Colorado I-5. I drove a Cobalt while my truck was in the shop, and that even was faster from a stop AND at highway speeds. It's propaganda!
#87 of 717 Re: High Torque I-5 engine [febrile]
Apr 17, 2007 (6:11 am)
They didn't say which 6 cyl. Second you are comparing apples to oranges as your S-10 is a 4.3 vs 3.5 and I believe the 4.3 has more HP plus I'm betting the S-10 is a few hundred lbs. lighter.
#88 of 717 Re: High Torque I-5 engine [febrile]
Apr 17, 2007 (6:22 am)
The only reason GM went with the I5 was because the I6 would not fit in the frame that they bought from Isuzu. They had to lob one of the cylinders off to make it fit.
So one has to wonder why did they not stick with the 4.3 since it is a proven power train? After all if you look at their 2k7 Full Size truck the 4.3 is still alive and well.
GM just SCREWED UP just plain and simple!!
#89 of 717 Re: High Torque I-5 engine [dmathews3]
Apr 18, 2007 (3:22 am)
The 4.3 is a good engine but the 3.5 has more hp than the 4.3. The hp on the 4.3 is 195 and the hp on the 3.5 is 220 on all except on the 07 which is 242. I have a 2004 ext. cab 4x4 with a 3.5 that just turned 50k miles and I love the truck. I haven`t had any trouble with the truck. I did change the tires just as soon as I bought the truck because the tires that came on it was not aggressive enough for the kind of driving I do. I also know from reading on this web site that the head could go at any time but I will wait and see what happends.