Last post on Dec 03, 2013 at 4:39 PM
You are in the Chevrolet Colorado and GMC Canyon
What is this discussion about?
Chevrolet Colorado, GMC Canyon, Engine, Truck
#82 of 716 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 716 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 716 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 716 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 716 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 716 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 716 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 716 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.
#90 of 716 Re: High Torque I-5 engine [motorhead1]
Apr 18, 2007 (6:16 am)
The I5 in NOT a Truck engine or GM would have opted to use it in their ALL NEW 2k7 Full Size lineup. They opted to use the tried and true 4.3 because it has low end torque at low RPMs unlike the I5 which you have to spool up to get anything out of it.
When I was shopping for a replacement for my '95 Sonoma I was going to buy a Colorado/Canyon because I had very good luck with my Sonoma. But when I heard GM was going to use a 'neutered' I6 I ditched that idea rather quickly. I'm damn glad I did.
When you build a truck to be a contender in a very competitive midsize truck market one thing you do not do is go in with one arm tied behind your back by putting in a weak power train. That is exactly what GM did.
They could have stuck with the 4.3 or the I6.
At the time the I6 was rated as one of the Top Ten Best Engines by Wards.
GM screwed up!!
The latest is GM is putting the V8(5.3) in the H3 because the I5 is a total disgrace in the H3.
They should admit the same mistake and do something for the Canyon/Colorado.
#91 of 716 Re: 05 Colorado with a strange stuttering problem [d_creed]
Apr 18, 2007 (7:13 am)
I have an 06 Colorado with 14000 and have just begun to notice the rough idle with the engine. I have called the 800 number and gave them the tec doc #1915 419 but they acted like they had no clue what this # was. Am I better off giving this info to my local dealer to see if my vin # is associated with this tec doc? I really like this truck but if a future of headaches is approaching, I'd rather unload it!