- #55 of 79
-
Re: front axle bind [garebear55]
by poncho167
-
Feb 16, 2008 (5:28 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: garebear55 (Feb 15, 2008 9:45 pm)
It sounds normal to me. My custom 1978 GMC 3/4 ton would do the same thing when it was in four wheel drive and turning sharp on pavement.
|
- #56 of 79
-
Re: 06 canyon fuel economy [tiam143]
by medic22003
-
May 31, 2008 (1:28 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: tiam143 (Nov 05, 2006 11:55 am)
I have an 04 ex cab z71 4x4 with 58000 on it and average 17-19 around here on curvy hilly side roads...best ive done on the interstate is 22. It has the 3.5 in it. The interstate driving is an an average of 75-80 mph. I fortunately havnt had the problems some people talk about on these forums and hope i never do. Gm really needs to get these trucks fixed and then watch profits roll in. None of the other auto makers have any better trucks. They are all over priced and sub quality in some area.
|
- #57 of 79
-
Re: extended cab carseat? [dfish10]
by medic22003
-
May 31, 2008 (1:39 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: dfish10 (Dec 15, 2007 9:14 am)
Both of my kids are out of car seats but they ride in booster seats in the back of my extended cab and claim that it is comfortable for them. I have to make sure thyey have the seatbelts on right but its solid.
|
- #58 of 79
-
Re: 06 canyon fuel economy [medic22003]
by poncho167
-
May 31, 2008 (5:40 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: medic22003 (May 31, 2008 1:28 pm)
In the next 2-years there will be a new model as noted on this forum.
I drive a 1992 S10 2-wheel drive and I am still attached to it even though its body is rusted through. It has a 2.8 L V6 144,000 miles with 5-speed that is trouble free and still gets mid-20's highway with a best of 28 mpg while on a trip. I bought it new orginally and wanted to fix it up for show but it ended up being a daily driver.
|
- #59 of 79
-
Re: 06 canyon fuel economy [poncho167]
by jpf
-
Jun 05, 2008 (10:52 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: poncho167 (May 31, 2008 5:40 pm)
If I were you, I would either hang on to your truck or if buying used, try to find a low mileage S10. I would never in a million years buy a Colarado/Canyon. These trucks are a disaster waiting to happen. I wonder what the heck GM was thinking when they built this truck. One look at the bed and you see the welding mark the length of the bed tells you not much solid engineering went into the design of this truck. This past December I was looking for a compact pickup and bought a low mileage 2000 S10. I couldn't be happier with my purchase. Good luck when you shop for your next pickup.
|
- #60 of 79
-
Re: 06 canyon fuel economy [jpf]
by nvbanker
-
Jun 07, 2008 (1:25 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: jpf (Jun 05, 2008 10:52 am)
Ok, I must make a counter-comment here....My nephew bought a new Colorado,beats it up as often as possible off road, tows a way too large boat with it, and barely keeps it serviced - the truck has amassed already 70,000 hard miles on it, with minimal trouble. The most irritating thing about it is the spare was smaller than the other 4 tires, and when applied to the front end because of a flat, burned out the front axle immediately - twice. Chevy dealer replaced the axle, but offered no fix other than "don't put the flat down". Of course, enterprising nephew got a larger spare. Other than that, it's a darn good truck, the likes of which the pathetic S-10 couldn't match in my experience.
|
- #61 of 79
-
Re: 06 canyon fuel economy [nvbanker]
by dmathews3
-
Jun 07, 2008 (1:33 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: nvbanker (Jun 07, 2008 1:25 pm)
If you go to one of the tire measuring places like this one:
http://www.1010tires.com/TireSizeCalculator.asp?action=submit
and punch in the spare tire size and the size of the tires on the truck of course they have to be the STOCK size tires that came on the truck you will find they are the same for all practical purposes. I know the spare is one size smaller than what is on the truck but they equal out as I used the same program to upsize mine to 17" wheels yet they still measured the same diameter as I took my wifes cloth tape measure and went around them. So my guess is either your nejphew changed out the tires on the truck to a bigger tire or something else was wrong and he just thinks it was the spares fault.
|
- #62 of 79
-
Re: 06 canyon fuel economy [dmathews3]
by nvbanker
-
Jun 07, 2008 (1:56 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: dmathews3 (Jun 07, 2008 1:33 pm)
Nope - they are Chevy wheels and the truck came stock - they did not equal out in service, blew his axle twice. I'm just reporting, but despite that, Chevy stepped up twice and fixed it. It's been an awesome little truck, and I prefer it to the Tacoma, the Gold Standard of small trucks myself.
|
- #63 of 79
-
Re: 06 canyon fuel economy [nvbanker]
by poncho167
-
Jun 08, 2008 (5:04 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: nvbanker (Jun 07, 2008 1:25 pm)
The Colorado/Canyon is not a bad truck, but the previous S10's were more heavy duty and could tow/haul more.
|
- #64 of 79
-
Re: 06 canyon fuel economy [poncho167]
by nvbanker
-
Jun 08, 2008 (9:30 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: poncho167 (Jun 08, 2008 5:04 am)
I do realize the S-10 was designed for the American market, and the Colorado was actually a Pacific Rim design, which is why the inline 6 from the Trailblazer wouldn't fit under the hood, so it was shortened to a 5 cylinder...so the S-10 may have been heavier, and certainly, it had more power with that big V-6 under there. I'll give you that. Just hadn't found the Colorado to be as bad as portrayed.
|
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Pickups 
