GM Updates Power Figures for 2015 Chevrolet Colorado, GMC Canyon

2015-Chevrolet-ColoradoZ71 II

By Kelsey Mays,

Claiming the 2015 Chevrolet Colorado and GMC Canyon will have the "most horsepower in the midsized truck segment," GM issued revised power ratings for its redesigned pickup truck siblings.

A standard 2.5-liter four-cylinder with direct injection will make 200 horsepower at 6,300 rpm and 191 pounds-feet of torque at 4,400 rpm, while a 3.6-liter V-6 with direct injection makes 305 hp at 6,800 rpm and 269 pounds-feet of torque at 4,000 rpm. In earlier, preliminary specifications, GM estimated the four-cylinder would make 193 hp and 184 pounds-feet of torque, while the V-6 would make 302 hp and 270 pounds-feet of torque.

That means the V-6 Colorado and Canyon will outpower the Toyota Tacoma (236 hp, 266 pounds-feet) and have more horsepower but not as much torque as the Nissan Frontier (261 hp, 281 pounds-feet). Naturally, engine output is just one factor in the acceleration equation, and we'll have to test these trucks head-to-head before we crown a capability champ.

Midsize Chart 1 II

But based on horsepower alone, GM's trucks stand to make the most power with their optional engines. The Honda Ridgeline has a standard V-6, whose 250 hp and 247 pounds-feet of torque beat GM's base engines. But the Ridgeline is rumored to skip the 2015 model year ahead of a 2016 redesign, so the Colorado and Canyon may technically own the title of most base and optional horsepower when they go on sale this fall. The four-cylinder Tacoma makes 159 hp and 180 pounds-feet of torque, while the four-cylinder Frontier makes 152 hp and 171 pounds-feet of torque.

We digress, but all we have are the power ratings right now. Stay tuned for our driving impressions closer to the end of this year.

2015-GMC-Canyon-SLT II



Over at the GM plant: Put a V6 car engine in a truck, sounds good to me!

I think the real interest in the truck segment will be the diesel engine. Personally, I wouldn't even consider a gasser in this segment, but a 4 cyl diesel is a game changer as it can nearly offer double the gas mileage as a 1/2 ton gasser.

right... high horsepower in the upper rpm range with no low end grunt for towing...that's why tacoma will still outsell this

Agree with LJC. a 4 cyl diesel would be a great option. I think these manufacturers are afraid to do it for fear of eating into their half ton market.

Publishing HP and torque figures is a good thing, but 6300 and 6800 rpm? What I really need to know is what are the hp and torque figures at rpm levels I normally drive at? I guarantee I'm not going to rev that engine to 6800 rpm very often. That's pretty much an unusable rpm for ordinary driving.

I'll Keep my 390 HP HEMI with 407 TQ, Thank you!


Agree about the high RPM, but we could really say the same about any car or truck's HP numbers.

As much as I enjoy the sound of it, the V8 in my truck is rarely ever driven full throttle.

I'm keeping an open mind. The 2.5 sounds like a great base motor for a compact truck in this class.

The hp RPM is too dam high! The V6 has more hp than the Frontier but at a 1,200 higher RPM than the Frontier and 1,5000 higher RPM than the Silverado V6. This is in my view a corrupt and undeserved increased in hp.

Surprise, the V6 has the same horsepower as the same motor does in my impala.

But how well will it sell in a recession?

Economy tanking - The Associated Press

BREAKING: US economy shrank at 2.9 percent annual rate in first quarter...

With all this talk about HP and Torque figures; I would venture to say that many people are more interested in the economy figures. I believe the V6 version of the trucks must get at least 28 mpg on the highway to be attractive. After that, the diesel needs to get a minimum of 30 mpg on the highway. With the RAM 1500 getting 26 with it's V6 and 28 with it's diesel; these trucks need to perform with high mpg's!! Otherwise, it will be hard to justify the purchase; especially if the prices aren't far off from a 1/2 ton.

This is why I've had diesels for the last 18+ years. All the hp and torque is USABLE when the redline is just over 3000. Lower-rev engines are easier on their parts and fluids as well.

That 3.6L V6 is generating just 205 hp at its torque peak of 4000... the additional 100 hp comes from unnecessary revving.

TruckDude, I would say it will probably get 26MPG highway, my 2014 Impala with the same motor is rated at 29MPH highway and these trucks are heavier and less aerodynamic. The Ram V6 gets 25 with an eight speed.

Where to start. Firstly, Mark Williams, if you are going to be the editor here you need to fact check the lousy articles you post here. You are posting data that has been on the chevy and GMC websites for over six months - pathetically slow to report - and, has recently, been replaced with newer better data (are you going to wait six more months to report on that). The peak torque produced by the V6 LFX in the Colorado and Canyon occurs at 4300rpm, NOT 4000rpm. That is a small but significant difference, has been known for over two weeks since the order guides for these trucks went up, and something that the editor of should be aware of and able to report accurately (much less be able to report on time).

This V6 is an absolute embarassment for GM. It is a pig of an engine, gets lousy fuel economy in every single vehicle it is placed in, gets worse fuel economy than the 4.3L LV3 V6 that should have gone into these trucks, has an absolutely terrible maintenance history, and, the best part, is that it manages to put out the same peak performance numbers as Chrysler's pentastar V6, at slightly higher rpm, with having to resort to direct injection and all of the associated problems that come along with direct injection. Yes, to be clear, Chrysler has managed to make a port injected V6 that can match GM's direct injected V6 in peak numbers, but can produce them at lower RPMs. This should be beyond humiliating for GM and the atrocious power trains in these vehicles are one reason (of several) that I will not consider purchasing one of these trucks.

Finally for the people saying "4 cyl diesel would be a great option", pay attention. That engine is slated to show up in model year two.

What a joke this truck is. To all of you GM pansies: the cancelled Ranger could beat this PIG any day of the week! LMAO

@Mileage Man

Have to disagree re the 3.6 Like you, I'd have rather seen the 4.3 in the Colorado/Canyon truck. Just makes sense.

But my wife had a 2009 GMC Acadia for several years and the direct injected 3.6 in that car was outstanding, got awesome hiway FE and was really smooth and trouble free. Our daughter has that car now and apart from replacing the tires and oil changes it's been a real pet.


Agree regarding the crappy economy, but the mini trucks of the late 1970s and early 80s were a big hit, sold very well and survived, even thrived, during a very tough downtime in the US economy.

Hard times may actually help the compact trucks.

I'm just kidding guys, my piece of $h!t F-250 left me on the side of the road again. I'm just venting my anger at you GM guys because I know their products are superior and it angers me. I really need help, but I can't afford it because I've had to dump my life savings into my rust bucket Ford. Again, I apologize.


Gearing will be cruicial. It looks like the default V6 gearing will be around 3:43

Also take a look at the power curves....specifically the torque curve folks:

The 3.6 liter has as much torque at 1500RPM as the old 2v 5.4 liter.

Basically it will run like an old school 220HP V8 upto 5k RPM...and build power in a linear fashion beyond 5k until 6.8K.

just because it has a high peak torque rating doesn't mean that it doesn't have any low end torque. nowdays, most engines with vvt and di have 90% of their torque available throughout the entire rpm range. I do agree that a I4 diesel would be a better option in a truck like this. right now gm is just getting started though and considering these engines and the 2.8 vm motori that is labeled as a duramax coming out in its sophomore year, the new Colorado/Canyon is gonna be a good truck compared to the competition, at least on paper.

my best guess on the 3.6 liter verses 4.3 liter is the economy of scale and idle fuel economy.

GM can make the 3.6 liter cheaper in bulk and the 3.6 liter had better idle fuel economy.

I think the 4.3 liter IS a better motor, but the 3.6 isn't a slouch either.

Just make certain you buy a catch can for the motor and it'll live to 200k if you maintain it properly.

More details here:

Without a catch can....the motor SHOULD survive 150K miles.

the only reason gm still uses the 4.3 is because it cuts costs to share an engine architechture v6 with the 2 v8s that accompanies the 4.3 in the Silverado. the 3.6 is the future.

If this truck gets 26 MPG that will be really good, to those saying it should get 30, they are misinformed. When most full size sedans barley get 30, your not going to have a truck large or midsize get 30 without an substantial increase in cost..and or a diesel engine.

Did anyone notice the v6 hp and torque rating is identical to the 3.6 Ram.

Toyota Tacoma will beat this truck on every way possible!

"If this truck gets 26 MPG that will be really good"


As oxi said...Some of us are not sleeping idiots like you!

26 mpg in an all new mid-size model would be terrible... In a FULL-SIZE tank it would be ok depending on engine option....

I don't get all the hype over this truck. Where does it state bailout in the Constitution?

We should never forget the BS political bailout dictator obama did with GM and why NOBODY should buy their socialist products!

They failed because they made bad decisions, why should the taxpayers have to pay for that?

Proper protocol is bankruptcy court like Hostess just went through not dictator bailout to win votes for elections!

When are you going to wake up? 26 mpg very good? Ridiculous!!!!!!!

@John at least GM put their V6 car engine in a small truck that will only be use for light duty unlike Ford and Ram putting car v6s engines in big heavy full size trucks.

@Josh I think the 2.8L diesel could easily do 30MPG+. It is smaller and lighter then the Ram Eco Diesel.

As for the 3.6L it in a Traverse will run with the 5.7L Dodge Durango R/T LOL!

It's funny how some of the Ford and Ram guys are bashing this having high rpm HP and calling it a "car engine." Well you are right it is high rpm HP and a car engine. The thing is they put in a platform that is less HD than than LD 1/2 tons so it makes since. Now what did Ford and Ram do well Ford put a Mustang high rpm 3.7L v6 in a 1/2 ton. Ram put a 3.6L v6 that car and driver called a "minivan motor" in a 1/2 ton. As for the comment that is why Toyota outsells this well that is wrong it doesn't outsell this as this isn't even out yet so we don't know hot it will sell against it. Even funnier than all of this is was when the 14 GMT's came out and you found out they went with a reworked 4.3L V6 over this 3.6L V6 most of you were saying it was a fail. Some of you didn't like the fact that GM kept the same size displacement in the GMT 1500's saying it was the same thing no matter what they did to it but you don't mind an updated NA Duratec 35 making it's way to the F150 after 5+ yrs of it's existence. It is probably the 290 HP one that is in the current Explorer. Why don't you guys just say you would hate GM no matter what they do.

"a 3.6-liter V-6 with direct injection makes 305 hp...In earlier, preliminary specifications, GM estimated the V-6 would make 302 hp."

"A standard 2.5-liter four-cylinder will make 200 horsepower. In earlier, preliminary specifications, GM estimated the four-cylinder would make 193 hp."

@Kelsey Mays,

I can’t believe this is even newsworthy.

This is NOT encouraging.

Who gives a crap about horsepower?! Gas is $4 a gallon! Midsize buyers want better MPG, not more horsepower! If we wanted more horsepower, we'd buy full size.


You should probably pay attention and think prior to speaking because like everywhere else you post the same tired repetitive statement you are clueless. First, GM has addressed all the major maintenance issues (stretching chain, EGR system, OLM system intervals, ect), so you can't place a different engine under an old engine's issues. Are you going to fault the 5.3 for the same issues the old ones did? Didn't think so, stop using that first excuse.

Second, the 4.3 doesn't get better fuel economy, please provide any credible source rather than just assuming like the same you do in all the other posts. Yes OHV engines are historically more fuel efficient but it is also a good amount larger and will require more fuel. GM stated they used the 3.6 for fuel efficiency, you are probably incorrect and will never know since GM won't put the 4.3 in the truck for an apples to apples comparison.

Third, the Pentastar is being pushed pretty hard to get the 300hp with out DI, you know what that means? It is stressed more than the 3.6 in the GM fleet. That means the motor isn't working as hard, it has more room for tuning and changes and is more reliable. Stop making it sound like the pentastar is doing something amazing, GM could easily get that with out DI. This same motor gets 323 in the camaro. Lousy in every application really? It gets almost or better than 30mpg in a few applications, yeah that is horrid...

You can't judge this as a poor decision, you are absolutely clueless in this matter and would be beneficial if you stop commenting on the subject at hand without any actual factual knowledge, okay?

Go back to the ram forums and the Car like rear springs and air suspension, have fun with their atrocious build quality! You have never driven, ridden in or this truck hasn't even been released or tested yet so you can't keep spouting off nonfactual info.

Oh, and the actual final power numbers were just released recently, not 6 months. See how foolish you look along with all your babbling?

Ford LOSES and GM WINS again!

I seems probable that the LFX in the Colorado will give FE about as good as the Pentastar Ram.

The diesel Colorado should get at a minimum around 26mpg average. It would be probable to get 30mpg on the highway.

The Duramax diesel isn't the best diesel for FE.

Hmm, an idiot with a V6 “car” engine is towing 7,000 with his "non-light duty" platform. Sounds safe to me! 7,000 pounds was once what half-tons were towing at their max capacity (some half-tons still have this capacity on some models), I would consider someone towing 7,000 pounds to be pretty serious.

I’m pretty sure that towing with a full size truck, which has better brakes, more rigid frame, and suspension, even with the same drivetrain would be much safer than some midsize truck with a “car” engine.
I’m pretty sure this is the same V6 that’s in the GM cars and SUVs, same goes for Ford and Rams base V6 engines.

Guess what engines you won’t find in a car variant, the 4.0 V6 from both Nissan and Toyota. Toyota could slap the 270hp/278tq 4.0L from the Toyota 4Runner/Toyota Tundra and it’d still be a better “truck” engine choice than the 3.6 even with less power and less technology.

I’m pretty sure that 3.6 Ram engine variant is in the Wrangler too isn’t it, and that’s in the Dodge Caravan too.

"The 2.5 sounds like a great motor...compact truck"


Or we could simply elect public officials who aren't trying to kill our economy and energy industry.

Cheap gas would make these "compact" trucks and 4 cylinder engines irrelevant.

Jake, The best full size truck Gas engine with a V6 gets 25MPG that's with a more expensive 8 speed tranny. If the GM mid sizers get 26 that will be very good for the current technology. The current Toyota, Nissan offering only get like 19 to 20 Hwy. 26 MPG would be a 25% improvement unheard of in other segments.


Not sure I understood your message. Cheap gas makes a compact truck even CHEAPER to own.

I only drive a few thousand miles yearly now, but when I was driving 20-30K annually a small truck worked. Things change.

Cheap energy is better regardless.

Is that better?

I used to own a 4.0L V6 Frontier and other than the Coyote 5.0L V8 fuel economy I loved that truck. I am partial to that truck so I could be biased when I say that I would take it over any other mid size.

"Cheap energy is better regardless. Is that better?"

Yes, that's better. You worry too much about full-size trucks, but say nothing about the small truck's technologies to increase fuel economy.

People say they will buy a small truck just for the fuel-economy, and give up performance and capability, but if we had cheap gas the savings would be irrelevant.


$1.75 gallon gas at your 20k miles per year and 26 mpg from John's Colorado example = $1350 spent on fuel per year.

$1.75 gallon gas at 20k miles per year and 25 mpg from the Ram in John's example = $1400.

Is this what we want to become? This is what happens when we listen to the greenies and don't have a real energy policy. The greenies end up fear mongering everyone just to save $50. a year!

The need to go to small trucks and 4 cylinder engines is a bald face lie. What we need is a real energy policy.

Buying a new midsize truck with newest fuel techonology is still a high cost option, as others have noted in the forum.

What truck owners should be demanding is a real energy policy and cheap gas.

"but the mini trucks of the late 1970s and early 80s were a big hit...Hard times may actually help the compact trucks."

@papa jim

I'd be very inclined to agree with you on the downturn in the conomy helping GM sell more trucks if US consumers were spending any money at all.

A couple weeks ago the government adjusted its First Quarter results for GDP to a negative number and today they adjusted to a an even bigger negative number! This was a huge difference.

We won't be missing out on much. Just ask the guys trying to sell the new Silverados. The new cars and trucks are so complex that it takes longer to get them to the showroom and they cost more.

A soft economy makes it hard to be aggressive, especially when there are other global markets where growth is hot.

The perfect storm of the 1980's mini truck craze is a time that will never happen again in our lifetimes. There are too many reasons to list why it was the perfect crazy storm that have been listed numberous times before.

I agree with papa jim.

The new GM mid-sizers are good trucks, but still a high cost option.

Some say that we must go to smaller (Colorado)/lighter (F150) trucks, and I repspect their views. But may I suggest an alternative?

Instead of demanding more expensive fuel efficient smaller/lighter trucks, truck buyers should be demanding cheaper gas. If loser politicians are trying to kill our energy industry, shouldn't we vote them out?

Tell me where I'm wrong.

Too many assumptions made above. We honestly don't know at what RPM the Colorado/Canyon will be making the HP/Torque numbers posted and by putting them in direct comparison with the Nissan/Toyota figures WITH the RPMs listed they make their inequity blatantly obvious. Whomever made the chart would have been smart to leave the RPMs out of them all, or post them all--not half and half.

Now, if you ask me, those GM engines would serve far better were they in significantly smaller trucks.

@PapaJim: "I'm keeping an open mind. The 2.5 sounds like a great base motor for a compact truck in this class."
* Except that the Canyon/Colorado are NOT "compact" in any sense of the word. They're bigger than my 1990 Full-sized Ford!

I agree, these trucks are too big! They need to be much smaller, like vehicles in Europe! morons claiming that taxpayers PAID for GM bailout kindly pull your head outta you know what..
GM paid OFF the loan with interest so taxpayers paid NOTHING
do you understand ?


So, help me here! If the Colorado/Canyon isn't GM's compact truck--which bleeping truck is?

Who gives a rat's ass what some Ford weighed 25 years ago?

papa jim is bashing trucks for getting lighter. dave is bashing trucks for getting smaller.

The cost to switch to aluminum is $750. and can be made up with fuel savings. The cost to going to a new more fuel efficient mid-size - I don't really care what it is. The idea that I should have to go to a smaller truck is not how I live my life. If you a small truck works for you, fine.

It's about time we stop waging war against eachother. We are on the same side. The solution for us patriots who are fed up with Washington is to suit up and fight against the government that is killing our engergy industry!

By the way where is the news about our economy shrinking 3% today? That should be the only news. But I can't find it anywhere.

We had talking points going around that our economy was down because of the cold weather. Apparently our economy is so frail that it can't take some cold weather. These were the talking points. And PUTC was repeating these talking points from the Obama media that buyers were staying away from showrooms because of cold weather. How did anyone arrive at that? Didn't we have cold weather in any of the other years? PUTC has been around since 1995. It is all BS and politically motivated.

I read an article recently which showed that, for most of the last 100 years, the economy expanded in the winters. Even during the coldest on record -- '78-'79, IIRC -- the economy grew. The article also said this past winter was something like the 15-20th coldest on record, nowhere near the worst.

I agree CHEVY GUY, PUTC is part of the lamestream media!

Post a Comment

Please remember a few rules before posting comments:

  • Try to be civil to your fellow blog readers.
  • Stay on topic. We want to hear your opinions and thoughts, but please only comment about the specified topic in the blog post.
  • Your email will not be shown.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign In

Home | Buy or Sell a Truck | News | Special Reports

Powered by By using this site, you agree to our terms of service | © 2017 | Privacy Statement | Contact Us