GM Not Interested in a Lightweight Full-Size

Colorado 1 copy

In a quick interview with GM's North American president Mark Reuss, Rick Kranz of Automotive News asked about how lightweight high-strength materials would work on a full-size pickup truck. Reuss' answers are interesting and somewhat revealing about GM's coming 2014 Silverado and Sierra half-tons.

"We have studied this extensively," Reuss said. "If you look at profit on this, if you look at what it takes to actually do this, what it does to the cost of materials, and what it does to the real fuel economy of that vehicle," the effort would fall short of GM's targets, he said. He did not elaborate.

"What you risk when you light-weight trucks are duty-cycle issues," Reuss said. Capability can't be reduced because "there are people who use that to make a living."

Kranz reported that Reuss went on to say that from a dollars and cents standpoint, and to reach GM's fuel economy targets, it made more sense to invest in developing a midsize pickup — the redesigned Chevrolet Colorado.

That's not to say GM's full-size pickups won't have better fuel economy. They will, Reuss said. But the midsize pickup will have better fuel economy — possibly much better — than its big brother.

The midsize Colorado will provide "90 percent of the size and 120 percent of the efficiency because of the powertrains," Reuss said.

That plan gives buyers two pickup choices: full-size and midsize. Sales are expected to begin sometime next year. The smaller pickup will also be sold outside North America. How GM handles the release of this kind of two-truck strategy remains to be seen, but one thing is clear: Dealerships need to get ready for a lot of new pickup truck technology headed their way. 

Colorado int


That thing is ugly as sin... i'd take the old colorado over this thing, and that's a stretch for me :D

It I have to say that interior looks decent
It's missing something.

@Mark Williams. Mark Reuss was the last US CEO of Holden and appeared to have a "pretty hands on " knowledge of the operation, contrary to some short term US "experts" , that did not seem to have a clue.
The strategy GM is going with seems more like the right choice. Only problem is how the Thai Built and designed Colorado cuts it overall. We have yet to see either Ford's Ranger or the Colorado. Of the few Rangers that have been running around, their has been praise for the improvements in ride, NVH etc, but fair bit of crticissm about the characteristics of the 3.2 Diesel engine.

haha ford and toyota are in big trouble The midsize Colorado will provide "90 percent of the size and 120 percent of the efficiency because of the powertrains," Reuss said. a kick butt half ton that blows ford out of the water and a midsizer more of what people on here are asking for like the crys and whines start haha

The Colorado looks pretty good but the bed does not look right on it. It doesnt flow right it with the lines of the truck.

I dont like the crossover front end, and it sounds like GM is committing fullsize suicide.

Being the diehard Ford guy I am...

...I actually agree with this, much to poor Johnny Doe's dismay.

But, I agree. Why lighten up 1/2 ton's to the point of lost capability? Why invest the money it would cost (and add to MSRP) to hybridize 1/2 ton trucks?

Why not just offer a midsize truck alongside your 1/2 ton? You can take a midsize truck and make a 4cylinder diesel an option and maybe a Turbo 4cylinder gas engine, and possibly a small V6 engine?...Hell you could make a hybrid model to.

Let the people decide which on suits their needs. Let gas price's weed out the Urban Cowboys who only use their 1/2 ton 3/4 ton and 1-ton trucks as big belt buckles. When they start paying 150$ to 200$ per fillup they'll start looking long and hard at a more effiecent 1/4 ton midsize truck.

What would be really great is if Midsize trucks could become sales leaders. For example if Ford offered the Globale Ranger ALONGSIDE the North American F-150 NOT as a replacement, say more people bought the Globale Ranger instead of the North American F-150...Then Ford wouldn't have to adhere the F-150 to these ridiculos C.A.F.E standerds set by are dumbass goverment.

No Hybrid 1/2 tons.
No Electric 1/2 tons.

If Ford did that...Would you people who say you REALLY want a Global Ranger put your money where your mouth is and drop out of the 1/2 ton market for a 1/4 ton truck?

This is a much better looking truck than the old one... Style has been the only reason I would not buy a canyon... I can't believe that there are tose that think these trucks are ugly...
Put in the diesel engines and I will buy one...

One of my trucks is a Toyota T-100.

That thing is the perfect size.
8 foot box and light as a feather. It's got a 4 cylinder engine but 14 or 1500 lb payload.

They just need to un-supersize the fullsize trucks a little. Shed some pounds. Shed some plastic. Shed some parts that are just going to fall off or break eventually.

Take it from me, cuz I studied it extensively.

I'm sorry but that front end is hideous. Good luck to Warn, Ranch Hand and others designing aftermarket bumpers and winch accessories for this thing.

DieHard UGLY, just like the rest of the gm lineup. It's sad that chebby had some good looking trucks yrs ago but hired a bunch of losers to design the rest. FORD wins and gm loses AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I like the new Colorado. I like my Silverado, but hate the gas mileage. I don't do heavy hauling, just weekend DYI stuff and have two little ones, so the Colorado fits my needs. Plus, it would fit in my garage with room to walk around. The Colorado is not for everyone, but it will be very popular with families that don't need the size and power of a full size. Oh and gas mileage would be a huge plus in this economy. Now if GM came out with a full size with a CNG engine, I'd buy it in a heart beat. The one thing I would give up in a Colorado is height. I like being up above the traffic.

Considering the T6 Ranger can tow 7600lbs and haul more weight (in its bed) than an F250 SAFELY, That's 3000lbs folks..... I'd have to say YES I'd buy one.

First, GM was not intersting in giving the Silverado the high end interiors and options.

Now, GM is no longer cutting a massive amount in weight to improve performance and fuel economy like it was rumored to being doing.

This will help Ford in a big way if they are able to pull it off.

From the article: "Of course, what he failed to say is GM's pickups would be less competitive and that Ford and Ram likely would pick up new business."

Oh snap!

Why is everyone hating on GM? I don't care what truck you buy. This is America. You are free to buy the truck you like.

But the constant GM bashing on this site by people who bash GM everytime they talk about their new trucks is really annoying.

If you like ram or ford or toyota, go buy there trucks and leave GM alone. You have that right. Thank the Lord!

I wouldn't be interested in "lightweight fullsize" either if it meant reduced capability than what I have used my halfton pickup trucks for all these decades.

But I would be interested in more modern engines and transmissions in GM halfton pickup trucks. If you look at Ford and Toyota engines, they are all light-years ahead of GM's heavy old-school dinosaurs. Pushrods should be limited to HD 3/4 and 1-ton applications.

Best thing GM can do to get me to look at their line of halfton trucks is to put all-aluminum DOHC 32-valve V8 engines in them and make all-aluminum DOHC 24-valve V6 engines an option for those who want them.

Turbo-Charging or Supercharging, like ecoboost, can also be an option but more importantly, for me, would be an Allison automatic transmission in the halftons.

If GM improves the cab construction to eliminate creaking and reduces unsprung weight as well, they would have a sure-fire winner.

What remains are better quality interiors but that is a matter of taste. And there is no accounting for tastes.

I agree with Bob. Stop the GM bashing.

Highdesertcat- It would surprise you that the Chevy 6.2 is smaller dimensionally and lighter than the Iforce or the Coyote 5.0 and Ecoboost by Ford. Pushrods actually save weight and size by limiting the number of cam's and valves needed. A DOHC design require a taller and wider deck to accommodate twice as many cams. Infact, the 7.0 LS7 from the Corvette Z06 is lighter and smaller than the V6 out of the Nissan GTR.

Not saying DOHC is bad. It's just not the answer to all the questions like you are saying it is. It's just as old a technology to boot.

GM full-size trucks will have better fuel economy. Read the article!!!!!!! Well Dave if you don't want better fuel economy do us all a favor and stick with Ford!

Chevy transverse with a box: 17 MPG city/24 highway.
Before the V6 diesel. Looking good!

Bit more design work needed on the transition for the cab to the box, looking too much like the Tacoma in this area.

When in doubt just blend in elements of the '55 Chevy & the
'56 Apache and all will be fine.

Parasitic loss involved in turning 4 cams and associated chains are detrimental to fuel economy, longevity & reliability. DOHC's Unnecessarily increases cost, weight, size and noise.

Chevy's big challenge is to get 3 or 4 valves per cylinder driven by push rods and a single cam...If any one can do this, Chevy can.

GMC is also investigating use of enriched air (30% O2), to boost mpg, but predetonation, is a challenge, bringing in compression combustion possibilities, as is being also investigating by Honda.

G-Street, I think there will always be a place for pushrods but I have come to appreciate the DOHC designs of my 2011 Tundra 5.7, my 2008 Highlander 3.5 and my 2012 Jeep Grand Cherokee 3.6. Given a choice, I'll take the all-aluminum DOHC engines in those applications any day.

I started rebuilding my dad's Mopar 426 Hemi engines for his dragsters before I was 14 years old and have been tooling and wrenching ever since during the 65 years I've been alive. I understand the benefits of each design, to include the old side-valve V8s of the '50s.

Given all that, I still prefer all-aluminum DOHC engines in light vehicle applications and cast-iron OHV engines in heavy duty applications where slow turning grunt is needed.

GM needs to bring their light-duty pickup trucks at least up to the level of their competition. If you take a look at the Ford line up you will find that Ford and Chrysler have followed in the foot steps of the European and Asian car makers.

Every engine manufacturer all over the world is copying the designs of BMW, Mercedes and VW. No one, not even the Russians and Chinese, is copying the archaic pushrod designs of the American engine makers that helped win WWII.

I agree it's ugly, (my opinion) but let's see what it can do. The Tacoma and Frontier can use some competition. Waiting for Ram to make a truck version that looks like the Durango front end complete with pentastar V-6, an 8 speed, and a 6 foot bed available. Then it will be on. Oh yeah, less cost then a 1500 per same equipment too. Like Nate said, wish they would focus on making mid sizers best sellers, instead of holding back technoligy.

BobMc - Haven't heard anything on a diesel for the US market but word is the new full-size trucks are supposed to get up to 25 mpg. This would mean that the Colorado should get somewhere around 30 mpg. Should be interesting.

Looks very cheap and cheesy just like all gm vehichles.Has a front end that only a mother could love.This thing even makes a tundra look good and i never thought that was possible.If this is in any way a preview to what the next silverado sierra is going to look like we better get ready for more taxes because i see another bailout coming

@Blue Oval AMEN!!!!!!!!!

That whole truck is uuugly. That round dial in the center of the dash will be a nightmare to use while driving. The front looks like an SUV/crossover mess. Sad thing is Ford should've never gave up their Ranger. I think it out sold the little chevies it's last year.

I kind of like the style of the new Colorado. I don't really care if it looks like the Traverse or Equinox. If they have to share platforms and front ends to bring this to market then I can live with this. At least GM has not abandoned the midsize market. The Tacoma and the Frontier are not that much in the looks department but that would not prevent me from considering either one of them. I think my 1999 S-10 is better looking than any current midsize truck but then if I were to buy a new midsize truck I would pick among Tacoma, Frontier, Equator (has a nicer grill than the Frontier but same truck), and the soom to be Colorado. The interior appears to have improved. GM is smart not to lessen the content of the Silverado even though eventually all manufactures might be forced to with the new fuel standards. I like this new Colorado despite what the rest of you think. You buy what you like and I will buy what I like and neither of us will criticize each others choice. That is freedom of choice.

haha so the Colorado is ugly said the jealous ford girls because ford won't offer their people what they need and want lmao i just have to laugh i think all the fords are ugly a freak of looks but function or look is what matters take a big hard chug on your're ford kool-aid ford fangirls cause gm is back on top they offer what people want and need their gonna stomp you back in the mudhole and laugh hard doing it hahahahaha

Another GM article and ford girly men trashing GM again. No matter the subject when it comes to GM, the ford girly sissy men come a bashing. You see, they can't help themselves really, they have what's called a inferiority complex about their favorite truck (ford girly man trucks) that they have to bash GM to make themselves feel better about themselves.

One thing I am confident about, the All New Chevy Colorado will be a BIG HIT! and it will sell well. I am also confident that once people see the New Colorado in person, they will like the looks of it much better than these photo's.

Another thing, if ford girly sissy men think the Colorado is ugly, the global ranger hit every branch on it's way down the ugly tree. Oh, that's right the ford rump ranger wont' be sold in the U.S. Ford loses again!

Sounds like a good strategy. If you've noticed, these last Chevy trucks have Very thin sheetmetal and bumpers. They dent so easily it's not even funny. I've seen back bumpers literally bend from people standing on them. It was a big letdown for people who did buy them. The strength and durability needs to be put back into these trucks to gain back the old 'Like A Rock' reputation. And Chevrolet/GM needs to market those things to no end.

I'm not impressed by this Colorado though. The last one was horrible as well but this is on a whole new level of ugly. Chevrolet needs new truck designers. The bed on this Thai truck is all wrong. It doesn't match up with the cab and it looks entirely too Asian. The cuv front end is just as bad. I still think the last good looking Chevy small truck was the S-10 in ZR2 form with the last good looking fullsizers being the 400's. I think this Colorado could be a huge hit for Chevrolet/GM if they would fix the design. The Tacoma looks far more masculine than the Colorado does. Either way, Chevrolet really needs to take on Ford. Ford trucks have destroyed Chevy trucks here in the midwest. Most of our Deere employees that drove nothing but Chevy's for decades now drive Ford's. It's time Chevrolet to compete. And no, Not GMC. I said Chevrolet. People want Chevy trucks here.

Gotta love a prediction of a new Chevy full size getting 25 MPG. In GM fashion, it would prob be a 3 liter gutless V-6 that would downshift a gear or two at every incline. 23 MPG is more realistic from a truck that might have to work. Atleast without diesel.

Don't like the front end, looks like a car not a truck. the headlights need to be more square and lower. i hope they do better than a lame z71 package, like a ZR2 or baja package!

Bummer. Sounds like GM's next gen pickup design will once again take a back seat to the competition. So much opportunity but very little design risk taking.

A few people here have it right. It's better to offer a truck that meets the needs of the masses than to cripple the capability of bread earners trucks. This has already been done enough to pick-ups already.
Let those of us who don't need the full-sized trucks get the vehicles we want, and let those who actually need them for continuous work duty get the tougher trucks they need -- it's a win/win for everybody. Now if only Ford saw it this way too, then we'd have a real choice among domestics.

I think GM is definitely taking the right approach here, not worry about a sales title, but market share overall. If Ford thought more about this too, then maybe they'd reconsider their omission of the Ranger in the US market and retain repeat small truck buyers like me.

This truck is nothing new, It is the Chevy S-10 from Brazil, available in gas or Diesel. #5,000+ towing and 30+ MPG. GM just needs to sell it here with the Diesel

Re: Market share

The small truck market is only 2% and shrinking. Chevy's Colorado's share of that is less than 10% of that 2%. So less than 0.1% of the market share overall is the Colorado. I know a lot of guys who like the small trucks but the numbers don't add up. Chevy is not following the right approach here. The money should be spent on the full-size Silverado to make it the best it can be, not the Colorado. Like the article said, this will help Ford and Dodge.

Looks good to me...Ford may wish they have a mid sized truck in N. America before long...

It's no surprise small pickup market share is down. That happens when manufacturers stop offering what consumers want. To date it's worked to the manufacturer's advantage with consumers willing to purchase larger and more expensive pickups. The future may not be so friendly.

"It's no surprise small pickup market share is down. That happens when manufacturers stop offering what consumers want."

Which came first? The chicken or the egg? I didn't see the updated Chevy Colorado set the sales charts on fire when it replaced the S-10.

There is a market trend where people are moving from small pickups into something matter who sells it.

@ Highdesertcat

The creaky cabs have been one of my biggest complaints. The 11' Duramax we got was deffinately improved with diffrerent seals (also better road isolation, body mounts) but there is still noticable cab "creaking" and no amount of silicone emulsion will get rid of it. As soon as the truck gets wet and dries the noise comes back.

I like the comfort of the truck but these quality issues really cheapened my ownership experience. I've had 3 GMT900's crewcabs and still have an 08' and an 11' for company use. Even though the 11' is improved the issues are still there and they all had the same creaking problem.

"There is a market trend where people are moving from small pickups into something matter who sells it. " it because they got to big. and full sizer got better. for small pick up to sell it has to be 5,000 cheaper and 5 mpg better. use to be full sizer use to get 18 mpg and now they get 21 to 22 mpg. the 2nd Colorado is said to be cheaper and get five better than the silverado. All maker made there small trucks bigger because they thought they had too compete with the Colorado. Dodge total mess up their small pick by make too expensive, big and too low in the mpgs. least what I heard that 2nd Colorado is not that much bigger than first generation Colorado at all and has shorter wheel base. I want new SMALL truck and not big truck. In my research I found many other people who unhappy with how car makers have made there small trucks bigger. so far I waiting for official mpgs, prices and release date.

To johnnydoe and incognitobob: NOT all of us Ford fanboys bash GM. I told my two brothers (both drive GM trucks) that I thought that Ford would lose the "best selling" title when the 2007 truck was introduced. Make sure you know of what you speak.

I would like to get the new Colorado if it gets some decient gas mileage.
Chevy sould have kept the S10. WE either accept the Colorado or drive a fullsize truck.
I would prefer to buy American but I been looking at the Nissan Frontier and they look nice. Don`t really like Toyota much, dont know why? just don`t like their chunky look.



F-150 won't be unibody. It could be partial uni-body. said it may have limited elmements of a uni-body system. The cargo box and cab will be separate, instead of joined as in the Honda Ridgeline.

It will also be lighter and stronger than the past frames. There is no downside for capability if it is stronger.

It just sounds like Chevy has thrown in the towel on their plans for the next gen half tons being massively lighter. Chevy wants to downplay what Ford says they are doing to justify Chevy's lack of innovation on their next truck.

Sources Say: Ford Planning Innovative Changes Aimed at Fuel Efficiency in Next F-150

Dave - GM did not say they were not going to innovate. GM said they wouldn't do the less weight less capable model. GM will do the less weight more capable model!

Said Reuss: The mid-sized Colorado will provide "90 percent of the size and 120 percent of the efficiency because of the powertrains."

Let's see where GM goes with this idea.

How much better fuel economy?

Let's say the mid size truck gets 28 mpg and the full size gets 23 mpg.

Next gen full-size driven 15,000 miles at 23 mpg and $3.25 gas = $2119 a year in gas.

Next gen mid-size driven 15,000 miles at 28 mpg and $3.25 gas = $$1740 a year in gas.

Over 4 years you will save $1500 by driving the mid-size.

I will prefer to spend that extra $1500 and be much happier driving the larger full-size with more capability and more room.

The comments to this entry are closed.