Spy Photos: 2015 Chevy Colorado Caught

1 Chevy CO II

Photos by KGP Photography

Our spy shooters caught another prototype for Chevrolet's U.S.-spec Colorado midsize pickup truck being tested in Michigan. It's been pretty quiet lately from the spy photographers, which leads us to believe Chevy has been doing quite a bit of testing indoors lately — possibly not wanting to call attention away from the new 2014 Chevy Silverado and 2014 GMC Sierra as they both hit the auto-show circuit. Here's what KGP sent us: 

Our latest look gives us our best feel yet for the healthy dimensions that make up this sub-Silverado pickup, with a sizable crew cab and what looks like a 6-foot bed. This latest prototype looks more-appropriately sized and spec'd to satisfy the American market, with less of the feel that was originally developed with South America and Thailand in mind.  

The new Colorado pickup and its GMC Canyon counterpart will be built in Wentzville, Mo., thanks to a $380 million investment into the plant that's currently tasked with building GM's full-size van lineup.

3 Chevy CO II

5 Chevy CO II

5a Chevy CO II



'I see what looks like round wheel openings and that should make many Chevy guys happy who aren't fond of the square stuff.'

Look again.

GM is the king of compromised vehicles. Silverado gets compromised due to GMC. Half tons get compromised due the Colorado. Colorado was always compromised because of poor quality.

@Dave, I agree with all of that.

Also, the bed looks strange in regards to the wheel wells, almost looks like the wheels/tires are too small or the rear was lifted."

@Ken, hopefully they'll be putting bed liners in standard. That helps a ton with big openings. Like what Dodge uses on everything now. Hopefully Ford will be too.

the Colorado would put the same grill that is on the 2013 Chevy Traverse it would look much better. The new grill on the 2013 Traverse has smaller chrome horizontal bars with a smaller grill emblem. That would help the front a lot.

@Jeff, I agree. The new Traverse front end and that upcoming Impala looks worlds better. If this Colorado had that it would look so nice compared to the Equinox front end with the Silverado crossbar. I hate that design on pretty much everything But the Silverado. It only looks right on a big truck.

FordTrucks1, This isn't like the S-10.I saw the new Colorado and it looks too feminine. If you don't like the 04 Colorado, you won't like this one.


I agree. Toyota has nothing to worry about. This Colorado or whatever it is won't be available until 2014 CY because they are screwing around with the factories and the Colorado has been a piece of junk in the past the "new" version is unproven!

I would spend 50K for a F250 or Ram 2500 or 2500HD if I needed that big of a truck, but I wouldn't spend 40K for a diesel mid size!

My lease is upon 2016 so hopefully I'll have a 2016 Tacoma sitting in the driveway.

@Dave D
Your comment does prove my point that your 1/2 ton pickups are designed as SUVs first and foremost or they would come out of the factory as a work capable vehicle.

First get your drivers licence, get a job, then work out the economics of vehicle ownership.

To have a 20 year old Taco (equivalent if you want to call it that) in your driveway for $2 000 less in a far less capable platform really makes sense.

But you'll buy an HD getting half the fuel economy for ten grand more by your calculations. WTF?

@DaveD - my comments were confined to crewcabs. If fuel does not count in the cargo equation, that yields a 500 lb legal capacity. I have an F150 SuperCrew and the difference between mine and max tow/cargo is 270 lb. You add the max tow/haul option, that would yield 770 lb of cargo. Towing would go from 9,500 to 11,100. That yields a gain of 1,600 lb.
In a F150 4x4 Supercrew 6.5 box truck, a max cargo/tow option doesn't give you much more in capacity.
The same truck should have a minimum of 1,000 lb box capacity with 5 adults in the cab. A realistic base cargo capacity for any 1/2 ton crewcab with 5 passenger capacity would be 2,000 lbs. 1,000 lb for whats in the cab an 1,000 for the box.
If one starts doing the math, Big Al from Oz is correct with his "SUV with a box" or "hot road with a box" analogies.
I've confined my examples in my discussion with DWFields to Ford because that is what I'm familiar with and I wasn't in the mood to look at Chevy, Ram, or Toyota websites. Their crewcab trucks have similar capacities but do not offer a 6.5 box in a crew. That will change in 2013/2014 as GMC will have a 6.5 box option and Ram will have a 6.3 box option in a crewcab.

The Colorado in the pics looks like it has a box that will be comparable to Toyota's Tacoma at 6 ft. In my neighbourhood, most of the Tacoma's I see have the 6ft box. That is the most practical box length as far as I'm concerned. Most of the pics I've seen of the globals have been with very short box lengths. They all looked like the defunct Ford SportTrac.
The only trucks I see with flat decks or "trays" are work trucks. Those are mostly 1 ton or larger trucks used a commercial carriers. For most people, that would never be an option. It would be a good idea if one offroaded extensively and wanted to save the factory box for resale. I have seen fleets do that. An aftermarket "rockbox" is a good idea for extreme use.

FordTrucks1, This isn't like the S-10.I saw the new Colorado and it looks too feminine. If you don't like the 04 Colorado, you won't like this one.

@HEMI, where did you see it? I've only seen the Australian one that looks the same as the Thai one. I'm with you on that. Ugly as hell and very feminine. I figured they'd fix that for America though. If you're right, this sucks.

Silverado gets compromised due to GMC.

@Dave, Amen to that.

An extended wheel base on our dual cabs would sell in Australia.

The bed on this Colorado looks to be about 200mm longer, I judged this by looking at how far the wheel base has been lengthened.

I would think the bed from a Xtra Cab/King Cab would be used on a lengthened dual cab.

Our dual cab beds are about 5' long, give or take a little.

This is one feature of the US trucks that can be exported.

But this will definitely be a drawback off roading.

I'm just proving that your ignorant comment about adding more paylaod is wrong. We already have that option and more. We have truck with all different sizes and payloads unlike yours which are one size fits all approach.

I agree with oxi.

This Colorado still cannot compete or even come close to the base Tacoma's approach and departure angles!

Approach/departure (degrees) 35/26

Approach/departure (degrees) 30/22

The Coloado is also unproven! It was proven to be horrible in the past! Why should I expect any different?


GM went crying to their daddy, the federal government, because they could no longer compete, grabbed their welfare check and stayed around.

If ALL businesses could do the same, I would open up one tomorrow, run it to the ground and ask Uncle Sam to bail me out so I can continue to run it into the ground but I would give those sweet bonuses to myself and friends!

@Big Al From Oz,
Disagree with you there. A Dual Cab is used Off Road a lot and a extended bed would not be a good idea. All extended beds are up to 8 ft on Single Cabs here.

My comment is consistent with my view on your "trucks".

If you have to option a vehicle to be a "truck", then is it a truck.

How many pickups of old needed to be optioned to be a "truck" and not a silouette.

Your pickups do meet what they are generally designed to do and that is as daily drivers.

What Lou is pointing out is when you load a twin/dual cab with 5 guys that weigh 200lbs plus each. What is left over as a usable load. The vehicles utility is greatly diminished.

You would think during the design phase the manufacturers would work this out. Why have such a potentially large capabiltiy that can't accessed unless you buy it?

I do like your trucks, but they are primarily single person vehicles. A man's toy, even our utes are similar in that respect.

Whether he realizes this or not, Al presents himself on pickuptrucks.com as a bogan. Arguing with him makes about much sense as arguing with a bogan which is zero. He probably is one.

@Robert Ryan: Your links only confirm my observation about the shape of the hood. The bed of the "Space Cab" model looks a little short, but at least it would meet the need much better than these huge road whales currently dominating our roads.

'I see what looks like round wheel openings and that should make many Chevy guys happy who aren't fond of the square stuff.'

Look again.

@Scott, I can see the round pressings clear as day on the front. I agree with an earlier comment, I think that bed is off the current model. I also think that's why the rear wheels stick out of it. It's slightly narrower. The bedrail height doesn't even match the cab in how it should look to seem proper. No way would they release that. The rail height is lower than the front window even. Then the back side window slopes up way high. It should match the bedrail height. It looks completely ridiculous this way.

The bed meets the cab thing you guys are talking about is one big mess of lines. I don't think that's production either. It looks stupid just like the Thai version. They'd never move them off dealer lots that way. GM is in big enough trouble as it is. No way they'll screw up the Chevy Colorado for NA. They can screw it up for the rest of the world but not their home market.

I hear you. It could be a mule with a different bed. But every spy shot on previous articles has the angular (not round) wheel wells on the rear.

"SpaceCab" models are treated as "SUV's with beds". Single Cabs are treated as work vehicles with up to 2 occupants and extended beds.
The Shorter Dual Cab Pickups are great for Off Road usage.

Single Cab normal bed length Utility Bed


Single Cab Pickup Bed

Off Road Dual Cab

What a rip off, just just like a Tacoma.

@Big Al from Oz,

If the Hi-Lux was so out dated, why did it finish 2nd overall at Dakar this year and FIRST AMOUNG ALL PICKUPS?

Tacoma's and Amarok's were competing but no Colorado, why is that?

Do you really think a Hilux that is racing in the Dakar is what you buy off the showroom floor?

I thought you would have been mature enough to realise money plays and important role in motor racing.

You claim to be a self professed desert racer should understand money equates to competitiveness.

With enough money most any vehicle can become competitive in motor racing.

Take the Great Wall from China, it was very competitive does that make it a better vehicle off the showroom floor?

I'm sorry oxi but I can't see the relationship with the Dakar Hilux and a Hilux of the floor other than the promotional aspect of motor racing.

Maybe if I buy a Commodore it will perform like a V8 Super Car. Or even your new Chev SS will have a similar top speed to the NASCAR version.

Toyota Hiluxes are behind the eight ball with their current range of vehicles.

Toyota isn't transferring technologies to improve power and economy, traction, comfort, ergonomic and on and on. Yes, I have always stated they are reliable, but the competition over here with our mid sizer is at the point where Toyotas are old school.

The difference is that great that comparing the Hilux to a VW Amarok is like comparing Focus to a 3 series BMW.

Toyota's lead in the automotive industry will diminish if it continues on trying to sell outdated technology at a premium price.

There is nothing wrong with the Hilux except there is much better pickups now.

Sorry, but that is a fact.

Well as it stand, if I were to buy a brand new midsized truck, 'd have to go for the Taco.

It doesnt look terrabad like the new Colorado
4x4 with a manual is available, in standard cab/short bed form
Ground clearance
Well proven chassis
And i also believe limited slip is standard on 4x4's too.

Too bad for Ford, I still ain't buying a fullsize. I like smaller trucks.

We have a new mid sizer from China called a Foton. On paper it should be as good as a Hilux.

The Foton pickup runs a Cummins, the same one that Ram and Titans were looking at, a 2.8 litre. Bosch electronics, Getrag gearbox, Borg Warner transfer case, Dana ass end, etc.

Very reputable equipement. The pickup bed is a fraction under 8' long. It looks like a promising pickup, but at 2/3s the price of a Hilux.

Once they resolve a couple of bugs it will be as good as the current Hilux.

That leaves only one pickup worse than the Hilux and that is a Great Wall from China.

Toyota have been dropping the price on Hiluxes and cutting deals to move them as well.

Hopefully Toyota's links with BMW to transfer diesel technology out of Germany for the new Hilux works.

The Hilux's suspension is really poor as well.

But when is all said and done they are reliable and expensive for what you get for your dollar.

@Big Al and Lou,I posted the first three. I made a mistake and posted twice for the web sites. I DIDN'T POST THE REST!!!!
IMITATION is the best form of flattery. lol

Here is a cut and paste from a comparison test regarding the Hilux. This is typical of most current appraisals of the Hilux.

A recent facelift upped content and lowered prices Customers can choose from a thirsty 4.0-litre petrol V6 (175kW/376Nm) or a 3.0-litre four-cylinder diesel (126kW/343Nm), which lags behind its rivals when it comes to low down lugging (torque).

While six gears are common these days, the Hilux makes do with a five-speed manual or optional four-speed automatic. Low range is selected with a lever, unlike the other models fitted with a simple dial.

The tow rating is the lowest in the class, 1000kg below the maximum tow rating of the Colorado, which could be an issue for some.


The interior is spacious and there are some smart storage areas, but the dashboard is old and plain despite a new colour centre screen.

It managed the tough terrain with ease, but the Hilux goes to the back of the class due to its ordinary on-road dynamics and jumbled ride, which all points to an old body and chassis. Its engines and transmissions are also getting on.

This might have been the benchmark seven years ago, but times have changed and the Hilux drives like an old-school ute.

As you can see oxi not the best, years ago. About time you sell that Tacoma and buy the new pickup.

@Hemi V8
You must have some nice friends trying to stitch you up. That's okay.

I can describe my experiences as they apply to a 1990 F-150 single-cab with 8' long bed. To be blunt, the thing is unwieldy at best when you're used to a vehicle with more agility. Even though the Wrangler Unlimited has a longer wheelbase than the base Wrangler, it's still far shorter than my long-bed truck. I'll grant it makes for good stability on the road, but parking or trying to maneuver through tight trails is much more difficult. Even when steering is tight and the truck feels remarkably agile, trying to squeeze into a typical parking place again reminds you the turning radius is dangerously wide. I now fully understand why so many pickup drivers swing wide to take a tight corner that I normally manage without even trying with my Jeep. I'm guessing our Taco-driving friend might even agree with that.

That's the problem with a pickup designed for use in the US transplanted to other countries. Maybe some of you will remember an episode of Top Gear from the BBC (Australia has a similar program almost directly related) where Jeremy Clarkson test drove an F-150 on English roads. He loved the power (he's a gear head, after all) but I can tell you the Ford fans will hate every other part of his review--where he described the fit and finish as "amateurish" and the overall truck as "simply too huge!"

You wonder why most European and Asian delivery and utility trucks are cab-over designs? They need the short wheelbase and the cabs as far forward so that 8' bed can pivot around corners our trucks simply couldn't manage without blocking the entire intersection. Their trucks are made for real work, not decadent luxury.

Since the mid-1990s, midsize trucks have been declining in popularity for a variety of reasons. As automakers continue to make their larger pickups more and more fuel efficient, a major selling point for smaller trucks has become obsolete. And as consumers have demanded more features in midsize trucks, they are no longer a cheap alternative.

Posted by: HEMI V8 | Jan 19, 2013 1:39:33 PM



This Colorado is like MTV's Catfish.

With no test drive and the covers on, you never know what you're going to get.

There is always that chance it could be a dud or a dude!

After seeing the half tons flopped at NAIAS, I want to know what GM is hiding.

Basically we know for certin it sucked from 2004-2013.


If the half tons flopped, these will too. The Colorado mid sizes were very unpopular the last few years.

"UK Truck Driver" who used to post on this site summed up US Pickups on European roads as "Too big to drive on the roads and to small to be a work truck'
When you get off their nightmarish Freeways (A-Roads)and Motorways.

You hit these. You have to guess what is coming the other way.Due to how land is allocated they cannot widen the roads.

I agree the fit and finish of US Pickups has improved but still a long way to go.

@Big Al from Oz,

The point is teams trust a Hi-Lux to build for racing than the Colorado!

In fact more teams show up with Toyota's to race with than other makes combined!

Did you ever consider the technology of a Hilux is cheaper because the vehicle has been raced more than the much newer Colorado.

Maybe in 8 years the Colorado's will just as cheap.

You can find that with alot of race teams, that old chassis's are cheaper to run.

It would be interesting to look at the data from 8 years ago.

The Hilux that raced was not a stock based Hilux. It had a 4.6 Litre V8 Gas engine. Not as far removed from reality as Gordon's "Hummer "which eventually finished 14th overall.
The GREAT WALL Chinese Pickup on the other hand was a modified 3 Litre Diesel hat finished 6th overall. Terranova's BMW XCC had a stock engine as well came in 5th overall.

@ Rob Ryan

The BMW X3 CC was running a modified 3.0L--the same engine the MINIs were using--because they are the exact same race chassis that just happens to have a "MINI" or an "X3" body on them.

I don't understand why may of the Hilux teams ran a 4.6L instead of a 5.7L?

Perhaps it is because in most countries the 4.6L is commonly available and the 5.7L is only available in the most expensive Toyota you can get--the Lexus LX570. In the US, you can get that engine in a truck that costs $25K.

@FordTrucks1--I agree with you on the S-10. My 99 is still a nice looking truck and it has been extremely reliable. When I bought my Isuzu in 2008 I decided to keep my S-10 which I will have had for 14 years this coming April. The Isuzu is a rebadged Colorado but with a nicer grill, but it too has the large chrome bars with "Isuzu" on the grill in large bold letters. I am not a big fan of large chrome bars or large emblems on the grill and will be glad when this fad passes. That is probably the only real issues I have with the Ford Atlas truck is there is a little too much bling on the front but I like the rest of the truck. The current F-150 I like but the F-250s and above still look a little too big in the front but the truck itself is more than capable so if I needed one I could live with the front.

@Big Al From Oz--I prefer the Amarok's front to any of the other midsize trucks. I don't mind the chrome as much as the big bars across the grill. I will be happy when the big grills and bars goe out of style.

@Lou--I have to agree with you statement on the Atlas that I too was caught completely off guard thinking that the full size half tons would be downsize. If this is what Ford is showing with the Atlas concept then I tend to agree with you that the F-150 will be upsized to the low end of the 3/4 tons. Good observation Lou.

@ Dav
"don't understand why may of the Hilux teams ran a 4.6L instead of a 5.7L?"

Neither do I ,as the 4 Litre V6 is the biggest Petrol option on the normal Hilux. The Dakar Hiluxes were prepared by a South African race company. The expense of a 4.6 Litre as against 5.7 Litre would not be a factor , maybe they had to be under a 5 litre limit?

The BMW XCC had a least a stock based engine like the GREAT WALL

@Robert Ryan and Dav
South Africa build some good desert racers.

They are running a factory subsidised current global Ranger over there that is beating V8 Buggies and racers and has won outright some significant events.

I'm saying this because the 3.2 baby Powerstroke is coming to the US and is manufactured in South Africa.

The US spec'd diesel is speculated to be putting out significantly more power and torque than my 3.2 and I think the desert racer was the test bed for the changes.

I hope we can get this new diesel and I also hope its as economical.

I'd guess that the bed (from the aft window back) is from the prior Gen Colorado. Note how the tires protrude from the (ugly) wheel wells, by several inches.

There is a market for small trucks but if someone doesn't need a a crewcab or extended cab, a regular cab shortbox full sized truck isn't all that big. I followed a Sierra short box reg cab today and an older Explorer in the lane next to it. The Sierra didn't look like it dwarfed the Explorer which dimensionally is comparable to the old Ranger.
@DWFields - it should go without saying that a longer vehicle does not have the same turning radius as a smaller one. I've adapted quite well to my truck. It boils down to what compromises you are willing to make. I'd rather sacrifice agility for capacity, comfort, and space. I don't live in a crowded big city or crawl through the bush. I'd buy a toy id agility was my primary purchase parameter.
If what you want isn't available, buy the closest available product that fits your needs for the price you are willing to pay. You could put a pickup kit on your Wrangler, or a heavy duty cargo rack, or find a shortbox reg cab 1990 F150. They do exist. I'm sure Oxi will give you a great deal on a low mile Tacoma in a few years time ;)

I really hope they get rid of the swept-back headlights.

I think the GMC version will be the real looker, To me it looks like this truck will still have the equinox/malibu front end.

Here is the Izuzu version of the Colorado. It is a much more attractive vehicle, I wonder if they will be released in the US?

The GM/Izuzu relationship is similar to the Ford/Mazda relationship with the global Ranger and BT50


@Big Al-You are right the Isuzu has a nicer grill than the Colorado. If Colorado had the same grill as the 2013 Traverse then it would look just as good as the Isuzu. My 2008 Isuzu looks much nicer than the Colorado and Canyon. My Isuzu has fully electric adjustable driver's and passenger seats and heated leather seats but mine is the top of the line with towing package, fog lamps, and push button 4 wheel drive. It is a nice truck and more than meets my needs.

Congradulations GM. It's only a matter of time before the all New Colorado is offered here in the US. The Ford fan girly men will act like well "Girly Men" and try and tear this apart because it's made by GM.

I expect to see this the New Colorado GET CLASS LEADING FUEL ECONOMY.

@DAVE, Silverado and Colorado will both have class leading fuel economy! No compromises. No girly man step with a stripper pole either.

Ford: we give you a girly man step ladder rack. And GM gives you class leading fuel economy. Which would you rather have? LOL!

GM wins and ford loses AGAIN!

@Jeff S
The Izuzu even has different body panels than the Colorado, like my BT50 compared to the Ranger.

The Izuzu has a different engine, I think it runs an Izuzu diesel and is much more economical than the Colorado that runs a 2.8 GM/Chev diesel.

The Izuzu tested has leather and all the bell and whistles also, like yours.

@Bob - GMC loses everytime you open your big gaping pie hole.

The comments to this entry are closed.