2015 Chevrolet Colorado Should Debut Soon

ChevyColorado.rev.frnt II
Illustrations by Mark Stehrenberger

The new midsize pickups from General Motors should be getting close to their debut. We haven't been officially told where they will debut but with auto show season just around the corner, we're guessing we'll see them pretty soon in either Los Angeles, Detroit or Chicago.

GM's three-truck strategy sounds good on paper, offering truck buyers a choice between small (midsize), medium (half-tons) and large (heavy-duties), but much will be proven when we see how different each truck is in price. Prices for the Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra half-tons have gone up between 4 and 8 percent, which could have been done to give the smaller trucks a little more breathing room when they appear in dealerships sometime next year.

As you can imagine, there is a lot riding on the success of this three-truck strategy, especially since no one else in the industry is using it. Still, we believe there is interest for a smaller pickup truck that offers many of the same advantages of a bigger pickup, but at a smaller price. We'll have to wait and see if the new Chevrolet Colorado or GMC Canyon will give the Nissan Frontier and Toyota Tacoma a reason to worry with any unique powertrains or unprecedented technology. Or will their only advantage be price?

ChevyColorado.rev.frnt.1 II

 Chevy rear hi 1 II
Colorado.rear.hi II

Comments

NO Company NEEDS TWO DAMN TRUCKS!!! NOT on MY DIME. DODGE,Ford,Toyota,Nissan and THE REST ALL have ONE Truck! GovtMoCo Sierra's AND CANYONS Should NOT EXIST! Chevrolet is ALL that Government Motors needed. American TAXPAYERS Should NOT have had to Subsidize their GovtMoCo line of REBADGED Chevy's.

Beautiful truck! Not really feeling the new squared off half ton GM trucks.
Now this Colorado has to be a little bit cheaper than a full size truck. It has to get better gas mileage as well and pull a 4000lb trailer.
If those things are done I think it will be a success. As far as looks go it has the full size beat.

It is awesome how a topic about the new colorado and canyon model pulls out the same BS about GM and 2 truck lines. The difference between ford and GM is the fact that GM has been successful where as ford has tried numerous times with Lincoln and failed. The truck was fine, but they couldn't make it stick. GM has been doing it for years and it works. I hope they release this truck soon. They have been discussing them for way too long. Bring them already.

@Alan: I'm assuming you're responding to troll comments such as MoparMadness and others. The best way to respond to trolls is not at all. Let them know that their sad, pathetic little words have no place in that civilized discussion.

...But at the same time, their sentiments have some merit. There is some discontent with the perceived "wastefulness," particularly among more conservative individuals (as pickup truck buyers often are) with having overlapping product lines being offered by one manufacturer; in this case, Chevrolet and GMC.

You mention Ford's failed endeavors with the Lincoln Blackwood and Mark LT pickups as comparable with Chevrolet and GMC. However, I would say that a better comparison would be between Chevrolet and Cadillac. The original Cadillac Escalade was produced in direct response to the success of the Lincoln Navigator, the same was true with the Escalade EXT and Blackwood pickups.

But it wouldn't be wise for GM to discontinue the GMC line and merge Denali into a Ford Platinum-battling Silverado trim line. A GMC Denali carries much more brand recognition than any Chevrolet Denali ever would. And even if Denali is just as luxurious as Cadillac, it doesn't carry the same negative stigma of being ostentatious or "look-at-me-ness."

I don't know how many people remember this, but there was a time when there was a difference between GMC and Chevrolet. Until 1973, GMC trucks were available with V6 engines rather than Chevy's inline-6's.

If last year's reveal of the 2014 Silverado is any indication, the Colorado and Canyon should be formally introduced within a few months, before the end of the year, and will be available for sale by next spring.

Who the heck cares if the GM has two trucks, they can make has many trucks under differant names as they want. If they are successful at go for it if thats what they want to do.

@Tom
It isn't the cheap imports that are killing our manufacturing. It could also be stated our high wages is killing our manufacturing.

The way you stated it sounds like it is the others fault.

Manufacturing of vehicles isn't so high tech. Thatls why others can do it just as good and cheaper.

If we manufacture we have to manufacturer something that we can compete in obviously cars isn't one of them.

Here's some interesting figures. Each person in the US subsidises each vehicle built by $2 900, Australia $1 700 and the Germans $1 300.

That's a lot of money, that could be better spent creating competitive jobs. We don't have candlestick makers in every town anymore.

@George: Apples/Apples/Oranges

What does financing have to do with midsize trucks? If Chevy wants to give me zero percent financing to buy their truck, I can pay myself by putting the available cash into better performing assets like home equity or 401k.

Mid size trucks were affordable and solid transportation back in the day.

Today very few continue to be affordable compared to a base F150 or base Ram 1500. Why buy a stripped Ridgeline for the price of a V8 powered Ram or Chevy, or Ford?

@papa jim
I don't think US manufactured midsizers will have a huge price advantage.

The advantage they can give them is by using a small diesel, increase payload and towing, refinement, etc.

The US currently can't import those Thai pickups, to many barriers, so they have to be manufactured in the US.

For Chev to build a factory for the Colorado shows that they expect sales to be well above 50 000 units per year.

VW stated it wouldn't sell the Amarok in the US unless they could sell 100 000 per year to warrant a US factory or the Chicken Tax goes so they can import some.

This midsize move by Chev is a gutsy move, even bigger than the Fiat/Ram move of a 1500 diesel pickup.

@Papa Jim: You're not even half right, but more because you're looking at the picture from the wrong end of the glass.

Sure, small trucks back then might have been cheaper to configure for all of that than full-sized due to re-using automotive components and sure, the difference in price for those components isn't really as big today, but that is NOT why people were buying them. Back then safety was pretty much the last thing on drivers' minds as far as the vehicle itself was concerned. Even today, safety itself really isn't the main factor for a purchase decision, even though it is the most advertised feature. Performance, comfort and reliability are the primary aspects, while safety features that actually improve the usability of the vehicle such as backup cameras, night-display technology and other high-tech features are coming to the fore. Safety, such as number of airbags, roof strength, etc. really don't mean that much to people who honestly think they'll never get into a collision.

You simply cannot believe that simply because a full-sized truck can carry/pull more smaller trucks won't sell. Those early S-10s and so sold BECAUSE they were smaller. They sold BECAUSE they got better gas mileage. They sold simply because they were more fun to drive than the big Road Whales™ of the day and they'll sell today for the same reasons. It's not because demand went down that they quit selling, it's because many of them simply couldn't get past the protectionism for the American brands and the American brands wanted to pull drivers back up to their highest profit models. Any time you can see a brand-new full-sized truck selling for $9,000 off retail price you KNOW there's huge profit there!

I don't argue that some have a need for full-sized trucks. Contractors, large-scale landscapers, farmers, even certain levels of OTR hauling will have a need for something that large. BUT... The typical homeowner doesn't. They're not hauling large, bulky items on a daily or even weekly basis. They're not carrying a cubic yard of topsoil or mulch every month. These are the do-it-yourselfers. These are the hobbyists; the gardeners. These are the people with only the occasional load that's simply too big or too dirty to carry in the back of the family sedan. These are the people who in many cases are using a likely beat-up midsize SUV or an older full-sized truck that looks like it's about to fall apart.

There IS a market, despite the nay-sayers and if GM gets its act straight with this model may well demonstrate by gaining a huge jump on the other brands.

@MoparMadness: I will agree and disagree. And my reasoning plays right into your own username.

Yes, I fully agree that GM does NOT need two brands of truck. However, the brand that should be dropped is the Chevrolet brand, NOT GMC. Just as Chrysler has separated RAM out from Dodge, GM really needs to pull their trucks away from Chevrolet. The economic and technological differences would be immediate.

Rather than a division struggling to produce both cars and trucks--AND trying to play into the CAFE rules, Chevrolet could focus on its passenger cars the same way Buick and Cadillac are now doing and probably realize a huge improvement in cost effectiveness. GMC would benefit by pulling in Chevy's truck division and see a notable reduction is parallel management as well as the remaining people able to focus on a single type of vehicle. They would also be able to better focus on the engineering needed to power and support the trucks without trying to figure out how to make a lower-power automotive engine work in a truck.

@MoparMadness: I will agree and disagree. And my reasoning plays right into your own username.

Yes, I fully agree that GM does NOT need two brands of truck. However, the brand that should be dropped is the Chevrolet brand, NOT GMC. Just as Chrysler has separated RAM out from Dodge, GM really needs to pull their trucks away from Chevrolet. The economic and technological differences would be immediate.

Rather than a division struggling to produce both cars and trucks--AND trying to play into the CAFE rules, Chevrolet could focus on its passenger cars the same way Buick and Cadillac are now doing and probably realize a huge improvement in cost effectiveness. GMC would benefit by pulling in Chevy's truck division and see a notable reduction is parallel management as well as the remaining people able to focus on a single type of vehicle. They would also be able to better focus on the engineering needed to power and support the trucks without trying to figure out how to make a lower-power automotive engine work in a truck.

I am one of those weekend suburban gardeners and do it yourself. Don't need a full size truck don't need a small crossover (got one). Midsize is perfect. I use my truck bed at least twice a week during the Spring and Summer and a couple of times a month the rest of the year. If I need anything more I would skip the half ton full size and go to a 3/4 ton. I have pulled out tree stumps with a compact truck and hauled everything imaginable in a compact and midsize truck.

@Big Al From Oz,
That site is now up and running.

@vulpine you just ran your mouth for a mile--you must be out of breath. You did not give a single citation for all of the gratuitous assertions you made.

Here are some facts: US manufacturers had a lot of surplus assembly line capacity back in the early 80s but that's not true today. Ford, Chevy, Ram had an interest in producing fuel efficient trucks then---not today.

It really isn't a winning program to build new product lines today if they're body/frame trucks.

One of the biggest obstacles with the smaller pickup category, was the very miniscule MPG difference between the 1/2 tons and the smaller size. The Toyota Tacoma vs the Ford F150 is a good example..I have owned both and its nearly a wash (I know the tundra drinks fuel). But for my money (and nearly the same price) I would rather have the extra interior space and comfort that comes with a 1/2 ton. The reason for this miniscule difference is largely due to the ultra competitive(rapid development dollars) nature of 1/2 ton turcks in comparison to the non existent competition in Tacoma size trucks.

Papa jim, is there a demand for UniBody pickups? There might be...it would be interesting to see Kia/Hyundai offer a sub $15000 30 mpg capable minitruck. It would probably be a great seller. I still do prefere body/frame for trucks though.

Or imagine a new Honda minitruck Si with a 190hp 2.2 Vtec motor, with a 6 speed manual..and 27 mpg....that would likely be a hot seller, especially if price could get under $19k (for a at least for an lx base model).

MoparMadness...you sure got hot about a company offering 2 trucks. Toyota must really piss you off. Does it also infuriate you that car companies sell mutliple models?

I don't care for the Volt front nose. They need to quit putting car-cuv noses on this stuff. And the tail lamps are awful. The raised bullet-bubble look for tail lamps went out like 8 years ago. A bad 90's trend. I don't like the F-150 rear lenses either. The clear lenses also were a bad 90's fad. Why can't manufacturer's just make something good looking instead of gaudy? Overall it's ok. They should have kept the round wheel arches though like all of the S-10's had. Chevrolet's best looking small truck is still the square body S-10.

Vulpine, great point on separating GMC from Chevrolet...the benefits that Ram is reaping by splitting from DOdge could be had for Chevy too...but Chevy won't consider the thought.

@zzgeorgez
The difference in FE is only the US vehicles. Even here what your V6 pickups are getting we are getting out of a 4.5 V8 diesel midsizer.

We have diesel 4x4, dual cab midsizers that can get 40mpg on the highway.

Those Thai pickups in my link all have models that are getting about 30-33mpg average FE.

"But it wouldn't be wise for GM to discontinue the GMC line and merge Denali into a Ford Platinum-battling Silverado trim line. A GMC Denali carries much more brand recognition than any Chevrolet Denali ever would. And even if Denali is just as luxurious as Cadillac, it doesn't carry the same negative stigma of being ostentatious or "look-at-me-ness."

I don't know how many people remember this, but there was a time when there was a difference between GMC and Chevrolet. Until 1973, GMC trucks were available with V6 engines rather than Chevy's inline-6's.


---Chevrolet Denali rolls off the tongue far better than GM Denali I think. I would much rather have the Chevrolet. They desperately need a Platinum trim instead of that wild west crap. As far as engines, who cares about 6 cylinders 40 years ago. Every GM Sierra I ever popped the hood on had a SBC in it going way back. That's why they were always considered the rebadge line. That's fine but it IS redundant and a waste of our taxdollars from this conservatives point of view and obviously many others. As far as this drawing goes, eh. It's ok but it doesn't have the Gotta Have It factor. The front looks better than the global version for sure but something still isn't right about it. I like the rest. The square wheelwells look better here than on the fullsizers. Round is still always best. Especially when it comes to tire selection.

@Vulpine, everybody knows and still considers the Ram a Dodge Ram. Their sales are soaring because their current model is everything to everyone and just plain awesome looking. The Chevrolet Silverado doesn't even compare in the looks department and it's always half assed because of the GM Sierra. It's not rocket science why Chevrolet continues to sink. You can't fight very well with one hand always tied behind your back.

Regardless, what you are suggesting isn't even accurate. Calling the Dodge Ram just Ram or Ram Trucks is equal to Calling the Chevy Silverado just Silverado or Silverado Trucks. Or calling the Ford F-150 just the F-150 or F-Series Trucks. Try taking Chevy trucks away from Chevy and the company would die within a week. Chevy trucks sell Chevy cars. Ford trucks sell Ford cars. And when Chevrolet trucks account for 80% of all GM's tallied truck sales, well, it would be the GM truck that went the way of the dodo because there Is no GM without Chevrolet keeping the lights on.

One of the biggest things that killed small trucks was the fact that large pickups improved and the small ones didn't.
People buy the smaller trucks because that is what they want,
If value was truly what someone wanted, a full sized truck actually gives you more bang for your buck. I was looking at the price overlap between small and large trucks and a base model reg cab F150 was selling for less than a base Tacoma.

@ TerryHoath71: Chevy needs the "wild west crap" just as much as they need a Platinum-level trim. The High Country model is something they should have had at the introduction of the 900 models, just to compete with Ford's King Ranch and Ram's Laramie Longhorn.

Nothing official as far as a Diesel engine in the upcoming Colorado, but a few sources seem confident that it will be an option. Is it just coincidence that the 2014 Holden Colorado got a power bump to apprx 200 hp and 370 lb-ft of torque. That along with superior fuel economy will get attention here in the US.
The renderings of the Colorado on this sight has been the most accurate from what I can tell (comparing spy photos), though I would be surprised if the extended cabs don't have rear hinged rear doors.

@BLang
They will start to get some serious torque out of these diesels. It's not all driven by the US. The Colorado here hasn't been the best, so a hp and torque improvement will be the easiest way to 'top' the competition.

We have near on 600nm (430ftlb) Navara diesels. Nissan has upped the output of their diesels. I wonder if we will end up with 250hp/500ftlb midsizers? That would be totally unreal.

According to the reviewer of the new Australian Colorado that it is a generation behind the Ford Ranger, Mazda BT50 and Amarok. This US Colorado is still a generation or two in front of the Frontier and Tacoma.

Lou stated that the small trucks didn't improve, but they are a couple of generations old, sort of like comparing an early 90s pickup with the current full size pickups.

The difference is these midsizers have capability that is quite amazing.

I hope you can get a taste of them.

I wonder if Sth African Rangers are easily and quickly made for the US market? The US has a free trade agreement with them and that's where the 3.2 Duratorque's are manufactured alongside the Rangers.

This is not about technology or manufacturing as much as it is about demand. Ford, Chevy, Ram and their dealers have a pretty fair idea of what their customers are asking for.

The decision by Ford and Ram to eliminate the midsize bracket makes it pretty clear. Chrysler/Fiat actually has a great platform to build a next-gen midsize halfton similar to the Avalanche or the Ridgeline, but it would be priced in the high 30s to start.

They could utilize a Grand Cherokee platform. Add a V8 or a diesel and you're priced in the mid 40s--there is no market for it, but it would be awesome.

Intro at LA is a done deal.

@Big Al. You have good points. All I meant was I didn't think that Chevy would have a premium engine under 200 hp here (though hp is obviously not everything, especially with a truck), I'm sure they can get a bit more than 200 hp / 370 lb-ft (500 Nm?) out of that 2.8. Do you think they will bother with gas engines in the Holden Colorado in the future or is there simply not enough demand for them?
This would possibly be a good replacement for my little pickup in few years.

@TerryHoath: Sorry, trucks don't sell cars and cars don't sell trucks. It's a pretty well established fact that Ford's cars are, shall we say... less than ideal when it comes to reliability as compared to their trucks? There's a reason that the anagram for FORD is "Found On Road Dead"; their cars tend to live up to that even now. If we go to the other side of the equation we see that the stereotypical view of Chevy trucks is just as bad, yet people swear by the quality of Chevy's cars. No, Ford's trucks are Ok, though I personally hate their looks since they took on that fake "big rig" look with the over-exaggerated grill and chromed surround. Chevy's trucks on the other hand seem to demonstrate superior reliability--typically lasting far longer than Ford's as you go down the line; at least according to vehicle registration data which shows more Chevy trucks older than 25 years still on the road despite nearly twice as many Fords sold at the same time. With less than 1 year before my own F-150 turns 25, my Ford appears the exception to the rule as it hasn't rusted out yet; in fact, it carries very little body rust of any kind and doesn't appear to have ever had any rust damage repaired since it was new.

The point is that each class of car sells on its own merits--or on the fact that there isn't a truly competing class. Station wagons died because minivans replaced them--despite the fact that minivans were intended to just give buyers a smaller option to the full-sized van. Now, SUVs have effectively replaced the minivan as the family hauler AND replaced the compact pickup because of superior gas mileage. Their one fault for the latter is the simple fact that they cannot carry outsized or 'dirty' loads as easily as the small trucks. Meanwhile, the crew cab pickup has seemingly replaced almost all the full-sized SUVs, though this trend was effectively started by the launch of the Chevy Avalanche. Still, cars aren't selling trucks and trucks aren't selling cars. People who hate one brand's cars may well buy that brand's trucks and their 'favorite' brand's car.

What will I buy in the future? It really depends. I can't quite claim to have a favorite brand any more, since GM has killed all three of my favorite brands. I've owned more Oldsmobiles than any other single brand and found Pontiacs and Saturns remarkable vehicles for different reasons. I've never liked Ford because every Ford I've ever owned has been a lemon and a money pit--including the F-150 I own now. At least with this F-150, I bought it knowing it would need near-constant repairs. Still, the body is solid and the engine runs Ok, if not perfectly. What could I expect for paying $2500 for it? That leaves Chrysler products, of which I've owned one Dodge car and one Jeep Wrangler, both of which were surprisingly reliable--well, except for a brake issue on the Jeep which seems to be more related to Daimler Benz sticking their fingers into the pie rather than any real reliability issues. I've only owned one Chevy and one Buick, and with Buick dropping out of racing, they quit making the 'T'-type which was the model I had and absolutely loved.

I still need a truck, though I certainly don't need a full-sized one. The 8' bed on the one I have is great for carrying 20+ 8-foot-long event tables, but those would ride just as well in a 6' bed using a strap to hold them in. I'm strongly tempted by the current Toyota Tacoma, but I'm waiting both to see what their next year's model will offer as well as the new mid-sized GMs. I'm also waiting to see if Jeep itself will add a Wrangler-based pickup to the line. My truck needs are light and I simply don't need a full-sized truck. Nor do I WANT a full-sized truck. I know I'm not the only person in this country that thinks that way.

Vulpine, way to much info, nobody comes on here to read a book.

'Snapdragon McFisticuff = FordTrucks1'

@PUTCbot, Um, No. Sorry there guy.

I think the truck looks ok. I prefer the side profile of the original better. Outside of the 73-87 Chevy's and possibly the current model (because both are all square), I like round wheel openings better. This is still ok. The front end is better but not great. Outside of that new Impala and the current Tahoe, I haven't seen a front end from Chevrolet I really liked right off the bat in a long time. The 3 round bubbles on the taillights do look dorky. This is just a sketch so I bet it looks better in person or when it's revealed. Maybe with Chevy on the playing field it will push Ford into bringing the Ranger over as the F-100. Now the Ranger I think it a good looking truck.

They should ONLY build crew-cabs. Crew-cabs out-sell extended cab and regular cabs combined. It would also lower manufacturing costs.

NLP, maybe just Crew Cabs and regular cabs. Contractors still buy these and they need a decent sized bed. The extended cab will be fased out I believe since they are becoming four doors anyway.

Still sits too high. My Ranger is perfect at 45" at the rear wheel center from the ground to the top of the bed. The rear door would serve much better swinging the other direction.

@Vulpine, you're nuts. Trucks sell cars all day long. Always have. It's called brand loyalty. Ford truck guys have Ford cars or suv's for the wife or kids. Same with Chevrolet truck guys, Toyota truck guys, Dodge truck guys or even Nissan. If I were to buy a car, I'm going right back to my Ford dealer where I bought my Super Duty and the wife's F-150 Platinum. We're a Ford family. A Chevrolet family is just that as well and so on. Sorry your brands got killed off but really, those things were dead going into the 80's. After that they were all just rolling rebadges.


'Chevy needs the "wild west crap" just as much as they need a Platinum-level trim. The High Country model is something they should have had at the introduction of the 900 models, just to compete with Ford's King Ranch and Ram's Laramie Longhorn.'

@Snapdragon, I agree with that. Chevy lost quite a bit of ground not having a High Country back in 99 to fight Ford. They're doing it again with not having a Platinum fighter too I think. Especially since Dodge and Toyota both have one. All truck guys are not the same. Some like that western stuff, some don't. The idea of GM that you're supposed to switch your truck company entirely to get a Platinum type trim is just dumb.

FordTrucks, Yes I don't think theirs a ton of difference between the cars and the trucks in most brands, but most people don't buy all one brand car and truck. They buy what they like, what works, and where they get the best deal and service. Varity is the spice of life, I'd hate to be stuck driving a Ford my hole life but to each his own.

@moparmadness

What is your problem, why are you so upset? Is it because the GM trucks outsell your dodge trucks 2-1 and your dodge trucks are now being car parts? I would be upset to if they were watering down my truck.

Go ahead and act like dez bryant, guess knowing anything about business and sales is not your forte...

FordTrucks1,

You've seemed to have lost your way just like Ford has with their trucks. They are nothing more than stale bread if you ask me. That is what is going to cause me to jump ship very soon.

I'm not totally convinced that trucks sell cars or vise versa unless one is blind loyal and we do see a higher incidence of blind brand loyalty in the more conservative truck buying group.
If I go on anecdotal evidence, I see a mixed bag. I generally see domestic full sized pickups paired with Japanese badged cars, small SUV's or minivans in the driveway.
@Vulpine - the Avalanche had nothiing to do with the fact that crew cab pickups have replaced the large SUV. If that were the case we'd be seeing much more of them and Chevy would still be building them. It is more of a case of the "sissyfication" of large SUV's. Car companies have moved them upscale and it is hard to find more basic units. Truck features have been progressively removed from them.

My driveway consists of a Chevrolet, a Subaru, and a Nissan. I have one neighbor that has all Chevies but the other ten houses on my steet is mixed up like mine.

Doesn't look terrible but it's not a very cohesive design. Still looks like a mishmash of parts. Chevy's last good looking small truck was the ZR2 S-10. Ever since the 2002/3 timeframe, they went to the dogs design wise. The replacement Colorado was dog ugly and they made their fullsizers dog ugly at the same time. They need new designers. They'd be further ahead taking away the right angle ruler from the design team too. The only thing that looks good with all of those squares is a Jeep.

@Alan, ya, 2 lines of the same truck isn't redundant or anything. lol! That's standard GMC protocol though. Just slap a different badge on whatever car or truck and the let marketing department take care of the rest. Give me a break. I still can't believe we bailed out this screwed up mess because these guys never learn. Chevy should ditch GMC. Maybe they'd get some customers like myself back.

@Vulpine, ya, Ford cars are really bad news. Please. Tell that to the Fusion, Focus and Escape. They're killing their Chevrolet counterparts.


@Ford1, it didn't help that the gmt800 and 900 models were junkers in the quality department.

This truck will fall on deaf ears. Toyota got a Tacoma following because they had no bigger truck years back and were known for quality. Chevrolet is stuck now since this is global. They went and made the Silverado so big and bulky it's hardly practical. And nobody asked for this. They wanted the old smaller S-10 and normal sized Silverado back. This company is so dumb sometimes it amazes me.

@Tyler, PLEASE. Government Motors needs TWO trucks to EVEN touch Dodge! I LIKE Chevy! OLD ONES anyway. I DO NOT like GovtMoCo!!! American Taxpayer THEIVES! NO Company NEEDS TWO TRUCKS! Not on the American Taxpayers dime! This is just Another OBAMA Mess! TOO Bad Chevy is TIED To GovtMotors! DODGE WILL Be taking OVER the #2 Spot from Chevrolet!! MARK MY WORDS. Ford Will be in our sights!

Not bad, the Test Mules that are currently out there are pretty close to whats being illustrated here, it should hold up well against the Nissan Frontier and the Toyota Tacoma. I'm cetain that Ford and RAM won't hold out on this opportunity for too long, I'm suspecting that they are just waiting to get all of the info in relation to this truck once it's released so that they will know what needs to be done to bring out the right competitor against it.

It's interesting the conversation of the '2 trucks'.

The money that GM recieved and great business deal Fiat got occurred, nothing can change this. GM isn't run by Mopar or Ford fans. How GM sets up its operations is up to them.

I do think GM will come unstuck gradually, like they have done elsewhere globally, except China. So it doesn't matter if it's GMC or Chev they have a challenge in front of them.

GM didn't have the resources to throw at vehicle design, look at how little GM put into the Colorado compared to the Ranger, BT50 and Amarok. Toyota did the same with the Tundra to a degree. The amount of money that GM invested into the Colorado is evident by the comparisons that we get on our midsizers.

I'm still seeing the comments that are alluding to the fact that 'no one wants a small pickup'. But those comments are mainly coming from the guys who complain about the cost of a diesel pickup vs gas. But yet think a high end V8 is good value?

Minivans in the US replaced stationwagons due to regulatory changes in vehicle design/size. It was Lee Iacocca that used the loopholes in CAFE to bring on the minivans as a wagon replacement. Minivans were regarded as trucks not cars like a station wagon was.

The same can be said for the large family car in the US, CAFE dictated that change.

Now CAFE is impacting pickups and change will occur. Midsizers are disadvantaged in comparison to larger pickups due to CAFE. The problem is the size of a full size truck is becoming to large for most.

I do think the Colorado will do okay. There is a large market for this size vehicle. A diesel will be a bonus and will allow the midsizer to meet CAFE requirements.

Like here in Australia, Toyota have done some good marketing and have built a reliable product in the Hilux. It is our biggest selling pickup even though it's two generations older than some of our newer pickups.

The same can be said for the US. Taco has a following and a reputation for a good product. GM has to get a foothold and outperform the Taco.

It can do this considering the Taco technically is very old.

What is wrong posting on this site...............again.

It's interesting the conversation of the '2 trucks'.

The money that GM recieved and great business deal Fiat got occurred, nothing can change this. GM isn't run by Mopar or Ford fans. How GM sets up its operations is up to them.

I do think GM will come unstuck gradually, like they have done elsewhere globally, except China. So it doesn't matter if it's GMC or Chev they have a challenge in front of them.

GM didn't have the resources to throw at vehicle design, look at how little GM put into the Colorado compared to the Ranger, BT50 and Amarok. Toyota did the same with the Tundra to a degree. The amount of money that GM invested into the Colorado is evident by the comparisons that we get on our midsizers.

I'm still seeing the comments that are alluding to the fact that 'no one wants a small pickup'. But those comments are mainly coming from the guys who complain about the cost of a diesel pickup vs gas. But yet think a high end V8 is good value?

Minivans in the US replaced stationwagons due to regulatory changes in vehicle design/size. It was Lee Iacocca that used the loopholes in CAFE to bring on the minivans as a wagon replacement. Minivans were regarded as trucks not cars like a station wagon was.

The same can be said for the large family car in the US, CAFE dictated that change.

Now CAFE is impacting pickups and change will occur. Midsizers are disadvantaged in comparison to larger pickups due to CAFE. The problem is the size of a full size truck is becoming to large for most.

I do think the Colorado will do okay. There is a large market for this size vehicle. A diesel will be a bonus and will allow the midsizer to meet CAFE requirements.

Like here in Australia, Toyota have done some good marketing and have built a reliable product in the Hilux. It is our biggest selling pickup even though it's two generations older than some of our newer pickups.

The same can be said for the US. Taco has a following and a reputation for a good product. GM has to get a foothold and outperform the Taco.

It can do this considering the Taco technically is very old.

@raymondj
Fiat and their sub brands ie, Chrysler/Ram/Jeep, etc don't have a global midsizer to compete.

Fiat only have Ram.



The comments to this entry are closed.