Spied: 2015 Chevy Colorado Drops Some Camo

Colorado_cdauto_10413_1 II

Photography by Chris Doane Automotive

Our spy shooters have been keeping a close watch on the coming small pickups from GM because we're getting close to the debut of the redesigned Chevrolet Colorado and GMC Canyon. We should be seeing something official by the second quarter of 2014 so, for now, we just have to wait … unless more of the camouflage continues to fall off the test vehicles. Here's what our spies shared with to us:

"The coming 2015 Chevy Colorado pickup is having a rough time; some camouflage looks like it's been intentionally removed, while other parts of it have simply fallen off during the test run.

"With less camouflage up front, it's easier to get a good look at the new front end. It's plain to see the U.S. model will have a significantly different look than the export Colorado. Additionally, some of the camo on the rear of the Colorado fell off, giving us a better look at the tailgate and tail lamps.

"In Asia, the Colorado is sold only with diesel motors. That likely won't be the case in the U.S. Here, we'll almost certainly get a V-6 and smaller, four-cylinder option. GM has many available engines to choose from, including a 2.0-liter I-4 turbo from Cadillac or the 2.5-liter from the new Malibu. A four-cylinder turbo-diesel could also be offered."

We expect the new Wentzville, Mo., plant to start production of both of GM's midsize pickup trucks by middle of next year. As the durability and final integration testing is completed, we're hoping to see more revealing early production units driving around. And when they do, we'll be there.

Colorado_cdauto_10413_2 II

Colorado_cdauto_10413_4 II

Colorado_cdauto_10413_7 II

Colorado_cdauto_10413_5 II

Colorado_cdauto_10413_3 II

Colorado_cdauto_10413_5a II



Sorry folks, but this truck is an "answer" looking for a question.

The compact segment does well in global markets but is really OVER in this country. And the model branding is dreadful! Why don't they call it a Vega, or an Edsel or a (fill in blank).

The last generation Colorado/Canyon twins were dreadful competing against the Tacoma and other better compacts. Even the Dakota was better.

Only the 1998 Ranger that Ford face-lifted so many times it should have been re-named in honor of Joan Rivers, was worse.

The entire compact segment has been awful for GM trucks and rear-drive SUVs. The Trailblazer was awful.

Even the GMC Terrain and its Chevy twin need huge incentives to move them off of dealer lots.

Focus on half ton trucks and large SUVs.

As a previous owner of an S-10, Ranger (2x), and a Tacoma, I'm glad to see GM back in the compact market. I'm so tired of everyone saying that the market is dead in America and reference vehicles that were either never updated (Ranger) or behind the times when it came out (Colorado/Canyon). If American companies actually wanted to compete in this size class they could. The Ranger was the second best selling compact when it was produced.

The problem is that this size vehicle has gotten so big that it's almost the size of a full size truck. If they could shrink them back to the size of the Ranger and S-10, even the HiLux they would be true compact trucks and worth it as a first time (or second) vehicle. Small size available diesel and great mileage with modest towing would be a selling combination.

I don't need a compact truck that can tow 10,000 pounds but 5,000 would be perfect for a small trailer. Any more than that and the increased size and brakes of a full size would be better.

I think this truck is shaping up nice, I would just hope that it's significantly smaller than the Silverado so there is some difference between the two.

I'm glad to see these smaller trucks coming back. The half tons are getting to be land yaights, way more truck then I need or want.

The mid size platforms will be the only hope of breaking the 30mpg hwy barrier. Mid size pickups should be cheaper than comparably sized crossovers which are already selling very well. I hope they succeed.

@Ram Owner & John--Ditto, completely agree with you remarks. I don't need a land yacht car or truck and if I did the market already has many to choose from. I would prefer this to be a true compact truck but I can live with this. They should offer a diesel option.

@John, I'm with ya. 1/2 tons are too big now. Not so much the F-150 but the others are massive. The Chevrolet seems to have grown the most over the last two generations. I really hope Ford doesn't take that route as we already have the Super Duty. I'd expect an F-100 on the scene shortly. This Colorado looks a million times better over the current model even in camo. I still like the 80's S-10 the best. The ZR2 S-10 next. Maybe this Colorado will have the off road capabilities to take on the Tacoma?

I'd like to see Ram come out with a new Dakota, mid size with coils.

My only wish with this truck was that it was actually a true mid or compact truck. On the other hand, I welcome the entry into the market. Buyers who want trucks for light duty use who aren't concerned about having to have a truck that makes them look macho, but hauls some shingles, peat moss, lumber from the store, and gets them back and forth to work want something like this. Higher mileage is being demanded and if this provides it at a good price it will do very well.

Oh, papa jim, I owned 4 Rangers from the last generation, and all of those with a V6 were great, the one with a 4 cylinder was acceptable too. The handled well, were virtually indestructible, and provided good reliable mileage. I also drove a Colorado and found it to be acceptable as well, though I can't speak for long term ownership.

I don't think you will see a true compact truck. And in reality looking at a 2014 regular cab Tacoma and one from 15 years ago they havn't grown that much, its just that most of them are coming in crew cab and 4x4 these days so they appear bigger. Yea they have gotten a couple inches wider mainly but cars have too.

There was nothing wrong with the Ranger, Ford just let in languish. If GM succeeds with these twins then maybe Ford would bring the global Ranger here. A competitively priced midsize that got mpgs in the high 20's to 30's would do well.

Looking inside the exhuast pipe it appears quite black.

Could that be from trialling different mapping of a diesel?

I think there are a lot of high hopes riding on this truck doing well in the US market. I certainly wish it success. GM has promised that this truck will be the MPG leader for GM and I hope to see decent mpg's even from v-6 trim levels.

The photos make this rig look significantly smaller than the previous version--truly more mid-sized than "intermediate" sized. For all that there are some who think these will not sell, I see these as not only significant competition to the Toyota Tacoma but may actually regenerate the mid-sized truck market. Assuming Jeep doesn't come out with a true Jeep-branded pickup truck (preferably Wrangler based), this looks like a prime candidate for me to trade my antique F-150 when these are released. (Yes, I do know my truck is not antique NOW, but it will be by the time the Colorado hits the showrooms.)

Guys--Where do I start???

I owned a great 1988 S10. Had 2 Rangers including a 1994 that was indestructible and a 2010 that had issues.

Trucks of this size are perfect for this market but the automakers abandoned that platform--period. It is not coming back.

No one makes it anymore in this country.

My S10 was a big V6 with top trim (cost less than 10K new) Bulletproof. Destroyed in a wreck with 180k trouble free miles. I'd still have it today if not for the crash.

It's why the Big 3 killed the concept, in my opinion.

Fordtrucks1: I find your comments to be kind of funny, as the F-150 is actually heavier than ever and the Chevy lighter than ever!

I think the automakers need to realize that just because someone wants a smaller less cabable truck doesn't mean they want less quality. I would like to see high quality interior materials, spray in bedliners, 8 inch touch screens, and a quality truck overall. The last small gm trucks had a crap plastic interior that can be seen in other small trucks like the Frontier.

@Big Al

You might be right, the heat shield also gives off a clue. I haven't seen a heat shield like that on any of our gasser trucks.

@papa jim
If it can come out with the 2.5 diesel in 2WD form and get 33mpg on the highway I think people will buy it.

Especially if it has about a 7 500lb tow ability.

Unfortunately here in Australia the Colorado has a plasticky interior.

I hope the US version is fixed up. But GM of late has not done the best interiors.

Our model has a Camaro'esque dash look with the instrumentation.

There is a photo in this review of our Holden Colorado, oh I hope the front end looks are fixed as well.


Anybody happen to notice that in the gate shot the truck is several inches SHORTER than the guard? This is quite visibly smaller than any other 2WD truck on the US market outside of the Tacoma and Frontier.

Maybe he's a tall gauard, My 2wd F-150 is a couple inches shorter then me and I'm 6'8".

Anyone else notice the huge azz heat shield next to the spare tire? I find that encouraging as it could be there to protect the tire from DPF regens from a turbodiesel offering?... thoughts anyone? It looks promising, if they can back it up with the 7k+ towing that the global one has this will fill a huge market segment and take the fight straight to Toyota who in spite of having one of the best global small turbo diesel engine lineups with their D4D range leaves us with some gas guzzling anemic V6 that is barely competitive on fuel econ with fullsize gas V8's. If the Colorado/Canyon is just another lukewarm American version of its global siblings I predict it will be a flop. You can currently get a fairly nice V6 half ton from any of the big 3 that gets decent mileage and at least has interior space and a bed that you can put things in all for competitive prices with a Tacoma similarly equipped.
Give us a turbodiesel 4 cylinder or gtfo... are you listening GM people?

I for one am exited about this truck. But why doesn't somebody build a truly compact truck like the old s-10? This truck looks too big for me to buy it over a 1/2 ton. If it doesn't get 5 mpg better or cost a lot less money there's no chance I'd ever buy it. I for one thought the ranger was a great truck the last 10 years of it's existence. It was a little out-dated but that's what made it cheap and it was reliable and got the best gas mileage. I still have one and will probably never sell it. I can't believe nobody thinks a true compact would be worth building. With today's technology they could undoubtedly get 35 mpg highway out of a true compact. Something that could never be achieved with a 1/2 ton without some really expensive measures. My ranger consistently gets 28 mpg in mixed driving and i've gotten as good as 31 on a tank and never worse than 24. Sometimes you just need a pickup bed and not towing power. I think there are a lot of truck owners like me that would buy both a full size and a cheap compact gas saver. I know multiple farmers that have done it but now we have no options for compact trucks.

@hank: While you could be right, other images would imply that the passenger in the truck would be equally as huge, and statistically the odds are high against so many 78"+ tall people being in one place at one time except on the basketball court.

I'd like to point out for papa jim and FtV that you at least appear to be ignoring the vast majority of the SUV market when you say mid-sized trucks aren't likely to succeed. Remember that the Ranger, the S10 and others essentially created the compact SUV/SUW market and that group now sells more vehicles than any other single type--perhaps excepting full size pickups themselves (though I wouldn't bet on it either way.) As such, the potential for true mid-size or smaller pickup trucks is huge--it's just that the Big 3 grew their 'mid-sized' trucks out of the market and Toyota/Nissan seem content to do little more than cosmetic updates for most of their mid-sized models--again going more for the crew cab, 5-passenger market than any real upgrade to the trucks themselves. The kick-off of the new Colorado may see a new surge of mid-sizers that will settle to a steady sales market--as long as they don't start growing again.

Don't go getting your hopes up about the diesel.

If this was going to have a diesel, they'd announce it far in advance just like the crack smoking methheads at nissan did.

I have a vendor/salesman who regularly makes deliveries in his personal Colorado. He's on his second which he recently got a new one. His last one lasted for over 350k miles without any major repairs.

And I see a lot of them on the road. They could really dominate the segment if they came out with a truly fuel efficient and affordable Colorado and maybe improved the styling a bit.

This truck needs a 4cyl turbo diesel that gets 35 mpg hwy or the Ram 1500 turbo diesel will be too close a competitor.
The Ram 1500 TD is likely going to be a $40,000-$50,000 truck. One can assume a loaded up Colorado 4x4 Crew Cab turbo diesel would be in the $30,000-$35,000 range. The question is, is that still too close to the Ram 1500 turbo diesel in price? No one knows.....yet.

I bought my 88 S10 reg cab new in August 1988 to use as a commuter, and pull a camper. Probably 90 percent of the miles was suburban driving. It was just right for that role. For 2k more, I could have bought a reg cab 1500.

Big 3 does not want a loyal buyer to get a indestructible zippy little thing to drive to his job if it cannibalizes sales of Saturns, Grand Am's, Buick Specials, etc. All of those models sold for more $$$

Simple math. Dealers rule the Big 3. If Dealers were demanding a new compact Ranger or S10 they'd be coming in by the boatload. Dealers don't want it.

Looks pretty close in styling to the global version, It has the same V-Shape grill and side profile. Only differance is this one has metal bumper.

@Sandman, I know the F-150 is heavier. I'm not talking about weight. A 50lb dumbbell is heavier than my 50 inch tv as well. That doesn't make it bigger. I'm referring to the sheer size only. The F-150 is narrower and not as bloated looking. It has been that way since the 96.5 model and up. For Chevy-GM trucks, their 400 was the perfect size. The 800 was also pretty good. Since the 900's though, they have become just huge and very bloated. Very wide and portly looking. The Dodge has always been portly and big. Somehow it works for them without coming off as cartoonish. I don't think it works as well for Chevy. I think Chevrolet needs the Colorado badly just to make up for the customers who think the full size Silverado's got too big. They're as big as Super Duty's now.

Toyota sells a lot of Tacoma's so the segment has it's fan's. If the Big 3 put out serious small/mid size trucks they will sell themselves and Toyota's dominance in the segment ends.
A diesel pushing mpg's in the mid to upper 30's will do it.


@ How does Edmunds get this info quicker then PUTC? - Because Edmunds doesn't have a troll problem.

Don't know These Colorado pictures were on Caranddriver 3 days ago.

This truck needs to get better mpg than the Ram Ecodiesel or any of the current V6 1/2 tons. If it doesn't beat them by at least 5 mpg it will not sell well.

@FordTrucks1: The GMT900 pickups are only 1.5" wider than the 800's, and the wheelbase/length is practically the same on both. But I understand what you mean: The 900's look wider than they are because of flared fenders and a full-width grille, as opposed to Dodge's separate-grille-and-fender look. (Dodges have always seemed to sit higher than a comparable Chevy or Ford as well, so that makes them look narrower.)
And neither the Chevy pickups nor the Super Duties have really increased in length or width since 1999.

I cannot see the US Colorado being on par with the Global variants. The US Colorado has the Tacoma in its sights not anything else.
Just back From mainly Eastern Europe and parts of Italy, basically a Pickup free zone, although I managed to take a photo of a battered RAM Pickup in Rome.
What intrigued me, is the increasing uses they have for cab chassis vans. In Budapest they are used as mobile fast food shops
Another oddity was cars , Vans and Cab Chassis Vans hauling cars. Several cab chassis variants were towing 3 cars or two cars and a motorhome.

@Big Al Oz, Al I have to admit I kind of like the Oz version of the Colorado , I don't mind the plastic interior . The only problem I have is the price . It goes up to $50k mate that is bloody expensive . Oz dollor or not it's pricey . cheers

Them Bloody Americans steeling our small trucks trying to copy us.

Subcompact PU????? My 2000 Ranger measures 45" from ground to the top of the bed at the center of the rear wheel. It's just right and I can climb in and out with ease. I use it for my photography business. This Colorado looks to be about 6' tall at the rear wheel. Sorry, but I ain't buyin' it.

I'm also glad to see GM getting back into the midsize truck market. Hope these Colorado/Canyons get a diesel option. Would love to see a Ford F-100 to counter. We'll have to see how they price out once available.

It's good to see that it will look like a Chevy truck here instead of a Chevy car. It would be a game changer if they bring the 2.8 Duramax. That would get a lot of attention. I still think there is a market for small trucks. If someone would get the formula right then maybe people that drive those OLD Rangers and S10's would finally have a reason to buy something new. I drive an older compact that is getting close to 200k and I still get 23-25 mpg around town. I don't see any truck on the market that can do that now.

Ford will counter I assure you. They will NEVER take a backseat to Chevrolet. Never mind GovtMoCo and their Government Motors line of junk. Ford has owned Chevrolet's ass since the early 1900's outside of maybe the 50's 60's era and will continue to do so...

@BLang (and almost everyone else in this comments section, it seems): If there is ever going to be another true "compact" pickup, it will almost certainly have to be a unibody, FWD, crossover-based platform. It seems that current and upcoming emissions regs will guarantee that any smaller-than-full-size pickups will have to be almost Dakota mid-sized types.

I'm also going to assume that your older truck is a 4x2 manual regular cab with a 6' bed, which is most definitely a dying breed.

The price has nothing to do with the cost in the US other than using a formula that carilloski made.

A diesel high end one would cost in the mid 30s in the US.

That's my best guess.

The US and Australia have different financial, tax and minimum wages etc.

@Big Al, I think you're right on the money.

Super Dooty = something that I left in the toilet after eating a greasy meal at McDonalds. Who names a truck Super Dooty anyway? Only Ford would do that.


Because motor vehicle shapes will soon be that similar front ends will become the 'signature' for the manufacturers.

The Colorado we get has a signature GM from end.

Even with the cars in the US you can notice this signature front end.

The design or aesthetics don't determine what functions a vehicle can perform.

A utility style vehicle whether a van, pickup, flat bed all have very similar 'working areas' ie, a pickup has a pickup bed, a van will have a van body.

The shape of a grille or design of a headlight assembly has little to determine what a vehicle can achieve. Even the cab design will change very soon on pickup style vehicles.

Imagine a Ducato or Transit style pickup, this is possible as we get those vehicles with 12-16' flat beds.

Looks are important. But as you have shown the US pickup market is becoming a fashion statement, people are now more interested if their friends are impressed with the grille and headlight assembly rather than how it handles under loaded conditions.

People also try and impress with what I call the 'potential factor'. It is great having a two and half tonne truck able to accelerate from standstill to sixty miles per hour in seven seconds. But how often will you do that?

So is the expense of having that capability really viable or necessary.

I'm all for V8s and power, but look at how you are going to utilise that power.

I agree with Lou BC here. I think that this thing will need to really outshine the half tons in mileage to succeed.

I would also add that I would be very surprised to see these succeed at anything above mid level price points. I would say that this truck should come in 3 trim levels that fairly closely match the Equinox in pricing, that means a top of the line for roughly $32K after haggling, and maybe something like $36K-$37k with every option in the order book. Maybe I am wrong, but just don't see mid size trucks doing real well next to the half tons once they hit the mid 30's in price.

Looks like another winner from GM!!!

@high mileage
How much is a top of the line twin cab Silverado?

It will be competing against them as well.

It will be competing against the larger SUVs, it will be the same length.

Mid sizers will have more competition and create more competition than a full size truck, just from the overlap of vehicle types and pricing.

How many buy a full size but can get away with a mid size?

FE will present itself as an issue I don't think a Colorado with the LY7 3.6 engine will have the best FE. A Ram will be just as economical, but as the guys who whine about 'payback time' a V6 Colorado will be much cheaper than the Ram, Pentastar, 8spd, lowering, shuttered, @ $27 000. It will tow the same as the $27 000 Ram.

GM with the Colorado/Canyon will have a competitive product. A diesel will be the make or break for this pickup, a diesel Colorado will have the best FE of any US pickup by a long margin. People will pay the same to have 12+mpg better FE when towing a 7 000lb trailer or just 8-10mpg better running empty, with V8 torque.

Big Al

I don't know about the 2014 models, but right now the 2013s in this area are running about $34K for a 4WD silverado LTZ extended cab and $36000 for a 4WD Silverado LTZ Crew Cab. Really surprisingly cheap, I doubt they will last too long. These are the lowest I have seen and are missing options like towing packages that I would expect most guys would want, so figure another $5K or so for options and things.

To answer your question I think that most truck buyers could not only get away with a mid size, but they could get away with a crv for the amount that they use their trucks. But the problem is that those guys are going to buy trucks, and if they have a mid sized next to a half ton and the price difference is not large enough they are going to go for the bigger truck since it looks like the better value.

I agree that an I4 diesel could make a very functional truck here, and I hope that chevy does it. I would really like to see this segment succeed, I know a couple of guys who are looking for something like this. One actually just bought a ridgeline because it was the right size, I have ridden in it a few times, it is actually a really useful vehicle. The early rumors were that chevy was going to make a lifestyle truck that some thought was going to be like the ridgeline. I did not like the idea at the time, but after riding in the ridgeline and taking it to the hunting camp I would not mind if chevy tried their hand at something similar.

The comments to this entry are closed.