2015 Chevrolet Colorado Saves Weight, But Is it Enough?

2015-Chevrolet-ColoradoZ71-005 (1) II

These are interesting times. Not only will the new midsize 2015 Chevrolet Colorado and GMC Canyon go on sale later this year, but so will the new all-aluminum-bodied full-size Ford F-150; each offers a different strategy to the truck buyer looking for better fuel economy.

According to a recent press release, the 2015 Colorado will weigh up to 1,400 pounds less than a Toyota Tundra crew cab with 4x4, and it will be at least 17 inches shorter than the Chevy Silverado crew cab with a short bed. Of course, a pickup's actual weight has a lot to do with its options, trim packages and engine. We know this from weighing every one of our test vehicles for years, whether in individual testing or comparing a full segment in apples-to-apples road tests and finding that the actual weight of a given pickup can be all over the map.

It's no surprise that with all the attention Ford is getting from its extensive use of aluminum to cover its next full-size half-ton, General Motors feels like its coming pickup is being ignored by the truck world. Naturally, the automaker wants to reassure its customer base that it has a viable, lighter choice (actually, choices), as well.

"When it comes to building lighter pickups, there is more than one answer," said Jeff Luke, GM's executive chief engineer. "Building on our experience with the new Silverado, we engineered the Colorado to be highly mass-efficient, while still providing the performance, capability, dependability and features that midsize truck customers are asking for."

We've gone all the way back to our 2012 Midsize Shootout to put together some full-size and mid-size pickup truck weights, as listed from either the manufacturer's factory specification information or from our own as-tested Special Report truck tests like our recent V-6 Annual Physical. When compared to the full-size choices, there seems to be a good differentiation; however, when compared to vehicles in its own class, it looks like there might some more weight to shave.

To read the full press release on the slimmed down 2015 Chevy Colorado, click here.

 

2015-Chevrolet-Colorado-SteelStructure II

To download a larger version of this image, click here.

 

Midsize Pickups

Colorado_chart1

 

Full-Size Pickups

6a00d83451b3c669e201a511833b54970c-800wi II

 

* 4x4 Crew Cab not available with V-6

 

Comments

@Big O @kmac & papa jim

Yes, it surprised me as well. The manager even showed me a printout that said "due to configuration issues...."

Does this surprise you? Well, it shouldn't. We have known since February that Ram wasn't taking any orders for the ecodiesel.

Dealers hogged up all the inventory and if you missed out, you have to take whatever the dealers ordered, or wait several months.

@Joe - I know some people on this blog will play dumb and act like midsize and full-size crew cabs are similar vehicles and obviously it's in the interests of midsize truck marketing to compare the two, but consumers aren't so easily fooled. Not when it's there hard earned money they're not.


Combine the front and rear legroom of crew cabs in each class of trucks and you'll see midsize crew cabs are equal to full-size "extra cabs". Still, full-size extra cabs offer seating of up to 6. Or consider midsize crew cabs 2+2's, perfect for 2 small kids in the back, or tiny adults.

Like I said, consumers know what they're buying, and obviously a few don't mind paying more for less. That's why it's a niche market. Most consumers don't see the value of a small truck, unless it's a stripper regular cab. It starts making less $ense with the extra cab midsize trucks and almost no $ense at all for midsize crew cabs. Especially after aggressive full-size pickup rebates that midsizers can't come close to offering. The profit margin is just too low.
Posted by: DenverlllMike | Mar 13, 2014 4:19:53 PM


Right on. GM and dumb bloggers are talking a great deal of nonsense comparing the two.

@Lou_BC: " you are comparing a new truck to a 24 year old truck."
Aye, not denying it. Then again, that 24 year old truck has a lot going against it, too.

"If economy is your ultimate goal keeping the 24 yr old truck and eating the fuel costs will put you further ahead than 25-30K for a new one even with a 50% mpg improvement."
That assumes the truck doesn't have other issues such as plain old age. The engine's in need of a complete overhaul and a full rebuild would probably restore it to full performance again. The underbody could use a full sandblasting and repainting (or simple sealing AFTER the sandblasting). The suspension is pretty well shot, a mere 400 pounds of event tables has the truck riding level (on an 8' bed). In other words, to bring this beast up to showroom condition (at which point I might TRUST it to last another 10 years) I would have to spend almost as much as a new truck anyway! And all that ignores the fuel economy.

"It would make more sense to ditch the Jeep and keep the turck(sp) if you really need a truck."
My need is for a car with an open bed--which is essentially what all of today's mid-size and half-ton trucks are. My typical load weighs in at less than 500 pounds, which admittedly any SUV can handle, but measures in at 36"tall by 48"wide by 8' long, which NO SUV can handle. The issue is that I only carry this load 4x per year. The rest of the year's loads even my Jeep could handle, though it requires more trips to handle them.

I could easily get by with a true "mini" truck--meaning the old S10/Ranger/Dakota--but since such trucks are not available by an American brand, I'll end up taking what's available UNLESS I can get a better price from Toyota/Nissan.

Actually the Ford Ranger and BT50 are constructed using high tensile steel throughout the vehicle to save weight. Many vehicles already are doing this since the early 2000s.

I see bloggers are still trying to make comparisons between a midsizer and fullsize truck.

The comparisons will continue to be made. But, what midsizers are you guys makings comaprisons against, a Taco? a Frontier?

Talk about the uneductated.

Where these trucks will make a windfall and profit is that they will steal sales from most every segment of mid size and full size vehicle, ie SUVs/CUVs/pickups/large cars/etc currently available on the US market.

Another area neglected during these discussions of late is the additional cost incurred by the use of extensive aluminium in full size trucks.

There is much fanfare, ooh'ing and ah'ing regarding these future aluminium trucks.

A much more conventional steel bodied truck like this Colorado could present itself as a much more viable and attractive package.

I have mentioned numerous times in the past that moving in the direction of aluminium isn't as cheap and as easy as many are writing.

I still like the looks of this Colorado. Even if my needs didn't require a half ton, I still don't think I would own one as a regular driver though. Maybe as a fun weekend toy like my Jeep is, but it is to small for my tastes. In Texas, mid-sizers aren't as popular as they are up north and especially the north east US. Most that drive them as a regular driver around where I live are either city boys, young guys waiting to save up enough to move up to a full size, or females in rural areas if they are not driving an SUV. I do know a few guys that actually say they prefer a smaller truck over a bigger full size, but those guys would usually be just as happy with car or mid-size SUV and wouldn't have ever bought a full size truck anyway. Things are probably different in other areas.

I don't think mid-size trucks will take a big chunk of the full-size market as a whole. Maybe in areas that already buy a lot of them like the urban northeast US, but those markets don't really buy that many trucks compared to the others to make much of a difference anyways. I think those that buy mid-size trucks is mainly due to their fuel economy and initial price. Those that want a mid-size truck on the basis of the size alone seem like a small group(around here) compared to those that just want something with better fuel economy and a truck bed. If current "half tons" can achieve the same or near the same fuel economy without costing that much more, then that would drive those guys to the "half ton" market depending on what kind of fuel economy they are comfortable with. I am not sure how the diesel in a midsize thing will hold up in sales. Most that buy mid-sizers are in urban areas, and a diesel is not much of a benefit (or actually worse) in urban driving environments where most drive less than 10-15 miles. It would not be cost effective and those types that are majorly concerned about fuel economy usually go with the most cost effective option.

@ALL1
I agree with you the midsize pickups in the current US environment will not outsell the full size trucks.

A change in regulations/protectionism and cost of buying and maintaining will be the clincher for midsizers overall.

At the moment I can only see at best a doubling or tripling of midsize numbers.

The reason is the way the US pickup market is structured the midsize pickup manufacturers aren't able to build a base to start off with.

VW stated that it needs a market of 100 000 Amaroks per year to come into the US market so it can set up a factory as importing the Amarok is uncompetitive with a 25% chicken tax.

A Ford spokesperson made a similar comment stating the chicken tax is holding back a healthy midsize pickup market.

You must realise the US doesn't have a decent midsize offering. You can't make an assumption on these new midsizers using a Taco or Frontier. Also, how many large and midsize SUV/CUV sales will this vehicle take?

The US doesn't have a decent midsize pickup SUV/CUV competitor.

My view is economics will force fullsize buyers into smaller midsize pickups. Aluminium will cost the consumer.

What will people buy a 4 300lb midsizer or a 4 300lb full size, especially if the midsize is $10k cheaper and obtaining or outperforming the fullsize in FE, with all the creature comforts of a fullsize or SUV/CUV?

Missing the biggest news of all... The 2.7 v6 EcoBoost with CGI engine block gives Ford the "wild card" because this engine can produce either very High Output n challenge V8s like the Chevy 5.3 n Ram small Hemi for capability... Plus it can be very efficient n challenge the gutless 4 cylinders n EcoDiesel for high MPG.

Plus Ford is the media darling while GM is the whipping boy thanks the their piss poor handling of millions of defective ignition switches... Plus media doesn't care about the midsize CnC twins

@Big AL

Although FE is important to you, it is not as important to as many American buyers as you think. To say a truck is better based it's FE is not a statement that can be made for everyone because not everyone has FE as high on their list of importance in a truck or vehicle. In all actuality FE is probably lower on most truck buyers lists than things like room, capability, durability, and power. Yes, FE is still important just not as important.

I don't see a big change in that any time soon either if the US DOE EIA 2013 Annual Energy Outlook predictions that has gas in the US at $4.32 per gallon average and diesel at $4.94 per gallon average by 2040 is true. In fact they are predicting that gas will not reach $4.00 per gallon until 2036 and diesel around 2026 due the domestic oil boom. This combined with more fuel efficient full size truck requirements will make FE stay further down on that list compared to the others I have mentioned for some time to come.

You are right that the cost off these new FE truck technology might be a major deterrent for most and will push more people into smaller trucks. All truck makes will have to make drastic changes to their trucks in order to meet regulations. That will raise the cost of trucks to an unknown degree. I, for one, would rather do without other things than give up my full size truck if I had to. I just can't see driving a small truck on a regular basis, and I am sure many truck buyers feel the same.

One thing not mentioned though is that mid-size truck prices will also rise due to the stricter than a full-size FE requirements imposed on them because of there smaller than a full-size truck foot print. Due to the changes in CAFE requirements based on a vehicles footprint that the Bush administration made, not all manufacturers will have the same CAFE requirement and smaller vehicles will have a stricter requirement than bigger vehicles. It is based on the footprint of the all units sold by the manufacturer as an average. That means companies like Ford that sale a lot more full-size trucks than small cars will have a CAFE requirement that is less than that of GMs or Toyotas that sells more cars than trucks. This will have a big effect on the price of each manufacturers truck. It will almost be worth it for some manufacturers to get rid of smaller vehicles to lower their CAFE requirement.

@ALL1
FE is as important to me as anyone in the US, probably less so. Many have this view that running a vehicle is cheaper in the US. But in fact most in the US drive little cars.

And a REAL buyer looking for a truck would place runnings costs as paramount to a purchase.

So, there are very few in the US who wouldn't consider FE important.

Half the trucks sold in the US are life style vehicles the rest business and I would assume that over half of the so called business trucks are write offs and not used for anything more than a daily driver.

I see many small cars in the US. This leads me to believe FE is important in the US.

This Colorado will be coming out around the time of the aluminium Ford. So, how much will a aluminium Ford cost to get into?

The steel Colorado might be a lot more attractive. It will tow as well as most would require from a full size pickup, carry a family of 1.8 kids.

I think you will see the argument for a full size truck gradually diminish as the cost of buying and operating them increases, just like what happened to cars in the US.

Pickups will tend to migrate more into the 'SUV' market more than they have now. These will be replaced with Euro style commercials. This trend is already starting.

Remember many NEW full size buyers are the ones living the middle class dream. Not many can afford to own and operate a full size truck.

@ RoadWhale™ - an exchange engine and install isn't expensive relative to a the whole truck or even a new one. A trip to a spring shop and the addition of an extra leaf or an re-arch isn't that expensive either.

It all depends on what you want. I was merely pointing out that it often is cheaper to fix the old truck.
I was at that point with the 1990 F250 I owned but it starting to rust out and being a regular cab did not fit my family needs.
If you only need that sort of capacity 4 times a year the old truck might be a better option or to sell it and get a small trailer. IIRC you mentioned before that your area doesn't allow trailers/no room?? It might make more sense to run the truck 'til it dies.

@BAF0 - An OEM would have to be stupid to pay the Chicken tax. Say an OEM would rather build trucks for the American market offshore, like the Argentina or Germany, they'd ship the engine/trans separate and install it in minutes per truck at landfall. Plug and play. Drive away.

The real problem is American consumers just wont pay what VW would want for the Amaroks. Or what Mitsu would want for the BT50 in America. They can't be priced higher than full-size. That would be a joke...

American consumers just don't take midsize trucks seriously enough to buy loaded up editions. Base strippers are a different story. And American consumers don't take midsize trucks seriously enough to buy them new. 'Used' is a different story. Plus Americans don't usually buy midsize trucks as primary vehicles. As '2nd cars' is a different story. That's just the way we roll.

Sorry but Americans have never really been true fans of smaller trucks. They're the 'red headed stepchild' of the American truck market. The lowest common denominator of trucks. And of cars, unless you count subcompacts.

But full-sizers would have to jump up in price by $10,000 before they'd cost $10,000 more. Midsizers are about the same price or MORE than full-size right now, when you compare similar trucks and after rebates.

Another problem for midsizers is full-size trucks are making great strides improving fuel economy. Each of the full-size OEMs have a different approach to improving FE, but once they put all the new (and future) technologies together, no midsize OEM will be able to compete.

But midsize SUV/CUV owners seem happy were they are. Why would they switch to a stiff, rough riding, beam axle on leaf springs truck when they've got all the comforts of a car? And from AWD to a clunky transfer 4X4?

Those Americans that have to have a smaller truck will have, and do have plenty of excellent choices. Just don't expect too many OEMs to jump at the chance of providing those cheapskates with trucks. I'm sure OEMs can think of better ways to lose money, while over saturating the small truck market.

By the way, what's VW's chicken excuse for denying the American market their Polos and Sciroccos? For those, it's simply 'market strategy', right? Amaroks are somehow different?

There's a lot of opinions here.

Let me just say this:

The colorado is big enough and small enough.

If the fuel economy for the V6 is 2-3 MPG better than a full size + the truck costs $3k less than a full size, then that alone is a fair argument for it's existence.

I'd greatly prefer not to purchase a full size truck, I park in the city and it''d be almost impossible to park a full size truck there. I also spend 30+ minutes driving strictly highway everyday, so again fuel economy matters somewhat. The price paid for complexity is also different between what GM is doing and what ford/ram are doing. It's fully possible and probable that the 2015 F-150 could cost another $1k or more than the 2014 one. So the colorado might carve out itself a nice market of those who cannot afford the newest hightech fullsize trucks. Also consider how buyers are going to behave if fuel goes over 4.50 a gal? Rather than complain I'm just going to sit back and see what the actual truck is when it is released.

@BIG AL

If FE were so important over capability/power to the American truck buyer then more of the base engines would be sold than the more powerful option with less FE. As you said yourself, most "half ton" truck buyers don't use their truck as a truck and just hauls air yet people will upgrade to a more powerful and less FE engine almost 5 to 1 in every truck make. Why would they do that if they didn't need/want that much power and FE was more important to them? Most don't need a Ram Hemi, but it still outsells the base 3.6L. Most don't need the Ford Ecoboost, 5.0L, or 6.2L, but they outsell the base 3.7L. Most don't need the GM 6.2L, 5.3L, or 4.8L, but they outsell the base 4.3L. Apparently FE is not number 1 on truck buyers list as you think. You can't say what is important to you is or should be important to everyone else because that is thinking with blinders on. I am not saying there is no one here in the US that has FE number 1 on their list. I am just saying it is not they way for everyone. So thinking an engine is best just because it has better FE than anything else is subjective and not to said or taken a a rule.


"I see many small cars in the US. This leads me to believe FE is important in the US."

Just as you told me in past debates that just because things are that way in my reagion, that they are not that way everywhere. Well, I say the same to you. Trucks have been outselling cars here lately - http://online.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3022-autosales.html#autosalesA

Also, just because there was a lot more cars that trucks where you lived in the US(back when you lived here) does not mean every region is like that. If you look at page 17 of the 2013 NADA state of the industry report, you will see that there are far more light duty trucks registered in the US than cars. - http://www.nada.org/NR/rdonlyres/1B512AC7-DCFC-472C-A854-6F5527931A2F/0/2013_NADA_Data_102113.pdf

So I say again, FE is not as important to all American truck buyers as it is important to you. I am not saying that it is not important, it is just not the most important factor when buying a truck for most Americans.

@mackintire

According the US Department of Energy EIA report table on the future of energy prices, it will be another 25+ years before gas will hit $4.50 a gallon.

http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/tablebrowser/#release=AEO2013ER&subject=3-AEO2013ER&table=12-AEO2013ER&region=0-0&cases=early2013-d102312a

Previous projections before the US oil boom had it much higher then that. Now that the US is on the verge of producing more oil than it uses and is set to out produce Saudi Arabia in the next few years, foreign affairs do not effect the price at the pump like it used to. The only thing that will take us far from that projected number is a US war, a major disaster, or political policies.

@DeverMike/Paul/Tom Lemon/Greg Baird/TRX4Tom/Dave/Hemi V8/Tom Terrific/sandman 4x4/lautenslager/zveria/Bob/US Truck Driver/Glenn/Jason/Hemi Rampage/smartest truck guy/Maxx/SuperDuty37/Ken/Ron/johnny doe/jim/ALL1/Frank/Idahoe Joe/The Guy/AD/Casey/papa jim/Young Guy/BeeBe/Steve/Chris/The truck guy/Alex/Mr Chow/Yessir/All Americans or whoever you want to call yourself.

Quit the crap, really.

It's getting long in the tooth.

You want to debate, but it has to be on your terms.

Learn to debate with good information, then we might be able to have a decent debate.

Opinions are good, but if they are only your view to support the UAW, then how good are they. Look at what you guys have done to Detroit.

Terror tactics (union tactics) don't work on me.

If PUTC wants the UAW or whatever to control this site I suppose it's their decision.

It's not kids like I've been told by PUTC.

They don't seem to care. So this will go on.

This is the same argument that was used over 40 years ago for big cars versus small cars. I remember many saying that for a little more you can buy an LTD versus a much smaller car. Small cars will always be a niche product because fuel is cheap and plentiful. How many LTDs and Caprice Classics do you see on the road today? Big trucks have become more popular but even now there sales are not what they were a few years ago. GM really needs to offer the diesel option when the Colorado/Canyon is release this Fall.

@ALL1
Go back an re-read what I wrote.

You live in a dream world.

You are living in hope. The reality is the US pickup market will never be the same as the past. Many who blog on this site only look into the 'grand old days'.

Look at what is impacting and going to impact your pickup market. Exactly what killed the road barges of yesteryear. CAFE.

Pickups will gradually rise in price, until many can't afford them. Already the majority of the US population can't afford a pickup, that's why most drive 4 cylinder cars.

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2014/03/average-car-price-affordable-only-to-washington-dc-customers/

This is my argument. The real world.

This is hands down the best looking truck GM has come up with in decades. And on paper, the powertrains are the best too.

It's a real shame that it's a GM product.

@wxman

Curious, what was it about the Colorado's powertrain options that made your little heart go pitter-pat?

2.5 4cylinder auto?
3.6 six cylinder auto?

Very little availability of manual trans. No diesel option maybe EVER, but at least until GM sees how badly Fiat's Eco-diesel lays an egg in the US.

So, what got you excited about it?


@Big Al--There is the "Real World" and then there are the comments made on PUTC. Many are still drinking Koolaide.

The Colorado is about the best looking truck GM has come up with in a long time. It is the best looking midsize truck period.

Papa Jim, nobody buys manuals anymore, so why would GM offer it if its not going to sell? As much as people say they want a manual the majority of people don't want them. Their fun for a while, but when you sit in stop and go traffic all day with the congestion we have now its not worth it.

@papa jim.. The baby diesel will happen. And it will be a nice option. And until then...the 3.6L can make well over 300 horsepower (and does already in the Camaro) and in a truck that's only 4,200 lbs. it will be a really fun vehicle to drive.

Until it starts making it's trips to the shop.

But still, on paper this truck is awesome. Toyota needs to get their heads out of the sand and bring more powertrain options to the Tacoma.

@AD - I don't see where the 1500 V6 is better suited for fleets vs the Ford or the Dodge. Both of those have more power & get comparable mpgs. the V6 models are about the only models fleet buyers can afford beings GM jacked the prices up on their trucks. In the press release the other day where GM is bragging about the V6 sales, they compared the 4.3 to trucks from 10 years ago. Really??? how bout trucks from today? Oh, that's right, it would make their offering not look so good.

I do agree with the folks talking about room & such in the midsize crews, they aren't really that roomy IMO. the room the taco has for example wasn't overly abundant, esp when ur putting in carseats & such for the little ones. it was more expensive & smaller than the scab F150 I looked at. I could also fit 3 people in the back seat confortably. hard to do that on a midsize, it's really tight.

@Mo have you ever been to Wyoming? Or Alberta? Or the Yukon? Congestion?

@Wxman

GM has not offered anything, yet, that you cannot get with a 10 year old Nissan or Toyota.

"GM is bragging about the V6 sales, they compared the 4.3 to trucks from 10 years ago..."

@Kmac Have you ever worked in fleet procurement or in sales to the fleet managers?

I can help you on this one.

@ Big Al

And my previous statement still stands

"In all actuality FE is probably lower on most truck buyers lists than things like room, capability, durability, and power. "

http://autos.jdpower.com/content/blog-post/jNFvVBH/top-10-reasons-why-car-buyers-choose-a-specific-vehicle-model.htm

Hmmm, seems like FE isn't first on that list as you claim and other things that I have stated are. I would bet capability would be on that list if it were just trucks.


Your flaw is your "I am never wrong" attitude. You are not Jesus so you are bound to be incorrect every now and then like I have proved earlier with your ""I see many small cars in the US. This leads me to believe FE is important in the US." statement. The problem you have is you lack the testicular fortitude to concede when you are incorrect. When faced with the fact of being incorrect, you either subtlety change the topic or go on a rant and rave saying we are not debating you with real information. I have debated you with real information and proven your theory as incorrect.

Oh, and to what you said earlier that I am not a REAL truck buyer is false although the term itself is subjective. I buy a truck for reasons to use it as a truck. Capability is higher on my list than FE because FE doesn't mean beans if I can't get what I need done. What is the point of buying a 25mpg or 28mpg truck if it can't do what I need it to do. I use my truck for REAL truck purposes and not to haul the groceries from the store. Rom is also higher on my list than FE because I bring a lot of cargo with me when hunting and fishing. Power was also higher on my list. As I have stated before, and I will say it again "FE is not as important to all American truck buyers as it is important to you." There other things that trump FE in importance on a new vehicle purchase as I have proven.

@ kmac1036
1. The Ford and Dodge have more hp but not torque and in this vehicle torque is the one you want.
2. Due to their simpler design the Chevy should be cheaper.
3. Now for fuel economy The Silverado 4.3L V6 is 18/24 and 20 combined http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/2014_Chevrolet_Silverado.shtml. The Dodge HFE get better fuel economy but at the expense of work to get to 18/25 and 21 combined http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2013/06/2013-ram-1500-hfe-4x2-first-drive.html. The regular 3.6L V6 Ram is 17/25 and 20 combined https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymake/Ram2014.shtml. Now the Ford 3.7L is 17/23 and 19 combined http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/2014_Ford_F150_Pickup.shtml. To sum this up I would say I agree they are about even on mpg as the only gas V6 that is better than the Silverado V6 fuel economy is the Ram HFE which isn't suited for work really and PUTC has acknowledged that.

Most fleet pickups I see are either a Fords or Chevy. When the Ford work truck was clearly better than the competition it was being compared to a old Silverado and Ram V6 http://special-reports.pickuptrucks.com/2010/11/2010-v-6-shootout-best-overall-work-truck.html and nobody screamed foul.

@papa jim.. Correct me somebody if I'm wrong but the 2015 Colorado is going to be the most powerful (by horsepower) mid-size truck EVER made and sold in the U.S. Ever.

Even the 5.9L Dakota didn't make anywhere near 302 horsepower. And the Colorado will get twice the fuel economy.

Nissan and Toyota have old 4.0L engines that make significantly less power and get terrible fuel economy. So yes you can get something on the Colorado that you have NEVER been able to get before. Ever.

G M feels they are being ignored by the truck world. The people that buy these trucks are the truck world and the vast majority of them don’t know it is coming and have no idea they have been made overseas for the past 2 years. For the last several yrs I travel out of state 4 or 5 times a yr. and out of country 1 or 2 times. About a year ago I started asking people (at work and out of state) how they liked the global Ranger and Colorado and the answer is always THEY DON’T MAKE THEM ANYMORE. When I ask what happened to the Mazda pickup truck the answer will be, they still make cars but they quit making trucks. The vast majority of the U S think that Toyota and Nissan are the only two that still make midsize trucks. The only people I have found that know about these trucks were a couple of young guys in their early twenties.

If G M feels the media is ignoring them then they need to put out more news about these trucks. TV commercials showing all the things it will have that other midsize don’t. Learn what to expect from the media you use. Any truck web sight will fill in with your truck news but they may clearly favor another brand. I have only found one guy at work that knew about PUTC and definition was OH YEA THAT’S THE FORD WEB SOAP OPERA THAT BASH EACH OTHER’S BRANDS.

@ALL1
You still are not reading what I've written, are you thick?

You stated that the midsize sales will come from full size trucks?

Everyone here thinks midsizers sales will come from full size trucks.

I'm saying that this will not be the case. Most will come from large and midsize SUVs/CUVS and a few full size trucks.

There are people who want a pickup and ARE FE conscious. Not everyone in America has the money to NOT worry about a vehicles running cost.

Midsizers will canabalise sales from across the board.

Read the written word, comprehend. This is why I will debate you until the cows come home.

@wxman

I ignore most of the rated figures for HP. Tell me how it feels when you press the gas pedal.

@wxman

EVER is a long time!

In 1992 the GMC Syclone (an S10 V6) was cutting Zero/60 times in the low four second range. Let's see what the new Colorado does.

@Mo: "nobody buys manuals anymore."

Really? Then please explain to me why I'm currently driving a vehicle with a manual transmission if "Nobody" buys manuals any more? Better do a little reading because there's been a bit of a resurgence on the manual transmission market.

"Not everyone in America has the money to NOT worry about a vehicles running cost."

@Big Al

According to expert analysis (AAA), the IRS allows just north of 50cents/mile for tax purposes. AAA says of that 50 cents about 10 to 15 cents is gasoline.

The biggest part is fixed costs for insurance, wear/tear, finance, depreciation etc.

The FE is a small overall component unless your annual miles driven is very high, i.e., 30k plus.

wxman: yes the Dakota 5.9 had only 245hp, however it did have 345ft/lbs tq! and that can more than make up for the loss in hp in comparison to the more modern engines when called on to do work, but not so much for high speeds, however even with 245hp speed was decent for such a light truck, as the reg cab 4x2 Dakota only weighed in at 4k!

@Jeff S
I do agree with you about the looks of the Colorado.

I think it will be the best looking pickup in the US. I hope this body and interior comes to Australia. But I don't want the chassis, it's weaker than the global.

The looks alone will attract many buyers. This truck will change the perception of the US pickup market.

Many who blog on PUTC aren't the average pickup buyer, but diehard pickup fanboi's.

@Lou_BC: You make some valid points here, but still...

"@ RoadWhale™ - an exchange engine and install isn't expensive relative to a the whole truck or even a new one. A trip to a spring shop and the addition of an extra leaf or an re-arch isn't that expensive either.

It all depends on what you want. I was merely pointing out that it often is cheaper to fix the old truck." Cheaper by what standard, overall cost, or piecemeal cost? Allow me to demonstrate:

* Engine: Start at $2200 for a rebuilt engine from Jasper for my particular truck, not counting installation. That's not counting a core charge of nearly 15% if the existing block is not rebuildable.
* Transmission: $1500 for a rebuilt transmission from Jasper--again not counting installation. Core charge 20%.
* Rear leaf springs--1375# load: $350 per spring; $700 for the pair--plus installation.
* Front coil springs--$90ea or $180pair--plus install.
* Labor for all of the above: typical shop, $90/hour. Call it 15 hours maximum Call it $1250.

So I'm looking at getting it into good mechanical condition for about $6000 not even taking into account the small amount of body work and repainting (body remarkably clean for its age). This also does not address the lack of leg room for a 6' tall driver even with the seat full back or the lack of secured in-cab storage for objects larger than an ice scraper. To be blunt, the parts alone exceed the value of the vehicle and have almost no effect on the resale value when repairs are completed.

Add to this the fact that I would have to take out a loan to pay for the repairs and the truck almost doubles in cost with no residual value improvement. It's worth the repair cost and more as a trade-in on a new truck that has the extra legroom and storage AND gets better gas mileage AND could offer a fresh start on 150K, 200K or even 300K overall miles as I would keep it long past its payoff date.

@Lou_BC: Oh, I also forgot to mention that the new truck would come with a factory warranty at no extra cost (Jasper charges extra) and what parts aren't covered by Jasper would come with very limited warranties--unlike the typical new vehicle's 60K-100Kmile warranties.

@papa jim
Yes, your point even re-enforces my view.

Smaller vehicles cost less to own and operate.

The costs across the board for vehicle ownership in the US is no different than any other country.

Even here it costs more to own and operate a Toyota Landcruiser than a Ford Focus.

A midsizer will be cheaper overall to buy, own and operate than a full size. It can't be anything else.

@Big Al

Call me thick headed or any other names you want. The facts proved your theories wrong. I know people like you have a hard time eating crow, so I will just take you trying to change topics again as a sign.

@ALL1
Face reality. The US isn't unlimited in cash. You tell my mother, brother, nieces, nephews in NJ that FE doesn't matter. They will laugh at you.

They all drive 4 cylinder cars. I even asked my brother about buying a pickup and his comment was, "why would I waste my money on one of them, I couldn't afford to put gas in it, let alone pay for one".

This is how many live in the US.

Not all in the US are like you, the rich kid on the block.

@Big Al

I recently looked into buying a really mint 1956 Corvette. Smaller cars aren't always cheaper to buy, or to own...

@papa jim
What has collectables and vintage cars have to do with what we are discussing.

You are doing a DiM and taking the debate out of context. Why?

Because you don't have an answer to my statement, which is true.

Smaller vehicles overall are cheaper to own and operate.

@papa jim--Corvettes are a sports car and not a small car even though they are not large. A 56 mint Corvette is a collector car and that is why it is higher priced. That would have been a nice car to have.

Big Al--I am glad that Chevy did a restyle on the front of the new Colorado, it is much nicer looking than the global version. GM needs to get this truck right and even though I am not a diesel fan, GM should not wait a full year to offer diesel as an option. I have been happy with my Isuzu but this new Colorado is a much nice truck. I think a lot of people who would not even think of buying a GM product will look at this truck and many will buy it. GM needs to get the quality and the price right on this truck.

@Big Al

Where did I say FE doesn't matter? I never said that. I said it is not number 1 on peoples list of reasons why they purchase a vehicle like you say it is. In fact it is further down the list and other things that I have stated that are more important to American drivers are higher on that list. Here, I will post is again to remind you. http://autos.jdpower.com/content/blog-post/jNFvVBH/top-10-reasons-why-car-buyers-choose-a-specific-vehicle-model.htm

I am not "rich" in the slightest. My wife and I do make a good living for the work we do though and we are proud of that. Yes, my wife and I are on upper end of the US average income scale, but that is because of the hard work we have put in to get there. Nobody in this world will make me feel bad about it either because it was far from given to me. We were on the lower end of that income level when we started out though. I still had a truck back although it was an old used farm truck that used a quart of oil every week. I drove that thing long enough to be to able to pay cash for my newer used truck. It wasn't how much I made, it was how long I saved to get what I wanted. It would piss me off for those that would say "It must be nice" in which I usually replied "Yes, it is nice, but the work I had to do to get it wasn't"

Regardless of that, I still say

"Call me thick headed or any other names you want. The facts proved your theories wrong. I know people like you have a hard time eating crow, so I will just take you trying to change topics again as a sign. "

@ALL1
You seem to argue like me for the sake of arguing;)

@Big Al

Hello pot, my name is kettle. Btw, you're black.



The comments to this entry are closed.