2015 Chevrolet Colorado Drive Impressions: Video

2015 Colo beach 1 II

We've just finished our first drive of the all-new 2015 Chevrolet Colorado and GMC Canyon. We figured you'd be interested to know exactly what we thought as we drove just about every four- and six-cylinder iteration of the pickups; we even got to do some towing.

Look for the full story to come with more details and specifics about what we liked and what we hope will get better in the future.

Cars.com photo by Evan Sears

 

 

Comments

@Ram Big Horn 1500 What crack do you smoke cause it must be good stuff to make you sound this dumb 24/7. The GM/Ford website offer the same info as the Ram website does. Once you start adding things like power windows, heated seats, and power mirrors ect... the numbers start dropping. The Ram website doesn't offer the numbers with different individual options added to the truck like you are stating. Go take another hit off you're pipe would yah.

@Ram Big Horn 1500
I've been relatively quite on the tit for tat front for a number of days now.

But, what you must realise is many people shop for a vehicle and start out with a budget. You then look at your lifestyle and try and find a vehicle that will benefit you the most.

Many people don't tow more than a couple of trail bikes or a quad or two, if they tow at all. Even a tandem utility trailer that can carry 3 500lbs is not overly small for many.

People will cross shop. I bet many extra cab versions of the Colorado will sell. They offer a secure area behind the seat for stowage of items and a half decent bed to go to Lowes in or to tow a trailer to take home a ton of those coloured pine chip things in a bag my mother buys.

Don't confuse capability with required capability.

Because something can tow more, accelerate quicker or is bigger doesn't mean its suitable let alone better for your requirements.

226,663, that number is the total for midsize trucks in 2013 with Toyota pulling down over half of that number with 159,485.

263,707, that number is the total for midsize trucks in 2012 with Toyota pulling down over half of that number with 141,365 and there Ford Ranger sales and Suzuki sales in the mix.

264,263 that number is the total for midsize trucks in 2010 with Toyota pulling down a little under half of that number with 110,705. This total included Ranger sales. The GMC Canyon sales did not even make the top ten and were not in the report for year to date sales. Even if we give GMC 10,000 sales that is only 274,263 midsize sales combined for the year.

If you divide 274,263 by five manufactures that only comes out to 54,852.6 each if they all sold the same number of trucks. We already know that Toyota is the leader so for most that number will be lower. Not really much incentive for any more midsize trucks in the market as the market just does not have the buyers.

228,252, that number is the total for midsize trucks in 2009 with Toyota pulling down almost half of that number. The GMC Canyon did not again make the top ten list so lets give GMC's Canyon 10,000 sales for 2009 like we did for 2010 and you still only have 238,252 midsize sales.

The Ranger was in the 2009 sales and like in 2010 finished a distant second to the Toyota midsize truck.

Where is this market for everyone to have a midsize truck that you all are wanting?

There just are not enough sales available to more than three manufactures and even at that once you split up the sales you have Toyota taking just over half to just under half of the sales right off the top with their midsize truck and the rest left to divide up the other half of the year to date sales.

151,246, that is the year to date number for 2104 as of August for midsize truck sales. Once again Toyota leads the way with only two midsize trucks in the top ten and they have 2/3's of the sales with Nissan taking 1/3 of the sales.

1400lbs cargo is only good for a single driver, if you were to actually use this truck and load it up with occupants and cargo, that 1400 number will drop very quickly, as it does on the half tons, this is not a truck I would even consider buying ever, but I see the use for it, and it does look nice, good job GM twins

@Big Al from Oz,

You say don't confuse capability with required capability yet that is exactly what Lou_BC and ALL1 do when they post their bash the Ram numbers.

They go and load up the most expensive truck they can find and run here to post the numbers crowing how the Ram can't handle anything.

The fact is I doubt any manufacture sells more than 1% to 3% of its most expensive model with it fully optioned out and those who do buy the most expensive fully optioned out model are not buying the truck for heavy work but rather for comfort and light hauling and towing.

Myself I have a 2014 Ram 1500 regular cab short bed Big Horn model with the Pentastar V-6 and 8 speed transmission. The truck does everything I need it to do. I do not need the added cab space of a quad or crew cab so this time I went with the regular cab.

You guys can't have it both ways, you can't dump all over the Ram then try to defend other trucks when their numbers are pointed out.

@BAFo - Midsize pickups haven't proved to be a good alternative for repeat midsize sedan and SUV buyers, never mind hot selling CUVs.

We're a bit truck-centric around here and really impressed by the Colorado/Canyon, but to the average consumer, the Tacoma and Frontier are also very nice.

But how exactly would you convince a midsize sedan/SUV/CUV owner to give up ride comfort for what's basically a commercial vehicle? Live axle and hard leaf spring jounce/bounce vs soft riding IRS? Great mpg vs poor?

The midsize sedan/SUV/CUV they'd be giving up is basically a well equipped "crew cab", so how much MORE would they be spending to get the equal midsize with a "balcony"?

It sounds like a tough sell to me...


But it's unlikely Ford expected most Ranger buyers to step up to F-150s. Surprisingly about a 1/3 did. And another 1/3 moved over to Ford Escapes. Both of these are way more profitable than the Ranger, so it was a good move by Ford. What was left were the cheapskates and bottom feeders, like Orkin and Napa, that became Toyota's problem.


@nitro,

Now now, don't you go and point that out to Lou_BC and his clique, they only do that with the Ram trucks never any other brand.

Ok Ram big horn 1500 lets use you're

"If you divide 274,263 by five manufactures that only comes out to 54,852.6 each if they all sold the same number of trucks."

Times that by a average of 5,000 dollar profit per truck. Could they make a little less or more profit per truck? Maybe but that's a fair figure to use I would say. The year total years profit comes to $274,260,000.00. Times that over a 5 years average production life cycle equals $1,371,300,000.00. This is why they still build midsize trucks because there is still a profit to be made which is what a business wants to make A PROFIT. Small profit or big profit its still a profit.

Lets load up that crew cab Colorado or Canyon and pretend it really can haul 1440 pounds.

We have four workers to get to the job site, at 200 pounds a piece that is 800 pounds right off the top so instead of having 1440 pounds of cargo capacity the Colorado quickly falls down to only having 640 pounds of cargo capacity.

Of course I highly doubt you will see many Colorado's or Canyon's at job sites.

@Johnny Doe,

You leave out so many items, like floor plan costs, advertising, design and production costs warranty costs all have to be built into any vehicle built. While floor plan costs are the dealers problem more than the manufactures, the dealers are not going to load up on a bunch of midsize trucks that are going to bleed their own profits dry on floor plan costs so that results in less orders for those trucks to the manufacture from the dealers.

Ford in the end was only selling 70,000 Rangers.

We won't even get into the incentives that have to placed on the hood of the trucks to move them.

The only constant that we have in the midsize market is that Toyota is the king of the midsize market and I doubt that General Motors is going to knock Toyota out of the top selling truck in the midsize market.

Now that there is a player in the midsized market that finally off its but and updated. It will force the other players to update their midsize truck, causing more interest in that market. That means more sales and life now that there is something better then 10 year old tech in that market. Its common sense. Will that market sell 1 million units? Probably not, but it will create more interest/sales and more profits.

Ram really needs to bring out a new Dakota, make it a mini Ram, this forumula worked in the late nineties and it would work again.

Ram Big Horn 1500 "You leave out so many items, like floor plan costs, advertising, design and production costs warranty costs all have to be built into any vehicle built"

That's why manufactures share components with lots of their other cars/trucks enignes/transmission/power window switches ect. Example the Colorado use the same 6 speed tramission/3.6L engine as most of their other cars/CUV/trucks do. Using parts in many other vechicles lowest cost on R and D and manufacturing. Around 300 million seems to be to a average factory retooling cost. That leaves you with 1 billion dollars for advertising, design and warranty costs. GM spend 3.59 billion on advertising in 2011

http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2011/12/gm-toyota-spend-most-money-on-advertising.html

divide that by 46 models across GM Caddy/Buick/GMC and Chevy comes out to average 78 million dollars pre model in advertising cost. That leaves 922 million for designing and warranty cost, as I said earlier there is still a profit to be made in the midsize truck market.

as I said earlier there is still a profit to be made in the midsize truck market.

@Johnny doe

Only if it sells, JD

@papa jim There is always that risk, but if you don't try you'll never know lol.

Definitely things to like about this truck and that 'seat delete' option for the x-cab is one of them. For that matter, if it's a dealer option, it must be pretty easy to remove yourself so you can re-install it whenever there IS a need for one (my step-mother-in-law for example).

However, it's not really any smaller than my current 1990 F-150, only a tad shorter in x-cab version. Its advantages don't override the fact that I simply don't need or WANT something that large. For those who claim the Frontier is too small, I might note that there are many who think the Frontier is too LARGE. Full sized may be the most popular right now, but we will just have to wait and see where things go from here.

It is so entertaining to read the back-and-forth between Ram, Chevy and Ford loyalists when a pickup comparison is discussed. I am purchasing a 2015 truck and I have done a TON of research and am trying to approach this objectively. I have no big demands for towing and want a nicely configured truck to haul lumber on occasion or larger size items.

I initially thought the Ram Eco-diesel was the clear choice but when you look closely at the cost for diesel in my area it averages 40-50 cents per gallon more; nearly 11 quarts of oil is required with each oil change every 10k miles including an over-sized filter plus a refill of DEF every 10k miles - more often if you tow - the comparative cost advantage is much less and the pay back is far longer.

For V8 and I say this with no preconceived bias the Hem 5.7L with the 8 speed transmission is way smoother and the exhaust note is spot on. If I could except the mileage - I don't think I can - it would easily be my first choice but 16-17 mpg for most mixed driving is not fuel efficient enough for my budget.

That said my choices have slimmed to 3 trucks - the Ram Laramie, 4x4 quad cab with the Penta Star 3.6L. Its a great motor - no turbo to wear out or stress the useful life of the motor; markedly better gas mileage; good towing numbers; really good payload numbers (about 1,700 lbs) and decent acceleration - by some accounts I have read 8 sec. +/-. What's not to like.

The other choice is the new F150 2.7L eco-boost. I am waiting on all the final numbers but the initial HP and torque are very good and the payload and towing is impressive - the video beating the Ram eco-diesel is at least compelling. I do have concerns over build quality of the early trucks given all the workouts that Ford has to achieve on the new aluminum bodies but I am willing to wait and see how that goes as I probably won't place my order until December or January.

Th last choice is the GMC Canyon 6 cyl. extended cab 4x4. Nice truck. I applaud GMC and Chevy for making the mid-size truck relevant again. A loaded Canyon is certainly the best value cost from a purchase cost perspective and the maintenance and fuel costs are slightly better than my other two choices. But for me I want full-size truck capability which the Canyon is obviously not. But I will give it a look and test drive one.

The fill size GM offerings are not on my radar. To me the Chevy is just plain goofy looking - just an opinion - and the GMC looks fine but the ride and handling cannot match the Ram and even the old F150 was better. And lastly the trucks by comparison to the Ram and Ford are just not compelling - Ram and Ford have better technology and the motors and capabilities are at least comparable. So these were quickly eliminated for me.

@Big Al

I am not saying all diesels in general cost more per mile than a gasoline equivalent. I was just saying that the particular trucks that Big Horn was talking about had the V6 diesel costing more or the same per mile than the V6 gasoline even though the diesel had more mpg.

I don't think the "under load" argument would apply that much in this segment because I really don't think people in this segment tow that much. If I would have to wager I would think even saying most of these trucks will tow 3% of the time would be too high.

There are pros and cons with diesels and gasoline engines as with anything. I have driven the Ecodiesel and other small diesel engines (even a Cummins 4BT in a Ranger), and the same applies to them as well.

I was just trying to explain to Big Horn that just looking at MPG in a diesel versus a gasoline engine is the half of it because the two fuels do not cost the same. When doing a cost per mile analysis, the diesel engine we are talking about in this argument is not better than the gas engine we are talking about in this argument. If we were talking about an engine that got 30 mpg versus the same V6 gas engine, then it would have a better cost per mile.

@Big Horn

"I just love how the Lou_BC and ALL1 cherry pick numbers,"

Please explain to me how I cherry picked the numbers I posted. I gave numbers from the manufacturers for simular trucks with the engines you were talking about which was the Ecodiesel in the Ram and 3.6L in the GM. I even gave you links to the Ram and GM website where I got numbers so how did I cherry pick? I would love to see how you can say this.

The way the back of the cab angles down will make it look really stupid with a cap. Other than that I would look if I needed a small truck.

Big Horn is upset about these new twins. He would be singing a different tune if these were Rams. I am glad he likes his single cab Ram, but it is not for everyone. Big Horn is too defensive when it comes to Rams, maybe he is one of those Fiat-Chrysler marketers that have come to this site to spew their propaganda. Some of us buy the size of truck we like and don't necessarily buy by brand. I am not going to go on an article about Rams and shred their trucks, but I guess if you are a Ram boy it is open season on shredding any truck that competes with your Ram.

@Big Al--A lot of my driving is short trips so as you stated the 4 cylinder is a better fit for me. I don't really need a diesel, V-6, or a V-8. As with everything it is what size of truck and type of engine better meets you needs. Buy what you need and want.

I see Lou in BC started the name calling.

Good luck with that 1400 pounds in this little truck. You can put the number on the payload sticker, but actually holding said 1400 pounds and driving easy, and having confidence in braking and not felling light in steering, yeah, sure.

Cue Big Al to tell us all about his great payload numbers on his midsizer, the one with springs that Mazda has been replacing because they are weak, the same one he never works, but hated the stock suspension, so he paid to get it redone.

Maybe they should have drove these up some steep hills at highway speeds, I see residential driving with small hills, and driving alongside the flat beach. Yawn....

Mark goes on to tell us that it is comfortable in the backseat of the double cab, meanwhile the seat has to be moved as far forward and that's with nobody in the seat. Those seats are for kids to ride in, not adults. Even the crew cab is sketchy on putting five real full-size adults in it. It is not wide enough. But whatever suits your needs.

Maybe Mark will actually compare a crew cab 2 Wheel drive V6 towing at its max weight? Of course, when they did the Silverado test they decided they would go with a lighter weight double cab with a lot less options on it to compare to the Ram.

These trucks just plain cost too much for the segment. Go price out a bare bones crew cab 4x4... 30 grand MSRP. Do the same thing with a Frontier, 25 grand MSRP. Sure, the Colorado has more power, refinement, and fuel economy, but 5 grand worth? No thanks. I'll take the 4L VQ engine with a 6-speed row your own tranny. I've gotten 20 combined out of that powertrain before.

It would be fun to see how the Canyon 3.6 compares with the 2015 F150 3.5 V6

Mark goes on to tell us that it is comfortable in the backseat of the double cab, meanwhile the seat has to be moved as far forward and that's with nobody in the seat. Those seats are for kids to ride in, not adults. Even the crew cab is sketchy on putting five real full-size adults in it. It is not wide enough. But whatever suits your needs." - TRX4Tom

I agree. That was the only part I disagreed with Mark on. He said it was relatively comfortable, but there was no leg room even with the seat pushed all the way forward and I'm going to assume he is not very tall. The crewcab was not much better. These trcks are for a single guy and the back seats are for young kids at best.

The bed is also smaller. So if you are just by yourself and not hauling much, then maybe that's for you. But the truck just does not have enough room for hauling or passengers and cannot compare to a proper half-ton in that regard. Guys, there is just not enough room. And for that reason, I'm out!

Start a betting pool: How many Recalls by 12/31/2015?

I say 4.

I wonder, will the explosion we've seen in CUV's play into this. Remember, alot of people moved from Tahoes, Expeditions and Suburbans in to smaller CUV's without much complaint. Now that GM is offering a small pickup with the refinements and features found in the CUV segment it may not be that big of a leap for some of those folks to decide they don't need a full-sized truck either.

The million dollar question is.... If you could buy a Denali Canyon with a comparable proformance, ride and refinement found in the Sierra, How many would forego the extra utility save $10K-15K and go with the smaller truck? I realize truck enthusiast might not, but enthusiast are not the majority of truck buyers either. Remember, Chevy sells alot more Traverses than they do Tahoes.

The Colorado-Canyon is going to shift or change the truck market.
Many new truck customers are going to choose the Colorado-Canyon over the full size truck, or those who already have a full size are going to pick the Colorado-Canyon.
Price- Top of the line Colorado-Canyon is $35K that gets over 23 MPG where the Ram 1500 eco-diesel is $50K that gets 28 MPG, is it worth the extra $15K for 5 MPG more and a few 100 lbs more towing?
Everybody knows the 2015 F-150 will come with a hefty price increase and they are holding the options you want hostage so you'll be forced to pay $50K

I want a new Colorado-Canyon, but I am going to wait till the 2015 F-150 hits the market so I can price it myself so I feel better that I made the right choice, I have to see the F-150 lose so I know the Colorado is a winner.

Jason
The divorce rate is up and the birth rate is down. 90% of the guys that drive pickups drive alone with no passengers cause they have less wives and less children.
The back seat is rarely used for people but its there if needed and its considered a privilege to ride in my truck so don't complain if the back seat isn't comfortable cause I don't care.

Again where is the huge market for midsize pickups?

Seems the numbers over the years is only about 275,000 trucks at its best. That is a drop in the bucket compared to full size sales.

Remember that is all the midsize trucks combined not one make selling that many.

I just do not see this huge market just because a few people on an internet web site say so.

@ Tom #3 When comparing the Eco Ram to the Colorado is not really 26 vs 28 either. A more realistic number would be the 21 combined the the Chevy vs 23 combined in the Ram. These numbers are closer to what the average cusomter is going to experience. So the 5 mpg is really about 2.

nt@Jason,
This comment you made represents the majority of pickup use;

"The bed is also smaller. So if you are just by yourself and not hauling much, then maybe that's for you. But the truck just does not have enough room for hauling or passengers and cannot compare to a proper half-ton in that regard. Guys, there is just not enough room. And for that reason, I'm out!"

.............................................................................................................................................................

I don't know why the comparisons between a midsizer and a fullsize are now coming down to size mainly, or even a V8.

Prior to this, a year or two ago it was how substandard the vehicles were the power and FE vs cost. I did actually mention a number of times that the new midsizers now offer the same levels of refinement as a full size.

These new midsizers offer the level of refinement that will make them very attractive to the consumer.

This is why they will sell. Why buy something big when you don't require it? Why buy a large vehicle when a smaller vehicle will suffice. The US didn't have a choice prior to this Colorado for a decent midsizer.

You still only have one decent midsizer on offer, this will hopefully expand. Once you drive one you will see why there is the chicken tax.

Someone who wants a full size will buy a full size. But many will look at the cost difference.

Like cars, not everyone needs a Falcon size car, and small to medium cars sell.

I do think the Colorado might be the impetus to improve midsize pickups.

This style of midsize with the refinement, suspension, interior appointments, and quality that the Colorado represents didn't start in the US, but primarily Australia and New Zealand.

That's why Australia designs and engineers most midsize pickups.

Again, I'm not stating that midsizer will outsell the full size market, but I do see a significant improvement in midsize sales.

If more decent midsizers could be imported into the US like the Amarok, BT50 or even Ranger you will see a shift in your pickup truck makeup.

@Trx-Tom
Mazda replacing springs not here.Anyway, the Mazda BT-50 is in a different league to the Colorado and Canyon, vastly more capable. Big downside here to it here is its styling, many put off by it
http://images.tradingpost.com.au/TBBKYTJ2/CU331/KDRDL2-Resized320x240.jpg

I really love this truck. Much better looking than the competition and that includes the GMC competition. I think it's far better looking than the Silverado. Hopefully it's more refined as well with new models coming from Toyota and Nissan. It's about time Chevrolet stuck it to Toyota and even GMC for that matter.

@Robert Ryan,
Mazda did have an issue with sagging springs. My vehicle did sag on the fuel tank side marginally.

Ford Ranger's also had a similar issue. But it was very short lived. It was a manufacturing error by the spring manufacturer.

@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/Scott/Buy American or say Bye to America/Ram Big Horn 1500/Hemi Monster/Tom Wilkinson at Chevy/mark49/Tom#3/Truck Crazy/carilloskis 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.

@Big Al

Please don't tell me that is actually you posting that crap again.

nt@Jason,
This comment you made represents the majority of pickup use;

"The bed is also smaller. So if you are just by yourself and not hauling much, then maybe that's for you. But the truck just does not have enough room for hauling or passengers and cannot compare to a proper half-ton in that regard. Guys, there is just not enough room. And for that reason, I'm out!"

.............................................................................................................................................................

I don't know why the comparisons between a midsizer and a fullsize are now coming down to size mainly, or even a V8.

Prior to this, a year or two ago it was how substandard the vehicles were the power and FE vs cost. I did actually mention a number of times that the new midsizers now offer the same levels of refinement as a full size.

These new midsizers offer the level of refinement that will make them very attractive to the consumer.

This is why they will sell. Why buy something big when you don't require it? Why buy a large vehicle when a smaller vehicle will suffice. The US didn't have a choice prior to this Colorado for a decent midsizer.

You still only have one decent midsizer on offer, this will hopefully expand. Once you drive one you will see why there is the chicken tax.

Someone who wants a full size will buy a full size. But many will look at the cost difference.

Like cars, not everyone needs a Falcon size car, and small to medium cars sell.

I do think the Colorado might be the impetus to improve midsize pickups.

This style of midsize with the refinement, suspension, interior appointments, and quality that the Colorado represents didn't start in the US, but primarily Australia and New Zealand.

That's why Australia designs and engineers most midsize pickups.

Again, I'm not stating that midsizer will outsell the full size market, but I do see a significant improvement in midsize sales.

If more decent midsizers could be imported into the US like the Amarok, BT50 or even Ranger you will see a shift in your pickup truck makeup.

@ALL1
Why did you ask such an inane question??

Me posting again, you make yourself appear stupid or involved.

@Jeff S,
The key word is refined.

Myself and Robert Ryan have stated for a long time now that the Taco and Frontier are a generation or two behind the world in your midsizers.

How this came about means little.

But, what will be significant is the changes in the perception of the pickup buyers.

Will these sell in significant quantities?

If Australia is a guide people will still flock to buy Taco's and Frontiers in the US. But, a large number will buy these Colorado's.

These sales will come from somewhere. If they offer the same or similar levels of refinement as a full size, then some sales will be canabed from full size pickups, particularly V6 full size pickups.

V8 or EcoBoost F-150 sales will not be affected much.

The only engine that might take marginal sales from them will be the diesel Colorado with 380ftlb or torque.

@BAFO - it is funny how you seem to think yourself indispensible to PUTC and NOT a culprit of the trash on this forum.....so far all I can see coming from your posts is hate for Americans and individual posters as well as argumentative and snobby comments. Grow up please. If you weren't such a hater yourself perhaps others would layoff. Make the forum better by one instead of retaliating with more hate and provoking people to hate you in the process. Furthermore, this is an American site, not about Australian trucks much is it, which may be causing people to doubt your know it all stance on absolutely everything that comes up. Quiet down and enjoy the ride.

Ram big horn
Your numbers are a lot misleading and you wonder why you and your brand are attacked? Ford alone sold 348,358 Rangers in 1999 and I have seen the largest yearly sales for compact trucks was per Edmonds at1.4 million. I can see why you don’t like small trucks because Dodge Ram only sold 350,275 that year. Ford sold almost as many small trucks as Ram did full size. It is not hard to see why Ford did not update the Ranger for years because they wanted all those customers in F-150;s.

@Jake D - Midsize trucks have slipped from 8% market share in 1994 to 1.6% in 2013. In the 90s, Rangers sold more because there were not many more high quality, high efficiency small vehicles for to choose from like today (Escape, Fiesta, Connect).

I have to agree with TRX-4 Tom and Jason. PUTC says the back seat is only relatively comfortable with the front seat all the way forward. If you have someone sitting in the rear seat, that usually means someone is sitting in the front seat. So how comfortable do you think the front passenger will be with their seat pushed all the way forward? I don't see how this is going to work. In the words of Shark Tank, and for that reason alone, I'm out.

I don't want to drive around in a large crew cab truck for the one to two times a year that I might carry more than one or two people. The back seat of my Isuzu crew cab is comfortable enough for rear passengers if you move the front seats up half way or even a little less. If I wanted to haul a bunch of people around I would get a van. You could use the same logic by saying it is better to buy a Lincoln Town Car for the one or two times that you might haul around 4 people. If you want a large vehicle then get one but don't use the excuse that you might need one because you could need it a few times to haul extra passengers. If you really need the room occassionally to haul people you can rent a van or if you are constantly hauling large crowds of people you can buy a bus. One of my neighbors at one time had six children and he had a Dodge Maxi van. Now his children are grown and he owns an Equinox. Maybe he should have kept the van for the one time a year that his children visit.

@Jake D--I think Ram Big Horn is a paid marketer for Fiat Chrysler who is paid to spread propaganda. He seems to be very defensive of Ram and on the attack of every article that covers a competitor's brand. If this were a Ram product he would be posting praises and telling us how wonderful this truck is. You should buy whatever meets your needs and ignore blowhards.

@BAFO - It's impossible to know which, if any, global pickup OEMs would want a piece of the American small pickup market, if/when the Chicken tax goes away. But you seem to have it all figured out.

Some OEMs may not be too thrilled about cannibalizing their own highly profitable cars with low margin trucks. Or feeding the fleet/cheapskate/bottom feeder monster.

If you knew anything, you would know why Mitsu/VW/Mazda/Subaru/Isuzu sold trucks here, then ran away screaming!
What changed since then? Except now there's more fierce competition from new segments.

Mazda can't even build its own truck, but you expect it to show up here when Ford doesn't want the Ranger here? Do you think ANYTHING through???

We considered Ranger about 10 years ago. The only reason we were looking at a Ranger 10 years ago was because it was the cheapest transportation on the lot with discounts in a regular cab stripper model.

Today's base model Colorado 4x4 crew cab is $30,580. and $32,960 in a mid range Colorado.

A mid range 4x4 SE Escape is $27,000.

I can also get a Focus Hatchback for $$20,545. - incentives. $18,000.

I can get a Fiesta with 4 doors for $15,000.

I'm sorry but the Colorado is not going to compete for these buyers. There is a reason mid-size trucks lost sales - it's because of excellent and more fuel efficient CUVs and small cars that weren't available before.

Zubaz pants, VCRs, and walkmen were also popular in the 90s but they don't sell worth a darn today.



The comments to this entry are closed.