2015 GMC Canyon Drive Impressions: Video

Canyon SLT 17 II

What could be more fun than spending a few days in Southern California driving new pickup trucks? The short answer is nothing, especially when you're driving several versions of one of the newest midsize pickup players in the form of the 2015 GMC Canyon. Here's a video of our first driving impressions after pushing it around some canyons and coastal highways with both the V-6 and inline four-cylinder configurations.

Look for our full story and photos coming soon.



No video?

I don't like the little thing grille. I destroys the appearance of the pickup.

Does the GMC have a larger radiator? They why!

The Colorado is far better looking.

The Colorado looks like an asian truck, which looks like a car with a bed. I agree with the assessment that GM is trying to slow Chevy sales and increase GMC sales.

GMC Trucks look miles better than their Chevy counterparts, and this Colorado/Canyon widens the gap 10x

Never mind, that's the Sierra. Man they look similar!

Like GMC styling EXCEPT those fender "lips"!!! Just can't grow to like them. Are the Chevy front fenders interchangeable with the jimmy?(looks like they are). Hhmmm cab and chassis and Chevy front fenders..................Chevy box and!. If my plan will not work, will the aftermarket please provide "fillers" for those lips, so they are completely hidden.

A V8 is what hell I talking about!!!

Now make the 5.3 available in the base stripper truck...

didn't this story already happen? Oh wait, same truck, sorry my bad

I like the Canyon crew cab, waiting on Duramax next year. I'm guessing GM did everything they could to get 28 MPG highway w/ the 2.5 (even waited two weeks to release 4 cyl. figures). Was it a misspeak or a slip when Mark said "28 MPG" highway on the video?

I just cant get past the grill, looks like a mini Tundra. The back is sleek and streamlined and then BAM in your face squared jawed chrome grill. Its like they got the scaling wrong.

I make no effort to hide my love of the Global trucks. When you look at these two from that standpoint, the Colorado wins hands down. The GMC looks kinda like that 5 foot tall guy who spends his whole workout doing arms. Big jacked shoulders/pecks and a neck that sticks out as far as his ears, below the waist he has the legs and build of a Kenyan distance runner. The proportions on the GMC are just wrong, I cant, try as I may, look past it. If they had kept the same grill and maybe eliminated one row of slats and done a little bit more blending the front with the rear it would look so much better.

As it stands, for me, my next truck will be a Colorado.

I don't want to see any gas guzzling V8 engines in these trucks. The previous version had the 5.3L V8 option for a few years on certain models, but I don't think they sold that many.

A turbo 4cyl would be a good high performance engine option though. These new PU's (with the 3.6L V6) and their fullsized counterparts (with the 6.2L) already have enough power for anyone's needs. If you need more than the 420hp/450tq the optional 6.2L gives you, then you probably should step up to a 2500 series with the Duramax diesel. If you need more than that, then maybe you should look into getting a medium duty truck or just get a big rig and call it a day.

What they really need is to start concentrating on improving fuel economy. Large displacement engines with big hp numbers are not going to be the attraction in this market segment, it's going to be the promise of better fuel economy/lower operating costs and a slightly smaller footprint for easier parking/city driving/trail running/maneuverability.

Also I agree with the others in here, if they offered it with a V8 I just might raid my kids' college fund to get one tomorrow. That thing would be an absolute handful to drive though.

Does anyone know if the 2.5 is using start/stop like the Malibu and Impala?

At least the thing ain't all black, white, red or grey, they've finally given it some COLOR!

That said, I personally prefer the Colorado's looks because it doesn't try to pretend it's a Big Rig, even though it is bigger than I want. As long as drivers insist on having a grossly-oversized grill, pickup trucks are not going to get really decent fuel mileage; they could gain as much as 25% highway economy if they'd simply streamline that nose.

that red one is gorgeous!

Hands down,the Colorado looks much better then the oversized chrome plated plastic grill canyon.I will more then likely buy the Colorado once the diesel becomes available,in about a year from now.

@devilsadvocate -agreed. the Canyon does look bigger and burlier in the snout. It is amazing at how much bigger when you see the 2 side by side. The red Canyon with red grill is much better looking. The monochromatic look tones down the "big" look.

Does the Colorado come with leather interior?
The Canyon does appear to have a nicer cabin. That is definitely the pattern between developing between GM and Chevy. GM is the "executive" truck and Chevy is the "poor man's" truck.

I think the Colorado looks bigger from the front. The mini Sierra syling really makes he Canyon look narrow where the Chevys sporty styling makes it look like it has a wider stance. I like the Chevy looks wise but I want the Auto 4x4 only available on the GMC.

Heated leather seats is standard on the Z71,and an option,(luxury pkg) on the LT.

This is a great truck... Just hope they push the Diesel to market.

It's widely accepted that GM is trying to kill off Chevy trucks and replace it entirely with their GM truck. However, for once, I still think the Colorado is better looking than the GM Canyon. GM since 03 has gave the best looks and styling to GMC and pretty much the middle finger to Chevrolet. I think that may have backfired here. Although, Chevrolet buyers really got screwed with their interior choices and no auto 4x4. I'm not sure I'd want one without those things. Chevrolet dealers have a tough sell once again.

It's not like Chevy trucks are any cheaper to buy. A couple hundred bucks if one's lucky. And the funny thing is, most people would still pay more for the Chevy if it had what the GM's have.

Good observation. It does look very much like the 2007-2013 Toyota Tundra. I think both look good but I still can't get past the front lower dam, it looks out of place more on the Chevy. Looks like a it would be an issue on some 4x4 trailers.

IMO the grill and side cut body panels over wheel wells is a Fail and Fugly. The chevy looks Much better and a lot more symmetrical vs this Thing. And the GMC will cost more due to the class leading carbon fiber inserts !!! lol. until they put the diesel in this truck, i wont be wasting any of my time looking at in person. Plus bottom line for the price you will be able to buy a much more capable full size.

I wonder if the intent is to make the Colorado look like a Tacoma and make the Canyon resemble the Tundra.

I like the looks of the Chevy better. For reference, per build, not mistaken, a green GMC SLT All-Terrain Crew/V6/ Shortbed/4WD(which,per webpage, it essentially is the Z71 package) can be built for $34,824. That includes the SLT conveninece package, engine block heater and tow pkg. A Colorado Z71 (same configuration with tow pkg, engine block heater) comes in at $33,155. I'm not sure exactly what differences may exist between these two, but clearly, Autotrac is the biggest difference. I'd sure like that Autotrac, but not sure if I can stomach the look.

(SLE, not SLT)

The Colorado and Canyon do have impressive tow and haul statistics.
3,500 lb for base and 7,000 for tow package is good. These ratings are based on SAE testing criteria.
Cargo ratings are very good and in many cases superior to many 1/2 ton pickups.


Ext. Cab 6'2" box

Crew cab 5'2" box
2.5 ................1,460

crew cab 6'2" box

These cargo ratings mean that these trucks can actually tow a max rated trailer and still have extra capacity for passengers and gear (unlike FCA).

Sure is interesting how an unbiased person with the name of "Fordtrucks1" understands the marketing insights of GM...
I feel GM did a better job marketing the Canyon/Colorado than they did the Silverado/Sierra. The differences in appearance and packaging I feel appeals to a wider market, while really giving a wider range of potential customers a choice. I personally like the looks of the GMC better, but the discussion about Autotrac… I’ve always owned a 2500HD so never had the choice, and I’ve gotten pretty comfortable shifting into 4wd if required… The fact the GMC has grill louvers and is able to achieve better mileage is interesting.

The GMC front looks too similar to a Honda Ridgeline.

I looked at the video again with the 2 trucks side by side. The airdam on the Canyon is my lower and the snout looks lower as well. The Colorado has a shorter airdam and looks like it would have a superior approach angle. The Colorado looks taller. That fact alone would make me prefer the Colorado. I have to contend with deep snow and very cold weather which combined tends to wreck airdams and low plastic snouts.

I do like the monochromatic Canyon. I dod hope that the truck is made so that low airdam can be removed. I wouldn't consider the Canyon if it couldn't be popped off.


I re-watched the video too at around 37seconds seeing both heading down the highway nearly straight on the Colorado wins walking away as far as being true to the global pickup. To be fair to GMC lthough I think the Colorado is a Z71 in so the difference may not be as exaggerated if they had an LT on hand to compare instead.

I don't know the more I look at it and different angles its ok I might even go so far as to say at least better looking than a Frontier or Tacoma, but something still seems off.

Its like they said we want the canyon to look like an 80% scale of the Sierra 1500 but then someone fat fingered some measurements and they accidentally only scaled the grill and front clip to 90% with those big bulgy wheel arches and that semi truck front grill. Dissonant is the best word I can think of to describe it. Its like they welded two different sizes of the same truck together at the A pillars. Some angles make it look better than others, but the straight on side view is pretty bad, almost like the frame is bent ever so slightly right behind the front wheels. The angle of the window sills and bed rails doesnt flow cleanly into the hood/ front clip.

Since the 1999 trucks came out I have preferred the GMC styling but this most recent generation of both the full size 1/2 tons and the new Colorado/Canyon I actually like the Chevy's exterior look more. Just personal opinion. I do wish that the Colorado had all of the same running gear but the Canyon gets the better 4wd system and I am not sure why.

These trucks would likely suit 80% of my needs but I think I'd still want the reserve of extra payload. I was super excited for the 2015 F150 with the 2.7L Ecoboost but now that the configurator is up you can't spec out a crew cab, 4x4 with the longer 6.5' bed?! At least in the Colorado/Canyon one can get a little more bed space even in the crew cab.

@the real Mike - 5,000 lbs wet weight SUVs and pickups with a 12,000 lbs CGVR can get by with a V6, but a small V8 is ideal. Usually with just 1 mpg as a penalty. I'd gladly give up that for add long term reliability with an engine that's never stressed out.

I want a cool engine pulling a load on a long, steep grade with the AC blasting cold air.

Engine braking is another factor. Keep the brakes as cool as possible on the way down the mountain.

But if you're just hitting the malls, disregard. Carry on.

That truck is HUGE and expensive. It's like a full size from 15 years ago. I can't stand that.

My only gripe with these trucks is the antenna on the roof...I prefer it on the right fender or the cowl corner below the windshield as mounting the antenna on the rear of the roof may get in the way of cargo loaded on the roof rack or ladder rack.

On TTAC there is an article attracting little attention. It about the GM and Izuzu partnership and pickups.

I did read in the Nikkei that this will also involve engines and drivetrains.

I wonder if the delay for the diesel Colorado/Canyon has something to do with this.

The 2.8 Colorado diesel is actually a throwback from when GM owned a huge chunk of VM Motori, now owned by Fiat.

There are now four variants of the Colorado. You have the US Colorado and Canyon. Almost identical in most respects, except for a couple of body panels and bling.

You also have the global Colorado and Dmax. The variation between these is larger than their US siblings.

Izuzu currently use a 3 litre diesel in the Dmax, which is an Izuzu diesel with an Aisin transmission and not VM Motori like the Colorado uses.

I wonder if GM is looking at not using the 2.8 in the Colorado. Using it just gives FCA cash.

@DenverIIIMike - you need to re-read @the real Mike's post. He is saying that a V8 is not needed in these trucks. He does go on to comment about 1/2 tons and HD's.

A V8 in these trucks would be suitable for a halo truck.

Most aren't going to tow 7k with these just like most don't tow 10-12k with a 1/2 ton.

I am impressed with the cargo capacity. That is where full sized 1/2 ton crewcabs have unrealistic tow/haul ratings. A 11k tow rating like the Ford means you need to get the max cargo package just to be able to carry 4 passengers and some gear in the truck. Ram is even worse with its tow/haul ratings. That 30K tow monster with an appropriate tongue weight means the truck is overloaded once the driver climbs in the seat.

i do agree that a big V8 or diesel for that matter is great for towing because of the engine braking. The Ecoboost 3.5 I had for 9 days needed to be screaming to give me the same engine braking that my 5.4 gave me. I found the same thing when I test drove a Pentastar Ram.

The advantage to these trucks is the fact that they are lighter than a 1/2 ton so don't have the same mass to stop.

@Big Al--I would think the Isuzu 3.0 diesel would be a better motor than the 2.8. It would be good to see Isuzu and GM working together again. I like both the Colorado/Canyon but I prefer the looks of the Colorado. The more that I look at Mark's videos of both trucks the more I like them and think they will be more successful than most think. I would lean more toward the I-4 but the V-6 is a really nice engine. The dark green is an extra cost item on both but it looks really nice.

The Global Colorado is pretty reasonable as far as towing etc with 2.8 Diesel http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a186/RobRyan7/imagejpg1_zps6450e3c4.jpg

Big Al
I read an article about a year ago on the 2.8 that said it was designed jointly by GM AND VM engineers for GM. Then GM moved production to Rayong Thailand where they build the larger Duro Max and did a $200 million building expansion and this is where the engine improvement was done that increased 4% fule usage and horse power to 200. Some time back PUTC did an article on GM expanding their plant In Ohio and I thought this was for the 2.8 to be built hear for the US Colorado/Canyon?????

@Jake D,
I do think the information so far provided is ambiguous. There are many possibilities. Even GM and Izuzu making a Strada type ute and not a pickup is feasible.

But, with such a small ute and not pickup it seems to me Izuzu wouldn't be involved. They are more a truck company than a car company.

How will the VM 2.8 engine fair down the track? Will it need replacing to be able to reach future Euro and US EPA emission standards?

I do see the connection between Izuzu and GM regarding engines.

What is the deal between FCA and GM regarding GM's use of a FCA design?

Just because a company manufactures it might be under license.

This is a common practice in the automotive and aero industries.

Knowing Sergio, though he might have cut a deal with GM to buy out VM like he did. Then yes there is a chance that GM has 'ownership' of the VM design.

The other factor is FE. The Izuzu 3 litre is the most efficient 3 litre class diesel on our market. The difference is significant.

The two wheel drive global VM Motori 2.8 Colorado is using around 26mpg (US) average (not highway) and the Izuzu based Colorado with the Izuzu 3 litre diesel is getting around 30mpg average.

This is a huge difference. So there could be several factors involved by GM in making the decision regarding the use of Izuzu engines as stated in their press release.

I don't think would have made the statement if it wasn't true.

Then you have this link from January, so maybe what was on TTAC was old, I really don't know and I was summising;


Have GM set up the factory, yet? Why the delay in the diesel? The engine is already being manufactured around the globe.

@ Big Al from Oz, the Isuzu D-Max that is sold in Europe does not have the 3 Liter TDI. Instead, Isuzu was forced to offer a more advanced 2.5 TDI (4JK1-TC with 400NM of Torque) in order to meet Euro V emission regulations and beyond. I have not been able to confirm this, but I believe the 2.5 TDI is built at the same facility as the GM 2.8 TDI in Rayong, Thailand and may have been derived from the R425 DOHC from VM Motori?? If anyone knows more info, by all means feel free to educate us.

Also, having seen the 2013+ Isuzu D-Max at dealers in Ireland, this is a good truck and would sell here in the U.S. if Isuzu were to introduce it here.

Glad someone else noticed the presence of interesting color (Roadwhale). Remember when trucks came in colors that were cool to look at? Different greens, blues, even oranges. I love it when someone drives by with a 20 year old truck that isn't white, black, silver, or some tone of grey, because they were made during a time when the companies (and consumers) were less boring. I'd love to see 2 tone versions of these new trucks, similar to how old rangers/f150s were colored white with blue paint running along the base of the doors/beds. Heck, give me pinstripe stickers like old Toyota/nissan trucks had along the door panels. It may be nostalgia, but when I see those trucks still chugging along today, I still can't help but think how awesome and just plain fun those stickers make those trucks look.

Now is this engine a VM Motori or an Izuzu? From what I've read it's an Izuzu. This means it isn't a GM let alone a VM Motori.

So why wouldn't GM want to work with a partner rather than the "enemy"?

You are correct regarding the 2.5 but I do know also that GM use a 2.5 VM Motori diesel called the 2.5 Duramax and it a smaller displacement of the 2.8 VM Motori that GM is currently using in the Colorado's.

Here's a cut and paste;
"Isuzu is one of the world’s largest diesel truck engine producers, but instead of the Australian D-MAX’s Isuzu-built 3.0-litre turbo-diesel, the MU-X may be powered by the more advanced twin-turbo 2.5-litre diesel engine that powers Europe’s D-MAX.

The European D-MAX’s Euro 5 emissions-compliant diesel produces 119kW at 3600rpm and 400Nm between 1400-2000rpm, making it less powerful than the Australian-market D-MAX’s 130kW/380Nm 3.0-litre single-turbo diesel, it delivers 20Nm more peak torque 400rpm lower in its rev range.

The twin-turbo 2.5-litre is also more efficient, consuming 7.3L/100km – a whole 1.0L/100km less than the 3.0-litre – and emits 25g/km less CO2, at 195g/km. The same engine could also power our D-MAX by 2016, when the Euro 5 emissions standard will apply to all vehicles sold here."


who cares...the 2015 F-150 is where it's at

@Jeff S,
I would bet the engine that GM want's to get it's hand on is the Izuzu twin turbo 2.5 and not the 3 litre.

I wonder if this is the reason for the delay with the US diesel Colorado.

Isuzu's iTEQ 2.5 litre twin turbo diesel. It is an Izuzu designed diesel.


Big Al
This is the article I read that leads me to think GM owns the engine but it does not say that.http://www.greencarcongress.com/2013/10/20131011-duramax.html

Big Al--Didn't know about the 2.5, agree that would be the best engine for these trucks. Isuzu during the 80's and 90's made cars and crossover type vehicles but I can't really see them doing that again. As you said Isuzu is a truck company and was founded as a truck company. It would be great to see Isuzu with a new Trooper and with a D Max for the US but that is wishful thinking. The Chevy LUVs during the 80's came with an optional diesel which was an Isuzu. The diesel LUVs had bullet proof diesels. GM should just offer the Isuzu diesel--that alone would sell these trucks. I have been very happy with my Isuzu I-370 but the new Colorado/Canyon is a much better truck.

@ JeffS & @ Big Al from Oz, from what I've gathered the GM 2.5 TDI sold in the Global Colorado has a 92mm Bore and 94mm Stroke which is the same as the VM Motori R425DOHC, whereas the Isuzu 2.5 TDI has a 95.4mm Bore and 87.4MM Stroke, which means they most likely do not share the same block.

Also, my take why GM is delaying the launch of the 2.8 Duramax Diesel until 2016 could be for the following reasons: 1) Its believed that GM is making changes to the MY14 versions of the 2.8 TDI to make it quieter for the fickle US Market, and 2) GM is most likely thinking ahead as the 2017+ emissions will get tighter and tighter and therefore GM has to ensure this engine meets future requirements in order to pay for its investment.

Yep, we already know the Izuzu diesel is it's own. I sort of figured that out. Izuzu has always tended to use it's own diesel tech. Considering it's one of the largest truck makers in the world and it uses it's own diesels.

Your reasons for the delays are feasible as well.

@Jake D,
Just because the word Duramax is used doesn't mean it's a GM engine. My Mazda runs a Ford Duratorq, do you think it's called a Duratorq by Mazda?

This link and cut and paste does come from Wikipedia.

VM Motori's 2.8-litre common rail turbodiesel engine was chosen for the Jeep Liberty CRD. The 2005 and later Chrysler Grand Voyager and 2012 model year Chevrolet Colorado that sell in Thailand is also fitted with the VM 2.8-litre (R428) engine.



Jake D,
GM Diesel Italy was set up in Turin with VM. This is where the R428 VM Motori engine was developd.

That's possibly why GM originally bought a 50% stake in VM Motori. Italian diesel technology is among the best in the world.

GM could possibly own the rights to the Duramax and it will take a different path in its evolution.

Sort of like the in line 6 Cummins fitted to the Rams. They are Italian as well and Iveco or Fiat manufacture them, but they went down different paths of evolution.

GM also build the Cruze with a VM Motori diesel.

The comments to this entry are closed.