GM Releases V-6 MPG Numbers for 2015 Chevrolet Colorado/GMC Canyon

2015-Chevrolet-ColoradoZ71-007 II

Available this fall, the new 2015 Chevrolet Colorado and GMC Canyon will offer the best fuel economy of any gas V-6 pickup truck sold in the U.S. Initial EPA fuel economy estimates have the new midsize achieving 18 mpg in the city and 26 mpg on the highway in the 4x2 extended-cab configuration, while the 4x4 models will offer a best mpg of 17 city and 24 highway. Combined EPA ratings for both the Colorado and Canyon will be 21 mpg for 4x2 models and 20 mpg for 4x4 models.

These numbers may not look mind-blowing, but remember that these trucks are the first to enter this segment (after many have left) in decades. No V-6 engine will have more horsepower, however, several will offer more torque at a lower rpm. It's worth noting the new pair of midsize pickups will weigh more than 1,000 pounds less, be 12 inches shorter and cost about $10,000 less than their full-size pickup counterparts (depending on configuration). Naturally, we expect more good numbers when we see the four-cylinder power ratings and fuel economy ratings (not to mention the coming baby Duramax in 2016).

According to Automotive News, early ordering for the Chevrolet Colorado is said to be much greater than originally anticipated, with close to 30,000 units ordered by dealerships for the fall debut. GMC Canyon ordering is also ahead of expectations, with more than 10,000 midsize trucks pre-orders to date. Of course, these pre-orders are no guarantee that the small pickups will be a popular seller but, then again, Ram found its dealerships made a strong push to pre-order the new EcoDiesel Ram 1500, which is still one of Ram's best sales success stories, with an average number of days sitting on the lot between 10 and 15.

We'll know more after we drive the Colorado and Canyon later this month. To read the press release, click here.

Manufacturer image




Its to bad the 4wd rates so much lower than the 2wd. 26highway would have been fine numbers for the 4wd.
Yes, the V6 Ram can muster some really respectable FE numbers, but a much lighter truck with the same amount of power will be a FAR superior way to get around. Of course, we can say much of the same for the Aluminum Ford. Sure, you are getting less truck, but a LOT of people would be fine with less truck when it is more resposive to drive, fits in the garage or carwash better, and still does what they need it to do.
As for Diesels in the midsize segment, the required after treatment means there will be a sizable premium for diesels for the forseeable future. On my drive in this afternoon, I saw diesel retail for about 25% more than regular no-lead. That in itself will wipe out any cost savings (at least today). Sure, range and pulling power will always be cool.
The way tings are in America right now, more turbo gassers, like whats coming from Ford and Toyota seems like the better choice.
When did the Frontier get a 6spd auto?

@Get Real- Ram has multiple configurations.
RAM 1500
CREW | 5'7" | AUTO | 4X4
That is the one that will give you better mpg.
Change to 3.55 gears and that number jumps to 7,200.

That would be 1,100lb over the Frontier.

That still does not change the fact that the ones doing most of the bitching about the Colorado are fans of opposing brands.

Thanks for the clarification.

It is much appreciated.

BTW - do you have a real name ?

Wait for the 2nd or 3rd model year and they will update to 8-10 speed tranny and screw all the people that got the first model year, GM is famous for that.

@Lou BC--I don't understand why the Rambos want to comment on a truck that is midsize that neither Ram or Ford make a competing product. Ram only makes full size and those who are Rambo fan boys are only going to buy a Ram. Either the Rambos are over zealous fan boys or they are paid marketers that have the job of spreading their propaganda. I have owned one Chrysler product that was ok but not outstanding except for its repeating electrical gremlins and lower quality body hardware. I have driven newer Chrysler products that are improved. Any positive feelings I have had toward the new Chrysler under Fiat have vanished under the intense fan boyism on this site. I have no problem with anyone liking a product but to read their propaganda and have it crammed down my throat is not going to win me over. i am glad to see another midsize truck regardless of who makes it. I bet the Rambos would be very vocal in their support if this were a new midsize truck made by Fiat Chrysler.

@ Jeff,

You said it. Thank goodness Fiat pickups are consistently at the bottom of most reliability rankings and are getting more and more "car-i-fied" and less like trucks. That way, I have no rational reason to even consider them. Cause based on the Fiat fans on here, I would not want to EVER buy one and be judged by the company I keep... .

Only Lou can comment on RAM in this thread.
Did I get it right Mr. Moderator?

@Lou BC--Since you can only comment on Fiat Ram then comment some more. Maybe Ram can put a bed on the Fiat 500 and call it a Ram 500.

MPG failure!
That's an inconsequential MPG difference compared to full-size v-8 and the Eco-boost and gives up a LOT of torque verses those engines. Sorry, that's not good enough.

@Jeff S
He is busy to find spark plugs under hood from his 5.4 Twoton.

Available this fall, the new 2015 Chevrolet Colorado and GMC Canyon will offer the best fuel economy of any gas V-6 pickup truck sold in the U.S. Initial EPA fuel economy estimates have the new midsize achieving 18 mpg in the city and 26 mpg on the highway in the 4x2 extended-cab configuration, while the 4x4 models will offer a best mpg of 17 city and 24 highway. Combined EPA ratings for both the Colorado and Canyon will be 21 mpg for 4x2 models and 20 mpg for 4x4 models.

Top that Ford,Chrysler fanbois!

Oh thats right you cant bc those companies have no ballz to even try to build a mini truck!!

Chevy gets punched in the gut:

We maintain that, as much as we enjoy the idea of a smaller-than-full-size pickup, such trucks face stiff resistance. For starters, buyers can easily rationalize spending just a smidge more money for a full-size rig; for example, the base Silverado is just $2135 more than the least-expensive V-6 Colorado. And despite the fact that some buyers are looking for more-maneuverable, easier-to-park pickups, for a large swath of the population, bigger is better. The same is true for fuel-economy figures, making the not-inexpensive Colorado‘s mediocre V-6 efficiency a one-two punch to Chevy’s gut. But hey, at least its fuel economy is “class-leading.”

- from today's C&D

This should be a good truck. I will be interested to see what the mpgs are on the 4 cylinder. I currently have a 99 S-10 extend cab with a 2,2 4 cylinder and 5 speed manual that I bought new. Overall it has been a good solid truck and on the highway at 70 mph I get 27 mpg and usually about 20 to 21 around town which is decent. I also have a 2008 Isuzu I-370 (Colorado/Canyon) 4x4 crew cab that gets about 19 to 20 mpg in the city and about 22 to 24 on the highway but it is much heavier and it is 4 wheel drive. Both have been good trucks but honestly I would give the edge to the S-10 overall. The new 2015 Colorado/Canyon appears to be a much better truck than the last generation but the last generation is not that bad except it should have had the 6 speed over the 4 speed. The 3.7 5 cylinder is not a bad engine and has more than enough power and response for me but it would have been much better with at least the 6 speed automatic.

@Jeff S - It is really lame to say that a big truck gives more performance when 3/4 of them seldom ever get used to capacity.

I purchased a full-sized truck because I expected to be towing more than what a small truck would be comfortable towing. So far, we haven't gotten that trailer because we chose to aggressively pare down debt.

I'm not about to run out and buy a new truck since mine is paid for. The trailer will come eventually or life may take me down a different path. I told DiM the same thing on TTAC. Who knows, I might need a class 4 truck next time around. Having a pickup is in my blood but that doesn't mean I'm stuck to one class size.

@TRX4 Tom
You generally are the one who attempts to capitalise on miniscule difference in 'data' relating to the Fiat line of products.

In actual fact if you have a closer look the Fiat Ram 1500, with the Pentastar/8 speed in a crew cab mid spec is around $40k and it's FE on the highway is only 23mpg.

This leaves the Colorado approx. 12% better.

As for acceleration, I do think the Colorado with a couple less gears will still out accelerate the Fiat 1500. Weight irrespective of how many cogs you have weight will slow you down.

The additional cogs are more about FE than acceleration as well. The advantage will not be as great as you claim.

Look at where the engine torque is at gear changes.

But, if you drive the Colorado flat out or the Ram both will return p!ss poor FE. The average Fiat Ram 1500 with a Pentastar, 8 speed is returning only a 16-17mpg average FE.

That ain't so hot. The diesel in the Colorado will really improve on the Eco Diesel Fiat Ram.

I would expect the 2.8 to return 30mpg on the highway, or possibly even more and that's also with a 6 speed.

That's what I get, with a 6 speed.

Whilst the technology is being dumped into the full size trucks, it seems odd the midsizer is not as affected as I would have thought by CAFE. Maybe the 'penalising' affect of CAFE is harsher as vehicles increase in size.


You are no better than Lou. Do you even try to get your numbers correct? Ram 1500 crew cab 4x4 is rated 23 Highway. Colorado Crew 4x4 is rated for 24 highway. Is 1/23 "approx. 12% better"? You are off by nearly a factor of 3. Is your Ram distaste so high that you would lie to try to prove a point that doesn't exist? Or are you bad at math?

Secondly, where is your information coming that 8 speed pentastar rams are returning "only 16-17 mpg"? Do you have a source for that information. Literally 30 seconds on fuelly would show averages all over 19mpg. While 16-17mpg in a full size truck is decent fuel economy, 19 real world mpg is FANTASTIC.

It is too bad you have such strong partisan feelings towards Ram. They currently are making the best trucks. Period. This might change next year with Ford's new offering, but for the time being you are going to have to post falsehoods (like above) to attempt to advance your angry partisan position.

That black truck above is a good looking truck. I hope it becomes the segment leader.

For me I have no need for this truck. I buy a truck to fit my towing needs. My trailer is to heavy for this truck. Regardless of M.P.G.

One could make a good case of a full size Ram. More room, capability, better M.P.G. But is more money. Just depends what you need in a truck. I think this G.M. would be cool in 4x4. Load your quad in the box and get lost. :-)

@Get Real - get a real name. I'm sure that the Ram J!had will give you one.

Hemi V8, TRX and LongHorn are already taken.

How about Abarth.

No one is claiming that one from the FCA lineup.

@Tom Wilkinson
"Interesting to note that high-efficiency models like the Ram diesel and F-150 2.7 seem to be aimed primarily at commuters and weekend users. We think a lot of these customers may find a midsize pickup a much more appealing choice -- easier to buy, easier to drive in traffic, and easier to park, with plenty of power and capability when they need it."

I think you are completely right. I work and live in an urban environment on the west coast. Although a full size is what I want for the weekends, the reality is that a midsize is just plain easier to use day-to-day for exactly the points you made. Being smaller and lighter I expect them to get better fuel economy (thus I'm waiting for the diesel).

But unlike pretty much everybody that has posted, I'm happy to pay as much as a "larger truck" provided options and feature content are comparable. I'm sure you work with plenty of data; the population, their money and more half of the truck market lives in big cities and we are excited that you bringing us something that isn't enormous.


I thought about this: take rate for diesel option

do you think the take rate for GM twins diesel will be greater/less/or same as the rate for Ram 1500 diesel option?

LOL @ the Ram boys comparing their striped bare bones hand crank window regular cab 6 ft bed with start stop 3.6L/8speed/grill shutters and hard rubber fuel economy tires that no one buys to the GM twins most fuel chugging engine that will be offered with a 6 speed in the Colorado/GMC Canyon. Hate to break the news to the crazy Ram boys, but their is two more engines to be offered still. The mpg numbers will only go up with them two other choices.


A truck that cant do real work and doesnt even present a noticable improvement in mileage cost or efficiency. For those of us that dont care about what we get for our money they are PERFECT!!!

For all those "excited" about GMs return to a market that doesnt matter enjoy it.

Exactly why Ford said a midsize truck wasn't practical. The USA is a full size truck market, anyone who can count knows this. Au is a mid/small size truck market by default, these would be great over there. I doubt these will sway many Toy or Nissan drivers to switch brands. Too much fanboism. Same with Ford or Ram fullsize drivers. That leaves GM fullsize twins and to a lesser exrent, SUV's. However, I don't see how this alone will hurt GM financially. If these trucks are nearly the same price as GM full size trucks, they should generate comparable profit. The loss would be in R&D and additional factories and employees to produce them.

So does the Canyon/Colorado not have an option of a Front bench seat? If so, that's a deal breaker, the local car show I went to didn't have them because they were all in Chicago but I hope the Cab would be big enough to fit 6.

@Lou BC--I have done the same thing as you are doing, paring down debt. I paid my mortgage off 3 1/2 years ago and I am putting the maximum amount in my deferred savings account at work since I plan on retiring in the next 4 to 5 years. Unless you put more than the average amount of miles per year on your truck you don't need a new truck especially if your F-150 is a 2010. Always pay yourself first.

I do wish that this truck had a bench seat and that it had at least one more choice of color in the interior but I understand why. Narrow the choices down and less inventory of parts and more efficiency on the assembly because of less variance. One of the complaints about GM trucks has been that many want a console shift with buckets instead of a bench seat with a column shifter. It sounds like GM listened.

Lou BC is a joke, he loves to cherry pick a rating because Ram is the only manufacture that lets you configure a truck and it tells you the load and tow ratings for that configuration.

So Lou BC goes into the Ram site and picks everything that will decrease the load and tow rating so he can make his false claims that all Rams can only two 4,200 pounds.

The fact is someone who is looking for a tow vehicle is not going to select the 3.21 axel ratio but that does not stop the liar Lou BC from using that to make his bogus claims about Ram trucks.

I have a 2014 Pentastar V-6 Ram that is not even fully broke in yet and I am getting over 19 mpg in town not on the road but in town. On the road this truck averaged 25 mpg on the one trip it has been on.

But don't expect the liar Lou BC to ever be honest, he will always cherry pick one combination that he found in the online calculator and try to pass that off on every Ram built.

The gig is up on you and your bogus BS Lou BC.

It appears GM is working on getting an 8 speed in the colorado for 2016-2017.

Expected outcome is 1 additional MPG an bump in the towing capacity (maybe 400-600lbs) and -0.2 on the 0-60 times.

They should have stuck the new 4.3 liter in the gm twins. With the technology in it compared to this 3.6 I bet the 4.3 would push 20 mpg city and 27 hwy when you extrapolate based on the lower weight of the gm mid size compared to the full size numbers. Also keep in mind the current generation Tacoma which has remained unchanged since '05 still weighs less by a few hundred pounds and all they need to do really is update the drivetrain in the Tacoma and they will easily match or more than likely beat the gm twins handily in this numbers game.


Agree about the 4.3--disagree about the Tacoma.

Don't expect to see Toyota mess with a proven business formula.

Look at how long they drag things out with their Camry and Corolla models. They sell zillions of those models and still are pokey about the upgrades.

I agree. I would have liked to see the 4.3L in the twins as well, along with a six speed manual option for ALL trim levels and engines. But other than those gripes I really like what I see. This 2nd generation Colorado "appears" to be the true evolution over the S10.

Better power
Better mileage
4 wheel disc brakes
Coil over suspension (finally the torsion bars are gone!)
MUCH improved interior
Decent skid plate protection

I will probably hold off on the first year model, but a second year model looks like a real possibility.

Ram found its dealerships made a strong push to pre-order the new EcoDiesel Ram 1500, which is still one of Ram's best sales success stories, with an average number of days sitting on the lot between 10 and 15.

That will piss off the Ram haters knowing that the Ecodiesel only sits on the dealer lots an average of 10 to 15 days.

Pretty impressive.

Not sure where george is getting his data. The ford press release said that the 2015 Ford F150 ecoboost 2.7 will have 3:73 or 3:92 ring gear options.

I'm predicting 27 MPG for the 2x4 F150 with 3:73 in 2 wheel drive. 25MPG for the 4x4 with the 2.7.

24-26 MPG for the 3.5 liter non-ecoboost bottom motor in 4x4 and 2x4 respectively.


When you write things like "@Get Real - get a real name. I'm sure that the Ram J!had will give you one.

Hemi V8, TRX and LongHorn are already taken. "

We call that ad hominem argumentation. It is an argumentation technique used by small minded individuals that lack the competence to advance a reasoned argument so instead they attempt to attack the person conveying the argument instead of the argument itself.

Instead of resorting to childish tactics just get your facts correct. Then you won't end up embarrassed and sour faced on message boards.

@ mackintire

Ford doesn't have 3.92 ring and pinion.

Smaller engine, lighter weight 3.5 to 3.7 V6 should boost 4x4 mileage from 16/21 to 18/23 (both with 3.73 axle)
Smaller 2.7 ecoboost V6 with start/stop should lead 4x4 pickup mileage (with 3.55 ring/pinion) 18/24

@getReal - my statistics are from Ram's site. The trucks in the Ram line up that are going to beat the Colorado/Canyon in mpg are going to be the tall geared XFE type trucks. Those trucks will have lower tow ratings.

The ones cherry picking data are the fanboys.

"GetReal" is a name that has just appeared - tough sh!t if you don't like my comment about posting on here with a real and consistent name.

@RamadanLittlehorn1500 - your J!had is laughably pathetic.

"The fact is someone who is looking for a tow vehicle is not going to select the 3.21 axel ratio but that does not stop the liar Lou BC from using that to make his bogus claims about Ram trucks."

You were pointing out the superior mpg of the Ram. To get that in a Ram you get a poor towing, high geared truck. If you get a "tow rated" truck then you will not get mpg higher than the Colorado.

See my comment to "Get stuffed"....... it applies to you too.

Damn - you guys are hilarious.

19 city 25 highway with a 4x2 truck. okay.

@papjim - nice to see a legitimate comment in among all of the idiot troll comments.

It will depend on rated mpg and option price.

I do believe that it will exceed the Ecodiesel Ram's mpg. Price wise it will most likely be comparable.

My hunch is that it will be similar to Ram's ecodiesel take rate.

Nope. The full size Ram is available with 18 City / 25 Highway fuel economy with the V6. This "midsize" truck gets 18 / 26. Probably because it's BS to call the new Colorado a "midsize." The smallest "midsize" Colorado is actually longer than the smallest fullsize Silverado (regular cab). This is classic GM at its most inept -- back when they built the same car for 5 different brands.

These two trucks are damn near the same size -- this 7/8th argument is just GM marketing, not reality. At least the botched Dakota was actually physically a little smaller, but this "midsize" is really just another Silverado size truck with different sheetmetal. There is no upside to building this truck -- it will canibalize Silverado sales, will increase fixed costs by adding another factory and isn't going to help CAFE numbers..... No wonder I just sold off my GM stock -- their management is still clueless.

The focus should be on making the Silverado better -- not muddy the waters with this truck. This Colorado will probably hand the sales crown for #2 to the Ram 1500, since it will trickle some more Silverado volume down the drain. Nice job, Mary.

@Buick, The 18 city for Ram's HFE. Regular Cab only. More regular cab siliness from Ram so they can win on paper.

I see absolutely no value in building two trucks for the same brand of nearly the same size (which is exactly what the new Colorado and Silverado are -- too close together) or 4 trucks for the same company of nearly the same size. Nearly anybody with common sense would -- and it's not like I'm the only one criticizing it.

Yes, there will be two other eninges. There will be 1 other engine this year and 1 more next year, but GM says the V6 will be the volume engine therefore GM deserves the criticism for only getting 26 mpg out of it, only 1 better than the Silverado. In a few months the new 2015 Ford F150 WILL be cross shopped. If the F150 can get just 27mpg hwy (looks likely), it hardly makes the monumental achievement of 26 MPG on a reduced capability pickup worth writing about.

@papajim -

We do not see this kind of petty comparisons being made when it comes to CUV's or SUV's. People look at what they want and buy the CUV or SUV that meets their needs.

If SUV/CUV buyers followed the same mentality seen here GM would be selling a million Suburban's a year.

GM has recently clearly redefined the mission of the Colorado.

It is now the objective to tap the vast market of customers that currently have fullsize pickups that they can't handle due to size. And people who were forced to buy a CUV because the fullsize trucks were to hard for them to drive and are really looking for a 7/8ths scale pickup. GM believes, to this vast new market, fuel efficiency is not an issue but "design" parkability and turning radius are.

Personally, I believe that fuel efficiency is a major reason people buy small trucks and fuel economy was rated as the #1 reason people switch truck brands. I can't imagine there are many people who will give up a fullsize Silverado to get a midsized Colorado for 1 MPG more.

"Hate to break the news to the crazy Ram boys, but their is two more engines to be offered still. The mpg numbers will only go up with them two other choices."

@Johnny Doe, Hate to break it to you, but GM says the V6 will be the volume engine. The diesel won't be until 2016 and it will be niche product and more expensive and run on more expensive fuel.

With only a 1 mpg advantage, these trucks should NOT have been launched until better fuel economy could be achieved! Only a fool would give the go ahead as is.

@ Lou BC

It doesn't actually work that way. All V6 Rams (that have 8 speed transmissions and are not diesels) carry a 17 or 18 city 25 highway and 20 combined EPA mpg. The RER is not relevant to the calculation, nor is body style. You can pull down window stickers from any number of dealerships and see this. In the real world both factors can come into play, but its not relevant in terms of reporting EPA numbers.

I will also echo the disappointment expressed by others at these trucks. G.M. could have had such a great thing here and instead dropped the ball across the board. An atrocious engine choice and an old(er) transmission are really holding this truck back. Could probably drop 100 lbs easy, which GM may be forced to do if the new F150 comes in even close to its curb weight, much less underneath it.

@Lou BC,

Well my 2014 Ram has 3.55 rear end gears so there goes your bull crap excuse again.

@Mileage Man - thank you for the well thought out reply. I do agree that GM went cheapskate on the drivetrain.


I don't even know if they went cheapskate. I would expect the LV3 to be cheaper to produce than the LFX. I would guess its either a capacity issue or the LGX (updated LFX due in a year give or take) is so dramatically improved that they wanted an easy drop in for these trucks.

GMs internally developed 8 speed transmission is a really nice piece of engineering. No question that will cost more than their current six, but should be well worth the upgrade. My guess is that GM is really kicking themselves for taking so long to finish development of this transmission and bring it out commercially. Ram's ZF sourced 8HP is really doing wonders for that brand, and GM should have been right there releasing 8 speeds less than a year after Ram did.

As for mid sized trucks I am betting that an updated Ridgeline from Honda will probably be hitting the fuel economy numbers that people expect from trucks of this size. MDX is doing real well in that department now and a new Ridgeline will (allegedly) have a reduced weight and an improved transmission (zf 9hp based). This has the potential to do something like 18/19 city and 27/28 highway in an AWD configuration. Even if Honda releases said truck it sure doesn't guarantee sales success, but Honda does have a real bug about fuel economy right now and so my best guess is a new Ridgeline will really put down impressive fuel economy numbers.

@Mileage Man - I'll clarify the "cheapskate" remark. It looks like they took the easy way out. Perhaps they looked at what Toyota and Nissan had to offer and chose to offer the next step up as opposed to going all out. Fears about market acceptance may also been part of the reason they went the way they did.

I did expect more from these trucks in relation to mpg gains. Even GM press releases lead us to expect more.

The age old debate is why buy small when the bigger trucks offer more capability for similar mpg's.

We don't see that surface when talking about CUV's or SUV's even when cars are discussed. Competition is good for the consumer and so is choice.

@ Lou

At the end of the day I am in agreement with you. It would seem that GM forgot that lesson from the last round of mid sized trucks. Price and fuel economy need to be sufficiently different from their full sized brethren in order for the consumer to be convinced of enough differentiation. Judging from comments here and around the internet (as well as my own impression) it would seem that GM has not managed to strike the proper balance of price and fuel economy to really ignite massive consumer interest here.

I also have to add that if GM wants the Colorado to compete with CUVs their decision to only put a transfer case capable of AWD function into the Canyon was an extraordinarily boneheaded move. Nearly *every* CUV around here that people drive is an AWD variant. I really do not think any number of AWD CUV owning families will be interested in a traditional 4WD system. I don't even think a salesman would be able to effectively explain the benefits of a G80 to these types of customers. Everyone wants these fully computer controlled multi plate clutch AWD systems now, leaving that out of the Colorado was (in my opinion) a big oops on their part.

@Lou and Mileage Man,
I don't really consider the use of a 6 speed as a cheapskate move on GMs part.

I do think if the GM is returning a 12% better FE then why make the vehicle more expensive with a 8 speed. The Fiat Ram 2WD can only achieve 23mpg (read link). That's not real life FE. Both the Colorado and Fiat Ram will struggle to return 17mpg for day to day driving. The diesel Colorado should up that to an easy 25mpg with day to day driving.

The view that more gears makes a better truck isn't rather silly. I do think actual testing would resolve this.

From the figures I see is the Colorado will out perform the Pentastar, 8 speed, all singing and dancing aero aids, etc, Fiat in most every area.

I've stated this for a while, the technology that's is being used in full size 1/2 ton trucks will reduce their competitiveness against other comparable vehicles.

If you want a large, 'car like' that has reduced 'workability' pickup the Ram is a fine CUV. But the Colorado seems to offer most of the utility the Fiat Ram doesn't, plus some.

The plus for the Colorado is towing, load, newer and possibly better chassis. Then you will have a quicker truck as well in the Colorado. The quicker truck isn't that important, but the Fiat Ram guys do tend to focus on this.

The diesel Colorado when it arrives will then have all pickup for FE, whilst retaining a large tow advantage over many of the much taller geared pickups.

I would say the diesel Colorado will be better than the new aluminium F-150 in cost and over value for dollar.

The value for dollar is what sells vehicles. But I think Ram will not lose out as much as some of the other pickups due to the new Colorado.

As the FE requirements (wars) increase you'll find the more positive attributes of full size pickups diminish. Midsizers will be able to perform and do what the full size 1/2 trucks will be capable of.

I know. We have Class 2 midsizers that return over 32mpg on the highway already.

Also, full size 1/2 ton pickups are cool and will be hard to challenge due to their popularity.

Ram's ecodiesel take rate.


This is the reason that GM delayed the diesel and raced to get the gassers to market. Ditto for using the 3.6 instead of the 4.3 gas engine--the 3.6 they will use is very similar to the one in the base Camaro. No drama--easy decision.

The timing of getting the First Gen twins to market killed GM. The original Isuzu Colorado truck was on the drawing board in the mid 1990s and would have been a smash hit if GM would have gotten it into showrooms by 2001. Instead it was 2004 or so. By then the rest of the world had moved on.

They won't make that mistake again, thus making the diesel buyers wait (since they will only account for ten percent or so) and their use of the tried/true 3.6 instead of the 4.3 that was still in development at the time.

My two cents.

@Big Al from Oz - 6 speed is part of the picture. They have more efficient engines than what is going into these trucks.

Some even wondered why the 4.3 wasn't used as it is new and would provide improved driveline amortization as well as making it more ubiquitous. That latter fact has always been a selling feature of the SBC.

The comments to this entry are closed.