I had a Mazda B 3000 with a front bench seat with flip up console. I know these midsized trucks aren't wide but it is a great option. I utilized the bench seat quite often.

I think I'm really going to take a look at one of these, I really don't need a full size, as long as it has decent leg and head room I may pick one up.

I think it's pretty telling how good these things are from the fact that the criticisms are pathetic at best.

At the end of the day it's probably going to boil down to...
A Sierra is only $x more and there's more lucrative financing offers on those and more to choose from and it only gets 1 or 2 mpg worse fuel economy. And it's roomier and says "I've arrived" because I'm driving a full size.

Those who are fed up with the cost of pickups and the pickup truck oligopoly that can live with a short box and want things like crew cab have already transitioned back to or will be transitioning back to vans and crossovers or cars.

It all comes down to math. There's a reason they pulled these off the shelves last time.

I agree. When the misses of the GM midsize is about engine covers or sport modes that becomes a bit pathetic.

I'm a guy that may just go from my 07 Silverado 4x4 to a Canyon 2x2.

Maxx, I don't think driving a full size makes people think you've arrived.. The probably think your a construction working. The midsize is more of a life style vehicle for people who want to haul their cayaks and camping gear.

@#5 fail - Why would anyone want a 7 or 8 ft bed on a midsize? It's still too narrow for plywood, osb, and drywall. 6ft is perfect for most jobs, especially on fullsize trucks.

How about no regular cab? What is Orkin going to do if they can't get regular cab colorados?

I disagree with number 4 and 5 miss:

GM, Nissan and Ram backed out of having a half-ton extended cab with an eight-foot bed, which is only on regular cabs in that class. It'd be best if there were a regular cab with a seven or seven-point-five-foot box, especially for fleet and commercial purposes.

Same with larger towing mirrors: it's a small-ish truck! Even the half-tons look tacky with those mirrors.

To me the big miss with both the Canyon and the Colorado is the gear shifter being in the center console. Why not put it on the steering wheel column or use a knob like the Rams have? That would free up a ton of space in the small center console for storage/additional cupholders, etc. I looked at a new Silverado this weekend that had a column shifter, and the center console had a HUGE amount of storage. In my opinion that would be the ideal setup in a smaller truck like this.

column shifters went out in the 1990's, I'm glad GM doesn't offer one of those.

"5. Why not offer a 140-inch wheelbase extended cab with ultra-long bed?"

Answer: Because a Ram 1500 Quad Cab with the 6'4" bed sits on a 140-inch wheelbase. Because a Ford F-150 SuperCab with the 6'6" bed in on a 144-inch wheelbase. Because the Silverado/Sierra 1500 Double Cab with the 6'6" bed is on a 143-inch wheelbase.

What exactly is the point of a mid-size truck stretched to the same size as a full-size? That's why the Dakota regular cab with the 8-foot bed never lasted - a Ram 1500 regular cab with the same 8-foot bed was a better vehicle for the job.

Surprised that one of the misses wasn't the lack of a GMC logo on the plastic covering the engine... Plus I don't understand the desire to have sport mode on a pickup truck... Do any other midsize trucks have a sport mode?

I am not seeing a need for a long wheelbase version.

@Matt - Orkin is locked in a contract with Toyota for a few more years (in the US), but in Canada, Orkin already moved to regular cab Sierras.

Hit: The Sierra and Colorado are visually differentiated.
Miss: There is not enough interior and content separation. Sunroof, memory seats, opening rear glass and future, diesel & 8 speed auto available only on GMC. V6 & manual transmission available only on Colorado sport model.

@John - I've yet to own a truck with a center console/shifter. Makes zero sense in a truck. Just more things to break have to clean the spilled drinks out of. Keep it simple.

Consoles just feel confining, especially in a small truck. And something for my knees to knock against. I'd rip it out and put it back in when it's time to sell.

And what's the point of deleting the extra-cab seats, when you can just unbolt them and put back in to sell/trade in.

Denver111Mike, to each his own. I don't like the ridiculously wide consoles but I do like a console after having one. I personally like something to rest my right leg against on long trips otherwise it gets tired of holding itself up.

I already voiced most of my concerns with this Hits and misses list on the Colorado thread.

I do agree that tow mirrors are a needed option. A narrower truck needs them more than a wider full sizer when towing.

Overall look of the truck echoes the Sierra 1500 - I view that as a MISS.

A GMC logo on the bedliner is a HIT????????????
Lame.

an 8 foot bed option would mean a third frame configuration or a regular cab.

Yup - make a reg cab to keep Orkin and DenverMike happy - that makes a sh!tload of sense.

I don't understand the argument stating one should buy a fullsized because it is only $x,xxx amount more money, but gives you so much more capacity. I don't by 4XL sweatpants for trips to Walmart just because they cost an extra two dollars but I get twice the fabric.

I agree that GM should have a long bed option. My current S-10 with a 6ft bed is nowhere nearly as useful as my old '84 S-10 with a 7.5ft bed. Get rid of the center console nonsense, put a column shifter on for automatics, make a manual tranny available for all models, and put a lever on the floor for 4wd.

The trucks look good on paper. I bet lots of fleet mangers are looking at that ext cab seat delete truck.

GM deserves praise for venturing where no one has been willing to go since 2004. In doing so they brought a new and different option to buyers. I wish them well, and hope the trucks contain no hidden design/component failures.

I think the biggest miss with the GMC is it's cartoonish front end.

I do think the Colorado does look very nice.

The Canyon does seem to have been accessorised better.

As for towing and mirrors. Maybe with the heavier tow package it could include different and better mirrors.

But remember from the outside of the mirrors it's still over 7'. So if you are towing a trailer wider than 7' or so then the mirrors are needed.

Mirrors do kill FE figures.

BAFO
"Mirrors do kill FE figures"
That's got to be the stupidest thing you ever said!
I get tired of reading your nonsense!

Get clip on mirrors if you have a wide trailer. HD mirrors on this truck wll look goofy.

@Tom#3
Just use google. It's not hard and you will learn!

..................................................................................................................................................
Next, mirror drag is quantified at 3-6% of total vehicle drag for a modern car in a report called Contribution of different devices to the total drag (PDF):

"A very well designed mirror increases the drag of a car of approximately ΔCd=0.012. But this value can reach 0.025 to 0.030 for the worth [worst] designs. Actually it seems reasonable to think that the average value for ΔCd is of around 0.015"

"...[the mirror's] combination with the A-pillar contributes to the creation of trailing vortices at the side front of the car, which are highly drag-consuming."

Estimating mirror MPG effect on a Metro ...

According a spreadsheet tool for figuring aerodynamic and rolling resistance, my car theoretically gets 56.7 mpg (US) @ 55 mph (using Cd: 0.34, frontal area 1.858 square meters, @ air temperature 25 degrees C). That's really not far off my actual fuel consumption at that steady state speed.

Removing one mirror: theoretically, using the most conservative figure (the "very well designed" ΔCd=0.012) from the Chalmers report, taking off one mirror reduces the Cd by .006. Frontal area is also reduced by about 0.0375 square meters.

MPG at 55 mph / Cd (delta Cd) / configuration

56.70 / .34 (-0.0) / stock, both mirrors on
58.41 / .334 (-.006) / 1 mirror off

= +1.71 mpg US / 3% - theoretical fuel economy gain from stock.

Other hits are the console w/ floor shifter, the brighter led headlights, & brawny, rugged truck appearance.

Other misses: no V-8 engine option, no regular cab, no Denali package. They could at least offer a supercharged or turbocharged V-6.

@Denver Mike--I disagree with you on the seat delete, in 15 years I have only used the rear jump seats in my extended cab S-10 3 times. I would rather have the extra storage room. If I need to haul extra passengers around I would use my crew cab. I think many fleets will look at the Colorado/Canyon with the seat delete option. It is nice having the extra space to haul things inside the cab, that is the main reason I bought an extended cab when I bought the S-10. I don't really miss a regular cab.

I prefer a column shift as well, but having a console shift is not a deal breaker for me and neither are the misses listed in this article. Overall I like both of these trucks and the pluses outweigh any minuses.

@Jeff S,
I used to own a Nissan Navara King Cab.

People don't buy stretched single cabs to carry people. I do think it is quite ridiculous some of the lame comments that can and are made on PUTC. It's almost as if the person is looking for a bite.

The King Cab, Extra Cab or whatever each manufacturer calls them is ideal to carry valuables out of the weather and in a more secure environment.

Those little jump seats are really useless and uncomfortable in any size pickup. The additional space as a feature in a pickup isn't used as cargo and luggage space, not 'people' space.

I agree with you if you want the extra seating then you would buy a crew cab style truck, or maybe use a car because how many times would you carry a load with additional people? This would be few and very far between.

From a work perspective if you buy a Space Cab, etc to carry workers, then you should quit your business.

If you want to carry more in your bed you will need to buy something with a longer bed or a flat bed like we do in Australia.

I'm hoping one day the US will sell cab chassis pickups so people can put their own beds on them. It really improves the flexibility of the vehicle.

Currently in the US you can only buy a pickup with the manufacturer's tub on the assend. This is extra cost if you want to modify your truck to suit your requirements.

@Big Al--The few times I have used the jump seats in my S-10, once as a passenger it has been short distances and very uncomfortable. The back seat in most extended cabs is about as roomy and comfortable as the back seat in a Miata. The back seat in my crew cab Isuzu gets used once or twice a year so an extended cab with a seat delete is more useful. As for regular cabs they are not as practical because I use my truck for other things besides hauling load--groceries, hardware, liquor store trips (case of wine), and other one stop shopping that requires keeping items inside the cab safe from the weather and idle hands. As for the resale value of having the jump seats in extended cab I could care less because I keep my trucks a long time and the residual value is not a major concern of mine. How much more can you get for a 15 plus year old truck that is less optioned than one that is. After 10 years most of a vehicles value is based on condition. As for trade in value you are not going to get much for an older vehicle.

I can't wait for the release of these trucks! I do however believe if GM wants to make a killing in the mid-size truck segment, that they can't wait for 2016 to release the truck with the diesel engine it has to be part of the 2015 release package. I would definetly be a buyer if the diesel engine came out for 2015.

After reading a lot of criticism at other sites about the size of these trucks. I went to the dealership and viewed one myself. The crew cab/long box is loooong, but the size in general isn't bad. It is certainly more practical for those of us who don't have heavier towing chores to perform, yet either prefer or have occasional need of a truck.
I'd love the V6 for its performance but the 4 banger is sounding like it has some promise for most daily chores, and saves a little on the purchase price allowing for some better options too.

Since there is no real word yet on Ford's intentions, it looks like this has moved up to the top of my list.

I would have like to see an option for a mid-gate, as seen in the Avalanche. Offering this option with a half bed (4ft) & roomier cabin would move the appeal into the 'lifestyle' category. That would be great dads like me, who need an reasonably priced family car for the local commute to the soccer game, a comfy ride for the long summer trips with the dogs and hauling full sheets of plywood. I'm not sure why Dodge didn't make that version of the Rampage.

The nimble size, rear view camera and quite cabin are tops of my features list.

I do find the seat a bit uncomfortable after a few miles.

+1 for column shifter & and oversized cup holder.

Bought the crew cab, long box, v-6 SLE in October moved up from a 98 Jimmy.
The Canyon is responsive, great power, a wicked smooth ride.
Highway and town driving I am getting great mileage
I like the rugged nose compared to the cat eyes and rounded nose of the Colorado. I went right into snow and ice season and can say
I love the auto trac and locking diff, if that doesn't cut it I skip up to 4wd very nice! Saved my bacon when those 4 deer crossed.
points I like:
great traction
excellent power
headlights are amazing
I have all the tech I want hands free phone is nice too
points not so great:
4 wheel drive control hidden behind the steering wheel on the dash
The pocket around the wiper arms is too deep and collects ice and snow -a pain to dig it out
no side heated mirrors I love the rear camera but really need those side mirrors clear
The instant info screen is a really nice tool
The telescoping steering wheel is nice, I am very short so being able to put that so I can see over it is great!

No one is asking why the 4WD option on the Canyon cost $6,980.00 when on the full size Sierra it's only $3,980.00. Even on the Ram it's only a $4,000.00 option! What is the justifacation for the extra $3,000.00 and on a smaller Truck??? That should cover the cost of the new diesel option coming in 2016.