2012 Chevrolet Colorado Patent Filing
07-03-2010, 07:55 AM
#46
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: CNY
Posts: 2,224
I'm pretty a sure a full size truck isn't going to come anywhere near that.
I would bet that a Silverado, regular cab, 2wd, with it's base engine (whatever that is) or any optional engine would probably be no better than 15-16 mpg mixed and 18-19 (maybe 20, if you're lucky) mpg on the highway.
That, to me, is a big difference.
Plus, the fullsizers feel too big to me. I feel like I'm swimming in them.
Remember those Mini-Wheat commercials where the little kid is wearing the adult clothes? That's what I feel like when I'm inside a full size truck. And I'm not a small guy.
Last edited by HuJass; 07-05-2010 at 01:44 PM.
07-03-2010, 08:52 AM
#47
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 538
GM also had a 4 month hiatus on diesel engine production while they retooled for the LML that's going into the 2011 HD's. These are just now starting to arrive at dealers with any real numbers. There's a likelihood the GM HD sales figures will increase in the coming months.
Last edited by Derek M; 07-03-2010 at 08:57 AM.
07-05-2010, 11:21 AM
#49
Registered User
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 1,023
The real argument is in capability - towing capacity, bed size, etc which is the value proposition for the small $ bump to a fullsize, but unfortunately nobody really considers the loss of versatility, i.e. the Colorado crew still fits in a 2-car garage, it can still be parallel parked downtown and with relative ease in tight spaces, and the Z71 is quite agile in more technical offroad pieces than a longer full-size would be.
07-05-2010, 07:19 PM
#50
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Albany, NY
Posts: 10,287
The Colorado/Canyon had three things working against it.
The first was before a potential customer knew much about the truck.
The I5.
I think a lot of people were turned off to the truck when they learned that it had an I5. People are scared of change and new things. Not many Americans are familiar with I5 engines. Therefore, they stayed away.
The Colorado should have had a V-6 option to compete with Toyota's & Nissan's V-6s..
The first was before a potential customer knew much about the truck.
The I5.
I think a lot of people were turned off to the truck when they learned that it had an I5. People are scared of change and new things. Not many Americans are familiar with I5 engines. Therefore, they stayed away.
The Colorado should have had a V-6 option to compete with Toyota's & Nissan's V-6s..
Wasn't really an issue in late 2003 when it came out, but by 2006 it looked dated. MY 2007 should have seen an update to at least something like they did with the '07 Equinox interior.
07-05-2010, 08:22 PM
#51
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: CNY
Posts: 2,224
Yeah, I constantly had to defend the I5 in my Colorado, that or people couldn't believe it was only a 5cyl. The specs of the engine vs. the competitions V6 almost didn't matter. 270HP I6 4.2L should have been the top engine. The guy who decided the truck didn't need that engine should have been fired.
Nah, it was. I remember hearing and reading people's responses to the interior before the truck really made it to the dealers in large numbers. Nobody was impressed with the interior right from day one.
07-05-2010, 09:31 PM
#53
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Pewee Valley, KY
Posts: 4,600
07-06-2010, 08:39 AM
#55
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Albany, NY
Posts: 10,287
Not by much. I think I remember reading that it would it with an electric fan but not the belt driven one like in the TB or on the I5. I also believe I remember reading that the I6 needed about 1-2 more inches. It has been a long time since I followed the Colorado scene so my #'s could be off a little. In 2008 we got the V8, if only that was available on day 1 I don't think people would have complained as much about the I5.
It was never impressive, but It wasn't any worse than anything else on the market at that time. The only truck with anything substantially better in 2004 was the F150.
It was never impressive, but It wasn't any worse than anything else on the market at that time. The only truck with anything substantially better in 2004 was the F150.
07-06-2010, 08:40 AM
#56
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Albany, NY
Posts: 10,287
07-06-2010, 04:06 PM
#57
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Oakland, California
Posts: 9,710
I thought the SSR was awesome. (At least it was a kick to drive at GM Autoshow In Motion. 
) I wish they would've made a cheaper hard-top version; I'd have bought one if they weren't so darn expensive.
) I wish they would've made a cheaper hard-top version; I'd have bought one if they weren't so darn expensive.
07-06-2010, 05:47 PM
#58
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Pewee Valley, KY
Posts: 4,600
07-06-2010, 06:18 PM
#59
Super Moderator
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Okemos, MI
Posts: 9,488
07-06-2010, 07:23 PM
#60
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Albany, NY
Posts: 10,287
I agree. I always thought the same thing. I remember how I kept reading the retractable hard top was so expensive. If they did a fixed roof for say $29k they would have sold a lot more and averaged out the cost out over more than just the 24,150 convertibles.