With the 236HP 4.0 Tacoma Toyota recommends 91 octane. With less octane it operates at a reduced performance. GM traditionally hasn't offered their utilitarian motors with anything but 87 octane. 242HP for the 3.7 seems pretty stout honestly.

 

I find the Colorado to be an interesting package. Yes, the front end appears so butt ugly to me, I'd almost have to believe that those who designed it, had at least moderately well developed cataracts.

But it's low price and ZQ8 package keeps me interested in it. The power boost can only help.

The problem with the Colorado though, as I see it, is.....when you start optioning it up, and get over $25K or so, why wouldn't you just buy a Silverado instead?

 

Still not quite up with the Nissan Frontier's 4.0-liter DOHC, 24-valve V6 engine, rated at 265 horsepower and 284 lb-ft of torque (best in class hp and torque).

 

True enough. Charlie. Of course, you could substitute Tacoma/Tundra, Frontier/Titan, Ranger/F150, Dakota/Ram in for Colorado/Silverado and ask the same question. I think most people would agree, which is why full size trucks sell in greater volumes than the little ones.

However, there are some who want the extra utility of a bed, but don't need to tow big, want better fuel economy, easier maneuverability/compact size, etc. Someone who is single or has no kids probably doesn't need a crew cab short box full size that gets 19 mpg. A Colorado at 25 mpg would still offer the bed without some of the drawbacks of a big truck. I suppose it's all in how you want to use it.

Heck, for me it is unbelievable that people willingly fork over $40k or more for an SUV like a Tahoe (great though it is) when for that money you could have a C6 or CTS-V, or even a DTS! Damn, buy a beater truck and have the nice car to drive daily!!

 

What percentage of sales do the Extreme and (whatever toyota calls it) amount to?

 

The main reasons I bought a Colorado were

1) size, I work in a city and the Colorado Crew is 18" shorter than a Silverado Ext. cab. They also paint the spots tight at my work

2) fuel economy. I avg. 20mpg during summer 60% city driving. I get 22mpg hwy at 75 mph

3) Insurance = cheaper than Silverado

4) Cost, I could have got a Silverado Crew for $3000 more at the time, but see points 1-3.

5) I think the Colorado is the nicest looking truck in the segment (F-150 is my fullsize pick...for now)


Ford makes a ext cab (not crew) F-150 with a 5.5' bed instead of the 6.5'. It is still a little longer than my Colorado Crew, but I'd strongly consider getting that if I was in the market today if it wasn't for points #2, #3, and #4.

GM really needs to work harder on selling the Colorado to Gen X and Y. The under 30 group really likes the smaller sporty trucks.

 

Actually, GM has this option as well, though it pretty quietly entered the scene for '06.

You can get the extended cab body but with the super short bed from the supercrew / crew cab short box.

That combination gives you the back seat and the supercrew style 5 1/2 ft. bed but on the same wheelbase as a Suburban or a regular cab, long bed pickup.

EDIT: OK, it is on a 1" longer wheelbase than the regular cab long box, though for some reason the website says it is 4" shorter in overall length...

http://www.chevrolet.com/silverado/specifications/ Click on Dimensions

 

I've heard of that, but never seen one on the street. I've seen a few of the F-150s, they look good, you don't really notice that its shorter unless you are looking for it.

 

Two months ago. if Chevy would've offered the Colorado in any trim with even the 4.8L V8 I would be driving one right now.