So I checked out the Detroit Auto Show last night (buddy had an extra supplier ticket), so I got to finally see the show with hardly any crowd at all. Which is SOOOO much nicer, but anyway.

One of the things I wanted to take a look at was the new Tacoma and the Frontier in relation to the Colorado/Canyon. As we all know, when the GMT355s came out for '04, they were rightfully heralded as the best offerings in the class. Of course, they didn't stand much of a chance as MT's "Truck of the Year" and all that, because they were up against the new F150 and the Titan. But in the compact class, they were on their game. So then the reviews started coming in for the Tacoma and Frontier, and they predictably more or less claimed that the new Tacoma (and to a lesser extent, the Frontier) had sort of leapfrogged the 355s to the new head of the class.

Anyway, one thing I'll say after seeing all three of them is that I HATE the pillarless rear doors on extended cabs. There was an Xtreme package Colorado sport ext. cab, along with ext. cab versions of the other two. On all three of them (and the full sizes as well), shutting the front doors feels like CRAP because the "b-pillar" (the rear door) moves when the door impacts it.

First thing I noticed upon walking up to the Tacoma (besides the odd-looking front end, which has some cues from that huge concept truck Toyota showed last year) was that the Tacomas have rear drums. I was disappointed and irritated when the 355s came out with (perfectly adequate and functional, but less marketable) rear drums, but I guess they are good enough for Toyota too. The Frontier did have rear disks, albeit on the small side it seemed. Another intersteing thing about the Tacoma is that you can get a crew cab with the full length bed from the extended cab (not a bed cut down so the crew and extended cab sit on the same wheelbase). Basically a miniature crew cab short bed Silverado. It looks REALLY long, sort of a strange proportion for a 'compact'/'midsize' truck. And the crew cab rear doors looked a little odd somehow. It is something that the others don't offer, though, so if you want the crew cab rear seat along with the longer bed from the reg/ext cabs, Toyota has a Tacoma that fits the bill.

The main thing I was looking at, though, was the interior of each truck. Everyone seems to think that GM (and Nissan too, of late, at least imo) uses hard, cheap plastics, while Toyota makes all their interiors mock Lexus deals. The Colorado was the first vehicle I checked out, and it does have some pretty hard plastics (but still nice looking, IMO). So imagine my relief when I climbed into the Toyota and started "feeling up" ( ) the dash, only to find that it felt EXACTLY the same as the Colorado's. One can argue the style of one over the other (the Tacoma has more of Toyota's lastest them of a metallic-looking plastic center stack around the stereo and HVAC), but overall feel and fit was quite comparable among both. And they were both fine. The Frontier actually probably had the "cheesiest" feeling dash (with some really gritty feeling fabric on the door panels), but even it was really fine. Bottom line? None of these trucks is big money makers, and they all cut costs in the materials chosen for the interiors. Toyota included. It is not just a replica of a Sequoia or Land Cruiser or GX470 dash. They LOOK similar, but they are not the same. Which, in my book, is perfectly fine and reasonable.

I've driven many Colorados, and they are very solid, quiet, and squeak/rattle free. I'm sure the Tacoma is too, and so is the Frontier most likely. The point is that, WHY does it matter if the plastics are not soft enough to sleep on, as long as they look nice and stylish, are reasonably low-gloss to prevent glare on the windshield, and are durable and quiet? Sure, the cars that have the softer touch pads on top of the dash are nice, but how often does one fondle his/her dashboard? Even more, I do not want to hear anyone claim that the Tacoma interior is simply better than that of the 355 twins. It is a little different from a style standpoint, but I don't think it is really any better or worse. At least from my point of view. Obviously I wasn't driving these vehicles, and I didn't get to spend a ton of time in them (it's a big show, and I only had about 3 hours). I'll be checking them out again next weekend (fighting the 80 zillion people who will be there ). But overall I think all three of them are nice trucks, with the Canyon being the nicest looking overall to my eyes.

On a somewhat related note, the new Avalon was there. It is a fairly pretty car, with the standard/only engine being a 3.5L V6 with 280 (!) horsepower. That is pretty cool. It starts in the mid/upper 20s and approaches 40 grand when loaded. It sort of makes the Lexus ES obsolete, except that I think I like the ES interior better (not that I'm the target market for either one). The Avalon's dash is pretty stylish, with the stereo and nav controls hiding behind separate panels for a pretty clean appearance. The entire center stack is that aluminum-look plastic, and it looks ok. Problem is that there are multiple planes of it (because of all the panels that open and close, panels that surround the shifter, and so on), so any alignment issues show up pretty easily. My buddy who was with me (and works at Toyota) pointed about a couple of panel misfits (that I had noticed too), including a fairly obvious one where the dash meets the door. Were they severe? Would they keep me or any other sane person from buying the car? No, and I would hope not. But they were there, even on the flagship Toyota sedan. Of course, these are probably early build pilot models or something, so such things might be less common in production. Regardless, it is a pretty sharp car (for its intended mission).

I've got other crap to blather about, too (like the Scions that were there, plus impressions of the Honda Ridgeline), but I'll have to bring those up in another thread. This post is already too long. Sorry about that.

Oh, and Threxx, I'm not trying to start another GM/domestics vs. Toyota fight here. Seriously. I'm just pointing out that Toyota, while obviously deserving of their quality reputation, is not perfect (the Scions I saw were better examples of this, IMO), and that other makers are quite capable of building same-caliber vehicles. I picked out the Tacoma and the Avalon because the media treats Toyota as the gold-standard of the world.

I'm going to have to spend a lot of time at the show next time, because there is still a lot I didn't see (for long enough, or at all).

 

well, after reading your book , i don't see the big deal with interiors either
as long as they look decent, and are functional, they work me

you can probably tell that i don't "fondle" my dash either

 

Who cares about p/u trucks anyway???? This is CamaroZ28.com not redneckpickup.com.

 

I am ashamed.

 

I see where your coming from. GM screwed up by not making the 4.2 I6 fit.
This is a world class engine that would have put the Colorado/Canyon at the top of the class and kept it there.

Largest tires on the 4X4 are 15"--(what is this 1985???) and the rims are ugly.

I think the Canyon has real ugly front end and the front fenders come up way too high on both versions. I think they need a mild styling makeover.

Good improvemetns on the S-10 but the compettion is better.

 

actually i would like you to prove that. i didnt find one thing about the competition by buddy drove in comparison to my Colorado that i liked better. not to say that there isnt any, but i would have been hard pressed to find it.

 

The colorado is insaney overpriced. Especially the ext cab.

 

I've never been in the market for a smaller pickup truck, but I have to say I was practically sold as soon as I saw a Colorado. And the only thing that changed my mind, was when I saw the Canyon, which I want even more. IMO GM did awesome with both.

And in terms of trucks, I cant imagine buying an import one. Id never send a single cent towards any import manufacturer anyway, so thats not what Im getting at, but with trucks, I cant picture who would. I'd atleast like to hope that guys cant bring their toyota trucks to job sites without catching some flack. GM can use every advantage like that it can get. Americans might still have some pride in their own American trucks, God knows their opinion of our own cars has fallen down the drain.

 

Well what about the engines? Toyotas 4.0 245hp and Nissans 4.0 270hp will leave an I5 sucking exhaust fumes. The I4 beats out other 4 cly trucks though. But if they did the right thing and stuck the I6 in there......

4 speed autos VS 5speeds? The Toyota has a 6 speed manual as well.

I'll be honest--I haven't drove a Colorado/Canyon--not sold on the looks.
But I would like to try one out some time. That reg cab ZQ8 Colorado looks the best.

 

Same here. I wouldn't give an S10 a second thought but the Colorado has a real presence.

BTW, very well written review Joe

 

you also have to look at the weight. the last source i read put my Ext. Cab at just a tad over 3200lbs. i havent really raced any other newer compact trucks but the ones i rode in didnt feel any faster. ill just wait to get actual results.

 

I'm still convinced that Toyota rules the arena on small pickups. My dad has owned four(an 85 that he put 200K miles on, with only the clutch going bad, along with the distributor, an 88 that he put 170K on, with only the a/c needing a recharge, a 98 T100 that he put 90K on without ONE SINGLE THING needing to be fixed, and his new 04 Tacoma).

We know the person we sold the 85 to 7 years ago. They still have it, drive it everyday, put a new paint job on it, still looks nice and has 350K miles on it.

 

Yup - oh well, maybe they'll get a V8

I dont need any big sidewall stealing wheels - plus the tires are cheaper - GM took the cheap tire thing a little too far though

uhhhh....

 

I paid $23,600 for my 2005 Colorado Crew cab Z71 4x4. I think it was a good value.

Not making the I6 fit was a mistake, but at least the V8's fit, now all they need to do it put one in. DoD V8 would be a better choice than a I6 anyways.

15" rims are small, but the tires are bigger. The over all wheel size of a Colorado and Dakota are the same. The Dodge has a bigger rim, but smaller tire on it. smaller rim and bigger side wall tires are better for off raoding and smoother ride. You can always have your dealer swap on some Xtreme 18"s.

The Colorado 4x4 Crew is ~500lbs. lighter than the Nissan Crew cab so that makes up for a lot of HP difference (isn't 100lbs. worth about 10HP )

Colorado still has Class leading fuel economy which is one of the main reasons I got one over a Silevado. The V6 Nissan is a pig, it gets about the same milage as a fullsize V8 Silverado. The Toyota is a littel heavier and gets only 1mpg less but requires premium gas. With a 21gal. tank that is $4.20 extra every fillup just to have 20HP more than a Chevy Colorado.

....also 6 speed automatics are coming for all RWD GM vehicles soon starting with the 2006 STS-v and Corvette. I expect the Colorado to get it for model year 2007.

 

I managed to check out the Nissan Frontier yesterday also at the Auto Show. I expected to be unimpressed and left that way. The Frontier interior is odd to say the least. The rest of the truck seemed to be ok, but has nothing on the 355 twins. Didnt get to see the Tacoma or anything Toyota for that matter and would have been nice to see that truck in person, but I'm not going to lose sleep over it. After driving around a friend's 04 Z71 crew cab a little while back and seeing the Colorado last year and this year, I know I'll be driving an extended cab Colorado Z71 4x4 in silver birch metallic come next year alongside my Z28.