I totally agree, however, when the competitions (Ford, Chrysler, Nissan and Toyota) "compact" pickups have available tow ratings from 6,000 to 7,000 lbs, and my old Sonoma can pull 5,000, WHY has GM decided to go with a 4,000 pound max on the Colorado? Most people that want to tow will buy a full-size truck?!? I tend to disagree, and would suggest that GM needs to remain segment competitive in order to retain their EXISTING customer base.

 

2 reasons (that I know of) emissions, and for a suspession tuned for better ride. GM has said that the Colorado tow rating will be going up in the future. Thats not to say you can't tow more. A lot of people on Coloradofans.com have tow 5,000 no problem.

 

I have a hard time understanding how emissions could be a factor ...

How difficult is it to have a towing option set of springs and shocks ...

Here in Manitoba if we get caught towing more than the manufacturer rating we get expensive tickets. That's not a chance I'm willing to take ....

Towing more than rated has warranty implications ...

If the rating goes up I may look at replacing the Sonoma.

 

The whole compact truck thing has gotten totally off track. I think Ford, by leaving the Ranger a small, underpowered, cheap POS may corner a sub compact truck market.

At this point, there's NO reason to buy a compact truck over a full size. They're almost as big, have almost as much HP, get almost the same crappy mileage, and cost as much if not more.

 

300hp on the H3 wouldn't be going overboard, it'd be at where it should have been to begin with. The thing has a 0-60 in the 10's. It could barely get out of its own way. None is asking for a hot-rod, just a vehicle you don't have to revv the **** out of. Adequate hp has real life uses like highway merging, etc...

In the end, 220hp and 225lb-ft of tq isn't enough in a 4,700lb SUV. You've got SUV's like the Toyota Hybrid Highlander today that'll knock off 6.6 second 0-60's while averaging near 30mpg. Performance and economy. If you're going to create a 4700lb pig, you had better back it up with enough power.

Good news on the 4.2 receiving a jump to 291hp. That'll make it competitive with the new 4.6 294hp Explorers.

 

So is there any use in offering the 5.3 if it is only going to offer 9 extra horses?

 

T-O-R-Q-U-E

 

Good point, that is one reason I like the colorado. It is just the right size for a compact truck. Has anyone seen the Tacoma crew with the 6' bed? whats the point, it is as long as a Silverado Crew and cost just as much, but with no V8.

The 291HP I6 is a great move, Nissan and Toyota were starting to catch up with there new 4.0L V6's.

4.2L = 277tq
5.3L = 330tq

look for the 5.3L to go up in HP when the GMT900's come out.

 

In my haste I over looked that on the webpage. Gets a big "duh" on my part.

Something interesting I never noticed... the I6 makes its max torque lower than the 5.3 (3600 rpm vs. 4000) but max hp is higher (6000 vs 5200).

Must have a pretty good looking torque curve.

 

It's more about what it's used in.

An I5 at 245 horses would be outstanding in a 3200 pound pony car.

An I5 that puts out 225 lbs/ft of torque in a 4000 pound Colorado is lackluster, but OK.

An I5 with those numbers in a 4770 pound Hummer H3 is simply boneheaded.

 

It would be interesting to overlay the 2 torque curves. Regardless of peak, I suspect the 5.3 would be superior throughout the range. IMO the 5.3 probably sounds a lot better too!

From my experience the I6 is a fine motor and as packaged in our Envoy, with 4.10 gears, is quite adequate for trailering a Camaro.

The question that comes to mind for me is why didn't GM use the GMT 360/370 platform for the Colorado/Canyon?

 

To a large extent, it's not the horsepower rating that dictates fuel economy; it's the weight and aerodynamics of the vehicle. As someone noted above, a 400 hp Corvette gets close to 30 mpg while 200 hp SUVs barely break out of the teens. It comes down to simple physics: it takes x amount of power to accelerate a vehicle to speed and keep it there. Whether you get that power with a 400 hp V8 loafing along or a 4-banger working its guts out is not a big deal (excepting frictional and pumping losses).

In other words, these high HP motors come at virtually no penalty, so why settle for less?

 

i think the super tall 6th gear in the vette might help.

 

Well sure it helps, but you also need quite a bit of torque to keep the car motivated along the highway in that steep 6th gear. Which brings me back to high HP cars which are also able to sip gas.

 

I have the heaviest config and I just set a personal milage record in the truck 21mpg , 387mi. on 18.4 gallons. 120mi. of 80mph road trip, then the rest was a ~50/50 city/hwy mix. I have the 3.73 gears.

Hopfully a bump up to 240HP/240tq will give it that extra they many are looking for. (although a 4.8L V8 would be nice)