Something GM should've done a long time ago, going back to the S-10...

 

It was introduced with an anemic 4.0 V6 as the only available engine, and a solid rear axle. It was priced and optioned all wrong, the bed was too small, was slow as **** and had horrible fuel economy, and was written off by nearly everyone. Ford made numerous attempts over the years to improve it with IRS ( hardly an improvement*), and the V8 option, but it was pointless.

* Ford's truck IRS has been the one of the biggest mistakes they have EVER made. The entire system is extremely problem prone. EVERY. SINGLE. COMPONENT.

And like stated many times before, dropping the S-10 years ago was a huge mistake. It sold very well because of what it wasn't. It wasn't expensive, big, heavy, powerful, or a gas guzzler. With the Colorado, the made it bigger, heavier, more expensive, killed the fuel milage, and introduced a alienating 5 cylinder. Seriously? A 5 cylinder?

 

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Ours just differ.

 

'05 Colorado 4x4 crew cab = 17/22mpg
'03 S-10 4x4 crew cab = 15/19mpg

4cyl. mileage was about the same, although Colorado had more power. Colorado was barely a bigger or heavier truck. Kind of funny, all the magazines in 2004 complained that the Colorado was too small compared to the competition. The problem with the Colorado and Ranger is that GM and Ford left them to rot. It happens to every vehicle that isn't updated regularly.

Tacoma is still out selling the Tundra.

 

- introduced with 4.0 V6?
- introduced with SRA?
- Bed too small? Compare it to a real truck.
- underperforming engine? Why do you think they later introduced the V8?
-poor fuel economy? The V8 models get nearly identical milage.
-Explorer IRS being extremely problem prone? Do you NEED a list of TSBs?

Those are facts, not opinions.

 

I think you missed the point. The S-10 sold so well because there was a demand for the small, low option base model truck that were dirt cheap.

I had an 88 S10 so I'll use that in my example as it had an extremely common option content - one that sold well

88 S10, 2.5L 5 speed: 21 city 27 highway

A similar 04 Colorado cost more (even accounting for inflation), was larger and heavier, and got poorer milage at 18/24.

 

You really couldn't just accept me having a different opinion. Whatever I have some time.

I am not a fan of the 1st generation but the 2nd I like and the one I know more about.

The second generation facts:
Introduced with IRS?
Class exclusive
Larger bed?
Tacoma= 5'3" or 6'1"
Colorado=5'1"
Sport Trac=4'6"
Engine that overpowered the competition?
Tacoma 4.0 L V6=236 hp
Colorado 3.7 L I5=242 hp
Sport Trac 4.6 V8=292 hp
Equivalent fuel economy with greater power?
Fueleconomy.gov shows the Sport Trac is down 2 mpg (avg) on the Colorado 3.7/4 speed crew cab and the Tacoma 4.0 5 speed auto.
Exploere IRS offering a smoother ride on and off road?

Funny, doing a google search for "explorer IRS complaints" brings up nothing. Also bringing up "explorer suspension complaints" brings up nothing related to the IRS models. Also a TSB doesn't necessarily mean a problem exists, and I can't find any of them so I don't know what to believe.

Why don't you give me a link to those TSBs so I can read through them myself?

 

Try a better search, yours is too broad.

If a TSB doesn't mean a problem exists, what does it mean!!!!!!??????? It provides technical information for either a very common problem or a commonly misdiagnosed problem.

Gear whine problems. TSB 05-23-03
They are notorious for chewing up carrier bearings. Also TSB 05-23-03
Rear diff clutch pack problems. TSB 06-4-4
Rear wheel bearing problems. TSB 05-28-8
The rear axle seals leak. TSB 05-23-03
Redesigned rear axle seals leaking TSB 08-19-3
Incorrect fluid fill from factory. Addressed in numerous TSBs
Rear diff mounted ABS speeds sensors redesigned 3 times. TSB 03-26-03
06+ ABS exciter rings crack

Gear whine is present in probably <30% of vehicles. Most were repaired under warranty with complete units. Carrier bearing failure rate is extremely high, as is the rear axle seal failure. The rear (and front too) wheel bearing failure will be found on nearly EVERY 02-05 Explorer/Mountaineer/Aviator. Wheels have fallen off on numerous occasions due to complete bearing separation. In fact, I've got one right here. I will take a picture for you

Rear coil springs on the Explorer/Mountaineer only (Aviator uses different springs) break often. Coil over shocks leak. Parking brake shoes corrode and fall apart on nearly all vehicles - Ford did not put an access hole in the backing plate to adjust the shoes in Well, in all fairness the provision is there, but they half-assed it as usual and did not punch out the hole.

Summary:

Gear setup problems, bearing problems, fluid problems, sensor problems, axle problems, clutch problems, coil spring problems, wheel bearing problems, and brake problems.

I'm a Ford Senior Tech. These piles are my bread and butter.

Finally, the Sport Trac did not sell well, and you admit that. I gave you several legitimate reasons why. You brush them off, yet offer no good reason why they didn't sell. Hello? I work on them, assisted in selling them, and spoke to potential and current owners.

 

It was an interesting and unique proposition at the time. The 3.5L 5-cylinder had 30 more horsepower than the outgoing 4.3L V6 and got better fuel mileage. When the I5 was updated and grew to 3.7L in 2006? horsepower grew to 242, which is 52 more horsepower than the outgoing 4.3, and it still has better fuel mileage. The base 4-cylinder came with 180hp, which is only 10hp less than the outgoing 4.3. Now, why couldn't they just have put the 4.2L Inline 6 in there? I don't know. Maybe a space issue? Or maybe just a rectal-cranial inversion at GM...

Personally, I love the 5-cylinder. It's efficient, and has a very unique sound, but doesn't feel cheap/buzzy like a 4-cylinder. It's too bad they didn't find uses for the engine in other GM platforms. Volvo and VW were offering 5-cyls in their cars at the time and sold very well.

 

Thank you for providing the info instead of just saying it is out there. Much more helpful. Here is the issue with why those problems didn't cause a low sales number: nobody knows about it. Like I said I looked, I searched, and I have followed the vehicle history and yet I didn't know. What makes you think the majority of the public would know?

The fact remains that very few members of the general public even know the product exists; so they won't be buying it. Pretty simple.

I am not 'brushing off' your opinion, I am merely stating my own. I also gave my reasons, which you summarily dismissed. I also gave facts which showed that the revised model actually has better specs than the competition, that you ignored.

 

Colorado fuel economy is better than the S10s, except for the base, stripper, 2wd 4 cylinder 5 speed model.

It was still comparable, however (2wd 5 speed vs 2wd 5 speed). There was no option to get 4 cylinders with 4 wheel drive in the S10 (at least not in recent years), but that became an option with the Colorado. The 120 hp four cylinder S10 was pathetic compared to the 180 hp / 190 lb-ft 2.8L Colorado base engine.

I think 2wd S10s with the 180 hp 4.3L and 5 speed were rated at 15 or 16 city, 21 or 22 hwy. My 220 hp 2005 Colorado 5 speed is rated at 19 city, 25 hwy (both trucks on the pre-'08 EPA window sticker ratings).

The Colorado is NOT a very big truck. I think it is a bit wider inside than the S10, and the extended cab got a few extra inches (barely enough to justify forward facing, rather than side facing, rear jump seats).

 

I may have ignored them. But that's because the point I was trying to make is that the new, improved version wasn't signifcant enough to overcome to shortcomings of the previous model. Nobody knew/knows the difference because the first was executed so poorly. That, and the bed is too small

About the S10 vs Colorado: I'm aware of the merits of that 5 cylinder engine option. But the general buying public is NOT. They simply see a 5 cylinder, and no 6 cylinder option. That alone IMO scared off many potential customers.

 

When is the 4.3L really going to be gone? I had thought they were out of production, but a multiport fuel injected version at 195HP is still vailable in Silverado WT's and Express vans.

I personally think though that the 4.3L and the Colorado engines need to all die and be replaced with Ecotecs in for the I4s and V6s that are available in the passenger cars.

 

Except none of the current mid sized trucks on the market today fit my target definition. They all need a redo in the refinement department, and a good bump in MPG.


The way I see it, this would be a good transition for people with full sized trucks that still want a modern truck with all its refinements and safety features, but just want something smaller and better gas milage.


If not, then someone looking for a cheap decontented work vehicle is probably better off getting something like a ford transit, or a cheap 1500 work truck. The avg consumer I guess could get something car-crossover based, which is much more refined, but not as capable in the payload/towing truck aspects.


I just don't see a low optioned, relatively rough, low margin mid sized truck selling in decent numbers in the US. (Are the work truck versions of the mid sized trucks today selling in decent volumes either?) Mahindra, you are welcome to try to prove me wrong.


BTW, I have to admit that I didn't even know the Sport Trac was even still in production. The first review article I looked up, listed a dated interior as a CON.

 

The question then is whether people would pay for it. What you suggest would cost extra money, and there is already very little difference in price.

One reason the full size trucks are so good and so inexpensive is that their high volumes justify significant investment. The small trucks' volumes and prices don't.

Now maybe a refined small truck with lots of engineering investment in fuel economy would pay off in huge volumes that would allow it to spread out the development costs and still be sold below the price of the full-size. I kind of doubt it, however. And it seems no one is going to risk it.

I like the small trucks better too, if I were going to own one. The 1999 Tacoma with 3.4 V6 and a 5 speed was a lot of fun and sounded great. If GM built a truck that size with the DI 3.6, I'm sure I would feel the same about it. But I still wouldn't buy it, and probably not enough others out there would, either.