I agree in principle, but as in the other thread about the BMW 1-series, it's the image most people are buying, regardless of whether a vehicle's true capabilities meet their actual needs. They want to look tough and outdoorsy in a big truck (generalization, of course), and thus a wimpier unibody wouldn't fulfill the same image requirement even if it could do everything else the big truck could.

 

I hear what you're saying and typically I'd agree. But what we're actually talking about is a small truck that will serve as primary day to day transportation and only occasionally used as a truck. There still is a need for a small truck that would be for truck use regularly, for like a mechanic, landscaper, gardener, contractor, plumber, etc. and for that I agree a separate bed is a necessity.

The S10 was a great truck. Its too bad GM felt it needed to be bigger and replaced it with the Colorado.

 

Agree that this applies to a great many folks.

 

It is hardly any bigger!!!

The 3.5L is WAY better on fuel than the 4.3 was. The only S10 that threw up decent fuel economy numbers was the 2.2L, and 120 hp just isn't enough these days.

Why do people keep acting like the Colorado is a Kenworth?

 

Yes but these days GM also has a 2.0L turbo that puts out twice that.

 

Here's the skinny on the S10 vs Colorado:

S10 Crew Cab:

Wheelbase 122.90
Length: 205.30
Width: 67.90
Height: 63.40
Ground clearance: 7.5

Colorado Crew Cab:

Wheelbase 126.00 (+3.1)
Length: 207.10 (+1.8)
Width: 68.60 (+0.7)
Height: 67.90 (+4.5)
Ground clearance: 11.4 (+3.9)

...and the track front and rear is about 2" wider.

The Colorado really isn't much bigger. In current trim it makes 52 horsepower more and 10 ft/lb less torque (190hp/250tq S10 4.3 vs 242hp/242tq Colorado 3.7) Certainly not a barge compared to its predecessor. And the economy is respectable (16/21 Colorado with the 3.7 versus 16/20? with the older 4.3)

But there really is something about wanting a full frame, beefy pickup truck versus a smaller unibody "thing." Because I love these "little" trucks, here's some of my own truck ****, taken last week (and also posted on coloradofans.com)

 

THANKS for posting the specs.

Also, don't forget that the 16/20 rating was on the old scale, while the Colorado's 16/21 is on the new scale. I think it was originally 18/22 or 18/23 in 4wd, automatic form. My 5 speed 2wd was rated 19/25 on the old scale, and I think it is 17/23 now.

EDIT: Nice truck, BTW.

 

If Subaru made a new Brat I would buy one.....

 

The first generation S10 sat on a 108-in (shortbed), or 118-in (longbed) wheelbase. I've also mentioned the Chevy LUV, which sat 102.4-in wheelbase for the shortbed. I wasn't referring to crew/extended cabs. What I was talking about is a small, cheap, entry level pickup, powered by a four-banger (no V6) along these same lines. There are plenty of powerful enough Ecotecs now that GM could find a respectable small truck drivetrain within their current arsenal.

In all honesty, with even the Silverado growing in proportions, a better way to go would be for GM to merge the current Silverado and Silverado HD into a commercial grade true truck line. (Call them Cheyenne if you will.) Then take a next gen Colorado and rebadge it Silverado. (Make both V6 and V8 available.) Then make a true entry level small truck with less than a 110-in wheelbase, two-passenger with a small 6.5-ft bed, powered by a peppy Ecotec and price it around $15K.

To me that would be a winning line-up.

 

I normally agree with you, but I believe that would be an absolute disaster.

The current Silverado has great reviews and is even "recommended" by Consumer Reports (yeah, I hate the damn thing, but to ignore the fact that people "buy" because of their remarks is ignorant.) I think I've read somewhere that GM is going to shrink them a little bit for the next gen. "88-98" size would be perfect, IMO. It's not much, but "enough."

The current colorado has poor ratings from many different sources. Calling the next "silverado" the "colorado" would be a sales nightmare for GM, not to mention, confuse the hell out of consumers.

Small and large have worked together very well for many years. Even the ANCIENT Ranger still has respectable sales numbers. One small truck, one large truck, and ok ok, throw in a damn "mini" unibody truck for the tree huggers based on a stretched cruze? platform???

 

Probably. I'm just talking (typing?) out loud without thinking.
A slightly smaller Silverado would be great. The 88-98 size would be fine by me; however, I actually prefer the 99-02 styling more than the last two.
You're probably right. The current colorado isn't a bad looking truck either. I'm not sure why its doing so poorly.
As someone who owns both "sizes" which do you prefer for your all-around workhouse, run the hardware store, etc. truck... the Silverado or the S10?

The reason I ask, is I'm considering getting a "real" truck (not that I don't try to use the Tahoe as one ). I'm leaning toward a 1996 or newer S10, or a 1974-5 C10. (I know, quite a difference.)

 

Regular cab Colorado sits on a 111 inch wheelbase, 3 inches longer than the equivalent S10. It is small, cheap, and economical. It comes with a 4 cylinder, 5 speed combo rated at 18/24 (20/26 on the old scale, to compare against the S10). It also has 185 hp / 190 lb-ft. I mean, sure, it could be even better on fuel if some variant of the DOHC 2.2L or 2.4L Ecotec, but it isn't like the DOHC 2.9L Atlas four is a V8 or something.

Ford has the regular cab Ranger on a 111.5 inch wheelbase with a smaller 2.3L with more modest power and even better fuel economy: 22 / 27 mpg (probably 24/29 on the old scale).

The equivalents to the old OHV 2.2L base S10 are still out there. The problem is that hardly anyone buys them, I'm guessing. But you can still get them.

 

I guess to sum it up? Make gas $1.50-2.00/gallon, and tell me it will stay there for the next 5-10 years and I'd sell the S-10.

However, I love driving the 5spd dime. I've added a couple performance enhancers to the dime (electric fans, bored throttle body, cold air intake) and they seemed to have helped. *Maybe*a 1mpg city improvement, but no noticable highway improvement, but it's a bit more peppy. I'm getting 22-23 city and 28-30 highway depending on speed and A/C (A/C sucks A LOT of power off of the 2.2L, it's VERY noticable under accleration.) Plus, I think it's a "hot" little truck. I LOVE the 98-04 styling. 94-97 have the "smaller" grill and the "integrated" rear bumpers, while the 98-04's have the "siverado" grill styling and seperate rear bumpers.

I also love the 99-02 Silverados. My two trucks are almost twins styling-wise. You could even argue that both stole styling cues from the 67-72 trucks, moreso the 67/68 grill/hood, and what do ya know? I have a 67 C-10 too

It's hard to say because my trucks have very different purposes. I typically make a winter trip to NY and the 4wd ext. cab is great for snow and keeping all of my stuff dry and the dogs get the back seat. Fuel mileage is about 14 city and 18 highway.

I do drive the S-10 more because it is so much better on gas, so anything that will easily fit in the dime bed, I'll use it.

The silverado is used whenever I need to use my trailer or tow the boat, something the 2.2L S-10 could never dream of doing. We also live only a few miles from "everything" so my wife and I will take it to dinner or store so she's run regularly. Unless I have a trip coming up, I only fill up the 67 and Z71 once every month, sometimes two, but I do make a few road trips a year with each.

Some people think I'm crazy for having 3 trucks, but with age comes cheapness. I paid 16K for the Z71 when it was a little over 4 years old. I bought the S10 in 08 for 3,900 cash with 92K on it. The 67 is my baby I've owned since 1996. All 3 trucks are paid for, all have comprehensive insurance, and I pay a measly $1,200/year for them ALL. Another bonus is that SC makes you pay a property tax on vehicles every year. A new vehicle could easily be $6-800/year. My trucks are old enough now that all 3 combined are a little over $200/yr.

 

Thanks. I'm an old truck man myself. My dad had a 65 GMC longbed which I helped him restore as a teen. It was my daily driver when I was in high school until I bought my 67 Chevelle my senior year. The very next day my younger brother crashed it into a tree and totalled it. The only thing worth salvaging was the motor and bed. My uncle promised me he'd give me his 51 Chevy 3100 5-window when I was 5. When I was 16 I started bugging him about it at least once a week. He finally gave it to me when I was in my mid-20s and I kept it running for years. I was finally forced to get rid of it when I lost my free storage space, so I gave it to a friend and its now a shop truck out in Manteca. Before the Tahoe, we had a 96 Blazer. Great little truck/SUV. I'm finding that while I love the Tahoe, its getting to a point where I need a real open bed, maybe even lumber racks, at least occasionally. I want either something cheap and economical, or something that I can turn into a rat rod, and still use as a truck on weekends. A bit of a stretch, but it may make the difference between me keeping one or two Camaros. (If I get the "rat rod", both 67s go up for sale... if newer truck... I keep one.) I pick those years intentionally... 1975 is the cut-off for biannual smog checks and the State is talking about moving over to an easier OBDII check in a few years, so 1996 or newer. Sure I'm leaving out a lot of great GM trucks (1976-95), however I still have some good ones to choose from.

Thanks again.

 

No offense, but comprehensive insurance is most likely a waste of money on the S10. The insurance company will total it quickly and give you next to nothing for it. Unless you have the 67' appraised and verified by your insurance company, the same is true for it.

Just trying to help you out.