GM Inside News Forum banner

2015 GMC Canyon Long-Term Review: Testing the Base Model

1K views 3 replies 4 participants last post by  red_rider 
#1 ·

After telling people the price of our long-term Canyon tester, I’ve heard the same response like it’s stuck on repeat. They all says its seems expensive.

At just over $40,000, I can’t disagree that it feels steep for a midsize pickup, but you have to take into account that our long-term Canyon is loaded up with content. To get a better perspective on GM’s new midsize truck, we borrowed a base-model Canyon extended cab equipped with the 2.5-liter four cylinder and a manual transmission, which sends its power exclusively to the rear wheels.

This truck only costs $24,515. If it did have the automatic, the price would climb to $25,165. To get the manual, you must order either a Canyon Work Truck or the base model – referred to simply as the Canyon – in extended cab rear-wheel drive form.

On the inside, this is an honest work truck, sporting cloth seats and plastic covered everything. The excellent ergonomics and attractive design of the center stack aren’t lost when you go for the cheaper model, while the storage in the doors and on the dash offer plenty of space for a contractor or electrician to stash their odds and ends.

What I truly miss from the more expensive truck are the radio controls on the back of the steering wheel and the LCD information screen located between the gauges, which is replaced by a simple black and white display. But for over $10,000 less, you can chalk that up to me being a little spoiled, as everything in this truck works just like it should.

Being an extended cab, rear seat space is expectedly cramped, offering only 28.6 inches of legroom. These seats are really only good for tools or children and if you never plan on using them for the latter, you might be better off in a Colorado with the rear seats deleted, which is an option the GMC Canyon doesn’t offer. The back seats fold up to expose small plastic storage bins, but they only get in the way if you need to store larger items.

The small four-banger makes 200 hp and 191 lb-ft of torque. The six-speed manual has long throws, but it’s nicely weighted and clicks into gear easily. That notchy feeling makes rowing through all six ratios a breeze and I would even call it fun. The clutch is nicely weighted allowing for easy first-gear starts and the added hill start assist setup works brilliantly for keeping the Canyon’s rear bumper out of the nose of the car behind.

But there is an issue with the manual. For me, the foot operated parking brake is a little too close to the clutch and more than once I got my left foot caught up on the underside of the parking brake when moving from the dead pedal to the clutch.

Getting this little truck up to speed is a chore with the four-cylinder and manual transmission. Acceleration in first and second gear feels decent in the low rev range, but beyond that, you need to stay in high RPMs to have any kind of meaningful power, made particularly tricky by the powerplant’s tendency to resist revving up. For example, passing on the highway usually calls for a double downshift from sixth to fourth.

The maximum tow rating on this truck is 3,500 lbs. While I didn’t get to test that number first hand (our tester didn’t have a hitch), I wouldn’t want to pull any more than that after feeling what this powertrain has to offer. That said, ride and handling aren’t ...
For the rest of this review, 2015 GMC Canyon Long-Term Review: Testing the Base Model please visit AutoGuide.com.
 
See less See more
1
#4 ·
Agreed a decent review, I would've considered a WT Canyon instead of the Chevy if there was more of a GMC dealer network around me. I think the 2.5 is overall pretty good, but an improved tune would really be all it needs from my experience. Too many people care about the advertised peak hp, I would gladly trade 10-15 hp at 6500 for some extra hp/torque at 1500-2500 rpm. That along with a quicker rpm drop between shifts would make it great imo (the 6-speed is still fun to row through though). I can't complain however, my last tank was hand calculated 27 mpg, 50/50 city/hwy. 1800 miles so far
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top