GM Inside News Forum banner

GMI Review: 2015 GMC Canyon All Terrain

9K views 50 replies 28 participants last post by  outbackandy 
#1 ·
Functional fun in a more frugal package
www.GMInsideNews.com
April 17, 2015
By: Mark Stevenson



Even with all the hoopla over Cadillac’s newest toys, this is by far my most anticipated press vehicle of the year: the 2015 GMC Canyon. Not because it’s over-the-moon impressive or blows the old Canyon and its competitors out of the water. No. It’s that GM bothered to build it at all.

Manufactured for the eight years spanning 2004 to 2012 in Shreveport, Louisiana (Go Knockers!), the Chevrolet Colorado and GMC Canyon were never particularly brilliant trucks. If you wanted a pickup and couldn’t afford a Silverado/Sierra or didn’t have room to park it, the Colorado and Canyon were your penalty box twins — kind of like the Sedin brothers, but not as interesting or as good looking.



But, relinquishing an entire segment, especially one that involves red-blooded American pickup trucks, is not something GM is going to let the import brands get away with. No sir. Not on their watch. And they vowed to get back in the game as Ford and Chrysler twiddled their thumbs on the sidelines.

Truth be told, the compact and midsize pickup game is kind of like being in a feeder series racing league. Sure, you get to race at all the big tracks and spectators will watch, but they aren’t really there to watch you. Most automakers really don’t care about their midsize offerings. Have you seen the Frontier lately? And I’m fairly certain the only reason GM got back in this game is to later put someone in a full-size, big boy truck. But, thankfully, the Colorado and Canyon are no longer the penalty boxes they used to be. Not by a long shot.



Let’s look at the design first, especially in comparison to the lesser Colorado. For once, GM has figured out a GMC truck should look better than a Chevrolet. During its first generation, the Colorado was definitely the ‘sportier’ looking of the two. Now, wearing more mature metalwork, the Canyon wins out. Same goes for the Silverado and Sierra.

GMC’s truckled pulls off its best impression of the Sierra lacking growth hormone. It might be smaller but still looks tough, grown up, and luxurious at the same time. I was smitten. So were a number of people I caught looking at it as I drove past.



Inside, it’s typical modern GM truck trimmings, right down to the switch gear. That’s not a bad thing, but the dials as part of the IP and the horrible blue accent colors have overstayed their welcome. Also, GMC IntelliLink annoys me more and more each time I use it. It’s time to take the underlying software and hardware for all of GM’s infotainment systems out behind a barn. Everything else - the look and feel of materials, overall design, and the sound-deadening that makes it one of the quietest cabins on the market - are all fantastic. When it comes to space for your friends, it will make for a cramped trip if everyone is 6-feet tall. But, if you have little ones, they’ll be absolutely fine in the back.

Under the hood of our tester was GM’s popular 3.6-litre V6 engine producing a healthy 305 horsepower and 269 lb-ft of torque sent to the wheels by way of a six-speed automatic transmission. The engine might not be the best sounding unit, but it makes up for it by delivering power in as linear a fashion as a naturally-aspirated V6 can. The transmission is smooth but not necessarily quick to shift when needed. I can deal with that. I’d rather it be smooth during 95 percent of my travels than fast for the other 5 percent. Also, unlike Chrysler’s 9-speed slush box, you can legally use all gears in every state. Good luck using ninth in Virginia and not being thrown in jail.



While the ride quality of any pickup isn’t going to win awards, the Canyon puts in a valiant effort and won’t break your back. Not even close. If anything, it soaked up bumps just as good as a Sierra.

And yet, even if I was in the market for a truck, I’d really think hard about the Canyon. Not because it’s bad. Far from it. But, the price is incredibly close to full-size pickups, especially compared to one still sitting on the lot from last year with cash on the hood. The other thing is size. The Canyon is far from small. For my needs, I want something lower and made easier to load motorcycles and other “lifestyle” toys. With the extra height of this new generation of midsize trucks, effort to load them up increases, decreasing my interest in purchasing one.

All in all, the Canyon is a solid buy for someone looking for a truck in that weight-class. That it beats the Frontier is a no-brainer. But, we will have to wait and see what testers say about the new Tacoma and whether its new Atkinson-cycle V6 is up to the rugged task of truck duty.

2015 GMC Canyon All Terrain Gallery
 
See less See more
5
#2 ·
Easily, the best looking truck anywhere. Hopefully, GM does something with the transmission. I know exactly what you mean, if you step down too much it's like operating a sewing machine, but not too hard it is quite pleasing.
 
#11 · (Edited)
Based on the reviews I have read the 3.6L gets more comments that it is "OK", or "adequate" and have yet read one that raved about it.

Think GM really needs to consider the 4.3L in the Canyon since it produces more torque and paired to an 8-speed (which it needs to be in the Sierra anyway), it should produce good real world MPG and have more pulling power for owners when they are using their Canyon in "Truck" driving situations. It would also spread costs with the 4.3L used in the Sierra and the 4.3L was designed from the start to be a "truck engine" for a larger/heavier truck.

Think the 4.3L higher torque would cure most of the slow downshift issues as well.

Add a Supercharger and the 4.3L could produce 450HP/450 lb-ft by direct calculations from the 6.2L Z06.

Granted it would be more like 400/400 in a Canyon or Sierra but that is more than enough for most hauling applications.

The larger displacement will give the 4.3L better driveability over a smaller turbocharged that can get overwhelmed by loads when there is not enough "air" in the "air pump" (that a I.C. engine is) to provide "resistance" based on my experience driving my niece's F-150 with the 3.5T.
 
#9 ·
I'd say get the Cadillac TTV6 in it and call it a Cyclone.

As far as the 95%/5% on the transmission, my Malibu was the same. However, it really needed a lot more polish on that 5%. The car and all the HP was useless if there was busy traffic on the highway and I wanted to get into a faster lane, it was to the point it almost got me into accidents until I just gave up trying and just poked along in the slower lane until a big opening popped up. The hesitation between my mashing the pedal to when the transmission finally decided to downshift was way to long, if I stepped out into the left lane someone would rear end me by the time the power came up. If I mashed the pedal in the lane I was in then I'd risk hitting the guy in front of me. Very hard to manage.

Nice review!!!!!
 
#13 · (Edited)
If "New GM" continues to be "Old GM', then it is pointless, but if New GM gets in tune with what buyers are really asking for then it is not.

GM had better not get complacent with early sales since Toyota Tacoma sales were up 14.4% last month (15,885) and are up 12.6% YTD so Tacoma sales are still growing. Other thing is that millions of happy S-10/Sonoma owners loved their 4.3L V6 and want the new 4.3L V6 (most are aware it is a completely different engine).

GM needs to satisfy old S-10/Sonoma owners going forward since they are never going to attract many Tacoma owners to a Colorado/Canyon, but can attract and sell a Colorado/Canyon to the millions of Dakota, Ranger and S-10/Sonoma owners who have no issue with the fact the 4.3L is an OHV V6.

Not sure why GM insists on making everything difficult for themselves when they are sitting on the largest owner base of any U.S. market automaker. Maybe if GM utilized this advantage the Colorado and Canyon would outsell the Tacoma since working from strength sure seems to work for everyone else.

I can see the Colorado outselling the Tacoma if GM would make full use of it's S-10 owner base and the Canyon would sell above current Colorado sales with neither making much impact on Silverado and Sierra sales. In fact Silverado and Sierra sales will improve with higher dealer traffic coming to buy a Canyon. That is how I ended up buying a Sierra instead of the Sonoma I looked at and test drove first.
 
#16 ·
Really don't like how above the corner bumper steps they have molded bumps sticking up from the bumper. It should just be flat the whole way across.
 
#24 ·
Wow, a Colorado/Canyon thread and it's morphed into a bigger engine discussion and not one post about the upcoming diesel.
 
#40 ·
One sentence. Build the ZR2 diesel and I will happily buy one. LOL.

Okay in all seriousness I'm excited to see what the diesel engine can offer when it debuts on our shores
 
#25 ·
A lot of misconception on bigger engine size. The old S10/Sonoma crowd is after a smaller truck, not the 4.3 (whos engine wasn't exactly fruit-loops and rainbows). Who ever said the bigger engine would make the transmission shift better :doh:

Smaller engines are here to stay, they are better on gas which is a big selling point and why the new Tacoma is going to a 3.5. The 3.6 has a nice flat torque curve and revs well, I am curious to see what the LGX will look like in these trucks; it already is supposed to make at or over 350 hp in the CT6 from what I have heard.

Tyler
 
#32 ·
It's a truck and for many consumer's it's a direct replacement for a FS truck. GM should have put the 4.3 in the thing, clearly. That's the closest equivalent to a pushrod V8 the FS buyer's get and that's a good fit for this package.

Quoting 1/4 mile times to judge a truck engine's performance is just silly. The 3.6 in the Twins doesn't even feel nearly as powerful as the 4.3 does in the FS trucks, much less the 6.2!

The engine selection was GMs BIG error on these trucks. Huge. The other issues are just nuisances, but the gasoline engine choice was an error and I'm certain that GM brass is well aware of the complaints. There are also a fair number of used low mileage twins available already, 2 at the local dealer in Bastrop, TX I saw last week. I'd bet dollars to donuts powertrain complaints are the reason why those trucks came back, it's the one overriding complaint about the MS Twins that I read about over and over again.
 
#36 ·
Well, I guess you need to venture over to Toyota or Nissan to get your V8 midsized trucks.

Oh yea, GM tried that game already and they killed it already.

Look, we have the truck we do. Wishing for a V8 is just that. The 3.6 is more than enough for 98% of the work that people will put the truck through. Just because it's not fast enough for some few people on here doesn't mean that it was the wrong decision.
 
#46 ·
I'm a 2002 Tacoma TRD owner and I probably will buy a Colorado in a few years.

I still have my '92 S-10 with a 4.3/five speed. Nearly 300000 miles on the engine and still strong. The trany only lasted half that and the rebuild is not doing so well (fourth has issues.) There is enough low end torque that I can skip 1:1 and go right to overdrive anyway. I need to get rid of it but I've had it since it was new.

I'm sure GM sells enough 4.3's in the full size. I doubt they sell near as many rear drive 3.6'es. At least it dosen't have AFM.
 
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