Hurricane Ike: An Argument for Small Trucks, and Shreveport

[Code Red]

Originally Posted by TKR

Hi Ming,

Check out the TVC for the Holden Colorado. More to your liking?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8EaTaj8hig

its amazing the holden commerical is filmed alot like the thailand colorado commericals

[Ming]

Originally Posted by TKR

Hi Ming,

Check out the TVC for the Holden Colorado. More to your liking?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8EaTaj8hig

I love that! I think GM must be rooted in its opposition to showing off the Colorado/Canyon in this light in the US. It might steal full size sales!

Still, I'd play up the fuel efficiency and "good in an emergency" angles with the 4-cyl. model.

[TKR]

Originally Posted by Ming

I love that! I think GM must be rooted in its opposition to showing off the Colorado/Canyon in this light in the US. It might steal full size sales!

Still, I'd play up the fuel efficiency and "good in an emergency" angles with the 4-cyl. model.

How about a 4x4 Crew Cab version with a 3.0l turbo diesel and 6,000lbs tow rating? 26mpg average.

[Ming]

Ack, you lucky blokes!

[KingElvis]

Originally Posted by Ming

I'd normally love it, even with the V8, but with gas prices where they are, even the 3.6L V6 is not a gas sipper, and since I live in a flood prone area, the clearance would still be an issue.

I have a 2004 Safari AWD that is good for now, but it's a gas pig and we avoid driving it much. When I trade it in I'd like a vehicle similar to a crew cab Canyon / Colorado I4.



First, thanks! And a pre-emptive thanks to others. It was sure scary with all of the 70-foot pines around.

I took on the "full size is better" angle in my commentary. While it may be true in some cases, I don't think it's true for crew cabs (and that's all I'm interested in).

2009 GMC Canyon Crew Cab 2WD VL-3 Invoice $21,000 - I4 (18/24)
2009 GMC Sierra 1500 Crew Cab 2WD Invoice $25,000 - V8 (Not 16/22!) --- It's not listed yet where I've looked - is it 14/19 for the base V8 engine?

14/19 at $25,000
vs.
18/24 at $21,000

Even if it's 15/20, that's still a good difference. 3-4 more miles per gallon, though I'll I guess it really depends on whether or not you NEED the capability of a Sierra. If not, you'll save on the sticker and on gas, unless of course GM is having another one of its infamous fire sales on the big trucks.

I guess the 16/22 was for a reg cab 2wd (perhaps I was confusing it also with "XFE" trucks) - so a 5mpg difference would be 25% better. Nothing to sneeze at considering gains from hybrid drive aren't much better.

I'll have to admit, I - along with another GMI-er (Shadams?) was pretty amped to hear about a V8 colorado. If you had Mustang like performance, and say 22mpg with DOD 5.3L - boy that would be very tempting.

[SCCA1995]

After having 2 s10s (a '95 4-cyl & '97 4.3 2wd), I have to say they were better overall vehicles than what I've seen from the Colo/Canyon. Before I bought a GTO, I was looking at getting a Canyon. But the interior was the only major sticking point. Looked cheaper than the Sonoma/S10, looked cheesy with the guage surrounds looking like gears. Also, any of the extended cabs with the suicide rear doors, when you close the front door, the rear doors vibrate like mad. Talk about cheap! Oh, & gas mileage on the S10s wasn't bad. About 5 miles city, 5 miles highway driving: 22mpg (4-cyl), 21 mpg (4.3).

[johnriley]

You aren't going to drive over any logs with this, but this Chevrolet Tornado is my idea of how you get a small higher mileage pickup. (This was at the Cedar Rapids, Iowa airport - I have no idea what it was doing there. It had Iowa dealer plates.)

[Steel4ring]

I love my Colorado Crew Cab......very handy for the small jobs around the yard and running to Home Depot.....I commute 80 miles a day.....I have a 2wd 2.8L and I get 23 MPG on the highway....not great but okay.

[iluvcamaros]

As an S-10 owner I can say the Colorado/Canyon definately lost something in the transition. I think it is mostly that they don't really look like a true GM pickup, they look like Isuzu's. I was a GM fan even in the very bad old days (pretty much anytime prior to the '08 Malibu, '08 CTS, '10 Camaro, and '11 Volt/Cruze) and I actually WANT a GM truck not something GM got Isuzu to design because they were too lazy and didn't care.

I guess with an S-10 I feel like GM actually cared about the product a little, I don't get that feeling at all when I look at the Colorado/Canyon.

[I may be the only one that sees a similarity in design (and cheapness)]

[CadiEldo67]

Great writeup, I drove my mom's Crew Cab Canyon 3.5 for the winter, and yeah, I did average 15mpg's, but I did let it warm up before I drove it, most of the time for too long, and they do the fuel additives different in cold weather. But that truck was excellent each and every day.

Overall, I just wish that GM did the different interiors for the SLE and SLT trims, similar to the GMT-900s. I mean it is a truck, but it was a $30K truck and it just seems like that interior is better for the base models. I do wish, however that the 3.6 DI V6 was available, or a 2.0 Ecotec turbo would be nice, even a diesel would be nice to have. The Atlas engines are awesome, but in terms of fuel efficiency, they just aren't cutting it.

And a 5 speed manual all across the board would also make me happy.

[BlueMontreal]

Another great comment by Ming.

The GMT 355 isn't bad at all. In fact, a friend of mine has to use a 2 wd -4 cylinders (manual) and a 4 wd 5 cylinders (auto) at her work place (she works in a agricultural sciences research center) and she like them both. Most of the time she takes the 2 wd , for fuel efficiency. She saids both engines are smooth, both trucks are very reliables and can do a lot of work. She's been using both Colorado for more than 2 years.

Last weekend I spoke to her and she talk about her trucks (not really her's but she's the one driving them)

Her complains are :

1- Styling. She said the Colorado looks like and old truck.

What it really need is a refresh,

2 - Better fuel economy and a bit more power.

Nothing DI (on both engines), 6 speeds auto and 5 speeds manual (available with the 3700 Vortec) can't solve.

[t-rex]

Originally Posted by johnriley

You aren't going to drive over any logs with this, but this Chevrolet Tornado is my idea of how you get a small higher mileage pickup. (This was at the Cedar Rapids, Iowa airport - I have no idea what it was doing there. It had Iowa dealer plates.)

People shouldn't discount those little car-based pickups so cavalierly.

They're tough little trucks with beefy leaf rear springs and can carry half a ton (1200+ pounds). Some are sharp-looking too!

[Ming]

Originally Posted by Steel4ring

I love my Colorado Crew Cab......very handy for the small jobs around the yard and running to Home Depot.....I commute 80 miles a day.....I have a 2wd 2.8L and I get 23 MPG on the highway....not great but okay.

See that's what I was hoping for --- around 23MPG would be fine for me on country roads at mostly 45-55mph. For real world fuel economy (not that one trip out to grandma's cross country downhill) 23MPG is actually quite good.

I mean, I got 19MPG consistently with my Bonneville when I commuted with it (and my lead foot temptation with the supercharged V6), and that's a sedan, and probably around 17MPG with my Safari AWD.

[BBDOS CV8]

Originally Posted by Code Red

its amazing the holden commerical is filmed alot like the thailand colorado commericals

Not really, the Holden Colorado which is a re-nosed Holden Rodeo are made in a plant in Thailand owned by Holden. Name changed a month or so back due to Isuzu separating from GM - they owned the name since the 70's.

The Holden version is about as different to the 355s as you can get, as it comes with a Holden-made 3.2 litre HFV6, also shared with our version of the GMDAT Captiva (Saturn Vue) or a four or V6 diesel.

Interiors, brakes, driveline, electrics, suspension etc all different.

I'd go the G8ST, myself Ming. The light truck's maybe got more clearance, but the VE Ute with a 6-speed manual will get over 30 'real' imperial mpg driven with reserve on the highway, 1700rpm @70mph, and probbly over 18USmpg in town. And unloaded, they drive exactly like a G8 sedan, with low NVH and a superlative RWD undeoendent suspension system, whereas a leafspring light truck rides unloaded like a pioneer wagon. Side is one piece pressing from the A-pillar, 77% highstrength steel in the structure. Built like a brick sh!thouse! I'm rebulidng a 1951 FX Ute and after 60 years of overloading, neglect and abuse it's still basically all straight between the axles!

I hope they send the manual over, it's a much better performer than the autobox with the V6.

VE Ute's rated for 1400lb, tow 3500lb, that's on 18" alloys where the limit is the sports tyre and wheel combo. The steel wheeled Omega with light truck tyres is rated a lot more. 1800lb and tows up to about 4500lbs.

As well as that, it is 4-star ANCAP for collision, far superior to tinbox trucks like the Rodeo/Colorado and Highlander which scored abysmally badly recently (less than 2 stars) in the same tests, and comes native with the same stability control, traction, antilock/brakeforce distribution as the VE/G8, which means rated amongst the best in the world even comparing with the top Euro marques. There's even about 10cu ft of storage behind the front seats.

They're also not bad in a rising water situation, a lot of Australia is undeveloped and they have to cope, like Holden utes have in the past. This is how Holden officailly tests cars for floodability:


This car's just come out of waterbath, which is taken at 20mph! The car has to run normally afterwards.


This is how they test doorseals! That car would be expected to be unscathed apart from drying the brakes out.

[bouda]

My '99 S10 gets 19 city 28 highway. 2.2L 4cyl 5spd 3.73 gears 120(?)hp. I'd like to get a newer version but honestly I can't get over the Colorado's styling. I can't believe that mileage either, that is crap.