Photos: Lack of Small Trucks at GMC Dealership a Good Sign, or Intentional?

[TimR]

Originally Posted by Ming

Doesn't that kind of defeat the purpose of the small trucks a $4.00/gallon?

Not really...a 5.3 with afm would be perfect. Bigger engines barely working get the same mileage as smaller engines working hard. I know several guys who swapped out 5.3s for 6.0's over the years (naturally for performance) but when they were just driving around like normal mileage never changed enough to be noticed.

[bone]

Lots of Colorados and Canyons available in Southern Quebec and they do sell well,especially the 4-doors. I certainly see far more of these than the Tacomas. Even though I'm not a big fan of the twins, a four door,4 cylinder,5-speed manual stripper would make for an economical somewhat appealing vehicle.

[63GrandSport001]

It seems as though GM leadership constantly show that they lack foresight time and time again which is why they are in the mess they are in now.

Doesn't someone sitting at that large table say "hey incase gas prices keep going up we should put money into our smaller trucks and cars"

Instead they try to tell us, people don't want to buy small cars they want huge tanks thats what they want so thats what we have to build.

[Steel4ring]

Originally Posted by armycam68

You won't see Colorado/Canyon on the lot because dealers and buyers figured out a long time ago that they are a sorry excuse for a small truck. If you equip one like a full size truck after rebates the price is so close that the full size truck is a better buy. The mileage on a 4X4 Colorado is nothing to brag about.
I bought a Z-71 4X4 Extended Cab in 2004. After owning about ten S-10s the Colorado was a great disappointment. The truck had no feature that I could pinpoint that was exceptional. It had no power, had shake rattle and roll, had the turning radius of an aircraft carrier, and had a really cheap interior. The front end ate tires........new ones at 18,000 miles. I found out that the front end was incorrectly set at the factory, but Chevy kept it so quiet..........a fix it if you complain warranty.
My neighbor had an 04 also. His truck was in the shop forever with engine valve problems. He also was donating money to tire companies.
The Colorado/Canyon line is junk..........period..........an ISZUSU dream. Bring back the S-10 with an efficient engine.
If I was a dealer, I would hide them in the back row also!

My 2006 had the same front end problem...tires shot at 15K.

Also have had a few trim issues.

Otherwise I must say the truck has been pretty good.

I have the 2.8L Crew Cab 2WD.....perfect for my 35 mile commute and car pool, plenty of room....has plenty of power to run 75 MPH on the highway...gas mileage runs 18-22 MPG depending how fast I go and if in stop and go traffic.

The perfect truck for the ocassional trip to Home Depot and to the garden center for the wife in the spring.....also great for tailgating during football season.

[2648562]

The Colorado/Canyons are just too much money when compared to a fullsize. Who in their right mind wants to shell out full-size money on a less capable truck? Alright, so with higher gas prices that may no longer be the case. But regardless, the C/Cs just aren't as well executed as they ought to be. Had they paid a little attention to what Toyota was doing over the last twenty frickin' years, they would probably be among the best selling vehicles on the road today.

[SS3]

This is not that new, the previous S-10 was very difficult to find in Southern Ontario. Anything around was loaded up, often more money that a full sized pick-up. Canyon has followed that trend, only with a significanlty less desirable looking truck.

I don't think GM know how to build a small truck profitably, and so they sit (what exists out there). Ford hasnt taken up the challenge either - 4 cylinder Rangers are very tough to find also. Over to you Toyota....

[63GrandSport001]

Originally Posted by 2648562

The Colorado/Canyons are just too much money when compared to a fullsize. Who in their right mind wants to shell out full-size money on a less capable truck? Alright, so with higher gas prices that may no longer be the case. But regardless, the C/Cs just aren't as well executed as they ought to be. Had they paid a little attention to what Toyota was doing over the last twenty frickin' years, they would probably be among the best selling vehicles on the road today.

I agree that its not as good as it could be, Id love to see them do the Colorado with the same care that was taken for the new Malibu.

It starts at about $15,000 so IDK maybe drop the price by $500 bucks I mean everyone else is starting in the $14,000 range with a few starting in the $15,000 range.

If I were to redo the Chevy Colorado I would try to push its fuel economy up as high as I can as I think that would be a big concern for someone who is passing up a full size for something smaller. Maybe give all of the engines VVT and GDI along with 6 speeds.

[CanadianGMGuy]

Originally Posted by armycam68

You won't see Colorado/Canyon on the lot because dealers and buyers figured out a long time ago that they are a sorry excuse for a small truck. If you equip one like a full size truck after rebates the price is so close that the full size truck is a better buy. The mileage on a 4X4 Colorado is nothing to brag about.
I bought a Z-71 4X4 Extended Cab in 2004. After owning about ten S-10s the Colorado was a great disappointment. The truck had no feature that I could pinpoint that was exceptional. It had no power, had shake rattle and roll, had the turning radius of an aircraft carrier, and had a really cheap interior. The front end ate tires........new ones at 18,000 miles. I found out that the front end was incorrectly set at the factory, but Chevy kept it so quiet..........a fix it if you complain warranty.
My neighbor had an 04 also. His truck was in the shop forever with engine valve problems. He also was donating money to tire companies.
The Colorado/Canyon line is junk..........period..........an ISZUSU dream. Bring back the S-10 with an efficient engine.
If I was a dealer, I would hide them in the back row also!

Wow I can say I have had a totally different experience than you. I have had no problems with my 2006 Cayon. Still on the original tires at 50,000 km with tons of tread left. I will agree with you on the turning radius, it is pretty bad.

Power I thinks there is plenty for what I use my truck for, and I get pretty damn good milage 24-26 MPG with mix driving.

Interior ya its nothing to write home about, but Its practical and has stood up to everything over the three years I have had the truck. Still looks new.

Will I get another Canyon? Propably not, GM has not updated the truck enough or added enough new features to get me back into one.

So in a couple of weeks when I start the search for a new vehicle(lease is up), I pretty sure it will not be on my shopping list.

[CadiEldo67]

Originally Posted by 2648562

The Colorado/Canyons are just too much money when compared to a fullsize. Who in their right mind wants to shell out full-size money on a less capable truck? Alright, so with higher gas prices that may no longer be the case. But regardless, the C/Cs just aren't as well executed as they ought to be. Had they paid a little attention to what Toyota was doing over the last twenty frickin' years, they would probably be among the best selling vehicles on the road today.

I agree, my mom bought a mostly loaded '05 Canyon Crew Cab and it has like a 5 foot bed. What can you do with that? And on top of that she has a soft cover over it, I told her, there was a perfectly good Envoy (SLT at that) for similar pricing with plenty of storage, but nooooo.

Anyways I think there is so much wrong with these trucks, a good redesign should be on the way anytime.

• The trucks should be designed with the intentions of fitting the 3.6 HF V6 DI. The inline-5 is nice, but isn't cutting it.
• A six speed auto should be offered.
• They need to be more profitable to the dealers(and I don't know how thats done, but if theres a way...)
• They should have much better fuel economy than full size trucks.
• The dash design is decent, but something along the lines of the GMT-900's would be better. Especially if there are 2 different interiors.
• All sorts of creature comforts.
• Hybrid versions
• Maybe these trucks could migrate to a Unibody Platform, or possibly a SWB Lambda.
• If they don't do Lambda, and use a smaller unibody, an SUV counterpart should join. (like the Jimmy and Sonoma)

[ptmeyer84]

the colorado/canyon twins are too big. What happened to the compact pickup market? Everything is midsize now. The midsize and the fullsize are way to close in price and size.

give me a 4cyl LB S10 sized

[Ming]

Interesting related article here:

Chevrolet S-10 History



Detroit's "Big Three" automakers were blindsided by the popularity of small imported pickup trucks during the 1970s. While Ford, GM and Chrysler sold millions of large pickups every year, they never seemed to even consider that there might be a market for smaller trucks in the United States — or that those trucks could actually be considered "fun." In fact, they were so unprepared for the success of Datsun (now Nissan) and Toyota's tiny trucks that the only way they believed they could respond rapidly was to import Japanese trucks and rebadge them as their own.

But that's hardly the end of the story. Because the small pickup market isn't just a story of import success, but the eventual conquest of that market by larger products designed for, and made in, America by both domestic and Japanese manufacturers.

A good example is Chevrolet.

First-Generation LUV (1972-1980)

General Motors was still the world's largest corporation and the dominant force in the American car and truck markets in the early 1970s. But the company was sensitive to any erosion in those positions and the popularity of small import pickups — particularly among young, entry-level West Coast buyers — was developing into a threat. After all, it's not like GM wanted the youngsters to get used to buying Toyotas and Datsuns.

GM's immediate, minimal-hassle, low-cost, no-brainer answer to the Japanese truck challenge laid in its partial ownership of Isuzu Motors Ltd. of (no surprise) Japan. By simply buying trucks from Isuzu and slapping some Chevrolet badges on them, GM had a somewhat viable contender in the mini-truck melee. The too-adorable name it pinned on this new "trucklet" was LUV for "Light Utility Vehicle."

In fact, this was such an easy solution to the import threat that Ford was doing exactly the same thing at almost exactly the same time by launching a Mazda-made pickup it rebranded as the "Courier."

The LUV went on sale in March of 1972 in select Chevrolet dealerships, serving markets with a high percentage of import truck buyers and was instantly recognized by the press as nothing special. "As a truck, the Chevy entry is quite similar to the Ford entry," wrote Road & Track, "even down to an identical payload rating of 1,400 pounds, just as the Ford-bought Toyo Kogyo (Mazda) truck is similar to the Datsun and Toyota trucks."

More: http://www.edmunds.com/chevrolet/s10/history.html

[GeryRx7]

I drive an 07 Colorado Ext Cab Z-71 4x4 as a work vehicle. Our company decided 2 years ago to downsize us from 3/4 ton Diesels to save on fuel. Little did they know that just because this was a smaller truck the average fuel mileage was worse. I have a mixed commute Highway/local roads and routinely get 17-18 mpg. The 3.7 is average at best on power, if the truck is empty with only me inside. All 10 of our Colorados have had the tire issue. According to our local dealer it didn't effect every truck only certain months of assembly. THey actually have a name for the repair and call it the Z-bar allignment. Had mine done about 6000 miles ago and we forced the dealer to replace the tires under warrenty. They had 16, 250 miles on them and were shot. They were rotated every 3000 miles as well. After realizing all the issues with the Colorados my company has since moved back to full size Silverados which are currently averaging 20-22 MPG with the 5.3 liters. Oh well live and learn. Smaller doesn't always mean better especially when it comes to GM.

[EllwynX]

I always thought the Colorado (and to a lesser extent the Canyon) were good looking trucks.

I considered buying a 2006 Colorado Xtreme back in '06. But it's price tag of over $30,000 stopped me.

I had had a 2000 S10 Xtreme for 2 years and loved it.

[Ultra Magnus]

Originally Posted by TimR

Not really...a 5.3 with afm would be perfect. Bigger engines barely working get the same mileage as smaller engines working hard. I know several guys who swapped out 5.3s for 6.0's over the years (naturally for performance) but when they were just driving around like normal mileage never changed enough to be noticed.

Exactly. You can change the gearing to better utilize the torque of the engine. I think it could work.

[Smaart Aas Saabr]

The LUV may have been similar to Ford Courier, but the basic thing is that ALL of those Japanese pickups were basically identical. You can switch wheels between Toyotas, Nissans, Isuzus and Mazdas as the bolts are the same. The dimensions, weights, payloads are all basically the same, even engine power and availibility are the same... the price may have differed a hundred bucks and that was about it. You'd almost think it was some kind of joint-venture product.