The Colorado and Canyon are, in my opinion, the best product GM has released in the last few years.
If the Malibu had used an Opel DOHC engine it would have been close, but the Colorado wins it for me.
Sure, they don't have V8s or even V6's, but otherwise they have almost everything I'd want wrapped in an attractive and modern package. And I happen to think the Inline 5 is pretty sweet after test driving one.
I wonder how much Isuzu engineering is in them? The interior looks so much more modern than the Trailblazer.....not "rich" by any stretch of the imagination, but nice, simple, and devoid of bulbous shapes and ancient switches. (well, except for those junky radios...)
This is the exact same review that was posted on pickuptruck.com, only Autoweek only posted the first page, losing the guts of the review, including the parts that highlighted the Colorado/Canyon Z-71's very strong off-road capabilities.
I saw the Coloardo at a local San Francisco auto show last weekend and it was OK. The interior was roomy, but still looked cheap. The exterior stlying was good overall, but I don't like the fender wells. They look odd. The truck seemed overall solid and well put together as far as I could tell. Nothing really "wow" about anything in it.
The truck was disappointing since I was looking for some sign from GM that it might bring out better interiors in their trucks. I liked the gauge cluster and the matching buttons, but the overall look of the plastics was typical Fisher-Price cheap.
The whole GM truck line from the lowest Chevy to the most expensive Cadillac look so completely cheap inside that it sickens me. They tack on wood vaneers on a Chevy interior and call it a Cadillac. What a joke.
The new Buick Rainer was similary disappointing inside. The gauge cluster looked good, but the plastic texture used on the dash was horrible by anyone's measure. I remember this was my #1 turn off on the Trailblazer when they came out and GM did nothing to fix it in the "premium" Buick.
I just have to laugh at that last post. Did an automotive writer write it for you? Ohh, wellll....it's a great GM product but we've got to find something to whine about...oh I know!!! Let's call the interior "Cheap Looking" like we always do! That's a completely biased, undefensible personal opinion, so no one can call us out on it, because we'll just say......that's our opinion.
I mean really, what is wrong with you? Every automaker uses plastic in interior design. The Honda Civic looks cheap. The Toyota Camry looks cheap. The Ford Mustang GT in your pic looks cheap as well. Why? Plastic is cheap. If you want an "expensive" looking dashboard buy something with wood. I just hope the ungodly payment you have to make is OK with you, because you get to look at what you think is a "nice" interior. It is simply hilarious that people are always so willing to say stuff like that. It's like they've never been in any other automaker's car.
He's saying that GM plastics (delco, right?) are not pleasing for touching or looking. Look at the plastics of a Honda Accord or Camry and compare them to an Impala interior... plus, there is no reason for being upset with that kind of OPINIONS. This is a forum! the great thing with forums is that you can say any $%"#% thing you want!
And yes... everybody knows and think that GM plastics sucks. Except for Caddies (even some caddies have ugly interiors), the Malibu, Holdens and Opels.
Sorry about the cross-post from the Chevy Trucks Forum, but this is a better location for this post...
I am a newbie here, and I have a quick question.
I was really looking forward to the new trucks coming out, but when I first saw their 4000lb towing rating I thought it was a misprint or else the capacity for the I-4. Then, in reading GMs releases, I see attention almost painfully steered from mentioning the truck's work capabilities to mention its higher points. Then payload/towing shortcomings are excused with the rationale that most compact truck owners don't use their trucks as work trucks. I think that it could be argued that the reason for this has been their lack of substance in the past that could have been addressed with a new more mid-sized vehicle.
I realize that while the I-5 has a strong 220hp, it is low on torque (at 225lb-ft). I'd be very concerned if the frame was unable to tow more than this amount. Is it the engine or the chassis that is holding back the GCWR?
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.