2015 US Chevy Colorado

hMMM..... Diesel quad cab? I would actually consider it for our GMC replacement.

Could care less that its auto only.

Could care lots about combined MPG.

no standard cab and no manual trans makes me a sad panda.

At least there will be a diesel option. Overall it looks too big.

Gearheadotaku wrote: no standard cab and no manual trans makes me a sad panda. At least there will be a diesel option. Overall it looks too big.

Hoping it won't. I am thinking that part of that may be the styling which i think is designed to make the truck look as big as possible in order to make it look like a "REAL TRUCK!" Hoping that it will be around the size, or slightly larger than the current Colorado.

I'm just hoping it's the size of my current fullsize and not like the current crop of monster trucks with 6' high bed sides.

I like the sound of a 300ftlb diesel in a small package 4dr truck. I might shop one if my exploder....explodes.

Pricing vs full size is always the killer on these trucks. I really think that's what finally killed the Ranger. You could get a decent F150 for the same money, and the mpg wasn't different enough to have a real impact. Maybe mileage will be high enough on these to make sense.

EDIT: I read the linked press release above and found a couple bright spots - they'll offer it in the WT 'work truck' trim level with the locker as an option, and you can get the 4dr with 5' or 6' bed. I'll take a diesel WT 4x4 4dr with 6' bed, pleaseandthankyou.

mazdeuce wrote: It will be interesting to see what price point these come in at. I look at them and can't see much cost savings over building a Sikverado. Yes, all of the pieces are a bit smaller, but I can't believe that the raw material savings will be much. I also can't believe that you can make a truck much more basic and stripped than the base Silverado. So does that mean that the base Colorado is going to cost more than the has Silverado given that there is no standard cab strippy option? Having said all of that, I live in Texas where everything is set up to handle full size trucks. Roads, parking, garages, it's all big enough but I can see that not everywhere in the US is like that.

Us Urbanites like smaller trucks for the same reason that we like smaller cars - a full-sized pickup is a PITA under many circumstances. Tacomas are a sales leader here. That said, it isn't that much smaller than the Tundra, and the same can be said for the Colorado.

What's missing from our market isn't just a mini-truck, it's a mini-truck with panache. All the biggies have presence, whereas the old Tacoma, Ranger, et al are mainly appliances. I think that if someone built a genuine small pickup and endowed it with real presence and fun, they'd sell a goodly number. I used to have a V6, manual, Toyota mini pickup that was flat-out fun to drive. I ended up giving it to my sister when I needed a family vehicle and always remember it as being in the top 20 percent of vehicles I've owned, fun-wise, not to mention the utility.

In reply to mazdeuce:

I will bet the full size costs GM less to make......

I miss the truly 'small' trucks of the 70's and 80's....

Gearheadotaku wrote: I miss the truly 'small' trucks of the 70's and 80's....

Seriously, I would buy a modern-day VW Rabbit Pickup (well, as long as it's not actually built by VAG.) If I had the space I'd own an '80's 2wd Nissan or Toyota p/u now, but they're just too unrefined and old to be a full-time DD, imho.

ShadowSix wrote: If I had the space I'd own an '80's 2wd Nissan or Toyota p/u now, but they're just too unrefined and old to be a full-time DD, imho.

Unrefined?

I'd love to DD an 86 S10 with Iron duke and 4 speed manual. That's about as simple as it gets, and I'm ok with that.

Zomby Woof wrote: Unrefined? I'd love to DD an 86 S10 with Iron duke and 4 speed manual. That's about as simple as it gets, and I'm ok with that.

I wouldn't. They sucked. Especially with manual steering.

It was also the only engine I've seen where the DISTRIBUTOR, which is an item bolted directly to the engine block and seats firmly into said engine block, would lose ground and cause a no start, so you would have to add a second ground.

I like it, and I will be following this one. I do not mind that it comes in extend cab and quad cab with no regular cab configurations. I balked at buying an extend/quad cab truck before, but after buying my Dakota, it's more liveable and there's more interior room. On a classic truck, I do prefer the short bed/regular cab though, because they look awesome.

My two concerns are what they get for MPG and the price point. I'm interested in both the V6 and the diesel. It looks better to me than the new Silverado.

Is there a GMC version of this coming out? GMC's always look better than their Chevy counterparts.

Looks are ok, and it like the 4 wheel discs. I would love to see th v8 stay. Still... I will keep my 2005 for a while longer, just turned 100k, then replace with a car.

Knurled wrote:

Zomby Woof wrote: I'd love to DD an 86 S10 with Iron duke and 4 speed manual. That's about as simple as it gets, and I'm ok with that.

I wouldn't. They sucked. Especially with manual steering.

I put almost 400k on one - with manual steering, which I loved. Probably my all time favourite vehicle. If it didn't rust away, I'd probably still be driving it.

Fair enough - I've known people who liked them too. It always irked me to have to hand-over-hand to change lanes because of the 6 turns lock to lock steering that was also somehow really heavy.

Neat thing, though... I think that was the last American production vehicle to have non-power brakes.

Now, I do have a fond spot for the mid-90s redesign, with the 2.2/5sp option. Much better engine than the 2.5, IMO, and the chassis did feel a whole lot better. Didn't feel like you were driving a hinge. And UNlike the Fords or the Japanese options, the truck was small enough to qualify as a minitruck but still had a decently roomy interior without having to go to an extended cab. (Worst offender: Comanche. What were they THINKING? Nice truck but you have to have a 26" inseam to drive one)

Call me crazy, but if it works well, and tows ~6k lbs., and gets good mileage, I don't give two berkeleys what it looks like.

It can look like a Citroen Berlingo berkeleyed a Buick Rendezvous if it checks the utilitarian boxes.

I love the way this looks, interior still even has hints of all the 90s GMs I've had in the past. Just look at that shift knob (isn't that Trailblazer?).

Honestly I would consider this if I needed a truck.

Knurled wrote: Fair enough - I've known people who liked them too. It always irked me to have to hand-over-hand to change lanes because of the 6 turns lock to lock steering that was also somehow really heavy. Neat thing, though... I think that was the last American production vehicle to have non-power brakes. Now, I do have a fond spot for the mid-90s redesign, with the 2.2/5sp option. Much better engine than the 2.5, IMO, and the chassis did feel a whole lot better. Didn't feel like you were driving a hinge. And UNlike the Fords or the Japanese options, the truck was small enough to qualify as a minitruck but still had a decently roomy interior without having to go to an extended cab. (Worst offender: Comanche. What were they THINKING? Nice truck but you have to have a 26" inseam to drive one)

the 90's S truck that you loved so much was pretty much the exact same chassis as the 80's S truck that you hated so much, but with a body that had more curves.. they might have added some bracing or something, but it was the same basic foundation.

How much is this going to cost I want to roll some coal on a budget

novaderrik wrote: the 90's S truck that you loved so much was pretty much the exact same chassis as the 80's S truck that you hated so much, but with a body that had more curves.. they might have added some bracing or something, but it was the same basic foundation.

That's exactly the point I was making.

It's not that I hated the boxy S-truck, it's that the newer one was a whole lot better on multiple fronts without being grossly biggiesized, which is a problem we have nowadays. I'm still not sure I'd daily drive one (because pickup) but its qualities are the closest to overcoming the embarassment of using a street-legal wheelbarrow as regular transportation.

I had a few of the early S-Trucks and would happily drive one again. They seem to "fit" just right. A stroker 3.1 with multiport injection would be a nice upgrade though.

kanaric wrote: How much is this going to cost I want to roll some coal on a budget

Modern diesels don't smoke.

Kenny_McCormic wrote:

kanaric wrote: How much is this going to cost I want to roll some coal on a budget

Modern diesels don't smoke.

I'm sorry, have you been living under a rock? I just came back from lunch where I watched a new Cummins MegaCab "roll coal" across an intersection and choke everyone out. They most certainly can and do smoke.

Kenny_McCormic wrote:

kanaric wrote: How much is this going to cost I want to roll some coal on a budget

Modern diesels don't smoke.In stock form

FTFY