GM Reveals 2015 Chevrolet Colorado

[KMPrenger]

Originally Posted by khell86

Agree completely. It's what kept me from picking up one when i got my new car a few months ago. I think the Colorado is a great looking truck and even though it still bests the new Taco, it still seems lacking in the MPG area. Now with ford in talks about bringing the ranger back to the US, im giddy as hell. Could you imagine a Ranger with fords new 2.7L Ecoboost V6?

I just don't know how you guys can expect much better than 26 mpg highway for a midsize V6 crew truck. No other mid size truck does better, and heck, even midsize sedans with the V6 struggle to get at or much past 30mpg highway.

You mention being giddy about the 2.7 in a Ranger...yeah I agree sounds sweet, but then you must not care as much about mpg as you seemed to indicate in the first part of your post b/c it will do no better, and likely worse than the LFX 3.6

I think we need to look ahead, b/c I'm fairly certain the new LGX and the 8-speed are likely coming to the Colorado. So with that, we should expect another 1 or 2 mpg. That would put us at around 28mpg highway....again for a midsize, crew cab 2wd truck.....would that even satisfy you guys?

[KMPrenger]

Originally Posted by willhe64

2 weeks on the new tune and while it is better it is still not right. Truck still hunts lots for gears, had some actual clunky shifts happen when trying drive normally. Still reluctant to gear down when needed. Hill speed control is still a joke. Truck also kicks down to second from fourth when I put it in manual mode. Hate the exhaust sound. Engine pings lots. Driveline vibration is noticeable.

Love everything about this truck but the driveline.

I've not driven a vehicle since 1990 that has noticeable driveability issues. An automatic should be seamless and totally forgotten about while driving. There is a total lack of refinement in this area of the new Colorado.

Not disagreeing with you, but that just sounds surprising to me.

Same engine and transmission found in the Camaro. It was a fantastic transmission, smooth shifts and perfect gearing....almost nobody complains about it. Maybe yours has issues?

What do you mean by engine pings a lot? You should not be able to hear or feel pinging going on at all in the engine...any pinging should be picked up by the sensors and adjustments made before its to the point of being annoying/distracting to the driver. The engine can run on regular, and I'm guessing that is what you are using (which is fine) but is not specifically "designed" only for it. Separate timing tables do exist...at least in the ECM for the LFX on the Camaro.

Exhaust is subjective.

[KMPrenger]

Eventually, when these things stop flying off the lots, we are going to see discounts/rebates on them as well. How long is that going to take? Who knows, but as long as they are selling like they are, why should GM discount them? Why would dealers budge on them?

But those rebates won't be nearly as large as the fullsize trucks. As for full size trucks, those things are pretty much priced ridiculously high right from the start, so that they can offer those huge rebates on them to make them appear more appealing. Any more, we all basically expect there to be huge massive rebates on full size trucks. Who in their right mind would buy one today at even close to MSRP?

At the end of the day, it comes down the buyer and what they want. I'm with mlee....and I'd rather have a midsize. There are dealers selling these guys at a discount, and when you compare to a similarly equipped full size, there are definitely savings to be had over a discounted fullsize.

oh...and off topic, but you guys that opted for black bowties...how much was it?

[shaffe]

Originally Posted by mlee

I forgot to add... I would still pick the smaller truck even if it was 10k more than the full size. And if I don't like this truck after a year or so I'll get a car or something completely different. Just have zero interest for a large truck in the big city.

I did peak at the top of the line Chevy's the other day and it was around 50k. Still not much more than my 37k Colorado and way more truck. Just don't want it.

Don't blame you for wanting something smaller, IMO its just not that much smaller.

A f150 extended cab 6.5 bed is 231.9 inches long, Colorado Crew Cab long bed is 224.9, only 7 inches different and the widths are 79.9 for the full size and 74 for the colorado only 6 inches.

As long as your happy thats all that matters. I really wanted to like the Colorado/Canyon but I just can't justify myself spending more on a smaller truck when I can get a full size for less

and KM I did compare them

Originally Posted by KMPrenger

Eventually, when these things stop flying off the lots, we are going to see discounts/rebates on them as well. How long is that going to take? Who knows, but as long as they are selling like they are, why should GM discount them? Why would dealers budge on them?

But those rebates won't be nearly as large as the fullsize trucks. As for full size trucks, those things are pretty much priced ridiculously high right from the start, so that they can offer those huge rebates on them to make them appear more appealing. Any more, we all basically expect there to be huge massive rebates on full size trucks. Who in their right mind would buy one today at even close to MSRP?

At the end of the day, it comes down the buyer and what they want. I'm with mlee....and I'd rather have a midsize. There are dealers selling these guys at a discount, and when you compare to a similarly equipped full size, there are definitely savings to be had over a discounted fullsize.

oh...and off topic, but you guys that opted for black bowties...how much was it?

My local dealers have a crew Cab Canyon SLE long box 4x4, MSRP is 39, they are knocking 2k off for a selling price of 37300. Local Ford dealer F-150 Crew Cab XLT 2.7L 4x4 MSRP is 46,340 sale price is 36900. Or an extended cab (which is what I would get) that has even more options (some that I don't really care for) has an MSRP of 44.5 and a sale price of 36.2 At least around here as of right now, deals are better on on full size

[KMPrenger]

Originally Posted by shaffe

...



My local dealers have a crew Cab Canyon SLE long box 4x4, MSRP is 39, they are knocking 2k off for a selling price of 37300. Local Ford dealer F-150 Crew Cab XLT 2.7L 4x4 MSRP is 46,340 sale price is 36900. Or an extended cab (which is what I would get) that has even more options (some that I don't really care for) has an MSRP of 44.5 and a sale price of 36.2 At least around here as of right now, deals are better on on full size

You do make a good point that has come up many times in the past, but its still very valid.

A few things come to mind.
1) We haven't yet seen just how low they will go on these midsize trucks....just how much room is there to wiggle?
2) When you think about it...how much more can it cost the factory to build these FS trucks over 3/4 version of it, especially when you consider that they are selling MANY more of the FS version, bringing overall costs to build that model down, as compared to the midsize version, which doesn't have the advantage of selling hundreds of thousands of them a year. A few thousand dollars?

So what I'm getting at...I'm going to make up a situation: lets say we bought each truck, similarly configured for $1000 over what it costs GM to make them. What would the cost be....I don't suspect there would be a huge difference. Thus the reason the FS with its huge discounts comes about the same as a slightly discounted midsize.

I could be way off here. Just my thoughts.

[mlee]

Originally Posted by KMPrenger

oh...and off topic, but you guys that opted for black bowties...how much was it?

Mine came with the TB package but as an option they are 115 bucks.

[KMPrenger]

Originally Posted by mlee

Mine came with the TB package but as an option they are 115 bucks.

Thanks! I ordered them for my 2016 Camaro. Was hoping they weren't something ridiculous, like $250 or more. $115 is expensive enough in my opinion, but with GM you tend to learn that accessories aren't cheap at all lol.

[mlee]

Originally Posted by KMPrenger

Thanks! I ordered them for my 2016 Camaro. Was hoping they weren't something ridiculous, like $250 or more. $115 is expensive enough in my opinion, but with GM you tend to learn that accessories aren't cheap at all lol.

$57.50 each sounds even better...

[khell86]

Originally Posted by KMPrenger

I just don't know how you guys can expect much better than 26 mpg highway for a midsize V6 crew truck. No other mid size truck does better, and heck, even midsize sedans with the V6 struggle to get at or much past 30mpg highway.

You mention being giddy about the 2.7 in a Ranger...yeah I agree sounds sweet, but then you must not care as much about mpg as you seemed to indicate in the first part of your post b/c it will do no better, and likely worse than the LFX 3.6

I think we need to look ahead, b/c I'm fairly certain the new LGX and the 8-speed are likely coming to the Colorado. So with that, we should expect another 1 or 2 mpg. That would put us at around 28mpg highway....again for a midsize, crew cab 2wd truck.....would that even satisfy you guys?

I mention the 2.7 because its capable of 26 MPG Hwy in the F150. You would assume it could pull something better in a smaller lighter truck. If the Rado could pull 28 MPG with the new 8 speed I would highly consider it. I would strictly want this vehicle for the bed. Towing wouldnt really be a thing for me, so power and fuel economy are what I really look for. 300+ HP and 28 MPG would probably quench the needs.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by khell86

I mention the 2.7 because its capable of 26 MPG Hwy in the F150. You would assume it could pull something better in a smaller lighter truck. If the Rado could pull 28 MPG with the new 8 speed I would highly consider it. I would strictly want this vehicle for the bed. Towing wouldnt really be a thing for me, so power and fuel economy are what I really look for. 300+ HP and 28 MPG would probably quench the needs.

I'd still put my money on a 3.6L Colorado delivering better fuel economy than a theoretical 2.7L Ranger, regardless of what the window sticker might suggest. Turbocharged engines are notorious for poor real world fuel economy compared to their estimates, while NA V6s in general tend to meet or exceed the estimates.

Plus, doesn't Ford recommend premium in their Ecoboost engines? It doesn't require it (few engines do) but I'd gladly take a 1 or 2 mpg hit over paying extra for gas.

[GretchenGotGrowl]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

I'd still put my money on a 3.6L Colorado delivering better fuel economy than a theoretical 2.7L Ranger, regardless of what the window sticker might suggest. Turbocharged engines are notorious for poor real world fuel economy compared to their estimates, while NA V6s in general tend to meet or exceed the estimates.

Plus, doesn't Ford recommend premium in their Ecoboost engines? It doesn't require it (few engines do) but I'd gladly take a 1 or 2 mpg hit over paying extra for gas.

I think it depends on the Ecoboost. My F150 calls for 87 octane, but a friend's Focus ST requires 91.

BTW, I get better MPG in mine than was on the sticker, so I think it depends more on location and the way it is driven than the presence/absence of turbos.

[shaffe]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

I'd still put my money on a 3.6L Colorado delivering better fuel economy than a theoretical 2.7L Ranger, regardless of what the window sticker might suggest. Turbocharged engines are notorious for poor real world fuel economy compared to their estimates, while NA V6s in general tend to meet or exceed the estimates.

Plus, doesn't Ford recommend premium in their Ecoboost engines? It doesn't require it (few engines do) but I'd gladly take a 1 or 2 mpg hit over paying extra for gas.

Going of off what owners are posting on the f150forum, the 2.7 is getting very good real world MPG. Its the guys with the 3.5 that aren't seeing great MPG

[G-Oil Guy]

Originally Posted by GretchenGotGrowl

I think it depends on the Ecoboost. My F150 calls for 87 octane, but a friend's Focus ST requires 91.

BTW, I get better MPG in mine than was on the sticker, so I think it depends more on location and the way it is driven than the presence/absence of turbos.

That must have changed recently. My Focus ST calls for 87

[mlee]

Originally Posted by willhe64

2 weeks on the new tune and while it is better it is still not right. Truck still hunts lots for gears, had some actual clunky shifts happen when trying drive normally. Still reluctant to gear down when needed. Hill speed control is still a joke. Truck also kicks down to second from fourth when I put it in manual mode. Hate the exhaust sound. Engine pings lots. Driveline vibration is noticeable.

Love everything about this truck but the driveline.

I've not driven a vehicle since 1990 that has noticeable driveability issues. An automatic should be seamless and totally forgotten about while driving. There is a total lack of refinement in this area of the new Colorado.

Well I have to say you are right about the tune. It definitely was a big difference on the top end cruising, but since hitting stop and go traffic a couple times this past week it's still hunting for gears and felt like I left the tranny on the road a couple of times. 20 - 25 mph is horrible still.

I don't notice any driveline vibration nor do I even hear the exhaust so not an issue with me. And I never shift to manual either.

Pretty disappointed, especially knowing it's something that could easily be fixed but probably never will be right.