Were you disappointed when Chevy replaced the S-10 with the Colorado? What did you like about it? What should they have done differently?
Well.....disappointed of course! I think the Colorado looks ok, but nothing about it really stands out to me, other than that it seems like Chevy is trying to fit in with all the other truck makers instead of developing the S-10, their FORMER SMALL PICKUP. The trend seems to be bigger, more car-like, bubbly, overly-romanticized "trucks" instead of keepin' it more functional and traditional. Hmmm gas prices are going up, so let's get rid of our 4 banger mini. WHAT? The S-10 can be such a great commuter (not to mention perfect for customizing...) When you wanted a small-sized Chevy, the S-10 was it, and the Colorado is no replacement. I think the colorado front end on the s-10 looks tight, they should have just given the s-10 a new front end instead of getting rid of it. Bring back the S-10 someday..... because it makes no sense to go bigger. Additionally, this only creates more competition for chevy against itself, since the colorado is closer to a fullsize. The S-10 didn't compete with other chevy trucks.
Auto-Mo, I understand where you're coming from, but the overall industry trend is undeniably toward bigger "minis." I'm not saying I necessarily agree with it, but I'm just saying that's the direction things were going, and they needed to keep pace. That said, I think Chevy did somewhat of a half-@$$ job on the Colorado. I drove one (or the Isuzu i280, same difference) back-to-back with a Tacoma and a Frontier, and there's simply no comparison. The Toyota and Nissan are far more refined and "tight." The Chesuzu just felt floppy, loose and 10 years old in comparison. The only area it was somewhat competitive was the engine. And that was just a comparison of the base 4-cylinder models. As far as optional engines, again, no contest! 4.0L V-6s against an oddball 3.5L 5-banger? At least the new ones have a 242-horse 3.7, but still. Having a 5 when everyone else has a 6 (including the freakin' Ranger, for crying out loud!) is just embarrasing, even if it's halfway competitive in terms of output.
Here's what the Colorado SHOULD have been: Base engine: Current one is OK. It's actually pretty smooth, powerful and efficient. Upgrade engine: Punched-out DOHC V-6 similar to one from Caddy CTS. 4.0L, 275 horse, 280-290 lb/ft of torque.Upgrade engine II: 5.3 Vortec with DOD. 315 horse, 335 lb./ft., Flex-fuel. SS engine: 6.0 LS2, 395 horse, 400 lb./ft.Make any engine available in any trim level, any config, (std. cab, ext, crew) except for SS, which would get the LS2 as an exclusive. Offer the SS in std, ext. and crew bodystyles, RWD or AWD. Offer standard 4-wheel discs on all trim levels (like Nissan Frontier). And finally, they could have made the body and chassis a lot more rigid. The current one is as floppy as over-cooked spaghetti. Styling-wise, I actually don't think they look too bad. The interiors are boxy and plasticky. They could have done a much better job there, but the powertrains were by far the biggest disappointment for me.
just brainstorming, but do you think they'll ever bring back the S10? Or is that gone for good?
I think it's probably sayonara for good. The Colorado essentially replaced it. I think the days of the cheap, basic mini-truck are essentially over. You can still get a fleet special Colorado with the wipe-clean seats and vinyl floors, but I guarantee you it ain't gonna get any smaller. I say they can make up for botching the 1st-gen Colorado by implementing my suggested changes above. :-)
i wasnt disappointed at all. i believe that Chevy got it on the money when they came out with the Colorado Xtreme Crew Cab. The wheel base and width of the vehicle is very close to that of my 1990 scottsdale, yet it is considered a midsize truck. I think that the decision to run an inline 5 motor instead of a 6 was very inovative and came at a time when people where looking for a decent size truck that they could haul stuff around in and at the same time save a few bucks at the pump. The body lines all flow and the entire vehicle was made to be very aftermarket friendly just like S10's of the past. so in my opinion, they didnt really get rid of the S10, they just changed the name to flow with what chevrolet's marketing team is trying to achieve by naming their new trucks after American landmarks.Chevrolet ran that body style S10 for roughly 10 years meaning that its about time for some change. unlike Ford, who has had the same body style Ranger for well over ten years now with only slight options that would make it a little different from past models.So to make a long reply short, "I like the Colorado and the direction that GM is going with all of their new vehicles"
Chevrolac, I gotta disagree with you, bro. I think Chevy screwed up on the Colorado on several fronts. The I-5 engine may have been innovative, but I think it's a hard-sell in the dealership when all your competitors have sixes. Like I've said before, Americans are funny about cylinder count and status. Even though the new 3.7 I-5 might have more horsepower than the Taco V-6, it's still a smaller engine and an oddball design. The rumor is a 5.3 V-8 is going to be offered for '08. It's about time. Finally the Colorado will have a distinctive selling point against its competitors. And from everything I've read, it'll probably get about the same economy as the I-5 since it has cylinder de-activation. Also, I think the fact it has rear drums across the board is a disappointment. I know all the new Tacos are rear drums, too, but I still think it's kind of cheesy. I can understand on the base model, but they should at least offer rear discs as an upgrade option. Interior is typical boxy, nasty GM hard plastic, and the chassis wobbles like a bowl of Jell-O. It's all the details. Yes, I admit I like the looks of the Colo. But it seemed kind of half-baked to me. They could have done better. That's just my $.02.
If they really want to offer a fuel-economy option in the Colorado/Canyon, they should offer an optional turbodiesel. Yeah, I know emissions compliance is expensive, but if you could get more than 30 mpg, it would probably be worth it to a lot of people. Hopefully the next-gen model (if there is one) will offer this.
I HOPE YOU DON'T MIND ME BUTTING IN. I HAVE OWNED AN 06 COLORADO FOR 9MOS.. IT'S A 4CYL 5SPD EXTENDED CAB 2WD.. THIS TRUCK IS THE BIGGEST PIECE OF CRAP I HAVE EVER OWNED. IT HAS NO POWER, IT HANDLES LIKE A BOAT ON THE OCEAN. WHEN ITS COLD OUT YOU CAN HEAR THE BODY MOUNTS CRACKLE. THE ONE WHO SAID THEY SHOULD HAVE KEPT THE S10 WAS RIGHT!!!!
I personally feel the Canyon fell short. I agree with Ed when he said that it should come with a v6. If it had a v8 I'd be loving it. Regarding the floppy driving feeling its a small truck so i guess its a little bit hit or miss. Styling for the Canyon is great I remember the first time I saw one of the yellow ones sittin on 17's on a dealer lot. I was stoked! I thought it was hot. The s 10 SS however, was also super sweet. To say that the colorado was a good replacement would be an over statement.
I think the colorado is a very good vehicle i have a 2006 colorado ive had it for 1 year and 7 months and it is a pertfect all around vehicle.. it has good power, it drives smooth, good fuel mileage. I have had no problems with it, it starts good in the winter, and the battery lasts forever.. so i think that you people that say that it was a bad idea to switch out the s-10 for the colorado are wrong. the colorado was totally worth it
I am a fan of mini trucks, so ANYTHING that flat out replaces a mini seems like backwards thinking to me, as they're only creating more competition within themselves.And midsize trucks are a waste of space - they try to be everything to everyone, and in the process fall short in all categories. "Look I'm not big but I'm not small! I'm kind of powerful but not really. I get ok gas mileage." They're a compromise in every category. If I want to tow and want power, I'll get a fullsize for a few bucks more. If I want to commute and put stuff in a bed, let me get a mini. I don't expect my mini to tow my toy hauler, and I don't expect my fullsize to be the ideal commuter. You flat out can't accomodate everyone with one vehicle, and THAT'S OK. So the midsize truck really does an average job and I don't their need.
if you say that a midsized trucks do "average jobs"... and you say that your a big fan of mini trucks.... well what do mini trucks do, if midsized trucks do "average".. i think minitrucks *** nothing
Ive seen some really hot mini trucks hauling bikes, and quads in the back. Mini trucks are still trucks!!