Having already launched the all new fullsize 2014 Silverado & GMC Sierra pickups and 2015 Heavy Duty versions of those trucks this year, General Motors is turning its attention to midsize trucks as it gets ready to reveal the Chevy Colorado and GMC Canyon later this month at the Los Angeles Auto Show. GM has already teased photos of parts of those trucks’ front ends and now they’ve released another image, this time of a draped Colorado sitting next to the new Silverado.
While the new truck is covered up, the photo does give us an idea of its scale, which appears to be significantly larger than the previous Colorado. Production will begin next year at GM’s Wentzville, Missouri assembly plant. Chevy says that it “is engineered to be the most capable, most versatile and technologically advanced midsized truck in the market.”. You can watch the reveal live from the LA show on November 20 here.
Where is today’s modern, simple, 35MPG small pickup? Now that would be a distinct segment.
@Detroit-X
Here’s your 35mpg pickup. We get them here, actually not bad considering the Mercedes Benz heritage.
They are just on the size of a Taco or Frontier.
http://www.caradvice.com.au/168006/ssangyong-actyon-sports-review-2/
@BAFO – I don’t see you trading your BT50 for a Ssangyong, but it’s a lot smaller than US midsizers. Small doesn’t mean bad, but what would be its average MPG in places with stop signs and traffic?
It’s actually not that much smaller DiM.
They are actually a little wider than my BT50.
Why would I trade in my BT50?
I don’t buy vehicles for fan boi reasons. I buy a vehicle to suit an application.
There are obviously people who buy them because it suits their requirements.
Maybe the US can get these on day :) I won’t talk about the tariffs and regulations preventing this from occurring economically (UAW ;-)
Oh, good an article about small American trucks… I’ll get the popcorn and chicken tax, er, I mean, nuggets
Don’t forget these for your after-snacking pleasure.
http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2013/11/12/beer-infused-cigars-make-dreams-come-true/
Ha! I thought for sure that would have to come from Wisconsin, then I saw the price of the Sam Adams and knew it couldn’t *sigh*
you guys crack me up!!
When you see Swisher Sweets soaked in Liney’s, you’ll know its from Wisconsin.
Please. “Leinie’s.”
I’ve said my peace enough times on the subject enough times that it isn’t worth the keystrokes beating the same dead horse.
@Jimal
May peace be with you!
Well, how hard would it be to determine the size of the Colorado?
GM or Chev can’t be that dumb.
Spit.
The greenhouse is denuded, the size is that of a standard half-ton of 10 years ago and its beltline and thus the bed’s reach-over height is prohibitive of side-loading.
Spit.
So now midsize truck means take away an inch here and inch there, right?
I actually miss standard cab long bed (usually around 7 feet) Rangers, S10s, and Dakotas of yore. Back in the late 90s when I was going to college and working in their maintenance department their fleet included several 80s GM trucks and a much newer Dakota V6 standard cab long bed. The Dakota was perfect for 99% of all the jobs we were asking the trucks to do.
“I actually miss standard cab long bed (usually around 7 feet) Rangers, S10s, and Dakotas of yore.”
I agree. You know I owned a 1996 Ranger short bed standard cab. It was great until it wasn’t – in the comfort department. Problem was, I had to put up with it longer than I wanted to because the stupid thing never broke, ran ‘way too good and looked cute as a button!
Comfort-wise, it’s rough getting older…
“The Dakota was perfect for 99% of all the jobs we were asking the trucks to do.”
That’s why I still have mine (’02 Quad Cab 2WD 4.7l V8 auto). Just the other day a neighbor walked by and commented how he was amazed that my truck fit INSIDE my garage while his F-150 did not. I told him the same thing I tell anyone who will listen: today’s trucks are TOO DAMN BIG.
I also owned a Ranger (Splash 2WD 4.0l V6 auto) and its only real usability problem was being slightly underpowered for towing. Size wise it was bit tight inside, but for my needs even the short step-side bed was fine. It hauled bikes, BBQ grills, landscaping materials, light building supplies and helped in assorted moves (furniture & garage sale type items). The bed was low enough that you could easily access it without putting the tailgate down. That is just not possible with today’s BEASTS.
No one is asking you to buy a full-size crew cab with the longest bed available. You do just fine with the Dakota Quad cab which is similar to my super cab F-150. It fits in my garage with room to spare. It’s a standard 12′ X 22′ single car garage. But OEMs are just guilty of giving consumers what they want. A million+ yearly 1/2 ton buyers sure aren’t complaining. Consumers purdy much abandoned the mid-size market so what do you expect OEMs to do?
“The Dakota was perfect for 99% of all the jobs we were asking the trucks to do.”
Sales volumes were far less than perfect, so it was discontinued.
Agreed. A Ranger does what I need a truck to do, and it still fits in my garage while an F-150 won’t. If every car maker only wants to sell big pickups, that’s fine–I won’t buy one, and everyone goes home happy.
My stupid ’86 Toyota Pickup (nothing but air conditioning) did about 90% of what I needed. Towing a pallet of sod proved a little squirrelly. But it’s easily tow a landscaping trailer or a Volvo. I never needed a wheel barrow. It was small enough to pull into most postage stamp-sized suburban backyards and do whatever. Cost me about 15 cents a mile. 18-25 MPG. Any novice could easily repair it. Truly an environmentally friendly, sustainable vehicle.
Looks like they just cut the roof down without making it any shorter at the hood or bed.. what’s the point? I bet the prices will be within spitting distance of fullsizers as well.
For me, the real eye opener in terms of just how prevalent and popular the decked out crewcab pickups are was when I went camping in Ludington State Park in Michigan. Quite literally 75% of the other campers were young families with a 24 foot camper towed by a late model domestic crew cab. I understand why truck makers are apprehensive to invest money into a new generation of small trucks when the full size ones are so overwhelmingly popular.
I used to scoff at the tarted up crewcabs, but after sitting in a 2012 Tundra Crewmax at a dealer and seeing the newest domestic V8s crack 20mpg on the highway, I can definitely see the appeal. The interior room is incredible, and the bed can easily take dirty mountain bikes, firewood, wet camping gear, etc. With thousands of dollars on the hood, even the prices seem reasonable considering the performance and utility. I can totally see myself getting one of these in a few years.
If the roofline is lower, then the frontal area is reduced, which should reduce aerodynamic drag. That will help it with hwy mileage, but unless they can cut weight, city mileage will be mostly unchanged.
Trucks and aerodynamics never really got along, I doubt a bit of sleek styling will change anything.
But it will help sales maybe, I honestly wish that trucks would quit the big belt “IM A MAAAAN!!!! ARRRRR!!!” styling.
It either has a front spoiler 2 feet tall or it is lifted. I say lifted.
Introducing the new Chevy Burqa
If you’ve ever peeked under one of those you’d know there was a good reason for them.. Let’s hope this isn’t Chevy’s reason
Maybe Chev has the terrible interior we have in our Colorado’s.
I also hope they don’t use on of those ‘Big Rig’ grille’s on it. The inadequate penis grille.
>Chevy says that it “is engineered to be the most capable, most versatile and technologically advanced midsized truck in the market.”
Hmm, Chevy must have forgotten what “midsized” means. Of course, if you no longer produce SMALL trucks, how do you actually place a truck BETWEEN the small and large? And when did bloated become a synonym for “technologically advanced”?
The Colorado isn’t the most capable midsizer in the mid size truck market. The VW Amarok, global Ranger and BT 50 are superior.
@RobertRyan
Hey, talk to the Fiat motard Ram guys about numbers and best vehicle :)
I’m not talking sales, actually I have read that the Ranger and BT50 are starting to really increase in numbers.
I’ll see if I can gather more information.
I read we had a 72% increase in ute numbers in 2013 over 2011.
I think there would be a market for a genuine “small” truck, I still see a ton of rangers and old S10s used in fleets and even they are not that efficient.
I could see Ford taking the Transit Connect and closing off the cab, offering an open bed version.
Toyota and Nissan already have that market cornered. There isn’t room for a lot more players.
Automakers need to make money, and the money is in the large truck segment.
So as a show car, that thing’s on 40″ tires, right?
Otherwise, no thanks.
LOLLL
It’s hideous.
http://www.autocarpics.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/2013-GMC-Canyon-Red-Cars.jpg
That looks nothing like GMC front, but hideous? It looks like everything else out there to me.
That’s not even close, you got suckered in to a rendering and a bad one at that
Please provide link to the real one, since you’re so in the know :)
It is also the most real rendering I’ve ever seen. It also has the same doors as the D-Max shown in the post below.
I’m just looking at the real front ends above and they don’t match the rendering you linked to
“The Chevrolet Colorado has been on sale in Thailand since 2012. That model, seen here in crew-cab format, has a sleeker nose than the version coming to the U.S.”
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/autos/general-motors-offers-peak-upcoming-compact-pickups-article-1.1422427#ixzz2kaUOSVaG
Not the same looking truck
Here’s the Izuzu version of the Colorado.
Different body treatment, engine and drive train.
Looks much nicer.
http://www.themotorreport.com.au/54424/2013-isuzu-d-max-ls-u-and-sx-crew-cab-and-space-cab-ute-launch-review
Now that’s a hideous truck
So Ford does not want to bring the new Ranger to the US because it’s not much smaller than a full size and GM is doing it anyway…
There is still a big difference in engineering between a full size and a mid size and, that does not mean a difference in performance. It means a big advantage in fuel savings with comparable performance and reliability.
I suspect GM is betting on the eventual death of the full size, or at least, a majority move to “mid” size.
I also think they are on the money, this time.
@Beerboy12 – There’s currently no domestic Big 3, mid-size trucks and that’s worth an automatic 100,000+ sales. Cities, counties and other government offices buy import brands as a last resort. It’s the same with many fleet customers, especially in middle America. Mostly strippers at a huge discount.
GM gets instant sales success. Likely at the expensive of profitability. GM is still GM.