First Drive : 2004 Chevrolet Colorado & GMC Canyon

[NFS4]

http://www.pickuptruck.com/html/2004/chevrolet/colorado/firstdrive/page1.html

 

[ApacheXMD]

Aww. I was expecting the Cayonero from the Simpson's...

-patchy

 

[LAUST]

.

 

[Demon-Xanth]

That thing needs a V8.

 

[radioouman]

On the third page it sounds like this truck is front wheel drive.... That's not a bad thing, but an inline 5 cylinder engine with front wheel drive? That probably means a transverse mounted engine. Interesting...

 

[Demon-Xanth]

In the semi-cutaway picture you can clearly see the driveshaft going to the rear wheels.

NOONE is dumb enough to create a rear wheel drive pickup that's really a pickup. Maybe something like the Subaru Baja, but not something on that scale.

 

[radioouman]

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth
In the semi-cutaway picture you can clearly see the driveshaft going to the rear wheels.

NOONE is dumb enough to create a rear wheel drive pickup that's really a pickup. Maybe something like the Subaru Baja, but not something on that scale.

It could easily be available in front wheel and four wheel configurations. I wouldn't put it past GM to do something like this, since they are only offering I4 and I5 engines. To be honest, I think that front wheel drive would be 10X better than rear wheel drive in a small pickup. Much better in snow (if you don't have 4x4).

 

[geno]

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth
That thing needs a V8.

That's one thing I don't get. Dodge is the only maker with a small pickup with V8 power, yet does it really see any more sales from that fact? What percentage of Dakotas are sold with V8's? I think that many people would argue that it doesn't *need* a V8, it'd be nice, but I dunno if it needs one.

 

[bernse]

I've been waiting for info on the Colorado. I'll be in the market for a full size, but I've been wanting to take a look at this truck.

 

[Demon-Xanth]

radioouman: In the picture you can also clearly see the engine isn't transverse.

geno: A signifigant number are sold with V8s, people get the V6 thinking they'll get better gas milage and end up disappointed when they get similar MPG numbers and lack the performance of the V8. Dodge ranks in at #4 on my list of perferred manufacturers (well, #3 now that Plymouth doesn't exist) behind Pontiac/GMC and Chevy. But I got a Dakota since GM never offered a V8 in the Sonoma. People also used to buy 4 cylinder Dakotas, but these people are terminally stupid and I'm glad Dodge dropped that option.

 

[radioouman]

Originally posted by: geno

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth
That thing needs a V8.

That's one thing I don't get. Dodge is the only maker with a small pickup with V8 power, yet does it really see any more sales from that fact? What percentage of Dakotas are sold with V8's? I think that many people would argue that it doesn't *need* a V8, it'd be nice, but I dunno if it needs one.

Unfortunately, the V6 that Dodge puts in the Dakota is pretty bad. It is very reliable, but not much power. I think that the current 3.9 V6 only has 175 horsepower. They used to offer a 2.5 liter 4 cylinder in the Dakotas! In 1993, you could get an I4, V6, or V8! Sort of reminds you of the muscle car days when you could get 100 - 400 horsepower in just about any car. (more or less....)

I've never driven one of the V8 powered Dakotas, but I'm sure that towing would be a lot easier with one!

 

[geno]

Don't get me wrong, if I were ever to get a truck right now (for towing/plowing) It'd probably be a Dakota, why? I don't need a larger truck, and I do need V8 power.

I just don't know if the rest of the nation feels that way - but if I had it my way, GM and Ford would also have V8 counterparts

 

[bernse]

Just read it. That 4 door Colorado is a nice looking unit.

 

[Demon-Xanth]

2002 was the last year for the I-4 iirc.

Edit: and the V8 Dakotas are good for the 15 second range in the 1/4.

 

[brian_riendeau]

"To be honest, I think that front wheel drive would be 10X better than rear wheel drive in a small pickup. Much better in snow (if you don't have 4x4)."

I think it would lead to more problems than just RWD. With RWD, people need to smarten up and add weight to the back of the truck, or get some snow tires (and likely still add weight). Usually if you go off the road due to a lack of traction putting the power down to the rear wheels, you are not moving quickly because you never had the traction to get moving fast. With FWD, people would be in a situation where they could get up to speed very fast and think they were OK, but the first time they tried to turn under braking, the lack of weight in the back would spin the vehicle around, whoops!

 

[vi edit]

GM's attitude twords this - if you want a V8 - buy full size.

If you want a functional truck bed, decent economy, a nice comfortable cabin, and don't care too much about towing huge amounts or having 1000+ pound payloads, then buy the Colorado/Canyon.

I think it's wise, personally.

 

[conjur]

Not a big fan at all of those headlights but that's a nice interior.

 

[Demon-Xanth]

The problem that FWD has is this:

Take a truck and back it down a boat ramp. Weight gets shifted to the rear.
Put a boat trailer on it, weight is added to the rear and removed from the front.
Put the boat on there, more weight is added to the rear and removed from the front.
Acellerate, even MORE weight is shifted to the rear.

Now, on a wet boat ramp this is a very bad thing. You'll be hoping that someone is around with a tow chain. FWD for a truck would ONLY make sense if you never intended to use it as a truck. If you fit in that group, please kick yourself in the head.

 

[Demon-Xanth]

Originally posted by: vi_edit
GM's attitude twords this - if you want a V8 - buy full size.

If you want a functional truck bed, decent economy, a nice comfortable cabin, and don't care too much about towing huge amounts or having 1000+ pound payloads, then buy the Colorado/Canyon.

I think it's wise, personally.

Not everyone gets a V8 because they need it for hauling stuff other than ass

I take the approach that Cobra fans tend to have:
AC Cobra: 'eh, it works.
289 Cobra: Perfect!
427 Cobra: MORE PERFECT!

 

[vi edit]

Now, on a wet boat ramp this is a very bad thing. You'll be hoping that someone is around with a tow chain. FWD for a truck would ONLY make sense if you never intended to use it as a truck. If you fit in that group, please kick yourself in the head.

Well then, a large portion of people buying trucks need a kick in the head. I would venture to guess that a significant percentage of people buying trucks never come close to using them for their intended purpose. Many trucks never have a hitch put on them. Many never see any terrain short of concrete and asphalt. Many of them are bought for the occassional trip down to home depot, or picking up a couch, or taking stuff to the dump, or grabbing a couple bags of mulch for the yard, ect. And they are largely used as a family hauler. For these situations, FWD would work fine.

 

[radioouman]

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth
The problem that FWD has is this:

Take a truck and back it down a boat ramp. Weight gets shifted to the rear.
Put a boat trailer on it, weight is added to the rear and removed from the front.
Put the boat on there, more weight is added to the rear and removed from the front.
Acellerate, even MORE weight is shifted to the rear.

Now, on a wet boat ramp this is a very bad thing. You'll be hoping that someone is around with a tow chain. FWD for a truck would ONLY make sense if you never intended to use it as a truck. If you fit in that group, please kick yourself in the head.

Have you ever tried to pull a boat out of the water with a 2WD drive and the rear wheels are on a moss covered ramp? I've used a front wheel drive car to pull a boat out of the water and it worked perfectly since the front tires stay dry. I have a friend who almost lost his jetski and truck because his full size F150 was 2WD and the tires were slipping on a moss covered dock.

Well then, a large portion of people buying trucks need a kick in the head. I would venture to guess that a significant percentage of people buying trucks never come close to using them for their intended purpose. Many trucks never have a hitch put on them. Many never see any terrain short of concrete and asphalt. Many of them are bought for the occassional trip down to home depot, or picking up a couch, or taking stuff to the dump, or grabbing a couple bags of mulch for the yard, ect. And they are largely used as a family hauler. For these situations, FWD would work fine.

Isn't it great to see 4x4 quad cab long bed Hemi Rams running around without a trailer hitch and looking spotless like the day they were new? I don't feel like a truck that gets 10 mpg is needed for moving furniture from the store to the house. I think that a small FWD truck would have a market for people who use them to make trips to Home Depot. THey are more economical, easier to manuever, and will probably fit in your garage.

 

[arod]

Originally posted by: conjur
Not a big fan at all of those headlights but that's a nice interior.

Thats one thing I wish was better on the 2000-and up full size gmc and silverados. Its a nice interior but this new one looks light years better.

 

[440sixpack]

Originally posted by: radioouman
Unfortunately, the V6 that Dodge puts in the Dakota is pretty bad. It is very reliable, but not much power. I think that the current 3.9 V6 only has 175 horsepower.

Actually, they now have the new Magnum 3.7 V6 in them, good for 215 hp.

 

[radioouman]

Originally posted by: 440sixpack

Originally posted by: radioouman
Unfortunately, the V6 that Dodge puts in the Dakota is pretty bad. It is very reliable, but not much power. I think that the current 3.9 V6 only has 175 horsepower.

Actually, they now have the new Magnum 3.7 V6 in them, good for 215 hp.

Yep, you're right... for 2004 anyway. I'm sad to see the LA engines go away (3.9, 318, and 360...)

 

[Turkish]

Originally posted by: NFS4
http://www.pickuptruck.com/html/2004/chevrolet/colorado/firstdrive/page1.html

wtf? is chevy trying to look like nissan? and those headlights are really ugly....