• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Thinking about buying a Colorado

ghost recon88

ghost recon88

Diamond Member
I'm getting tired of this Mustang, too much of a PITA in the winter to drive, plus its 15 years old and doesn't even have automatic locks and windows. I was looking at some of the full size trucks like the Silverado 1500 and F-150, but the 14-17MPG is scaring me off. I wouldn't be buying new, I'd be buying used, early 2000 to 2004 models. Then I saw the Colorado gets pretty decent mileage, and I can get an extended cab and 4WD option. Extended cab and 4WD is a must for me. So my question is, for any Colorado owners out there how are they as far as driving and maintenance go? I'm looking at the 5 cylinder models, and they claim 17/21 MPG, is that about what you're getting? Any major problems with the transmission or anything? Thanks
 
Owned a Colorado for approx 2 years (2005) before upgrading to a 1500 Sierra due to towing needs.

It's a gutless inline 5 with a laughable towing capacity and the inside is cheap easily nicked/broken plastic. With that said, if you need to haul things in a truck on the cheap, it's probably fine.. but if you're just looking for all wheel drive and have no truck bed perquisite, I'd suggest a used Subaru instead. Same price or less for a significantly better vehicle that will manage far better in the snow than the Colorado.

The real question is, what are your needs, and what made you pick the Colorado?
 
I need to be able to carry 2 dirtbikes in the bed, and the occasional deer. I don't plan on pulling a trailer behind it.

Colorado was better on gas than the full size trucks, and still offered 4WD and an extended cab. I also didn't plan on needing the bed or towing capability of a full size truck. Eventually may pick up a snowmobile and trailer and may have to tow that.
 
Speaking from experience, don't expect much from the 4wd on the Colorado. When I owned mine I was hauling motorcycles 50 miles back and forth from dealers and it worked just fine for that, but I'd cringe at the prospect of hauling a trailer.

Sounds like it'd do great for you. The engine's rock solid and will last, though you'll likely find it lacking in grunt. As long as you can do the general required GM maintenance you should be fine in my opinion.
 
I had one (06-07 maybe?) as a rental for 3 weeks and I was very happy to have my '98 Tacoma back.

I'd sell you my Tundra but it looks like 18mpg isn't going to do it for ya. A buddy of mine just bought an '11 Silverado with a 5.3 and it's rated for 21 highway - the big trucks aren't necessarily worse than the smaller trucks.
 
5.3L V8... the only light truck with a V8. I'm a Ford guy but compared to Ford's 4.0L V6 in the Ranger which dates back to the 1960s the V8 in the Colorado is a nuclear powered aircraft carrier.
 
4 WD and an extended cab will eat gas. If fuel economy is a concern, are both of these needed?

If you need 4 WD for snow, I simply have to say that no you don't.

Newer bigger trucks (Dodge and Chevy for sure and maybe Ford) all shut down 4 cylinders when cruising so there are fuel economy gains on the highway.

FWIW: You have not seen where gas prices are going in the next few years. $4 is nothing.
 
jlee said:
I had one (06-07 maybe?) as a rental for 3 weeks and I was very happy to have my '98 Tacoma back.

I'd sell you my Tundra but it looks like 18mpg isn't going to do it for ya. A buddy of mine just bought an '11 Silverado with a 5.3 and it's rated for 21 highway - the big trucks aren't necessarily worse than the smaller trucks.
Click to expand...

I had a rental and I liked it a lot. The chassis felt solid, compared to my XJ's unibody, the ride was good, and it had enough power.
 
I'll say this much right now, my budget is $7k so I'm not gonna be buying a new F-150 or any of the new trucks that are just now starting to get good mileage through new engine technology, nor will I be getting a new Colorado with the V8 in it.

I do need an extended cab as I haul a lot of stuff I can't leave in the bed. 4WD is just something I would like to get, but not a necessity I guess.
 
they are pretty good little trucks. a frontier is also an option. you could do a blazer or similar size suv with 4X4 and a 2 place bike trailer also. just another option.
 
If you do get an 05, then watch the air filter, they have a tendency to 'fall off' I've seen it happen on two different trucks, one of them ate a bunch of dirt through the intake and now needs a new motor. Other than that they do pretty good I think. But they would do much better with a turbo on that I5.
 
Don't know how it'd compare to the Colorado, but, I've got an '03 Ranger FX4 Level II, auto, comes with a 4.0L SOHC V-6, 4.10 rear, 31x10x15 A/T tires...and of course 4wd.

Based on my experience, don't expect to get a lot of mpg's with a compact 4wd setup w/ the larger engines. I doubt you're going to get much fuel efficiency improvement over a full size to warrant just not getting a small V-8 or V-6 fullsize and being a lot more comfortable.

Chuck
 
chucky2 said:
Don't know how it'd compare to the Colorado, but, I've got an '03 Ranger FX4 Level II, auto, comes with a 4.0L SOHC V-6, 4.10 rear, 31x10x15 A/T tires...and of course 4wd.

Based on my experience, don't expect to get a lot of mpg's with a compact 4wd setup w/ the larger engines. I doubt you're going to get much fuel efficiency improvement over a full size to warrant just not getting a small V-8 or V-6 fullsize and being a lot more comfortable.

Chuck
Click to expand...

Your Ranger has every possible parameter set to "use more fuel".

A 3.0L 2WD with a 5 speed will do a fair bit better.

Still not good though.
 
Yep, definitely everything set to work against me for better mpg...

The 3.0L is a super durable engine, but, it doesn't get that good of mileage and doesn't produce that much power....I think depending on the mpg needed and the power needed, it might be better to get the 2.3L I-4.
 
For what you are doing, just find an older Nissan hard body or Frontier.
If you are looking at good fuel economy and debating 4x4 and truck, you are not going to get all three of them.
 
chucky2 said:
Yep, definitely everything set to work against me for better mpg...

The 3.0L is a super durable engine, but, it doesn't get that good of mileage and doesn't produce that much power....I think depending on the mpg needed and the power needed, it might be better to get the 2.3L I-4.
Click to expand...

3.0 with auto was absolutely awful. With manual, much better; could even do some light-duty 3500# towing😉. Unloaded, it generally managed about 13/10 (L/100 city/highway) or about 18/23 in mpg.

That isn't 'good' but it's a fair bit better than a 5 year old half-tonne is going to manage, and this was a 1993.
 
I'd go Subaru and trailer if you want AWD + hauling ability + gas milage. You aren't going to be happy with the gas milage of basically any 4WD pickup...fullsize or compact'ish.

The Colorado is a turd. Drive one for half an hour. Then drive an '05+ Frontier. Then back to the Colorado. You'll understand.
 
Yea the Canyon/Colorado are good trucks.

But if getting the 5cyl and 4wd then gas milage will not be great. Maybe 1-2 better than a 5.3L v8 depending on options and rear gear size.

But I wnated one of them but they still cost to much. I got a mazda Ranger 4.0L V6. Gas milage sucks in it but was in my budget.
 
I know I've said it before but I don't see the wisdom in getting a small truck without a 4 cylinder. The 5/6/8 cylinder options bring the mpg into spitting distance of a full size v8.

I picked up my 06 ranger in november of 08 for 8k including ttl. You should be able to get something comparable for around the same, though I think prices jumped some after cash for clunkers. I'm always in 20+mpg, and I've thrown a street bike in the bed with another one on a little harbor freight trailer for 80 miles.
 
Something I've noticed with small pickups is the traction stinks. My S-10 is especially bad. And even though it can switch to 4WD by push button you may not get the traction in time, could be in a bad spot with spinning tires. You could also leave it in 4WD all the time but that sucks up gasoline.
If I ever got a small pickup again I'd have to make sure it was front wheel drive, like the Nissan.
But I think my next car will be an efficient sedan and I'll just rent from Uhaul when I need to move things.

Also I've test driven the Colorado a couple times and the interior seems cheap and crappy. That thing is not worth 20 grand.
 
When it comes to engine size and fuel effeciency people always over look the fact that a small pickup with a car motor in it is going to have to work a lot harder to move that truck, and thus it uses more gas. A V8 in a fullsize has a lot more power to move the weight of the fullsize truck and thus doesn't have to work as hard, which is why the MPG ratings of little and big trucks is so close.
 
JeffreyLebowski said:
When it comes to engine size and fuel effeciency people always over look the fact that a small pickup with a car motor in it is going to have to work a lot harder to move that truck, and thus it uses more gas. A V8 in a fullsize has a lot more power to move the weight of the fullsize truck and thus doesn't have to work as hard, which is why the MPG ratings of little and big trucks is so close.
Click to expand...

2011 Ranger is 22/27, annual fuel cost of $2114
2011 F150 5.0 is 15/21 and $2981 per year

It makes out for a significant difference, and I stayed in the mide 20's hauling bikes. Trucks aren't the most aerodynamic of vehicles, but I can beat on my little car engine truck and still stay in the 20's.


edit - Going from a 17 mpg average in the f150 to a 24 mpg average in the ranger is around a 41% increase. MPG increases matter more in the lower range. Going another 7 point bump from 24 to 31 would only be around a 29% boost.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top