Author Topic: Day-by-Day Review: 2015 Chevrolet Colorado 4WD; Day 1 (Read 38207 times)

rrocket · « **Reply #60 on:** February 26, 2015, 10:02:04 pm »

Quote from: johngenx on February 26, 2015, 10:00:39 pm

Two vehicles that climbers/skiers love are Tacomas and Subarus. So I have lots of friends with Tacos, and I'm always impressed when I'm out in one. First, the size. It's small enough that you can go lots of places with it, but still large enough to haul a lot of stuff. It's easy to see out of and place on difficult roads/trails. I also really like how it looks smaller, as I find the full sized trucks appear gargantuan.

Also, we tend to be hard on vehicles. We rack up lots of kms, take them on bad roads, and frequently load them to the limit. We want durable interiors (no fine Corinthian leather, ok...) and dependable mechanicals.

If they weren't so freakin' expensive in the used market, I'd have a Tacoma in a nanosecond. I don't care that it's "dated" as it's a workhorse that is great at what it does.

What about one of the original Tundras? You know...the ones that they said were "too small" and are curiously the EXACT same size as these new GM twins?

I bet you could get one of those cheap...and they come with a lovely V8

dirtyjeffer · « **Reply #61 on:** February 26, 2015, 11:46:38 pm »

i'm going to have to drive this truck soon...pretty much everything mentioned in Day 3 in terms of complaints, is the first i've read of them, and i've seen a TON of reviews on this truck in the past few months (pretty much everything you can pull up in YouTube)...the CEL is disconcerting, but may have something to do with the

gas your journalists drop in the testers.

initial_D · « **Reply #62 on:** February 27, 2015, 12:56:33 am »

Agree with JB on the day3 comments, for a truck this size, lots low end torque is needed to feel 'right', either a V8 or Diesel is a better choice, a V6 with decent high end horse power number just doesn't have sufficient torque at low rpm.

Danno001 · « **Reply #63 on:** February 27, 2015, 07:45:46 am »

Should be interesting to see the fuel economy numbers on Monday.

Cold weather, egregious speeding...

Solstice2006 · « **Reply #64 on:** February 27, 2015, 09:53:59 am »

Should have a guessing game on the average fuel economy? Tough to guess, as we don't know the city/highway ratio. I will say 50/50 ratio, and factor in the cold weather, and assume he wasn't trying to save gas, just his "normal" driving. 12.7L/100km is my guess!

SaskSpecV · « **Reply #65 on:** February 27, 2015, 10:13:53 am »

Quote from: rrocket on February 26, 2015, 10:02:04 pm

What about one of the original Tundras? You know...the ones that they said were "too small" and are curiously the EXACT same size as these new GM twins?

I bet you could get one of those cheap...and they come with a lovely V8

Every time I see one of those pre-2007 Tundras, I think "damn, that's a right-sized truck"...

wing · « **Reply #66 on:** February 27, 2015, 10:17:27 am »

70/30 (hwy/city) maybe even more hwy than that, hard to guess. But very little city this past week. If that helps your guessing game.

Fobroader · « **Reply #67 on:** February 27, 2015, 10:18:21 am »

Quote from: SaskSpecV on February 27, 2015, 10:13:53 am

Quote from: rrocket on February 26, 2015, 10:02:04 pm
What about one of the original Tundras? You know...the ones that they said were "too small" and are curiously the EXACT same size as these new GM twins?

I bet you could get one of those cheap...and they come with a lovely V8

Every time I see one of those pre-2007 Tundras, I think "damn, that's a right-sized truck"...

You guys mean the T100 right??

Solstice2006 · « **Reply #68 on:** February 27, 2015, 10:37:29 am »

Quote from: wing on February 27, 2015, 10:17:27 am

70/30 (hwy/city) maybe even more hwy than that, hard to guess. But very little city this past week. If that helps your guessing game.

I will revise my guess to 11.7L/100km...

Solstice2006 · « **Reply #69 on:** February 27, 2015, 10:41:13 am »

I wonder if the noise is any better in the Canyon, more sound deadening materials?

blotter · « **Reply #70 on:** February 27, 2015, 10:42:03 am »

Quote from: Solstice2006 on February 27, 2015, 10:37:29 am

Quote from: wing on February 27, 2015, 10:17:27 am
70/30 (hwy/city) maybe even more hwy than that, hard to guess. But very little city this past week. If that helps your guessing game.

I will revise my guess to 11.7L/100km...

looking at my number - my guess is going to be 13/ 14L/100km
assuming it's been as cold and snowy in Ottawa as Niagara (which I assume would be)

blotter · « **Reply #71 on:** February 27, 2015, 10:46:11 am »

BTW

took my Taco for it's first service. While waiting they had a Tundra in the showroom.
would have loved to take side by side pictures - there's certainly a difference in size.

I sat inside and could tell right away it was bigger. The space between the seats is twice as large in the Tundra. In the Taco, I can easily reach over and open the passenger side door from the driver's seat. It's very hard and a huge stretch in the Tundra.

On my Taco, I can stand beside the box and reach over the sides and reach almost the middle of the inside.
On the Tundra, I had to get on my tip toes just to get over and touch the inside, nevermind reaching for the middle.

and FWIW - I actually like the inside of mine better (the storage spaces, etc) seem to make more sense and be more useful.

Solstice2006 · « **Reply #72 on:** February 27, 2015, 10:56:53 am »

Quote from: blotter on February 27, 2015, 10:42:03 am

Quote from: Solstice2006 on February 27, 2015, 10:37:29 am
Quote from: wing on February 27, 2015, 10:17:27 am
70/30 (hwy/city) maybe even more hwy than that, hard to guess. But very little city this past week. If that helps your guessing game.

I will revise my guess to 11.7L/100km...

looking at my number - my guess is going to be 13/ 14L/100km
assuming it's been as cold and snowy in Ottawa as Niagara (which I assume would be)

I am hoping that the numbers are better than yours. Which is what GM claims.... It will take a bit of time, to get more numbers on fuelly to compare...

blotter · « **Reply #73 on:** February 27, 2015, 11:30:34 am »

Quote from: Solstice2006 on February 27, 2015, 10:56:53 am

Quote from: blotter on February 27, 2015, 10:42:03 am
Quote from: Solstice2006 on February 27, 2015, 10:37:29 am
Quote from: wing on February 27, 2015, 10:17:27 am
70/30 (hwy/city) maybe even more hwy than that, hard to guess. But very little city this past week. If that helps your guessing game.

I will revise my guess to 11.7L/100km...

looking at my number - my guess is going to be 13/ 14L/100km
assuming it's been as cold and snowy in Ottawa as Niagara (which I assume would be)

I am hoping that the numbers are better than yours. Which is what GM claims.... It will take a bit of time, to get more numbers on fuelly to compare...

I think they will be (and should be)
but in these -30 degree temps, winds and snow.... my last few tanks of gas have all been 14+L
getting as high as 16.5L

hence my 13/14 guess. Summertime - I would say 11 / 12L

Solstice2006 · « **Reply #74 on:** February 27, 2015, 11:31:29 am »

Didn't realize your getting that high, thought 14L was the max....

johngenx · « **Reply #75 on:** February 27, 2015, 11:35:07 am »

Taco owners I know report 16-17 in winter city driving. Stop and go and liberal use of 4X4 seems to result in high consumption.

blotter · « **Reply #76 on:** February 27, 2015, 11:35:58 am »

strange... my Fuelly thing disappeared.

14L was max until we hit all this cold and snow!!!

6000k tracked kms:

best: 11.1L/km
worse: 16.5L/km (it was at least -20 and colder for the entire tank and I did a fair bit of driving in deep snow)

average so far: 13L

While it's always nice to get better numbers, I'm satisfied so far.

... edit: and yes, I've noticed that city driving in the winter will really impact the numbers.

Sir Osis of Liver · « **Reply #77 on:** February 27, 2015, 11:42:31 am »

The Fuelly average for the 365hp F150 Ecoboost is 15L/100km. Just sayin'

ktm525 · « **Reply #78 on:** February 27, 2015, 12:02:33 pm »

Quote from: rrocket on February 26, 2015, 10:02:04 pm

Quote from: johngenx on February 26, 2015, 10:00:39 pm
Two vehicles that climbers/skiers love are Tacomas and Subarus. So I have lots of friends with Tacos, and I'm always impressed when I'm out in one. First, the size. It's small enough that you can go lots of places with it, but still large enough to haul a lot of stuff. It's easy to see out of and place on difficult roads/trails. I also really like how it looks smaller, as I find the full sized trucks appear gargantuan.

Also, we tend to be hard on vehicles. We rack up lots of kms, take them on bad roads, and frequently load them to the limit. We want durable interiors (no fine Corinthian leather, ok...) and dependable mechanicals.

If they weren't so freakin' expensive in the used market, I'd have a Tacoma in a nanosecond. I don't care that it's "dated" as it's a workhorse that is great at what it does.

Those are my favourite. The original Tundra with the sweet 4.7L.
What about one of the original Tundras? You know...the ones that they said were "too small" and are curiously the EXACT same size as these new GM twins?

I bet you could get one of those cheap...and they come with a lovely V8

blotter · « **Reply #79 on:** February 27, 2015, 12:28:58 pm »

Quote from: Sir Osis of Liver on February 27, 2015, 11:42:31 am

The Fuelly average for the 365hp F150 Ecoboost is 15L/100km. Just sayin'

that's find. even if they reported 12L it wouldn't matter to me. I didn't want a full size period.