Author Topic: Day-by-Day Review: 2015 Chevrolet Colorado 4WD; Day 1 (Read 38559 times)

Autos_Editor · « **on:** February 25, 2015, 06:00:08 am »

GM's middle-weight contender.

Read More...

Silverbird · « **Reply #1 on:** February 25, 2015, 10:02:47 am »

Is that the 5.5' box?

How is the fit in a garage?

OliverD · « **Reply #2 on:** February 25, 2015, 10:14:51 am »

Quote from: Silverbird on February 25, 2015, 10:02:47 am

Is that the 5.5' box?

How is the fit in a garage?

No, that's the longer of the two boxes.

wing · « **Reply #3 on:** February 25, 2015, 10:28:55 am »

How big is your garage? Mine is 25-feet deep, bet it fits just fine lol

dirtyjeffer · « **Reply #4 on:** February 25, 2015, 10:35:10 am »

looking forward to reading your comments on it...we will likely be buying one of these in a few months (short box though, but otherwise the same set up, Z71 CrewCab)...from the numerous reviews i have read, it seems to be quite good...the Nissan and Toyota trucks are very good, but they all say this new GM truck is better in pretty much every way.

bridgecity · « **Reply #5 on:** February 25, 2015, 10:50:21 am »

If I was in the market for a midsize, the area under the rear seat would be a deal killer.

dkerr24 · « **Reply #6 on:** February 25, 2015, 10:51:54 am »

One thing I wish Chevy would do is to offer same color bowtie badges. That ugly gold color in the bowtie has to go. A small piece of body color vinyl does wonders:

The Colorado is a huge improvement and good to see some money being put into mid-size trucks. 1.5X size full-size trucks are too much me. For that matter, the long box Colorado would be too much, wouldn't fit in my 22 ft long garage.

drive67 · « **Reply #7 on:** February 25, 2015, 11:16:07 am »

No manual transmission with 4WD I'm already out.

$40,000 not even a diesel does not compete with the Ram 1500.

The old Colorado had poor quality and reliability without a track record taking your chances just to have an GMC.

Solstice2006 · « **Reply #8 on:** February 25, 2015, 11:23:48 am »

Quote from: bridgecity on February 25, 2015, 10:50:21 am

If I was in the market for a midsize, the area under the rear seat would be a deal killer.

I don't follow, why??

blotter · « **Reply #9 on:** February 25, 2015, 11:31:19 am »

Quote from: dirtyjeffer on February 25, 2015, 10:35:10 am

looking forward to reading your comments on it...we will likely be buying one of these in a few months (short box though, but otherwise the same set up, Z71 CrewCab)...from the numerous reviews i have read, it seems to be quite good...the Nissan and Toyota trucks are very good, but they all say this new GM truck is better in pretty much every way.

and it should be. everyone tells me how my Taco is "old"
so a new truck better be far better than the un-updated Tacoma.
the real test will be this vs. the new Tacoma.

I've seen a couple around now and they look good. My boss' husband will be buying one to replace his dead Dakota. He wants a loaded truck (leather and all) but not the 1/2 ton size.
He did look at the Tacoma but likes the GM better (he's also a domestic guy to begin with so the "old" Taco did not impress) He did the Toronto Car Show and sadly Toyota did not have the new Tacoma at the show (?- weird)

wing · « **Reply #10 on:** February 25, 2015, 11:46:30 am »

So far, I don't get it. Why not get the full size? This is almost as big.

Solstice2006 · « **Reply #11 on:** February 25, 2015, 11:53:47 am »

Quote from: wing on February 25, 2015, 11:46:30 am

So far, I don't get it. Why not get the full size? This is almost as big.

Well you just did a review of the Tacoma, does it feel bigger than the Tacoma? Like how it drives....

Sir Osis of Liver · « **Reply #12 on:** February 25, 2015, 11:55:54 am »

Quote from: wing on February 25, 2015, 11:46:30 am

So far, I don't get it. Why not get the full size? This is almost as big.

I don't get it either. This is too close to the full size trucks to bother with. The old S10, Ranger, Hardbody and Toyota pickups made sense because they were substantially smaller than a full size truck.

The reason we don't get the current Ranger is Ford came to the same conclusion. Too close to the F150 in size and price, with little benefit in fuel economy.

dirtyjeffer · « **Reply #13 on:** February 25, 2015, 11:56:44 am »

Quote from: wing on February 25, 2015, 11:46:30 am

So far, I don't get it. Why not get the full size? This is almost as big.

it's about 6 inches narrower and a foot shorter (depending on configuration). That might not seem like much, but when putting it in a regular garage, it can make a big difference.

blotter · « **Reply #14 on:** February 25, 2015, 11:58:29 am »

Quote from: wing on February 25, 2015, 11:46:30 am

So far, I don't get it. Why not get the full size? This is almost as big.

but what does almost mean?

there's a guy in our bike club, he has a Tundra. It's a 2012 (IIRC) and being parked side by side it becomes obviously that they're not "almost" as big.

The other thing is, you can play the almost as big for everything.
compare mid-size to full size and full size to HD
I think looking at some full size and HD trucks.... almost as big.
no?

dirtyjeffer · « **Reply #15 on:** February 25, 2015, 12:00:51 pm »

Quote from: Sir Osis of Liver on February 25, 2015, 11:55:54 am

Quote from: wing on February 25, 2015, 11:46:30 am
So far, I don't get it. Why not get the full size? This is almost as big.

I don't get it either. This is too close to the full size trucks to bother with. The old S10, Ranger, Hardbody and Toyota pickups made sense because they were substantially smaller then a full size truck.

The reason we don't get the current Ranger is Ford came to the same conclusion. Too close to the F150 in size and price, with little benefit in fuel economy.

the two trucks are VERY different.

http://www.philly.com/philly/classifieds/cars/20141013_AUTOTRADER_2015_Chevrolet_Colorado_vs__2015_Chevrolet_Silverado__What_s_the_Difference_.html

Fobroader · « **Reply #16 on:** February 25, 2015, 12:01:20 pm »

Quote from: wing on February 25, 2015, 11:46:30 am

So far, I don't get it. Why not get the full size? This is almost as big.

Yeah, cost, fuel usage is the same but you lose a ton of capability.....I don't get it.

Sir Osis of Liver · « **Reply #17 on:** February 25, 2015, 12:02:17 pm »

I took this outside my window some time ago. Two of my co workers' trucks. Pretty frigging close to me.

Solstice2006 · « **Reply #18 on:** February 25, 2015, 12:07:58 pm »

A big issue for me is loading stuff into the bed. Main reason I won't buy a new 1/2 ton. Since these midsize trucks are closer to the 1/2 ton from about 10 years ago, everything dimension is smaller.

Just like the sub-compact, and sub CUV segment is growing lately, even though the prices aren't much difference. There is a market. A few inches here, a couple of L/100km there, can make a difference.

tortoise · « **Reply #19 on:** February 25, 2015, 12:09:34 pm »

Except that the bed height is the exact same between a 2001 and 2014 F-150.