2015 Chevrolet Colorado Looks To Rejuvenate Midsized Truck Segment With Tech, Diesel
45
Sponsored Links
So, the 2014 Chevrolet Silverado is too big for you. That’s fine, as Chevy seems to have recognized this fact by revealing the 2015 Colorado mid-sized pickup truck at the 2013 Los Angeles Auto Show. Yet despite the Colorado being significantly smaller than the full-sized Silverado, the trucks share similar underpinnings, as it turns out that the North American 2015 Colorado is more differentiated from the globally-known Colorado than previously thought.
Here are some eye-opening figures:
- The 2015 Colorado is 900 pounds lighter, 16 inches shorter, 5 inches narrower, and 3 inches lower than the 2014 Silverado
- Roughly 75 percent of the U.S.- and Canada-market 2015 Colorado is different from the otherwise global Chevrolet Colorado/S10 built in Thailand
- The 2015 Colorado will offer a segment-leading six-foot bed in the crew cab model, while the base extended cab model will also feature a six-foot bed
In addition, the Wenztville, Missouri-built 2015 Colorado will offer three engines, which are expected to be class-leading in terms of both power and fuel economy. The first is the ubiquitous 2.5L Ecotec motor pushing an estimated 193 horsepower and 184 lb.-ft., the second engine is the even more-universal 3.6L LFX V6 with an estimated 300 hp and 270 lb.-ft. of torque. The third engine will be offered during the 2016 model year and will be none other than the 2.8L Duramax diesel four-cylinder engine. SAE power ratings are TBD.
Yes, Chevrolet is going to soon offer a mid-sized truck with a diesel engine in North America.
As far as trim levels go, the 2015 Colorado will be available in WT, LT and Z71 flavors. Note that there will not be an LTZ model out of the gate. All trim levels will be available in 2WD or 4WD. The off-road-inspired Z71 Colorado features a gunmetal grille surround instead of chrome, projector headlamps and unique 17-inch aluminum wheels, along with a specifically-calibrated suspension system.
In addition, the 2015 Colorado borrows from its big brother in offering multiple cargo access and hauling solutions, including:
- Standard CornerStep rear bumper design
- Available EZ Lift-and-Lower tailgate
- Standard two-tier loading that allows a platform to effectively split the bed into upper and lower sections, making it easier to haul, store and conceal items such as tools
- Thirteen standard tie-down locations throughout the bed for use with available and movable cargo tie-down rings
- Standard bed rail and tailgate protectors
- Available factory-installed spray-in bed liner
On the inside, we see a more athletic take on truck interiors. Notice the center-mounted gear shifter, and in the case of the Z71 model, embossed seatbacks and contrast stitching. There’s also a next-generation MyLink infotainment system, utilizing gesture and natural voice recognition, as well as a standard rearview camera.
While we’re all curious about the new Colorado’s pricing, nothing’s been made official. However, Chevrolet will layer the 2015 Colorado in its three-truck strategy so as not to encroach on the larger Colorado — something that was a bit of a problem in the past. For reference, the Toyota Tacoma starts at $17,875, while the Nissan Frontier begins at $17,990.
Sponsored Links
Looks great, much better than the International version. I prefer the 4.3 instead of the 3.6, but 3.6 might be a bit funner to rev.
Agreed Joe, yes the trucks looks are great, yet w/ford offering a 2.0 in their Escape w/turbo pushing 240 HP and 270 lbs of torque, my estimates off the top of my head when comparing a 2.5 Ecotec considering cubic inches is potentially offering N. of 300 Ponies and very near 400 lbs of torque for a 4 cylinder, IF,, offered w/a water cooled turbo considering a curb weight about the same of 4000 lbs ? So Really, Wheres it at GM?
I guess their to busy shoe horning a 6+ liter V-8 into a sedan rather than thinking about giving us the same truck working America needs to make a living and save a few bucks at the pump, they already are offering the global market eh? Just a little sumpin, sumpin, to say “Hey America, Thanks for the Bailout? Peace
I was actually worried about how it would look, because the international version looked like a Malibu. But it looks great, still has some ques, but it might be just me, but all in all its a good looking truck. Also a 6 foot box and a 2.8L diesel, I could easily replace my 99 Silverado with something just as capable, in this Colorado.
If I’m reading it correctly, the article needs to be corrected. The crew cab will also be available with the 6 foot bed.
Report MB CLASS DATA :Mercedes Benz have worse classes than before thus
1. C-class (W204 except C63 AMG coupe,S204) all classes
2. CL-class (C215,C216) all classes
3. CLS-class (W219,W218) all classes includes CLS shooting brake all classes
4. E-class (W212 includes coupe,S212,V212) all classes
5. G63 AMG : 3 km/liter in city,1 km/liter on highway
6. GL-class (X164) all classes
7. GLK-class (X204) all classes
8. M-class (W163,W164) all classes
9. ML-class (W166) all classes
10. S-class (W221,S221,W222) all classes
11. SL-class (R231) all classes
12. SLK-class (R170,R171,R172) all classes
1st to 12th classes except 5th class are low traction ,easy slide ,tail flick, have economy 1-5 km/liter and below 1 km/liter. Cause of low traction ,easy slide ,tail flick, have economy 1-5 km/liter and below 1 km/liter is rear track than front track in Mercedes Benz classes included AMG,Brabus,Lorinser. The interior in all classes,over 170 cm people are Inconvenient.
The Mercedes Benz CGI turbo intercooler,CGI biturbo intercooler, petrol engine turbo intercooler and petrol engine biturbo intercooler classes included AMG, Brabus, Lorinser are unstable horsepower ,unstable torque ,have economy 1-5 km/liter and below 1 km/liter. In both ones make happen both thing, will have economy 1-3 km/liter and below 1 km/liter.
After seeing more pics of this truck, I can’t help but ask: Do Chevy truck designers have a problem with round wheel arches?!? I’m not blown away by the interior either, particularly the gear selector (I prefer a column shift) and the centre console (unnecessarily big). Anyway, have you heard anything about rear brakes, Alex? I just can’t do drums. I just won’t do drums. I’ve seen a pic of a black extended cab version and I swear I see discs back there. That would be perfect. The diesel engine is absolutely great news, though. I have seen the 2.8 Duramax in action in Isuzu D-Max pickups and they are pretty smooth-sounding. If rear discs are available on the diesel version then this truck is going to be on my shopping list for absolute certain.
Not bad in a ‘let’s not take any risk’ kinda of way. At least it lost the bargain basement aesthetic and feel of the last Colorado. Unfortunately this new Colorado will in no way deter my lustful desire from a full size Sierra.
But I’m hoping it sells well.GM needs every bit it can get.
“Unfortunately this new Colorado will in no way deter my lustful desire from a full size Sierra…”
Actually, that’s good for GM. They want to take Tacoma sales (i.e., new sales for GM) — they want to keep the Colorado from cannibalizing their full-size offerings as much as possible.
I like the design quite a bit in terms of the grille/front. Here’s hoping they come up with something impressive with the fuel economy; it’s required in this segment.
Based on what I see here I like it, even the quad cab.
I just hope they do not get silly price wise and make it nearly as much or more than a full size with a rebate.
If they can price a well optioned one for $30-35K,
I just wonder about the wisdom of no standard cab. Companies love these and they would sell a lot of them.
Now lets see the GMC in Chicago.
Great job on front grill. I wonder if GMC will offer he standard cab. The interior doesn’t blow me away, but think overall a winner.
To bad they are not using the new 4.3L V6 for more torque than the 3.6L. I still want to see it up close. It looks great.
Why are you talking about Mercedes when your commenting on a truck?
Not too bad, not too bad at all. I prefer the styling to the square and block-like Silverado. Actually agree with skipping the regular cab model this time. Interior looks just about right. I don’t care for Z71 being a “trim level” ? It should be a off road suspension package, that’s it. Why make buyers wait for MY 2016 for the diesel? It should be available at launch. I suspect the 4.3L V6 will eventually find it’s way into these trucks? I also expect these trucks to “steal” some Silverado sales. I’m thinking these trucks might really appeal to “boomers”? Many of them don’t need the bigger full-size truck anymore and these trucks are actually more the size that crowd was buying “back in the day”.
Once again, GM has breathed new life into a segment I once never cared about. Now hopefully GM can steal some uneducated Tacoma owners.
The Colorado looks great. I will wait for the Diesel but i would like read more on mpg and how much it will be able to tow.
every one of the big 3 have their own style, dodge has their semi truck-like fenders, ford had their perfectly round wells, chevy has their squared wells. personally i like the squared wells more than round, they give it more of a rugged truck look. round wells are meant for cars
This truck looks great, something I can’t say about the Silverado… and promises the kind of fuel exonomy I NEED to switch from a car to a truck, and it will actually fit in my garage. I would not buy it because of the huge console with shifter though. It sounds like there will not be a bench seat option that would include on either.
Nice looking truck. The limited stats suggest GM is serious about competing in the mid- size segment.
I might enjoy telling Toyota to kiss it. Driving my 5th straight Toyota truck. They have all been trouble free, with great resale. Shouldn’t complain. My gripe is their apparent disregard for their customers. The Tacoma hasn’t been upgraded for way too long. As if, ‘ota decided, hey, we have no competition, so what the heck, a ten year old truck is good enough for our customers.
Four door long bed with baby D for power. I’m hopeful that GMC might get the premium Duromax engine one year before Chevy. Following the trend of Caddy/Vette having exclusive use of an engine before sharing it with other GM products. Either way, I’m waiting for the diesel!
:)Good looking trucks. I’m glad to see we’re getting a diesel too.
The 4.3 will never, NEVER find its way in to the Colorado. That would spell disaster for every Silverado 4.3 that is attempting to be sold. New GM has learned a lot from old GM, point in case the 4.3 in the S-10 made Silverado 4.3 nearly non existent in retail sales. The 4.3 not being in the Colorado is an excellent move by GM. The 2.8 needs to hit 30 mpg for it to be a hit with new to GM buyers, and especially for ones in the market for the ram 1500 eco diesel, Tacoma and Frontier. Another smart move by GM. Power numbers should see a small bump compared to the international model. I am thoroughly impressed with GM taking the bull by the horns with this one!
That makes no sense – they’re two different sized vehicles. That’s like saying the 3.6 ATS is stealing all the 3.6 CTS sales because its cheaper.
I agree completely with what BahamaTodd said!
Although, I do think a ZR-2 Colorado and Denali Canyon would get either a 5.3L V8 or something along the lines of a S/C 4.3L with 375HP and 400LB-FT.
People dont buy a CTS or an ATS for fuel economy, the contrast between the two is negligible anyway, there is no need for a fuel economy gap between the CTS and ATS 3.6, we’re talking about a premium mid/sport sedan market and a full/mid size truck market… and that is what the ATS 2.5 is for if thats what you’re into. People buy a mid sized truck for fuel economy and for being “just enough truck” for them, the 4.3 wouldn’t give the fuel economy of the 3.6 in the Colorado. The 3.6 of today and the new 4.3 are both great engines but, designed for different purposes. This is a little off topic but rewind to the s-10 imagine how much better the truck would have been with a series 2 3.8 in it….
Yes, the 4.3 wouldn’t give the economy of the 3.6 – It would probably give better fuel economy. As a dedicated truck engine with more torque and cylinder deactivation, the 4.3 would work much better under truck duties. The only reason GM went with the 3.6 is because it is already used on the platform in other markets.
In the lambda crossovers the 3.6 with 280hp is rated 17 city / 24 hwy mpg. In the heavier Silverado, the 4.3 is rated 18/24 mpg. I’m not sure if they were able to make the 3.6 more efficient in the Colorado, but its now tuned up to over 300hp and we all know a RWD based drivetrain is not as efficient as a FWD.
All of the 3.6L EPA estimates are lies. My grandpa just got a Impala with the 3.6L (he drives like any other normal person) He barely gets 25 mpg hwy! I could be wrong and maybe the engine just needs to break in. But my aunts Enclave only gets 19 mpg hwy and that thing is already 3 years old! You’d think the 4.3L would be more efficient with Active Fuel Management. Maybe GM is lying and just doesn’t want to put the 4.3L into the Colorado/Canyon because the fear of sales loss with the Silverado/Sierra. GM should put the 4.3L and 1.8L Turbo into the lambda’s. 4.3L 290HP and 310LB-FT (VVT, SIDI, AFM & iVVL) for towing that gets around 24 mpg and the 1.8L Turbo 240HP and 270LB-FT (VVT, SIDI, AFM & iVVL) for efficiency with a boost that gets around 28 mpg. A Hybrid option (1.8L Turbo) with eAssist, Regen. Brakes and Start/Stop to get around 35 mpg. A 2.8L TDI would be super cool in a lambda. . . .
Typically about 10% of the pickup trucks sold have a regular cab, over half are crewcab, and about a third are extended cab. I agree with you, 10% of the pickup truck market is 10% of the pickup market. I’ve read that next year Toyota will no longer sell a regular cab Tacoma, and the Nissan Frontier doesn’t offer one, so Chevy isn’t the only OEM not selling a mid-size pickup with a regular cab. That means those folks that want a regular cab will have to buy a full-size pickup.