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.
[nggallery id=582]
Comments
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.
รายงาน : Chevrolet มีรุ่นเกาะถนนน้อย ท้ายปัด ลืนไถลง่าย มีอัตราสิ้นเปลื้องเชื้อเพลิง 1-5 กม. ต่อ ลิตร และ ต่ำกว่า 1 กม. ต่อ ลิตร โดยเป็น ฐานล้อหลังกว้างกว่าฐานล้อหน้า ดังนี้
1. Cruze ทุกรุ่น
2. Capitva ทุกรุ่น
3. Camaro V6 3.6l ทุกรุ่น
4. Spin ทุกรุ่น
5. Orlando ทุกรุ่น
6. Spark ทุกรุ่น
7. Malibu ที่อยู่ ยุโรป ทุกรุ่น
8. Zafira ทุกรุ่น
9. Volt ทุกรุ่น
10 Lumina ทุกรุ่น
และอีกหลายที่ฐานล้อหลังกว้างกว่าฐานล้อหน้า
มีหลายรุ่น ปราศจากไฟตัดหมอกหลัง จึงมีหลายรุ่น ปราศจากไฟตัดหมอกหลัง จึงมีอัตราสิ้นเปลื้องเชื้อเพลิง 1-5 กม. ต่อ ลิตร และ ต่ำกว่า 1 กม. ต่อ ลิตร รุ่นมีไฟตัดหมอกหน้า ปราศจากไฟตัดหมอกหลัง จึงมีอัตราสิ้นเปลื้อเชื้อเพลิง 1-3 กม. ต่อ ลิตร และ ต่ำกว่า 1 กม. ต่อ ลิตร รวมถึงรุ่นกล่าวถึง
Ecotec turbo ทุกเครื่อง ให่แรงไม่ต่อเนื่อง มีอัตราสิ้นเปลื้องเชื้อเพลิง 1-5 กม. ต่อ ลิตร และ ต่ำกว่า 1 กม. ต่อ ลิตร
ถ้า Chevrolet มีรุ่นรถเกาะถนนน้อย ท้ายปัด ลื่นไถลง่าย ทีเกิดจาก ฐานล้อหลังกว้างกว่าฐานล้อหน้า รวมถึงใช้เตรื่องยนต์เบนซิน ติด turbo พร้อม intercooler bi turbo พร้อม intercooler, 1-4 turbo พร้อม intercoolerทุกรุ่น ให้พลังขับเคลื่อนแรงม้า แรงบิด ของเครื่องยนต์ไม่ต่อเนื่อง ทั้งสองที่กล่าวถึง จะได้อัตราสิ้นเปลื้องเชื้อเพลิง 1-3 กม. ต่อ ลิตร และ ต่ำกว่า 1 กม. ต่อ ลิตร
I just hope they don’t price too close to a Silverado. I had an 06 Colorado I loved it. I rolled it coming down I 17 in AZ and received not a scratch. I rolled 3 times. Great truck. But the price, they need to price it so it’s not a toss up between the Silverado and the Colorado. I loke what I see so far. Just wish it was being released sooner.
Sonic ทุกรุ่น : เกาะถนนปานกลาง ทำให้ไม่ประหยัดเชื้อเพลิง ถ้าไม่มีไฟตัดหมอกหลัง ก็ไม่ประหยัดเชื้อเพลิง 1.4 ecotec turbo ไม่ประหยัดเชื้อเพลิง ไม่หรูหรา sportแบบธรรมดา หน้าปัดต้องปรับความคุ้นเคยใหม่ ห้องโดยสารต้นทุนต่ำ ในซีดานหลังคาสั้นเกิน น้ำหนักตัวถังทำให้รถอืดตอนออกตัว
Cruze ทุกรุ่น ไม่หรูหราเลยแม้แต่น้อย Sport แบบรถแต่งธรรมดา เกาะถนนน้อย ท้ายปัด ลื่นไถลง่าย ไม่ประหยัดเชื้อเพลิง 1.4 ecotec turbo ไม่ประหยัดเชื้อเพลิง
For those that are missing the 4.3L . . . I currently own a 1998 Blazer and a 2013 V6 Camaro. The 3.6L is a WAY better engine. I can’t speak to the 3.6’s durability 15 years down the road. But as a new engine, the 3.6 is great. It would be awesome if it was in my Blazer, instead of the super sluggish 4.3L. But if that diesel is pushing over 300 ft-lb, I’m pretty sure I’d be opting for that, over the 3.6 gas engine.
FYI, there is a brand new 4.3 V6 based on the new 5th gen direct injected small block V8s. 285 hp / 305 tq. That’s what we’re referring to.
The old 4.3 was good for its time… 10-20 years ago…
Great job on the styling. It looks better than the International version. Sporty, with a little bit slick and rugged built in too. And best of all, nothing awkward or homely that jumps out st me. Now let’s see if they get the price right…
Two words, GM: Manual transmission. That’s the one with that third pedal on the left. Some of us still like to do our own shifting, and no we don’t want a Cruze or a Corvette.
I would buy a Colorado Diesel if they were offered with a manual six speed.
I am very happy that GM decided to redesign and introduce the Colorado and Canyon into the US truck market.I will be one who will be placing my order for the canyon next fall.However i am somewhat dissapointed in the fact that GM will only be offering 17″ wheels for this truck.I personally prefer a larger wheel(18-20)Although there are aftermarket wheels avaliable at extra cost,it’s dissapointing that a larger wheel will not be avaliable,which also leads me to assume that a better audio system will most likely not be avaliable on the LT model(4×4).I have always been dissapointed in the way manufacturers limit the avaliability of certain options to specific trim levels with the exception of Work trucks.Which leads me to the question,Why?Why can’t i for instance get a Bose sound system in a LT model?
I think GM also needs to look at marketing the new Colorado and Canyon to the “Sport truck” market also,by offering a sport package,with upgraded audio system,better wheels and tires,etc
There’s some rumors that the Canyon will be positioned up-market from the Colorado – maybe even offering a Denali trim.
It is definitely on my wish list. However, with the current trend of upsizing these trucks…I have to wonder just how much larger this new Colorado is compared to the old one. I hope not too much bigger. Because the VW Amarok according to VW execs, is a possiblitity of coming to the U.S. It is also on my wish list. GM coming out with a midsize diesel could cause others to follow suit. Other companies will be watching Colorado diesel sales very carefully.
The Colorado is now the size of the Tacoma so its now a true midsize. The original Colorado was more compact and closer in size to the S-10.
I recently saw a 78 C10 stepside it looked so tiny.
ความเห็นและรายงานที่เกี่ยวข้องยานยนต์ในนี้ ไม่ได้เปลี่ยนอะไรเลย เพราะของยังมีสภาพเหมือนในรายงานดังกล่าว จบการติดต่อ
สรุป Cruze ตั้งแต่ 2007 ถึง 2013 เป็นรถเกาะถนนน้อย ท้ายปัด ลืนไถลง่าย ไม่ประหยัดเชื้อเพลิง รวมถึง ห้องโดยสารมีคอลโซนสปอร์ต แผงประตูไม่ประณีต ภายนอกทรงไม่สมส่วนโดยท้ายสั้น ดูผ่านก็รถก็ไม่ต่างธรรมดา ระดับคนจนซื้อได้ สีโทนรูปแบบนักเลงสปอร์ต ซึงยังถือว่าไม่โดดเด่น
สรุป Cruze ตั้งแต่ 2007 ถึง 2013 เป็นรถเกาะถนนน้อย ท้ายปัด ลืนไถลง่าย ไม่ประหยัดเชื้อเพลิง รวมถึง ห้องโดยสารมีคอลโซนสปอร์ต แผงประตูไม่ประณีต ภายนอกทรงไม่สมส่วนโดยท้ายสั้น ดูผ่านๆก็รถก็ไม่ต่างธรรมดา ระดับคนจนซื้อได้ สีโทนรูปแบบนักเลงสปอร์ต ซึงยังถือว่าไม่โดดเด่น
Please! Please give us a snow plow preparation package that won’t void the warranty. We sure could use smaller plows for the tight spaces we have to plow. Beef up the front suspension a bit, and everything else!
This is the truck for me when they get that rear sliding window option on the options list. I have been waiting since last September, when I lost my then ’06 Colorado! I am very impressed with all aspects of this model year.
My only grip is when GM puts out a model, please stop with the incompleteness of options customers expect and desire. No more cots before the horse.
which vape mod produces the most smoke