You may already know that the 2015 Chevy Colorado and 2015 GMC Canyon are much better vehicles than their direct competition — the Toyota Tacoma and Nissan Frontier. Not only are the Chevy and GMC mid-sizers more powerful and more capable, but they are also more fuel efficient — towering head and shoulders above the Toyota and Nissan. And that’s not to mention the vast amounts of high-tech features and creature comforts available exclusively in the GM trucks.
If you’ve been reading GM Authority for a while, then it’s highly likely that you’ve already heard this before. But how, exactly, do the Colorado and Canyon stack up to the Tacoma and Frontier? In a few words, the GM trucks decimate the Japanese offerings. The numbers in the tables below more than speak for themselves.
TRUCK: | 2015 CHEVROLET COLORADO | 2015 GMC CANYON | 2014 NISSAN FRONTIER | 2014 TOYOTA TACOMA |
---|---|---|---|---|
ENGINE DISPLACEMENT & TYPE: | 2.5L DOHC INLINE 4, NATURALLY-ASPIRATED | 2.5L DOHC INLINE 4, NATURALLY-ASPIRATED | 2.5L DOHC INLINE 4, NATURALLY-ASPIRATED | 2.7L DOHC INLINE 4, NATURALLY-ASPIRATED |
HORSEPOWER: | 200 | 200 | 152 | 159 |
TORQUE: | 191 | 191 | 171 | 180 |
TRANSMISSION: | 6-SPEED AUTOMATIC | 6-SPEED AUTOMATIC | 5-SPEED AUTOMATIC | 4-SPEED AUTOMATIC |
CITY FUEL ECONOMY (MPG): | 20 | 20 | 17 | 19 |
HIGHWAY FUEL ECONOMY (MPG): | 27 | 27 | 23 | 24 |
COMBINED FUEL ECONOMY (MPG): | 22 | 22 | 19 | 21 |
MAX PAYLOAD (LBS): | 1460 | 1460 | 971 | 1440 |
MAX TRAILERING (LBS): | 3500 | 3500 | 3500 | 3500 |
TRUCK: | 2015 CHEVROLET COLORADO | 2015 GMC CANYON | 2014 NISSAN FRONTIER | 2014 TOYOTA TACOMA |
---|---|---|---|---|
ENGINE DISPLACEMENT & TYPE: | 3.6L DOHC V6, NATURALLY-ASPIRATED | 3.6L DOHC V6, NATURALLY-ASPIRATED | 4.0L DOHC V6, NATURALLY-ASPIRATED | 4.0L DOHC V6, NATURALLY-ASPIRATED |
HORSEPOWER: | 305 | 305 | 262 | 236 |
TORQUE: | 269 | 269 | 281 | 266 |
TRANSMISSION: | 6-SPEED AUTOMATIC | 6-SPEED AUTOMATIC | 5-SPEED AUTOMATIC | 5-SPEED AUTOMATIC |
CITY FUEL ECONOMY (MPG): | 18 | 18 | 16 | 17 |
HIGHWAY FUEL ECONOMY (MPG): | 26 | 26 | 22 | 21 |
COMBINED FUEL ECONOMY (MPG): | 21 | 21 | 18 | 19 |
MAX PAYLOAD (LBS): | 1590 | 1590 | 1524 | 1500 |
MAX TRAILERING (LBS): | 7000 | 7000 | 6000 | 6500 |
Some notes about the numbers:
- All specifications are for 2WD vehicles with available automatic transmissions
- Colorado and Canyon trailering numbers include the available towing packages
- Per SAE J2807 recommended practices
Comments
I think there’s a mistake on the combined fuel economy of the v6 Nissan. 28 mpg?
Thanks for letting us know. That was supposed to be 18. Typo fixed.
How about comparing the canyon to the current model Silverado and an approximately 1985 Silverado. Same info. Need to take into account the change in EPA MPG ratings.
Why the thumbs down? I just want to see if the new canyon really can replace the 1500 series some day as many are saying and whether the canyon can do the same job the old Silverado was fully capable of 30 years ago.
I think there’s (also) a mistake on the combined fuel economy of the 2.7L DOHC inline 4 Toyota. 21 mpg?
1 mpg less in the city and 3 mpg less on the Hwy. adds up to only 1 mpg less combined then the GM twins?
I know it’s a moot (point) but shouldn’t that be more like 20 mpg combined or is this a case of decimal “point” overlap?
19 city, 24 highway, 21 combined is accurate for the Tacoma 4-cyl.
This is great information! I am excited to purchase my 2016 GMC Canyon Crew Cab SLE 4×4 Diesel unless there is confirmation for a Denali Diesel!!!
I expected better mpg from the four banger. I realize the 200 hp is class leading and all that, but all i wanted was a new truck with good mpg. I’ll keep my present Canyon until GM loads up their mid sized trucks with aluminum I guess. Wonder if a standard cab would have helped?
How, exactly, did you expect them to get even better fuel economy? Without an expensive lightweighting process and/or hybridized/electrified powertrain, what you’re suggesting is darn near impossible. Reality is reality. Not magical fairy dust.
Awesome! Nice to see the new trucks in front in all categories. Make Nissan and Toyota spend huge development money to have any chance of making the big leap forward on the next gen of their trucks.
So GM can beat the Japanese nameplates’ best for 2004? Congratulations.
Still unproven is the reliability, hard to imagine the GM twins would be better in the “not breaking down” department, but only time will tell.
I tried to test drive the Colorado and the Canyon – not able to since the Air bag issue was discovered out of the factory – I just sold my 2013 CTS since I was tired of the amount of recalls for it and this truck has a problem right out of the gate.. I bought a Frontier and got all the options I wanted for thousands less that the GM twins… I am not trying to bad mouth GM but enough is enough.
The power may be better but the quality and reputation of GM does not compare. American compact/mid-size trucks have always and will always be subpar. The constant engine, brake and various other problems have haunted American compact trucks and they have not proven otherwise, yet.