Cumulative Chevrolet Colorado sales increased in the United States and in Canada during July 2017.
Chevrolet Colorado  Sales – July 2017 – United States
Chevrolet Colorado deliveries in the United States totaled 11,206 units in July 2017, an increase of 21.9 percent compared to 9,195 units sold in July 2016. These figures include a 22 percent increase in retail sales.
In the first seven months of 2017, sales of the mid-size pickup truck family increased 1.8 percent to 61,507.
Sales Numbers - Chevrolet Colorado - July 2017 - United States
| MODEL | JUL 17 / JUL 16 | JULY 17 | JULY 16 | YTD 17 / YTD 16 | YTD 17 | YTD 16 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| COLORADO | +21.87% | 11,206 | 9,195 | +1.80% | 61,507 | 60,422 |
Chevrolet Colorado  Sales – July 2017 – Canada
In Canada, Chevy Colorado sales totaled 783 units in July 2017, an increase of 47.5 percent compared to July 2016. In the first seven months of the year, Chevrolet Colorado sales increased 30.2 percent to 4,366 units in Canada.
Sales Numbers - Chevrolet Colorado - June 2017 - Canada
| MODEL | JUL 17 / JUL 16 | JULY 17 | JULY 16 | YTD 17 / YTD 16 | YTD 17 | YTD 16 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| COLORADO | +47.46% | 783 | 531 | +30.17% | 4,366 | 3,354 |
The GM Authority Take
The Colorado finished July in second place by cumulative sales volume, behind the Toyota Tacoma and ahead of the Nissan Frontier. Despite its second place finish, the Colorado’s 21.87 percent year-over-year growth rate of makes it the fastest-growing model in its segment. The Frontier’s growth rate of 5.56 percent while the Tacoma’s was 4.78 percent. The only model to post a negative growth rate was the Colorado’s brother – the GMC Canyon, which sales decrease 21.83 year-over-year.
Sales Numbers - Midsize Pickup Trucks - July 2017 - United States
| MODEL | JUL 17 / JUL 16 | JULY 17 | JULY 16 | YTD 17 / YTD 16 | YTD 17 | YTD 16 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TACOMA | +4.78% | 17,372 | 16,580 | +0.32% | 111,969 | 111,615 |
| COLORADO | +21.87% | 11,206 | 9,195 | +1.80% | 61,507 | 60,422 |
| FRONTIER | +5.56% | 7,647 | 7,244 | -13.00% | 45,460 | 52,255 |
| CANYON | -21.83% | 2,761 | 3,532 | -15.53% | 17,649 | 20,894 |
| TOTAL | +6.66% | 38,986 | 36,551 | -3.51% | 236,585 | 245,186 |
Related News & Info
- GM news
- Chevrolet Colorado information
Related Sales Reporting
- Running GM sales results
- Running Buick sales results
- Running Buick Encore sales results
- Running Chevrolet sales results
- Running Cadillac sales results
- Running GMC sales results
- Running Buick sales results
- July 2017 GM sales results
- U.S. GM July 2017 sales results
- U.S. July 2017 Chevrolet sales results
- U.S. July 2017 Cadillac sales results
- U.S. July 2017 Buick sales results
- U.S. July 2017 GMC sales results
- GM Canada July 2017 sales results
- Canada July 2017 Chevrolet sales results
- Canada July 2017 Cadillac sales results
- Canada July 2017 Buick sales results
- Canada July 2017 GMCÂ sales results
- GM China July 2017 sales results
- Global July 2017 Cadillac sales results
- U.S. GM July 2017 sales results
Reporting by Francisco (Frankie) Cruz. GM Authority Take analysis by Alex Luft.
Comments
Two thing were in play here.
#1 inventories finally improved in many areas.
#2 The LT has 12% off the sticker on a truck that has had limited discounts over three years.
Now if Chevy will continue to improve the Colorado , Like adding more power to the V6 with a Turbo and still get good mpg , I believe that sale, will continue to get better !! Gm needs to not let, Ford get the upper hand with there Ranger pickup !
That would only add more cost and if would effectMPG in a negative way.
The truck has 308 HP and is not lacking power. Hell my GMC has more hp than a Syclone.
Now the reasonable increase would be is to make the Camaro V6 an option with 330 HP.it would not add to cost and Would see little effect.
You add a turbo on the ZR2 and mpg would drop from the 16 mpg and price would close on $50 k.
Ford will likely offer the 2.7L TT V6 in some version of the new Ranger? Those engines make 350-375 lb.ft. GM has twin turbo V6’s used in Cadillacs, but highly unlikely either of those would be used in any truck.
Yet to be seen. Also yet to be priced.
We all know here once this truck is priced over $40k sales drop off much.
If Ford is to offer this engine it will add to the cost and then their fotums will have posters saying they should just buy the full size.
It is a tough call as the truck was meant for mpg, it has to use care on the price and just because it is offered how many will you sell at that price. Even the V8 did not sell many V8 models.
Ford will take a profit hit to achieve overall sales of it trucks.
GM can not afford to stay dormant , Scott ! I am not referring to the ZR2 only , I am saying across the hole Colorado line and Canyon too !! 3.0 or the 3.6 Turbo and the 10 speed Auto by 2019 .
I understand where you are cipoming from but it just does not work that way.
The extra cost of parts and engineering to put it in this truck will add to the price.
GM also does not offer upscale engines in low optioned trucks because the profits are in the options not the engine.
Then they have to keep the price down and the MPG up.
Now if we were talking a Sonoma with a 190 HP 4.3 I would agree but have a truck here with the ability tow nearly twice sits own weight. This is not a race car, performance car etc. it is a truck with more than adiquate power for 98% of the buyers.
Now I too would love to see an engine like this but the reality of the market limitations and regulations are in play.
Even as popular as the Syclone was they did not continue it to the second gen because they sold too few of them. Even the added Typhon numbers did not help.
Cool ideas are great but reality still is in play.
It is not like the old days were you just swap engines at will and Bolt what ever hits in.
Even my call for the Camaro 330 HP engine would take much added development cost just to get the regulations and warranty testing done.
Also say the 10 speed dose not fit the floor of the vehicle and the blood needs changed Then you have added crash testing on top of all the rest.
Sorry but the 60’s would not have happened if the had to deal with today’s exconomic developments and regulations. It sucks but it is what it is.
Any word on an upcoming refresh on these? Not that it needs it but its been few years since it was out.
Scott ,No one is asking for a hot rod , all I am say is for GM Chevy need to keep the Colorado and updated and not to get behind, by improving it and Not let the Ford Ranger get ahead of it. What is your problem with you bringing up cost ! Everybody know s that additional options will increase some cost. Do you see what is happing to the Nissan and what happen the first generation Colorado ! The Colorado needs more Torque , on the gas engine at lower rpms ,So short of giving it a V8, A turbo 3.0 or a detuned turbo 3.6 would work . By the way, I own a 2015 LT Colorado 3.6 long WB crewcab with towing package !
I agree to keep it competitive but you had better see what Ford offers first. They may be limited on the V6 too.
Note Ford is only going to offer a Short bed crew. No long bed no extended cab.
Talks is the are looking to focus on the Turbo 4 and Diesel. I am sure they will have a V6 but like the Mustang it will not be a priority.
The present engine now will turn 14’s in the quarter, tow over 7000 pounds and I am seeing 19.5 mpg in town.
To be honest there is a list of things this truck needs more than more power or torque.
Most owners on the GM forums would rather have better seats that are 6 way and a sun roof option.
I just don’t have an opinion here As in own one to and also participate on the truck ps forums to see what is needed.
You want torque the owners are jumping on the Diesel. It does fine with 368 ft lbs and still gets better mpg than the gas. The owners swear by it even at a $3800 premium cost over the V6.
Note too my truck is a CCSB Denali 4×4. Also note my V6 is all new as well as the 8 speed. It drives much different than your truck. Many on the Forum have traded the 15 and 16 for the new engine.
The truth anymore is companies are not going to chase each other over numbers in all segments on all models.
The whole idea of this truck was to get people out of the highly regulated half tons and move some of them to this segment. They also are trying to get more full size to the 3/4 ton to that is less regulated.
In the future the half ton class is going tonget tougher and tougher on the mpg.
My observation in central IA at least is that in the last 2 months I am noticing a lot more of Colorado/Canyons on the street so people must be taking a liking to them. Seeing a handful of ZR2s but most are the LTs.
With the 2016 ZR1 Colorado I own, I’d ask for more ground clearance primarily. It drives great, gets great mileage, looks great and has great options compared to the current competitors. I wouldn’t sacrifice the mpg for more hp.
You’re probably not going to beat Toyota in sales. The Tacoma is the king of this segment, but has its own issues. Comfort, options and styling is much better in the Colorado. IMHO
GM has proven it’s a competitive design. More options, better comfort, and it’s made in America. We’ll see if the Ranger can beat it.
I have little brand loyalty. I’ve owned Toyota, Acura, Ford, VW, Mazda, Chevy, Dodge, but I buy the best in the areas which I deem most important. For me, the Colorado was the best available all things considered.