Anticipation Grows For Chevy Colorado Refresh
77
Sponsored Links
Interest surrounding the expected Chevy Colorado refresh continues to rise. In the past quarter, GM Authority has seen a significant influx of messages to the editor inquiring about the forthcoming facelift. Here’s what we’re hopeful for in the update.
Exterior
The exterior of the Colorado midsize pickup is the one area that probably needs the least amount of updates – since the design continues to be attractive and modern. Even so, we will probably get new front and rear ends, along with LED headlamps and taillamps, both of which are offered on the Colorado’s newest competitor – the 2019 Ford Ranger.
Two other, nice-to-have options would be rain-sensing windshield wipers and a windshield wiper de-icer feature. Both are offered on the new Ford Ranger.
Interior
The one area that the Chevy Colorado refresh needs to address is the interior, as the current truck is missing various modern comfort or convenience features that direct competitors offer. These features include keyless access with push-button start, a sunroof, and dual-zone climate control.
In addition, more active safety features would be a plus. The current models offer an optional Safety Package that includes Forward Collision Alert, Lane Departure Warning, and Rear Park Assist, with the park assist feature new for 2019. The Colorado got a new, high-definition Rear Vision Camera for the 2019 model year on higher-end trims. Meanwhile, the Ranger offers all of these items, as well as Adaptive Cruise Control – which the Colorado does not currently offer.
For the 2019 model year, the Colorado gained a six-way power seat adjuster for the driver’s seat on LT, Z71 and ZR2 models. A 2-way power lumbar adjuster was previously available. That’s an improvement over the 4-way power seat with manual recline function offered on prior model years. The front passenger seat remains a manual seat; a 4-way power adjustment is optional. None of the options match the 8-way power driver and front passenger seats with power lumbar controls offered in the 2019 Ranger.
Finally, the Chevy Colorado refresh could really use the addition of an inductive smartphone charger along with an all-around improvement in cabin material quality.
Powertrain
Currently, the Colorado is offered with the following three powertrain choices:
- Atmospheric 2.5L I-4 LCV gasoline engine mated to a 6-speed auto making 200 horsepower and 191 pound-feet of torque
- This engine was previously available in conjunction with a manual transmission, which was recently discontinued
- Atmospheric 3.6L I-4 LGZ gasoline engine mated to an 8-speed auto making 308 horsepower and 275 pound-feet of torque
- Turbo-charged 2.8L I-4 LWN Duramax diesel engine mated to a 6-speed auto making 181 horsepower and 369 pound-feet of torque
While that’s a broad powertrain lineup, there is a significant amount of desire for the 2020 Chevy Colorado refresh to replace the two gasoline engines with the all-new, turbocharged 2.7L L3B I-4 TriPower engine that debuted in the 2019 Silverado 1500 and 2019 Sierra 1500. That motor is SAE-rated at 310 horsepower and 348 pound-feet of torque. A 10-speed transmission would complete the package.
By comparison, the 2019 Ford Ranger has just one powertrain combination: a 2.3L EcoBoost gasoline engine with Auto Start-Stop technology mated to a 10-speed automatic transmission (co-developed with GM). The combination is rated at 270 horsepower and 310 pound-feet of torque.
Trim Levels
Finally, there is interest in seeing a revised trim level structure in the Chevy Colorado refresh. Currently, the trim level structure is as follows:
- Base
- Work Truck
- LT
- Z71
- ZR2
Having Z71 as a trim level is rather unorthodox for Chevrolet, since Z71 is typically an off-road package rather than an actual trim level. As such, some would rather see Z71 become a stand-alone package on all models, while its place in the hierarchy be replaced by a high-end LTZ or Premier trim.
When Is It Coming?
Given that we expect to see an all-new, future Chevy Colorado in 2022 as a 2023 model year vehicle, 2020 seems like the perfect time for a facelift, known in the GM world as a Mid-Cycle Enhancement (MCE). As such, we’d expect the Chevy Colorado refresh to come in the very near future.
Whether it will actually get all of these updates is anyone’s guess at this point. We should also note that, as of this writing, we have yet to see a single prototype of the facelifted midsize truck undergoing testing – which is a rather strange circumstance.
What would you like to see to the anticipated Colorado facelift? Sound off in the comments.
Subscribe to GM Authority (it’s free) for the latest Chevy Colorado news, Chevy news, and around-the-clock GM news coverage.
Sponsored Links
I’m not too worried about the status of the Colorado. The Ranger hasn’t gotten terribly impressive reviews, and many still say the Colorado is a better buy.
I can agree, especially during my 2 year lease of one, that Colorado is a great truck. It still needs updates to remain competitive and above Ranger though. Simple features that Ranger and Tacoma have are just not there in the GM twins. If GM gives it an even better facelift, and adds the right gizmos, it may bite more out of Taco sales and further hinder the Ranger.
@Davis: Agreed. GM actually spent time on modifying the Colorado for North American tastes whereas the “new” Ranger is the global model that’s been on sale for a few years that was given a slight exterior refresh and North American compliant bumpers. I think the main reason is because Ford was caught off guard with how competitive the segment became and had to rush it’s model to market. I can see the next Ranger being a real threat.
To me it seems like Ford mainly brought the Ranger back to the US for the fleet sales. The interior is full of very old parts they found in some bin at the back of the warehouse. One comment I read on Youtube correctly pointed out that the instrument cluster is identical to the one in his 2013 Escape. Ford put almost no effort into the truck and it shows when the Nissan Frontier even outsold it.
Your comments help to make an excellent point. “Very old parts they found in some bin at the back of the warehouse.”
And yet still, the Ranger is better equipped than the most completely optioned out Colorado/Canyon!
no its not!
??? No it’s not ???
To be clear, I’m from a GM family, both my grandfathers worked in the same Chevrolet plant. I buy GM. Period.
And yet: Adaptive cruise, LED Headlights, Off Road “Crawl Mode,” Power Folding Outside Rear View Mirrors, Dual Zone Climate Control, Lane Keep Assistance, Universal Garage Door Opener, (Homelink) 10-Speed Automatic Transmission & Push Button Start are ALL things the Colorado / Canyon don’t offer, even as options, but ALL of these the Ranger offers as either OE, or optional. GM certainly could / should offer any or even ALL of these things!!!
Sigh…does it really make any difference that your grandfathers worked in the same Chevrolet plant? It’s a silly comment and really means nothing. Either YOU like GM and Chevy trucks or you don’t.
I don’t think that 2.7 will be on the menu until the next generation, and even then it may not be at launch.
I’d like to see
Powertrain
3.6 V6 get a power bump to 330hp adn 285lb-ft
Maintain the 8spd on the V6, and add it as standard on the 2.8
Exterior
New grilles
LED headlights
Dome hood
Punch out the interior bedwalls like the 2019 Silverado
Interior
Better materials
Better seat support/cushion
LCD gauge cluster on higher trims
Knob/Dial gear selector (allow for better cupholder/storage layout)
Push button start
HUD
Console armrest with a tray similar to the fullsize with wireless charging option
Larger infotainment screen as an option
Nicer leather for Denali (and offer a High Country) and unique color options (offer a better black interior option with nicer accent trim, offer tan/brown as a leather interior)
The Colorado’s 2.8 Duramax won’t be getting the 8spd any time soon. GM had to make a lot of modifications to the 6spd to make it durable enough to handle the vibration of an inline 4 diesel.
Except for the fact that the 2.8L Duramax is available on the Chevrolet Express mated to the 8 speed transmission…
I agree on the interior. I went from an 2015 SLT GMC Sierra to a 2016 Z71 Trail Boss 2.8 Duramax Colorado and was sort of let down by the interior quality. If GM wants to maximize sales and profit from the midsize twins, they need to stop treating them as stepping stones to the full size. Make them the premier platform in the segment. Also leverage tho powertrain options. The 2.8 Duramax is amazing and almost nobody knows it.
The present truck and Canyon are best in class. Ford did not take advantage of the late entry. Toyota has done little to enhance the Taco. Seating is still poor and the drive line is still a mess.
No mules are out and GM has offered optional grills and trim packages. I expect a 360 degree camera will be added soon as will adaptive cruise.
One thing to consider is this. GM had originally planned to have a all new truck for 2023 with a refresh in 2018-19. GM and Isuzu originally had worked together to share cost here but in July of 2016 they parted ways. I suspect that GM may continue to add options but will wait for a replacement in 2023.
I expect the Turbo 2.7 will replace the 3.6 then.
The real needs for the truck right now is a ten speed. The 8 speed is not the best. The door panels need more function and could be a little nicer material. Make the padded dash pad from the Canyon an option in the Colorado.
The Canyon while it has real aluminum dash trim needs better wood trim on the doors and console. It is the worst looking wood trim.
As for the wipers with rain sensing or deicers. That is not really high on the list. Save the money and just upgrade the interior materials.
I love my truck and have really enjoyed the time I have had with it. As for the delay I am good with no new truck as it keeps my more current for now. But GM needs to lead here and not wait till they need to play catch up. This segment is going to continue to grow and they need to be on it.
Ford will replace the Ranger around 2022-23 so the timing would be good for a new truck. By then Ford may have fixed the issues with it. The cramped back seat that does not fold flan. The cheap plastic they have is as bad or worse than the GM. The Audio phone system is lame.
The Ford price is crazy. A non loaded FX4 is $45K when you can get a loaded crew ZR2 for the same price.
I wonder if the front of the upcoming facelift will look like a “butched-up” Blazer, (since that theme is currently being applied to everything SUV at Chevy) or, a mini version of the Silverado? I personally would like it to keep it’s own unique and clean appearance in the front.
Let’s hope it doesn’t go under the knife like some celebrities, and end up looking like, Joan Rivers, or, Wayne Newton.
Hasn’t Mr Newton heard about the law of gravity? -lol!
The Blazer look is going to be very popular with the coming Blazer and other Chevys with the similar Camaro look.
The Blazer is already here. Saw my first one in the real world today. Upper trim level in black. It looks very good in person. Cudos to Chevy design wise.
Although, the smell of tacos and beans as it whiffed by, made me hungry!
That was a joke!
No matter what the Colorado gets please temper your wish list vs. sticker price.
There is a limit people will pay for a mid size truck and it tapers off over $40K. They do not make millions of them so the profits are not as high too.
That was my thought too.
Of the list of options in the article the only two that stick out as possibly useful would be a sunroof and some upgraded interior materials. Everything else adds needless expense and we really don’t need more electronic driving aids at this point.
Keyless ignition gets neither a nay or yea from me. On of those features I’ve had and not had and… just don’t care whether I do or not.
If they were to offer the 2.7 fine, but still give me a V6 option – if I buy a vehicle with the intent to drive it for 10 years I do NOT want the hassle of living long term with a turbo setup.
Yes, turbochargers are a somewhat common replacement item on diesel trucks..
How about making it competitive with the raptor. Bring back the 4.3l turbo v6. A new updated engine of that class would put the Ford Raptor on notice.
So how many $75,000 Co,o radon’s do you think they will sell?
The Raptobfighter is best left to a full size version V8 and not the boat anchor 4.3.
A clean sheet 4.3 V6 with a modern fuel system and turbo charging would be far from a “boat anchor”
In fact, a twin turbo, all aluminum, twin overhead cam 4.3 would decimate virtually anything in the segment and give many performance v8’s a scare. And yes, it would sell for 60k+ making GM some cash and yes people would line up to buy it.
It needs the 2.7 and an interior refresh. Right now with incentives the Silverado crew cab short bed RST is a better buy and gets the same gas mileage. The new Silverado has a tighter turning radius than the old Silverado, closing the gap on the midsize section. I wouldn’t buy a Colorado right now as although its a great truck, I can get more for less in the Silverado.
You are missing the point of what most mid size buyers are buying for. They want a smaller truck.
Most full size trucks are oversized and the mid size is closer to what a full size was.
Like myself I have no need for a full size and the mid meets all my needs and I am getting 20 mpg city with a crew 4×4 V6. It is easier to park, takes yo less space in the garage and still hauls towns and carries all my needs.
Mid size is not a truck for everyone but is is a truck for a growing segment of buyers.
Spot-on. Today’s full-sized trucks are great, cost-effective vehicles … if you truly need a full-sized truck. However, today’s full-sized trucks are huge, bigger that the super duty sized trucks of 30 years ago. You see most of them parked on driveways as they’re too big to fit into most cluttered home garages.
Today’s mid-sized Chevy, GMC, Toyota, Nissan and now Ford trucks are about the size of full-sized trucks of yesteryear.
The original “compact” Chevy, Ford, Toyota, Nissan and Misubishi truck are highly coveted today. Owners keep them, and they enjoy a good resale value.
I disagree on a few things. We all gotta look at the new Gladiators from Jeep… not only are these Mid Size Trucks a lot more expensive – they will sell every last one – but the after market for these trucks is gonna be on fire also. These Jeep.Trucks are going to be thee hottest truck in sales for a long time.
Men and Woman alike were raving about it at the car show I was at, both sexes drooling over it. I kept hearing women talking to their men, babe we gotta get one, omg babe it’s so hot!!! Omgggg babe get me one for my birthday, even men were making similar comments to the ladies who had the obvious money in the family lolol.
I feel the Colorado and Canyon need to get a lot more rugged looking, tougher, not so rounded off. They had a hit with their mid size Hummer Truck but killed off Hummer before it got a chance to become what this Gladiator Pick up will become, a world over hit sensation.
GM needs to follow right away in the Gladiators fumes, they need to develop a truck that young men/women want. The current Colorado and Canyon though are nice, miss the mark and my point. The next GM Mid Size trucks need the aftermarket involved, have huge amounts of after market parts available right from launch and give the new twins a very squarish, muscular look and offer a high level, off road variant right away with big power. Gm really needs to get their next midsize twins right or I’m sorry the Gladiators will conquer in sales and price points. Trust me, everyone I talk to would rather pony up the money and buy a Gladiator over any other mid size truck…Go ahead run a poll with pictures, all trucks in one color and high level trim. Watch the outcome!!! GM PLEASE MAKE US A TRUCK LIKE THE GLADIATOR, DON’T LET US JUMP SHIP TO THE JEEP BRAND. IM SO READY TO BUY THE HIGH POWERED, HIGH RIDING SUPER GLADIATOR THEY SAY IS COMING. AS SOON AS IT DOES IM SORRY GM, IM BUYING IT!!
The Jeep is a Jeep with a bed more than a traditional truck.
Being a Jeep is a blessing and curse. You have the blessing of it being a unique vehicle with a sold aftermarket support.
But you are limited in styling, a so so ride and the wind noise leaks and stone chips do to the body shape. Jeep people are ok with this but traditional truck people are not.
Jeep people are often looking for life style vehicles but truck buyers are looking for sold daily transportation with few compromises.
Saying it is a Jeep thing is true. Jeeps are popular but they hav3 a dedicated base.
Most of their buyers will come from the Wrangler. It will sell well but at what cost to Wrangler sales.
The price will also hurt to some degree as it is not going to be cheap. To those who are Jeep fans that is the price of admission but to someone who wants a loaded comfortable off road truck the ZR2 is a great bargain.
GM is having the aftermarket resending now with the twins. I work in the aftermarket and see a ton of items coming out. Even Edelbrock now has a Supercharger along with many suspension and body option parts. There are some body kits that make them into a trophy truck look.
Jeep has done something good but it is just not for everyone.
I’d love to see a Colorado with the high country trim level. With the diesel motor. Similar to the canyon denali.
I’m just not crazy about all the Crap they want to add to an off-road vehicle.
Let’s have a bad ass 4×4 without all the shit let’s keep it simple and focus more on a reliable truck that can go every where and it will last.
Packaging is part of the plan.
If you take a ZR2 and put all the 4×4 stuff on a gutted truck it would still be expensive. By adding the options that most would buy anyways it adds value and profit.
The money is not made on double lockers it is made on options. Make it standard it makes sure a specific atp is made.
Base trucks are not profitable no matter the model.
WHY DOES GM HAVE TO COPY FORD TIT FOR TAT?!?
I am looking at buying a truck in the near future (between the Silverado 1500 LD, and the Colorado Z71 Duramax). The Colorado is still a better truck than the Ranger. One could still argue that its the best truck in the segment aside from MAYBE the Tacoma.
If there were a few things I would add to the Colorado it would be: A diesel engine that is a bit faster, a column shifter, LED headlights and a sunroof. although, I wish GM didn’t force its customers to buy the wireless charger WHEN INTERIOR STORAGE IS MORE IMPORTANT, AND THEY WILL PROBABLY NEVER F**KING TOUCH IT!!!
WHY DOES GM HAVE TO COPY FORD TIT FOR TAT?!?
Technically, no one said anything about copying. But when one competing product has many features that are not available on another product at a similar price point, guess where the sales will go?
I highly doubt that people are going to leave the Colorado for the Ranger. Considering it;
A) has a higher starting price.
B) standard tech that few drivers want/enjoy.
C) has fewer color choices.
D) Has essentially one cab/bed configuration (You choose between people or cargo. Neither being incredibly large).
E) has only one engine/tranny.
Ford only brought the Ranger back because they had to. If they really WANTED to sell it here, they would have offered so much more for so much less.
I agree, especially with D and E – for myself I really need the crew cab / long bed / extended wheelbase configuration that Ford doesn’t offer in the Ranger, and I’m suspicious of the one engine as a one-size-fits-all especially after reading that it doesn’t live up to its mpg claims.
This iteration of the Ranger is not a threat to the Colorado, the next one may be. Refresh the exterior, but spend some time and money on making the interior more functional and use better materials, add a sunroof option and some of the safety features standard on others in this market. As for the powertrain, put the 2.7 T and 10 speed in the lineup now, and it will be one less thing to do on the redesign later. Up the output of the little Dmax. The aftermarket is getting some impressive power out of it. Get the hp to around 200 and torque to 400. It would improve drivability and towing performance. GM is in a good position in this segment, while they are not challenging the Taco in sales, they have carved out this segment. The ZR2 is a great example of what adding content to a package instead of just decals can do. The ZR2 is a legit off-road contender. Use the ZR2 to fight Jeep in their own back yard, this little pickup has earned credibility with the off-road crowd. Continue to improve the line, don’t rest, and by the time the next new Colorado comes in 2023 or 24. They may be with in reach of seriously taking the top spot.
A 5.3 and 8L90 as an option would be the only V8 offering in the class, cost little to implement, appeal to legacy GM enthusiasts, and drive competition nuts. The V6 badge they proudly present on the tailgate is not exactly something to brag about.
If you look back the last Colorado offered a V8. It at the time back ten years ago drove the price to nearly $34K.
Today it would be much more expensive. They would have to recrash test the truck and the added cost would never be made back. The production numbers were very low and it did not help even over a poor I5 engine.
Might note the V6 today is much faster than the old Colorado 5.3 V8. The V6 is 1 second faster in the 14 second quarter mile. It also tops 20 MPG around town.
308 HP is not too bad.
Visit the Colorado forum and just see how the sales drop off as the price reaches $40K.
You’re right on many accounts. A 5.3 offering would probably cannibalize other product offerings like the diesel, the v6, and even fullsize trucks. I’ve generally been pleased with the 3.6 in my truck, but the areas where I find it lacking are in low end torque and sound. For that, myself and many others would gladly pay a $5k difference, which would have put my OTD price right at $40k.
Well last time it cannibalized nothing. Sales were weak.
The 3.6 runs just fine you just have to,learn to drive it differently. RPMs roll up fast @nd power is 3500 and up. You do not drive it like a two valve. That is why the 3.6 is faster even in the heavier present Colorado.
As for installing it would take a decent investment as the truck was not designed for the engine and would need new crash test, cafe test and epa test. GM is trying to get to smaller engines for emissions. The next gen may not even have a V6.
A V8 would never make $40k otd unless it was used. It would only be in a high option truck with Bison like price.
I’d rather see the price come down about $15,000. What happened to an affordable midsize truck?
You would not be happy with what is left at that price.
Nothing is cheap any more.
I did find base work trucks in El Cajon for $18k. Not much truck but cheaper.
By about $15,000 dollars? Where did you get that price reduction from? It sounds like a number pulled out of thin air with no real meaning.
Did you first compare the cost for engineers to design the different truck iterations for the model year coming out? Then the cost to test the different iterations to determine what is best? What about price for all materials used in the creation of the truck, that can change quite a bit year to year? Manufacturing costs, did you get that pricing from all the different vendors supplying the parts and putting the vehicle together? What about legal costs? Advertising costs? The cost of transporting manufactured vehicles to the dealers? And the list goes on and on.
It’s just silly when someone said “they need to reduce the cost by X dollars” without even knowing what the total costs are to bring that product to market.
I am 100% happy with my 2018 Colorado LT 2WD crew-cab long-bed with the V6. That’s a long wheel-base and it rides really smoothly, plus does everything I need it to right now. I prefer the narrower truck over the “full-size” line, and in particular despite being a big guy find the driver seat better. Have you ever noticed how far to the side the driver seat is on a full size? I hate that.
Agree auto windshield wipers would be nice but that’s just a little thing. What would I change? Whatever structural changes to improve the front/side impact safety as per recent tests, number 1. Replace the front bottom air dam even if it improves mileage – it’s just silly in terms of ground clearance. What I would REALLY like would be an option for a higher load capacity, bring from a 3/4 ton to a 1.5 ton – should be totally do-able but GM will never dare to cut into their “full size” truck market. Hope to see more after-market parts to do this. Would love to see the 3.0 V6 Duramax available, but not sure it would fit?
1. A short column shifter – Would increase console space and make cupholders more convenient, while also making the Colorado more trucklike in a good way.
2. 2.7 turbo – The EcoBoost has a big torque advantage on the V6, and the 2.7 would likely crush it.
3. Jeep will probably sell more manual transmission Gladiators in the first model year than GM has sold manual transmission Colorado/Canyons in the last decade. Reintroducing a 6 speed as an option on 4×4 trucks and high end trims and advertising it would be a boon to enthusiasts as well as a way to make the ZR2 more competitive against the new Jeep.
There is so much they could do with these little trucks.
For the life of me l don’t understand why they don’t bring the Syclone back and use the 3.6 from the ATS-V.
I also wish they would make a ZR2 Canyon. Maybe call it the Badlands.
Hopefully they don’t copy the styling from the new Silverado.
I hope they actually try to keep up with Ford on this instead of laying down like they did with the 1500.
While neat there is little money in that kind of deal. GMC only built 1500 Syclones as they were expensive and the engine limited. They did not fly off the lots and they did not make a lot of money.
To use the Cadillac engine it would put the truck over $50K and reaching close to $60K. Too expensive for the mid size American market.
Adding that engine is not just a bolt in and would require all new crash test. And for sales of 3% at best?
Best to take the Trail Boss and so something with it and a V8.
The Ranger Raptor is not here for the same reason. Look for a Bronco to get the treatment as they can get a higher price for it.
The Durango SRT starts at $62,000 and the Grand Cherokee SRT starts at $68000. The Jeep Grand Cherokee TrackHawk starts at $86,000, while the new Jeep Gladiator Rubicon can easily get into the mid $50s. I mean hells bells BMW is building an X3 M that starts over $70k and their building the goddamn thing is the Carolinas.
There is definitely a market for limited production performance Trucks/SUVs.
There wouldn’t be much modification needed and no need for new crash test.
They’d probably sell as many Syclones as they do ZR2s. It wouldn’t be a high volume model, obviously, but it would stir public interest in the brand and get people into showrooms and renew intrest in waining brands.
Please note most of what you list is a SUV not a truck let alone not a Mid Size truck.
SUV models can sustain a larger price better than a mid size truck.
Also note this is a Chevy not a BMW we are speaking about.
The original Syclone sold 2995 models the ZR2 is 10 percent of total volume which is about 28,000 units. The key here is in the past GM built these limited models to get people into the show rooms and went broke doing it. They need to make money on everything including the Vette. The lower the volume the higher the price gets and in the mid size truck segment there are limits to what people will pay..
Please note Ford did not bring the Raptor truck here from down under. The price would have been pushing $60K. But watch Ford do a SUV Raptor on the next Bronco. It will sustain a higher price more easily and sell in greater volumes here.
As for crash test yes you have to do new test as the engine in a crash goes into the firewall and floor. they have to engineer the crumple space in and test it. The EPA test and CAFE test also have to be redone.
While it is easy to bolt on these items it is still expensive and time consuming to get them approved for the market. There is a good chance the firewall or frame would need modifications to past the test even if the engine bolts into the space.
I agree there are limited markets out there but is there any real profit in them? Not much in many cases and some profit in others in the right model.
GM did the Bison and worked with AEV to make it. It was a good deal for GM and AEV as it let GM save money and helped AEV in all the crash testing cost on the bumpers they had to do for production status on the parts.
They did not touch the tire size as it would have required more government testing. The bumpers AEV said would have taken millions in testing for them to do alone for production status but GM shared the cost. Even the filler panel they made under the head lamp cost nearly $2,000,000 just for the tooling.
Even with all Ford does on the Raptor they are still $8 a share in stock. If not for the Ford family owning most of the stock they would have been bought out. The next Ranger will also be part VW due to high development cost Ford no longer can do alone.
This is big picture stuff have to consider. It is not like when John D stuffed a 389 into a GTO and only broke one rule. Today it is a mess getting a vehicle to market. The cost of the GTO being converted from a Holden was done cheap and was till 10’s of millions of dollars to do . They ran out of money hence no hood scoop on the 04 model.
I really wish it were different but that is just the harsh reality of today’s market. One major failure of a model can hurt as strong company and destroy a smaller MFG today. It is no more games.
Make an “Extreme” Colorado/Canyon. Lowered, V6 or V8 standard, Sport Trim, better interior materials, more stand safety features. While this all may be not popular combinations, there are people that want Sport Trucks, not just 4WD looking trucks. If they can go to 4X4 extreme, why can’t they go 2WD extreme?
Totally agree. I’m getting to be an old man, and the high step in height is off-putting on these trucks. Yes, I know if I add running boards it would help. Lower the ride height on the Colorado (2wd) and I’m in.
Midsize trucks have market of its own and need no compromise in options. Colorado need to offer all available Latest options and introduce “high county”.
Same goes with exterior (LED everything) and please let the new refresh have better approach angle.
2.7 should come with the next update as well.