mobile-menu-icon
GM Authority

Chevrolet Colorado ZR2 Bison Snorkel Could Be A Catalyst For Legal Issues

We’re currently testing out the 2020 Chevrolet Colorado ZR2 Bison both on the road and off the beaten path, and while we’re impressed by the level of equipment American Expedition Vehicles (AEV) has grafted onto the truck to improve its over-landing abilities, we need to ask: where’s the snorkel?

One of the key dealer-installed accessories available for the Chevrolet Colorado ZR2 Bison is an optional snorkel air intake which presumably allows the truck to drive through deep water without damaging the engine. This option is currently not available on a standard Chevrolet Colorado, or even the already extreme ZR2. But it’s something the Colorado Bison’s primary rival, the Toyota Tacoma TRD Pro, offers. Chevrolet had to respond with something similar. Yet, our test unit – powered by the naturally-aspirated 3.6L LGZ V6 engine mated to the GM 8-speed automatic transmission – didn’t have. Why?

We did some legwork on the matter, and were told that GM is currently reviewing accessories for the Canadian market for the Chevrolet Colorado ZR2 Bison.

In the U.S., the snorkel is offered as an IBP (Independent Business Partner) accessory, though it can be ordered directly on Chevrolet’s consumer website or through a GM dealer. It has gone through a simplified GM validation process, and isn’t backed by a GM warranty, but a three-year/36,000-mile (whichever comes first) coverage by AEV. The part description says it’s “designed to help improve engine performance by drawing in the coolest, cleanest air possible,” but doesn’t specify anything about water fording.

While we have not yet been able to select the snorkel on the Chevrolet Canada website configurator and haven’t been able to find the part through Chevrolet dealers in Canada, the component can be purchased through AEV directly.

The GM Authority Take

It’s important to underline that the entire Bison treatment is not a GM effort, but one by AEV. So while Chevrolet approved the modifications for production and adds the AEV-produced pieces on the ZR2 Bison at the Wentzville plant, the package itself, which is assigned RPO code ULV, is backed by AEV. If, for instance, one of the AEV skid plates has a production defect, GM will most likely turn to AEV for a warranty claim. But that’s a skid plate – a relatively simple part to change – that doesn’t have much impact on the truck’s drivetrain, except perhaps damaging an oil pan or, at worst, a differential.

A snorkel, on the other hand, is a tad more complicated matter. If, for instance, a Colorado ZR2 Bison owner drives his or her truck through a large water hole, fills the truck with water and damages something either electronically or mechanically, the repair will be much more complex and costly, in some instances totaling the truck.

If that were to happen, would that customer be able to bring the truck back to his local dealer for a repair under warranty? That’s something that doesn’t seem to be fully fleshed out at the moment.

It’s worth noting that Toyota currently has a similar issue with the Tacoma. While the snorkel will technically allow the truck to drive in deep water, Toyota claims it was designed, first and foremost, for sand use and does not recommend submerging the truck. It’s a simple disclosure that frees Toyota from any water damaging liabilities.

From what it currently seems, if fitting the AEV snorkel on a Colorado ZR2 Bison and driving it through deep water ends up flooding the truck, then the owner would be responsible for that damage, not GM or Chevrolet.

Love reading about how you can drive your Chevrolet Colorado ZR2 virtually anywhere? Then subscribe to GM Authority for more Chevrolet Colorado news, Chevrolet news, and around-the-clock GM news coverage.

[nggallery id=985]

Automotive Journalist from Canada.

Subscribe to GM Authority

For around-the-clock GM news coverage

We'll send you one email per day with the latest GM news. It's totally free.

Comments

  1. No where did he say it’s a water intake. These are intakes to move source air up higher to cleaner air due to dust. Doesn’t Toyota call theirs a ‘desert air intake’? Calling itbq snorkel may be the only issue if a person assumes/defines snorkel as it’s common usage.

    A very simple solution to the proposed water liability is identifying a vehicle fording depth in the manual and to really cover you butt out a sticker in the engine bay.

    I’m not sure water is the issue. From the quote I think there is too much reading between the lines, unless that quote has more context that wasn’t included in the story.

    I drive in high dust environments and know how bad it is. I change my engine air filter once a month in the summer. And fluids follow the severe duty maintenance schedule.
    But even driving down just a dirt road behind another vehicle, you can usually see a break in the stirred up dust around the 6ft mark. Must be the be the line between disrupted/turbulent air.

    For the water concern. I would also think the same could be said about skid plates, if a person smacks a rock and end up cracking a diff where they thought a skid plate was supposed to protect. Or even offroad tire tread life, I don’t know of any all terrain tire that honors a tread life warranty if they are chewed up from being used offroad despite that being their purpose.

    I’d be curious to get further comment from GM and not “in other words” interpretation.

    The quote say emmisions and efficiency. For one add a bulky unit to a vehicle creates drag, especially on the front. Two it’s not drawing air as efficiently tobfeed the engine so this could starve the engine at highway speeds further reducing MPG. Starving the engine of air could also lead to higher emissions.

    But if they keep this as an aftermarket accessory, even if you still buy it from your dealership parts department, they can bypass those issues.

    Reply
  2. The drag is minimal here for MPG but the drag for legal issues could be a royal pain.

    In todays legal process you do not have to go in expecting to win a case only settle and that is often what happens as it is cheaper to settle even if you are right vs paying the extra money to win.

    In this case the snorkel is available and easily installed if you really want it so it is not really that big of a drama.

    GM nixed the side scoops planned for the 1984 Fiero because of warranty concerns of them filling with snow, mud and water. They were only used on some show cars and then disappeared for the small intake vent it got that contained a major water drainage system.

    The truth is only a small number of people really need these and most are skilled enough to install it themselves.

    This deal was AEM mostly but GM did much of the testing for crash and created some of the smaller parts like the fill panels under the head lamps. The investment here was small. If AEM had not partnered none of this would have happened for either company. AEM said the cost of the crash test and the like were more than they could afford. Even the small filler panel cost a couple million for the tooling alone.

    There is a interesting story on the web that tells the story from the AEM side.

    I hope this leads to a full size truck being jointly done.

    Note the drive line and wheels were not touched to avoid any emission or CAFE testing. Also to keep the price down to where you could sell it for only a little more than a lot more. That was according to AEM.

    When it comes to building vehicles today you can’t just fool proof them you have to idiot proof them. Those were the words of a Ford engineer I spoke to once. He is right. We have seen people take Ferrari to court because they claim the dead family member was not told of the high performance nature of the Ferrari they drove off the road at 150 mph.

    Reply
  3. Getting water in the engine would be the least of your problems. Water that high would be in cabin and short out electrical stuff. Unless you are off roader and go in lost of sand its useless. The one on the Colorado looks better than the one on the Toyota but both are a eyesore.

    Reply
    1. Most people do not understand they also have to water proof the axles in most vehicles for prolonged water use.

      Reply
      1. Yup. Breather tube for the front diff is only about 30 inches high in the engine bay.

        Reply
  4. The author is confused about the intake on the Tacoma. As soon as i got to the area where false information about the Tacoma was i quit reading the article. The author is spreading false information. The desert air intake on the Tacoma is not referred to by them as a snorkel and its function has nothing to do with water. In fact, the intake will not act as a snorkel in water because it has a drain hole very low for debris to fall out off the intake.

    Reply
  5. Just a disclosure in the manual does not necessarily free you from liability, which is what they are referring to with the ‘implied liability.’

    A more extreme example would be let’s say they put in the owners manual that the tailgate is for emergency access to the bed and shall not be used otherwise. Guy brings his truck in for a bad tailgate latch and they deny the claim because it said right in the manual he wasn’t supposed to use it. Courts would say that by putting a hinged gate on the rear of the truck with a handle you are implying to the customer that they can use it to access the bed of the truck. This is meant to be a consumer protection.

    Similarly, GM is worried that by putting a snorkel on a truck they are implying that the truck is designed to be taken through water (regardless of whether you call it a snorkel or a desert air intake, or specifically spell out the depth of water the stock truck can handle).

    It may or may not be a legitimate concern I’m no lawyer but that is their line of thinking.

    Reply
    1. I thought it was for water to as I don’t follow the off road scene.

      Reply
  6. The ‘snorkel’ had little to do with allowing the vehicle to breathe underwater and more to do with moving the air intake above the dust and debris clouds created when following other vehicles when traveling off road…

    Reply
  7. “………and doesn’t have much impact on the truck’s drivetrain, except perhaps damaging an oil pan…………”

    wut?

    I would think that “damaging an oil pan” on a running engine will certainly have an impact on a vehicle’s drivetrain.

    Reply
    1. Lol so much wrong with this article

      Reply
  8. Andrew, Please learn how to write! Thank you.

    Reply
  9. Poll on Colorado, Canyon web site.

    I asked what is the max price you would pay for a mid size truck?

    Here is the present results. Note the $60K is represented by Canadians who said that is American $45K

    $20K 2%
    $30K 10.2%
    $35K 20.4%
    $40K 40.8%
    $45K 16.3%
    $50K 2.0%
    $60K 6.1%
    Or more 2%

    49 total Votes after 2 days

    I will keep and eye on this and update in the future. The poll can be found the forum under the 2nd gen.

    These percentages fall into place with my observations of the owners there over the last 3 years.

    Reply

Leave a comment

Cancel