mobile-menu-icon
GM Authority

GM Invests $1B In Wentzville Plant For New Chevrolet Colorado, GMC Canyon

General Motors has announced it will invest a total of $1.5 billion to bring its next-generation Chevrolet Colorado and GMC Canyon mid-size pickups to market – $1 billion of which go toward upgrades at its Wentzville Assembly plant in Missouri.

The automaker did not go into the specifics of the $1 billion Wentzville investment, only saying that it will be used “to upgrade the facility in preparation for the new products.

GMC Canyon in the Wentzville Assembly plant

GM also says the decision to keep producing the mid-size trucks in Wentzville is “expected to retain about 4,000 good-paying U.S. manufacturing jobs.” The plant, which currently operates on three shifts of production, also builds the Chevrolet Express and GMC Savana full-size vans in addition to the Colorado and Canyon.

“Through this investment, General Motors is making a firm commitment to the State of Missouri, the City of Wentzville and the GM Wentzville team,” GM president Mark Reuss said in a prepare statement. “This is part of our comprehensive strategy to invest in growth areas and strengthen our U.S. manufacturing base. GM sells more pickups than any other automaker and we have aggressive plans to build on our strengths.”

Chevrolet Colorado at Wentzville Assembly

It is believed the Wentzville plant will receive paint shop, body shop and general assembly upgrades. It will also receive new assembly machines, conveyors and other new tooling.

Word of the investment had been swirling since May, when representatives from GM met with Missouri governor Mike Parson to discuss a potential tax incentives package for the plant. Parson later approved a tax credits package for the automaker, but details of the deal are not yet clear.

GM says it has sold more than 700,000 examples of the Colorado and Canyon since re-introducing the trucks in 2013.

Chevrolet Express at Wentzville Assembly

The future Chevrolet Colorado and future GMC Canyon will utilize GM’s 31XX-2 platform, which is an evolution of the 31XX platform the current trucks ride on. They are expected to arrive for the 2023 model year, so they will likely debut sometime in 2022. In the meantime, GM will apply some small changes to the existing Colorado and Canyon models, with a small facelift and update expected for the 2021 model year.

Subscribe to GM Authority for more Chevrolet Colorado news, Chevrolet news, GMC Canyon news, GMC news and around-the-clock GM news coverage.

[nggallery id=1105] [nggallery id=1095]

Sam loves to write and has a passion for auto racing, karting and performance driving of all types.

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. What I would like to see, and would purchase as soon as available, is the following:
    – Grow in size to be about the size of the NBS 98-07 Silverado
    – 2.7T (310hp 350lb-ft) on 10spd or updated 2.8d (200hp 380lb-ft) with 3.0d cooling tech) paired to at minimum the 8spd
    – interior that looks like a scaled down 2020 Tahoe
    – interior bed walls widened like the T1 trucks
    – sun roof
    – radar cruise control
    – HUD
    – drop 200lbs in crew cab config
    – wireless android auto/car play
    – rear climate control

    Reply
    1. They will not grow in size. The new platform is just a 2nd gen of what we have. That is not a bad thing.

      2.7 and ten speed is almost a sure bet. It may cost us a V6 though.

      The interior will never improved but who knows what it will look like at this point.

      Not sure on sun roof. There is a reason it is not here and it may be due to weight and cost. Even stiffness as this is a very stiff cab.

      Yes it will have adaptive Cruise, 369 camera, lane assist and auto braking. It is the last GMC to get the upgrade.

      If the turbo

      4 comes it will lose weight.

      There are not many wireless car play in many vehicles yet at lower price points.

      The present truck has vents under the seats but I can see vents in the console being added. Most GM CUV and large trucks have them now.

      Reply
      1. Ladder frame provides some sizing flexibility where unibody is more controlled. So scaling up is possible.
        A turbo 4 versus a NAV6 isn’t a sure fire bet to weight loss. Turbo, intercooler, piping, fluid all add weight to the 4 cylinder. Weight savings will come from the structure

        Reply
        1. The reason I don’t see scaling up is people who want larger generally have no problem going full size. On the Forum many move up with no complaint.

          Now there is a group who would like smaller and there is no option. GM and Ford have watched the Honda and are watching the Hyundai to see if they grow in volume. Right now the Honda has gone stagnate. They eliminated the bottom model and made some changes to try to bring in buyers again at higher volumes like it saw in the first year or two.

          The a Turbo 4 is very light be several hundred pound pound over even the 4.3. As for pipes and inter cooler. The pipes are plastic and the inter cooker is aluminum and plastic so weight from them is minimal.

          The weight loss is going to come from mixed materials. Mostly Boron Steel, composites, magnesium and aluminum. Computer aided design using the right lighter material in the right spots retain strength and help keep cost down.

          The frame is boxed and pretty much as light as you can get and not have capacity decline in towing or cargo. It is brutally stiff now and contributes much to the better ride and handling over the others. A stiff frame is the foundation for better handling.

          Oh I also meant to say I wager HUD will become a Denali feature.

          Reply
          1. I just checked.

            Silverado with a 4.3 vs the 2.7 weight.

            The 2.7 comes in 380 pounds lighter according to the GM media.

            3.6 is about 100 pounds lighter than the 4.3 in most applications.

            Reply
            1. No F’n way the 2.7 is 380lbs lighter than the 4.3. The 4.3 weighs around 400lbs so what does that say about the 2.7?
              The entire truck is 380lbs lighter versus the old K2 with 4.3.
              GM-Techlink confirms 2.7 is 80lbs lighter than 4.3 and 3.6 is 100lbs lighter than 4.3 per you. 2.7 weighs more than the 3.6.
              I’ll say again, weight savings won’t come from switching from the 3.6 to the 2.7. it will come from the structure and body of the truck

              Remember the 4.3 for its displacement is a [relatively] light compact pushrod and the 3.6 is a car engine.

              And Ridgeline straddles the line between midsize and half ton

              Reply
              1. That is the truck and engine not just the engine. Note I rated the Silverado with each.

                The 3.6 is a what ever it is in kind of engine. The 4.3 was in a number of cars too.

                The 3.6 got better mpg in this case and is why GM chose it. I get 20.3 around town and that is the average over 13k miles.

                The Ridgeline straddles the CUV and mid size markets. It is not even close to full size. To many it is a CUV with a birth defect.

                Reply
                1. The 2014 and up 4.3 L based on the LS/LT engines was never in cars. The previous 4.3 L based on the 350 Chevy was in cars.

                  Reply
                  1. They may have fooled you but it is just an evolution of the original engine.

                    They may have upgraded the engineering and technology but it is still the same dimensional engine.

                    The reason it is not in cars today is 90 degree V engines are more difficult to fit and heavy. Also the NHV is still more than the 60 degree.

                    But in a full frame RWD the NHV could be damped out.

                    Yes they are better today but they are still rough by nature.

                    The bottom line is they are cheaper to build.

                    The bottom line is an engine is an engine for what ever it is bolted into. The 3.6 became a truck engine with the virst Colorado it was fitted to.

                    Reply
                2. Lol why cite truck and engine when the two trucks are completely different, that has no bearing on specific engine weight… Uh-huh

                  A version of the 4.3 was in cars, but it is very much a truck engine with truck focused design and specs.
                  The 3.6 was chosen because they didn’t want overlap with the Silverado and used the 3.6 as an engineered control. It was good enough for a ‘lifestyle’ truck.
                  3.6 is a weak engine to put in a truck and is why GM was praised for sticking with and modernizing the 4.3 back in 2014 for the K2 half tons instead of switching to car based engines like Ram 3.6 and Ford 3.7

                  Reply
                  1. You need to ask GM as that is what info they provided.

                    It was put in for mpg, for cleaner emissions and For competitive I’ve reasons.

                    The engine is not cheap and FM stuck with the 4.3 because they are low cost to produce and dump into entry level trucks. The 3.6 cost too much to do so.

                    It will not be long till the 4.3 is gone as there is little left to do to clean it up more. It will finally become the boat anchor it always was.

                    I have owned two and never more. My co worker just traded off his and went back to the 5.3. He hated it.

                    If my Canyon had a 4.3 I would have bought a V8 Sierra though I wanted the smaller truck.

                    The only thing about the 3.6 is that it needs RPM to make power. You just have to drive it different than you would the push rod engine.

                    I run mid 14 in the quarter in a 4550 pound 4×4 crew truck and get 20.3 city. It will pull 7000 pounds with no issue.

                    My last 4.3 got 19 city in a two wheel drive 3600 pound truck. It was only 193 hp. Quarter miles are in the 16 range.

                    Even with the improvements it is still a harsh noisy engine.

                    Reply
                    1. You know the 4.3 is basically the same engine as the 5.3 and 6.2 with two less cylinders right? It’s one of the best gas V6 work horses and bullet proof reliability

                      Reply
                    2. “The 3.6 cost too much…”, C8.R/Scott3.

                      I thought you were the one tsk-tsking people on lack of features due to a price ceiling for mid-size trucks.

                      Reply
    2. Make the back sliding window power.

      Reply
    3. I’m not too sure about them growing to the size of the GMT 800 trucks because in terms of the actual footprint, they weren’t actually that much smaller than the current trucks. Just the low ride height and styling make them look small by today’s standards.

      I can see width and wheelbase growing by a couple inches each though to allow for more cab space.

      Reply
      1. My issue with the current size, which I know is perfect for many people and the current owners likely are very happy with, but the interior is small. The rear leg room would be nice to have GMT800
        And the width to have a center console bigger than a Chevy Cruze.
        Other if the bed interior is widened like the new half tons then a crew cab with 6ft box is great.

        Just that cab a little bigger. And if it grew like how the Silverado has grown, a small truck could slot in nicely under it

        Reply
  2. I agree with you Andrew,

    All but the grow in size, the one I drive now, I think, is a great size.
    And the 8 speed GM junk transmission, belongs in a pile of aluminum salvage !

    I also will wait to see the new GMC Yukon interior as I hope they intergraded the screen better than the Tahoe sticking up out the center.( I much prefer the top dash pad to flow over all the dash as one piece. Cleaning etc. and overall look. ) I do want to say, I like the Tahoe interior better than any full-sized SUV yet. I like the Cadillac Escalade equally, but I think they both would have looked better with the top dash pad over the entire dash, but that’s my opinion.

    2.7T-10 speed is a must.
    2.8TD-10 speed as well.
    HUD.
    And the rear vents !!

    Reply
    1. I can see how the size is a hiccup for many. I’m in a half ton Silverado right now and the current size of the Colorado is just too small for my needs but the T1 Silverado has gotten huge.
      If I had to chose right now I would go bigger with the Silverado than smaller with the Colorado

      Reply
      1. I would for sure not go smaller with the Colorado.

        And I think after driving my Colorado for 3 years now, that if it had the engine combos we have talked about.

        2.7T-10 Speed
        2.8TD-10 speed

        This truck would preform the same if not better than a 99 half ton Classic or new style, and a lot better than say a 82 to 87 half ton did.

        I love my Canyon !!
        I do not love the 3.6 rev-rattler and I do not love the shifting of the transmission !
        The 3.6 is OK but when you need the power, my HD truck gets better mileage as the 3.6 is at peak torque and peak fuel usage !

        Reply
        1. Definitely. With the 2.7 and it’s torquey turbo low down, and if they shed a couple hundred pounds it would be running mid-6 second 0-60 and tow strong

          Reply
        2. Put a Trifecta tune on it and it will shift like butter.

          Reply
          1. I have one on my 2015 Dan,
            Its the only way I could even keep it with the 3.6-6 speed.

            Shifts great.

            Reply
  3. I want to see: A New Chevy Express!

    Reply
  4. What I would like to see,

    10 spd. across the power train board.
    -2.7 tho I doubt I would go that rout.
    -3.0 Duramax -2.7 tho I doubt GM would do it or I would go that rout.
    -V8 of any C.I. tho I doubt GM would do it but to make it an easy performance (6.2 ?) upgrade.
    Mixed Material Manufacturing® weight loss.
    All the latest convenience features as options.

    And most important, Stay the same size.

    Reply
    1. I would trade my Colorado right now if they offered a V8. That would be awesome. Fingers crossed the Dakota gets it so GM has to step up their game. I am sure it is unlikely though.

      Reply
      1. You will not see a V8 and will be lucky if the 2.7 does not replace the V6.

        Reply
  5. Very happy to hear this.

    Reply
  6. An inch more shoulder room and 2-3 inches more rear legroom in the back of the crew cab would really be a plus.

    2.8L Diesel bumped up to 210HP – 400ft lbs and mated to the 10 speed.

    I would also like to see a C31XX-2 based Hummer built along with it, but from everything that I hear, it seems the rumors of a Hummer resurrection is electric. This could be a true Wrangler competitor.

    Reply
  7. Higher door openings.
    Room in the foot wells for feet bigger than size 9.
    Console delete option.
    Center the steering wheel for the driver.

    Reply
    1. The roof really can’t go higher as they need to still fit it in a 7 foot garage. They can only lower the truck or change the antenna.

      My 10.5 feet fit fine. In fact moving from my last car I was not sure to do with all the room. It is even better than my Sonoma.

      You are stuck with a console but they may remove the shifter.

      Unless the completely replace the the Frame wheel is what it is.

      Reply
      1. I don’t mean to be picking on you in the comments. But isn’t the Colorado roof line under 6ft high right now? Sounds like it has plenty of wiggle room before 7ft
        The Silverado TrailBoss still clears 7ft with plenty of buffer

        Reply
  8. I really love my V6 in my ZR2. It has a lot of power. Nothing against the 2.7 but I hope they keep the V6 an option. The V6 also has a great exhaust note for a V6. Not sure I could say that about the small 2.7 four banger.

    Reply
    1. Dan,
      What if I told you the 2.7T would have more power, and better mileage than your V6.
      What if I told you it was quitter and lasted longer.

      Would the exhaust tone keep you from the purchase ?

      All of us GM people love the 18436572 tone, or even the LS isn’t that bad, but the V6 and the 4 really don’t even have a crisp tone any longer that a good exhaust person did not make.

      Reply
      1. I think of you don’t have a V8 exhaust doesn’t tone isn’t a make or break selling point. The V6 may be louder than a 4cyl but it’s still weazy

        Reply
      2. I really like my 3.6 ZR2, but on paper the 2.7T would make the 3.6 unnecessary in the Colorado. What I don’t like about the 3.6 is lack of torque below 3500 rpm. It is really a pooch off the line, to the point that it negatively affects the driving experience. That said when your passing vehicles and you can get into the throttle, it flat goes, surprisingly powerful. It is easy to see why this engine also shares time in the Camaro. I don’t find the exhaust note on the 3.6 anything to keep. Honestly I think it sounds terrible. The LSA in my ZL1 is the definition of great exhaust note (especially with long tube headers) I look forward to a 2.7T and a ten speed in the next Gen Colorado. As to the diesel, there was some discussion that the 3.0 Duramax would not fit in the Colorado, I am hoping that it will in the next one. The 3.0 makes more power, gets better mpg than does the 4cyl Duramax. It would seem to be a no brainer to put that engine in the Colorado.

        Reply
  9. BRING BACK THE MODEL THAT MADE MONEY FOR GM! BRING BACK THE S10 PICKUP!!!!!

    Reply
  10. Back in 1955 Chevy made a 265 cu in v8 engine. What a great engine, then they made the 283 another great v8 engine! People that had a car new or used that had one of those engines knows what I’m talking ! Can you imagine those engines today with the technology we have today? 3 examples of what I’m talking about, the oil we have today with synthetic oil another fuel injection an turbos !There is a lot more in technology we have today that wasn’t there back then! Those engines were very dependable an little work horses, they lasted ,example didn’t have problems with intakes leaking or blowed head gaskets, there’s a lot of people out there knows what I’m talking about!

    Reply
  11. I had a 265 v8 in my 1980 4 door full size Bonneville -always had to convince parts counter guys it was a v8 -gm attempt to get better mpg but metric auto transmission was a bust -I replaced with 350 hydromatic with tv cable upshift–but this 4.3 v8 was the best gm engine I ever owed –after 230 k miles the body was to rusted out to keep-I almost caried when they towed her away I wanted to keep the engine but had no place to keep it——bring back that great engine

    Reply

Leave a comment

Cancel