mobile-menu-icon
GM Authority

Next-Gen, 2023 Chevy Colorado Spied For The First Time

The current Chevy Colorado, introduced for the 2015 model year in the U.S. and Canada, is quite a solid and competitive midsize truck, but one that’s getting long in the tooth as it enters its seventh year on the market. Luckily, an all-new model is on the way, and our spies have just caught it in prototype form as it underwent testing. So, behold the very first shots of the 2023 Chevy Colorado.

The prototype seen here appears to be a Crew Cab, Short Box model in the most spartan Work Truck trim level, as suggested by the steel wheels typically associated with the WT trim level. A substantial amount of vinyl camouflage wraps most of the truck, including the front and rear ends, along with the side. Only the cab’s roof is adorned in the thinner checkered camo.

All that camo makes it challenging to tell what’s taking place at the front end of this 2023 Chevy Colorado prototype, though we can tell that a set of placeholder headlights is present and accounted for. These (what appears to be) halogen placeholder lights are expected to give way to a set of thin(ner) LED units, similar to what we see on the upcoming Silverado 1500 refresh, as leaked earlier this month.

Covered in a healthy amount of camo, the body side is hiding new sheetmetal. However, it seems that the general dimensions of the Crew Cab, Short Box configuration appear to be similar to those of the current model.

A hard tonneau cover hides the box from view, while the the rear end, also adorned in heavy camo, is hiding the tailgate. However, we can just barely make out the indents of the CornerStep rear bumper and a single-exit side exhaust tip on the passenger side of the truck.

The 2023 Chevy Colorado will ride on an updated version of GM’s current GMT-31XX midsize body-on-frame architecture, which will be dubbed 31XX-2. The vehicle will get an all-new exterior and interior, along with an all-new powerplant in the form of the turbocharged 2.7L I-4 L3B gasoline motor currently offered in the Silverado 1500. In that application, the boosted four-pot is rated at a healthy 310 horsepower and 348 pound-feet of torque. GM’s 10-speed automatic transmission will handle shifting duty. The atmospheric 2.5L I-4 LCV and 3.6L V-6 LGZ, along with the 2.8L I-4 LWN turbo-diesel baby Duramax are not expected to be offered.

The midsize pickup truck, which has consistently ranked in the top three spots in its segment from a sales volume standpoint, will also adopt GM’s new Global B electrical architecture – otherwise known as Vehicle Intelligence Platform, or VIP. Besides allowing for over-the-air (OTA) updates to all vehicle components, Global B also allows for the latest in infotainment and active safety technologies.

Current, 2020 Chevy Colorado

The 2023 Chevy Colorado will continue to be built at the GM Wentzville plant in Missouri alongside its corporate cousin, the 2023 GMC Canyon. GM invested $1 billion into the facility specifically for the new midsize pickups.

The international-market variant, marketed as the Chevrolet S10 in South America, is expected to become ever more similar with the North American-market model. The S10 will be built at the São José dos Campos plant in Brazil, which received a $1.3 billion investment for the next-gen model. The GM Rayong plant in Thailand, which built the S10 for Southeast Asia, has been shuttered and sold off as GM/Chevrolet withdrew from that region.

Subscribe to GM Authority for more Chevy Colorado newsChevrolet news and a constant flow of GM news coverage.

[nggallery id=1162]

GM Authority Executive Editor with a passion for business strategy and fast cars.

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. Somehow the complainers will find something underneath it’s camouflage…..

    Reply
    1. looks like they are getting rid of that ugly rear window frame on the doors by squaring it up like the last gen. never understood how GM can only get designers that put design elements that make people say “what the f#ck” when they design their vehicles. ….

      Reply
      1. Isn’t that the truth. They also over design some of their vehicles instead of keeping it simple. E.g. like all the swoopy lines on the both size trucks.

        Reply
      2. Looks like my 2022 Colorado will be the best and last of the good Colorado’s. I don’t want a 4 banger turbo that’s going to require tons more maintenance, will not last as long and turn out to be a dog.

        Reply
        1. It’s been in the Silverado, and ct4 for awhile. Yet we’ve seen no complaints about reliability. This isn’t 1990, turbos are reliable now. Straight facts here, it’s a far better engine. The v6 has been in service for almost 20 years, it shouldn’t come as a shock that the i4 is better. Inline engines are generally more reliable too.

          Reply
  2. Appears no radical changes here to chassis or to the size.

    Much may have to do with drive line, interior and tech options.

    Reply
    1. Exactly. The chassis and size have always been solid on the 31XX. The points to address are interior, powertrain (refinement), and technology. This is almost the same situation as the CT4 and CT5 vs. their indirect predecessors – solid chassis and architecture in need of refinements and new styling.

      Can you imagine the 2023 Colorado with the Multi-Flex and 2023 Canyon with MultiPro? It will be the envy of the entire segment. 🙂

      Reply
      1. The 2.7T will also be a class leading engine IMHO.

        Reply
        1. Hey Chevy keep a V6 option..hope you are reading these

          Reply
          1. Name checks out.

            Reply
          2. Yes Keep V6 I have one in my S10 1996 bought new love it 193.000 miles. Was going buy new Colorado in 2020 till everything fell apart!

            Reply
        2. I’m gonna shop the Colorado, Ranger, Tacoma (if it’s actually new) and Frontier in 2023. As good as the GM 2.7 looks on paper, it’s not gonna be as stout as Ford’s 2.7 EB that the 2023 Ranger is likely getting.

          Reply
      2. Yes, My Canyon is great. It handles and stops better than anything in class.

        I have to main wishes here, the Multi Pro and I would like to have the HUD on my Denali..

        Maybe with the less they have to spend on the platform they can move to make the interior what it needs to be.

        Also the the added electronics will arrive with the new electrical architecture. Most will be happy as the adaptive cruise will arrive as well the updated lighting and lane control etc. The normal safety tech package.

        I do hope they offer a Tune from Chevy Performance for the Turbo engine. This way those who want the extra power can get it easy with a flash.

        This is just a tough segment as at this price point it cost almost as much to build these as a full size but they sell in smaller numbers so they lose the scale of volume the full size have.

        Reply
        1. Yes…GM are you listening? Give us performance enthusiasts a little something. Ford allows a tune on the Ranger. Give us a tune option for the 2.7! It already makes 360 – 370TQ right. Imagine just a very mild tune on that thing, taking it closer to 400tq. Yes please.

          Reply
          1. I’m thinking a turbo upgrade would be necessary to get to 400 reliably. The base version is only around 310hp. I have no idea if this is the same engine and turbo package thats in the CT4-V Highly doubt it though.

            Reply
            1. I would not expect that much power. They disable the ability to run regular fuel and turn up the boost but there are limits with other internals and warranties.

              The GM tune on my 2.0 was 60 hp and torque was limited to 315 ft lbs. that was due to the transaxle.

              That was 23-25 pounds boost.

              GM would hold it back a bit just to make sure people are not breaking things.

              Reply
            2. I was referring to the torque, not the horsepower. Tunes for factory supplied turbos almost always give bigger increases in torque rather than horse power. Once again, I point to the Ford Ranger tune (official from Ford) which boosts torque from 310 to 355. That is at peak rpm. At a lower rpm it actually adds 60lbs of torque. That’s huge. I realize the GM 2.7 might be running closer to it’s peak boost level, but even if the GM tune added half of that number, it would get awfully close to 400 tq. I’d expect the HP to be around 330 or so. I’d take that in a second.

              Reply
      3. Envy of segment? Hardly. A tailgate envy does not make young Skywalker.

        Reply
  3. holy $hit. I thought I’d never be alive to see a overhauled Colorado/ canyon. And I’m 18

    Reply
    1. You should have been around for the C3 Vette.

      Reply
  4. Still won’t beat the taco in sales……. Heck the current Colorado beat the taco in all performance specs…. Yet doesn’t take the sales lead. A great looking truck. I might be in the market for this one as a run about by then. I need a larger truck for towing, but my high mileage vehicle still needs to have 4×4 capacity and the ability to haul. I don’t want to buy a jeep SUV, which is my current future outlook for a runabout. I still don’t think the current model is outdated by any means! This will be a heck of a truck!

    Reply
    1. They’ll keep chipping away at the Taco and the new models should help.

      If GM is in it for the long haul, then it should be able to eventually take the sales lead… or at the very least significantly close the gap.

      Reply
      1. Sales lead? Toyota earned it’s reputation and spot by building great trucks that have cult-like status.

        If GM is in it for the long haul? Long haul is not the question. They are in the long haul for making money. Is GM committed to making the best truck on the market is the better question.

        Reply
    2. Exactly, Tacoma has a loyal following that is not going away because Colorado nips it here and there on the specs. The 2.7L will be a great engine in the Colorado.

      Reply
    3. You don’t focus on who is number one in volume. You focus on profitability and who is making the most per truck.

      It is hard to remove blind buyers from another brand. We see the same with full size Chevy and Ford trucks.

      Reply
      1. It’s hard to beat TMC on profitability, they are the most well organized, most vertically integrated full line manufacturer on earth. TMC makes very few mistakes, which leads to amazing margins year after year. GM is not even close, hence GM stock trading is 35% of TMC. GM is carried by their full size trucks and SUV’s which are an amazing franchise, GM’s crossover business is so so, but many of GM’s other projects are break even, or even losers, and GM has outsourced too much technology, so they have less control of their supply chain (I worry they are making this same mistake on EV’s, cannot wait to see the first one torn down to figure out where they are buying power electronics, and inverters, as this should really remain proprietary if they are truly focused on an EV future).

        Reply
        1. 20 thumbs up. Truth is hard to swallow on this site. Toyota knows what they are doing, period.

          Reply
      2. C8.R,
        You say to not focus in volume but profit, however Toyota achieves both of them. It’s GM words to shrink the car-line and focus in EVs.
        Today, volume and profit are related. If the costumers want a Trailblazer, build more of them!

        Reply
        1. Profits are always first. If you fail to make profits volume will never save you.

          If Volume comes all the better.

          Reply
          1. Each program is set up differently, like Corvette is very profitable on light volume for many reasons, the biggest of which is the GM truck program takes the biggest R & D hit for powertrain development, and the Corvette design is optimized for lower production. The trucks on the other hand, would be a loser if production dropped by 50%, that program totally makes it up with volume. Huge factory cost, and a lot of Gm’s R & D dollars get tallied against the truck program. You can see the same thing in cars, some cars are designed for high volume profitability, and others for low volume profitability (Tesla Model S compared to Model 3).

            Reply
          2. I am personally very grateful for corps that put profits ahead of long term viability and all else! Allows us to buy off crippled pieces of the corporation, fix them and sell them again as a sustainable functioning business that has a long term future. I love profit but not so much that we will KILL the money tree by increasing profits by saving money by not watering it.

            Reply
  5. Sure ope GM knocks this one out of the park as well as they did the C8.

    The L3B should work great in the twins but I don’t think it should be the only option. Maybe in a year or two the LM2 will find it’s way into the midsize trucks.

    I want to see a V8 powered sport truck. Yes, I know, y’all can keep quiet, let a guy be wishfull!

    Reply
    1. I’m with you 100%

      Reply
    2. I think it’s pretty reasonable to think that GM may throw a twin turbo V6 in the next gen ZR2 to keep up with the next gen Ranger Raptor which the strong rumors suggest it will be getting a twin turbo V6 also. But I don’t really want to buy a ZR2 (although, if its awesome enough I still could be swayed lol). If they were to offer the TTV6 in another trim or especially a V8 (never happen) I’d be all over it….seriously. Not just some guy who won’t put their money where their mouth is lol.

      Reply
  6. They better offer the 3.6 and 2.8 duramax… offer the 2.7 as an optional extra. It would be a direct rival to eco boost.

    Reply
    1. Why the 3.6? Cost? The 2.7T has better torque curve and similar power. Probably better gas mileage (tbd).

      Reply
      1. The 3.6L V6 has a lot of power than can be unlocked with a tune.

        Reply
    2. The 2.7 would also be cheaper. That’s why Chevy dropped the 4.3 on the silverado. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe the 2.7 is very similar to the 2.5. they have the same bore and bore spacing, the 2.7 is a 2.5 stroked, with a reinforced crankshaft, graphite iron block and a new head with trick cam system and integrated exhaust manifold. The 2.7 won’t cost much more than the 2.5, and definitely less than the 3.6 dual overhead cam V6

      Reply
      1. “the 2.7 is a 2.5 stroked”

        It may be similar in displacement (only) but it’s an all new engine. You are forgetting (or unaware) that your reinforced crankshaft is offset from the cylinders. Straightening the rod angle during the combustion stroke to improve efficiency and durability. It is also equipped with the “Active Thermal Management” system and is the first GM truck with an electric water pump.

        Remember, GM put the L3B through the same durability testing in a full size truck as the V8’s go through and was designed from the ground up to be a truck engine.

        Reply
        1. Sorry fastyle, I misslead you, I meant similar as in same bore/bore spacing/valve and head layout. The 2.5 also featured VVL in certain applications, but in that instance cylinder deactivation wasn’t included. My point was it was more evolutionary instead or revolutionary. Thus It would have been a really cheap engine to engineer and is still a cheap engine to produce. Despite R&D costs it looks like the engineers when aboce and beyond in this motor, leading me to think most of it’s new tech will translate to the new V8’s for 2022. It might actually be the best performing engine on the market in terms of HP/$. I don’t see the 2.5 or 3.6 staying around.

          Reply
      2. Im correcting you. 2.7 doesn’t have an iron block. Its aluminum

        Reply
      3. I recall reading that the 2.7 L3B four is related to the 3.0 LM2 six diesel.

        Reply
    3. I think the 2.7 as standard with a small diesel as an option would be the ideal engine lineup. Both with 10 speeds.

      Was the take rate on the 2.5L worth bothering with? Even the cheapest fleet trucks I’ve seen are V6. And they sell a lot of those. I think the 2.7L has a better power band than the 3.6, but I am not sure about the long term reliability.

      Reply
  7. GM needs to understand one thing and that’s the DESIGN OF THE TACOMA THAT IS THE ENVY OF ITS RIVALS. WOMEN AND MEN love love the Tacoma and its tough truck design. GM continues to not understand that design is king in a sales race. I find GM Design so bland in most categories it competes in. Only recently they have stepped out of their comfort zone with the C8 CORVETTE, NEW HUMMER MODELS, NEW ELECTRIC CHEVY TRUCK.

    THERE’S a huge market for tough, aggressive designs in SUV’S , AND TRUCKS. We like our masculine lines, hood scoops, light bars, roof racks etc.

    Reply
    1. The design of the Tacoma is hideous. Interior is just as cheap and ugly as the exterior. The refinement from the drivers seat is nonexistent when compared to the GM twins. Power train offerings by Toyota are uncompetitive and fuel mileage is abysmal. The only thing the Tacoma has is a customer base who won’t look at their competition. If Taco owners test drove something else, they’d dump their Taco in a heartbeat.

      Nothing about the Taco should be replicated by GM!

      Reply
      1. The Tacoma is the market leader.

        GM would be wise to offer something that competes more directly with it, and improving on it where possible.

        Reply
    2. Most are Toyota buyers because they want to be Toyota buyers. The present truck is out dated, under powered and has seen a number of quality issues they never used to have.

      The Toyota lacks rear disc brakes. It rides worse, It has less rear seat room. The drivers position is odd with legs straight out. A six speed than hunts gears. An off road TRD that uses spacers to widen the track vs Gm using larger and stronger control arms with more travel.

      Toyota has had an easy ride and because of that they have left the truck get stale. In time people will wake up and find they were settling for less.

      The Taco is a good truck but not a great one.

      Reply
      1. Everything you said is true, yet people line up to buy these old trucks. It wasn’t even close choosing the ZR2 diesel over the TRD.

        Reply
        1. If you are happy eating steak at the Golden Corral you will know what a good NY Strip is like else where.

          Blind Loyalty like that is hard to find anymore.

          Reply
        2. Am I the only one who sees TRD and reads TURD?

          Reply
          1. It is what my Spell Check is trying to tell me..

            Reply
      2. There are loyal Toyota followers, who’ve always had Toyota’s in their family, just like loyal Ford and Chevy owners. For mid-size trucks, this group only grew due to a lack of alternatives for many years.

        There’s also a large group of people who are not car people, don’t know or care about cars, are not interested in researching what else is out there, and only buy Toyota’s because it’s considered a safe choice for them. That second group is living off of the car companies legacy reliability reputations from the 70’s, and because they’re not car people, they don’t even want to hear about how times have changed.

        Either of those groups are not going to change their minds easily, and won’t even consider other brands.

        Reply
      3. Same as Chevy did letting Ram close the gap and then kick Chevrolets butt in the full size pickups.

        Reply
    3. I can’t stand the look of the Taco. There are waaay too many curves. The GM twins look much better IMO

      Reply
    4. Ignore the thumbs down, because it is 100% true. I owned a Tacoma TRD 4×4 off road and there isn’t a better truck on the road. Just like the BMW 3 series is the benchmark for sports sedans, the Tacoma is the benchmark for small trucks. The gm fanboys don’t understand that gm doesn’t care if their truck is the best, it’s all about investment and ROI (profitability). They’ll do the minimum the market will accept to reach their sales target.

      Reply
      1. Toyota has set a low bar with the Tacoma. The GM twins are substantially better in every metric than the Tacoma. Show me a review that disagrees with that statement.

        You need to venture out from under that rock and try one out and you’ll realize how antiquated the Tacoma is.

        Reply
        1. I doubt the Colorado is anywhere near as reliable as the Tacoma. It also offers fewer active safety features and an even worse interior than the Tacoma.

          It spanks the Tacoma in seating position and cabin space though. The Tacoma is uncomfortable if you are over 6’.

          Reply
        2. The Tacoma eclipses the sales of the Colorado even though the Chevy is better riding. Toyota has earned their reputation and the sales prove it. Not under a rock. Stop ignoring market facts. Chevy can’t lead the segment until their reliability improves. The conversation stops here.

          Reply
      2. “the Tacoma (is) the benchmark for small trucks”

        I guess this is where we discuss what the meaning of “is” is Mr. (Ms.?) Clinton!


        “is” the Tacoma TRD 4×4 off road (or TRD-PRO) the best ̶s̶m̶a̶l̶l̶ midsize off road truck? No, it’s not even 2nd, that belongs to the Gladiator which with all it’s pedigree came up short against the ZR2.

        By the way, what’s with this “TRD-PRO” thing? wasn’t “Toyota Racing Development” sufficient or was the TRD department an amateur effort? That’s as much an oxymoron as “FedEx-Express” (Federal Express-Express?).

        “They’ll do the minimum the market will accept”
        How long did Toyota shovel that underpowered thirsty 4.0 pig of a motor to it’s “market”?

        I guess y’all “accepted” it!

        Reply
        1. What’s with the TRD PRO? And Z71 wasn’t enough so they had to make a ZR2. There’s your answer.

          Whether the 4.0 was a poor engine or not is irrelevant. Toyota’s “older platform” is the market leader and sales dominator to the Chevy/GMC’s “newer platform”.

          Criminal applies to both. They’re both guilty. Hence, no Mr. or Mrs.

          Undeniably, the Tacoma is the sales leader and benchmark for the segment. Facts are stubborn things.

          Reply
  8. So this is expected to somewhat be a short product life cycle and more of a thorough refresh, as the switch to VSS-T is expected

    Reply
  9. They should also offer the 3.0td. Seats that do not make your back sore like the current ones would be a +.I have doubts about a improvement in fuel economy with the 2.7?

    Reply
    1. I thought the 3.0TT was a Cadillac exclusive?

      Reply
      1. I believe he meant the 3.0l I-6 diesel from the half tons. That would be awesome in the midsize twins but I doubt they could package it.

        Reply
        1. I’m sure it was designed to accommodate the LM2 as the current one was designed to accommodate a V8.

          yes myrtle, the gen2 twins were designed to fit a V8 under the hood!

          Reply
          1. Too bad it never happened from the factory.

            Reply
          2. Haha, no it wasn’t. At no point did GM think shoot, I am going to spend the money and resources to test and make sure a V8 can fit with 350 HP when we are already designing the engine bay for a 310hp V6. The second gen raptor was designed when the 2nd gen colorado was released and that was planned and only given a V6. No one at GM was designing the engine bay for a V8. Repeat after me, no one was designing the engine bay for a V8 at GM. Shesh.

            Reply
        2. Agreed, considering they can’t even package it into the Z71 Tahoe/Suburban due to its size.

          I’m curious to see how this does – I went from a 2015 Colorado 2.5/6 speed manual to a 2.7T Silverado, and now to an LM2 powered Suburban – so I’ve driven all of these extensively.

          Reply
      2. diesel

        Reply
    2. I don’t have any issues with the seats in my GMC Canyon Denali being comfy but I sure wish the recliner portion was power for more options for adjusting it. And I totally agree with the 2.7 about MPG depending on how far the go pedal needs to be pushed to get the same performance as the 3.6 V6. In my opinion the V6 is a solid performer in more every rpm range. The numbers given for HP and Torque can be very misleading it’s everyday driving that shows the real thing. Thank You

      Reply
      1. seats in the w/t

        Reply
      2. If you’ve ever driven a modern small turbo you quickly realize they are all tuned for low to midrange torque. I also like the 3.6 V6. I’ve happily owned two of them actually, but the 2.7 making the same HP and gobs more torque should make it the superior option for sure.

        Reply
      3. The 2.7 will be a completely different beast in these… it’s making more torque than the 3.6 makes throughout the powerband at just 1,500 RPM. Putting the 10 speed behind it (which is what it needs in the full size trucks… the 8 speed is garbage). It will easily be more efficient than the 3.6 presuming it is driven with common sense – between not really needing to work hard and cylinder deactivation it is going to be a fuel miser.

        In everyday driving, the table flat torque curve of the 2.7 is what you want, rather than needing to wind it out to get to its peak output.

        Reply
    3. The I six will not fit this truck. That is the problem. with I6 engines they are limited to long hoods.

      Reply
      1. the trailblaizer used to have one

        Reply
        1. This is not a trailblazer.

          Also it was a mess to put into a trailblazer with an axle running through the pan.

          I expect it will remain a full size truck engine.

          Note the V8 fitted to a Colorado just barely fits in conversions.

          I6 engines are great but to package them is and always has been an issue. Even if they fit length wise they to often lay them over on their sides to clear the hood in car applications.

          Reply
          1. an axle through the pan that would be a trick?

            Reply
    4. I hope they do, otherwise I’ll just keep my 2020 ZR2 diesel forever. It would make sense to expand economies of scale with the 3.0td and maintain something more or less exclusive in this segment (has anyone ever seen a Gladiator diesel), which is exactly why it won’t happen.

      Reply
  10. at least the cab roof is no longer domed.

    Reply
    1. Got it good point it wouldn’t cost that much more to upgrade the lower priced trucks. There really isn’t any excuses for lacking comfort in any truck regardless of it price range or model in today’s trucks. Thanks

      Reply
      1. It cost nearly as much to upgrade and build a mid size truck but the margins are much less than a full size. This is why try have to use care in what they offer in these trucks.

        FYI this is not my opinion this is what the manager of the Ranger program stated recently and he is correct.

        There are limits to what people will pay for a mid size vs a full size they can just tag the price higher. Also their volume is 7 times greater.

        Reply
  11. Domed? At first without my glasses I thought you said doomed lol. If it wasn’t rounded or domed I think the windshield would need to be higher to gain or keep the same head room in my opinion. I thing the roof at least on my GMC Canyon looks decent I sure wouldn’t miss not having a sunroof but just my opinion. Thanks

    Reply
  12. One engine? Once again GM is limiting your selection probably raising the price significantly which is somewhat understandable with what has happened in the past year, however to think you can still compare this to a Tacoma is kind of a joke I have yet to see any of these vehicles with over 250,000 miles on them without a ton of rust on them or have had a transmission or two replaced, far cry from a Toyota, and I’m not a Toyota owner or a fan I’ve just worked on the automotive industry long enough to see what lasts and what doesn’t. All of general motors major efforts will be towards electric vehicles, and I think that’s a mistake.

    Reply
    1. One engine that outperforms all of the engines offered today.

      This is a case where limiting selection that results in a great product, since the L3B puts the aforementioned engines to shame.

      Reply
  13. Getting rid of the base 2.5 is probably a good idea but it’s simplicity, lower cost and mileage will be missed by the lower end buyers. Giving it just one engine is a mistake and axing the diesel an even worse idea. They better also improve the sound and refinement of the 2.7 engine and figure out a way to make it more efficient. In the full size pickups it’s rated at only one better combined and the same highway as the 5.3 DFM V8. I wouldn’t be surprised to see it rate the same highway as the current 3.6 at 24 and only see a slight city increase.

    Reply
  14. I thought I read an article that GM was removing the diesel option for the new model. Does anyone else remember that article?

    Reply
    1. Still the plan as far as we know

      Reply
  15. It looks like the rake on the new truck is significantly less than the current. The new one actually looks level.

    Reply
  16. Wow. Did GM fix the low hanging shocks in the rear?

    Reply
  17. It does look like the rear roof is less sloped which is good. Also the rear spare is more level which helps off road and protects it a little better. The frame rails look to hang down a little low but not bad. Would be nice if they were up another inch or so but still below the body line so they don’t get damaged when cresting or dropping off an obstacle.

    I hope they are able to package a little better to get another inch of rear legroom out of the truck with maybe thinner or recessed seat backs. Also the other big complaint is to get rid of the console shifter, it takes up way too much room and it lacks tons of storage that could be utilized, especially in a smaller truck where it is at a premium. I did a research program last night with the full size chevy’s. It sure looks like they are going to a gear selector lever off the steering wheel for the next gen (similar to tesla, BMW/Mercedes and Peterbilt), happy to see that. The floor shift sure looked to take up a bunch of space in this redesigned version they are about to release, so hopefully that gear selector lever makes it to the next gen mid size twins as that would fix one of my biggest complaints.

    The 2.7 will be a perfect match for this truck. Keep the payload up (1500+lbs in the mid level trims) and towing 7500+ and this will be a hit. The current truck already drives and rides fantastically. Keep the fold up bottom and fold down seat back of the rear seats, that allows a good amount of storage.

    Excited to see these. Oh, and don’t get rid of the crew cab long bed, that is the only option I will be shopping to replace my silverado.

    Reply
    1. Having driven a 4 speed floor mounted manual shifter 1973 Corvette (I still have and am original owner) I love the fact that my 2002 Trailblazer and 2019 Colorado ZR2 Bison have console shifters (automatics). I have a 2015 Silverado 3500HD and the only think I do not like is the steering column shifter. Eventhough all three of my latest vehicles are automatic I still extensively downshift when going downhill or coming to a stop on a highway (habbit from the 4-speed manual days). Needless to say it is much easier and convenient with the console shifter vs. the column shifter. Worse yet is the dial shifter if the vehicle does not include paddle shifting capability like the Corvette. It seems to me that to many people today do not know how to downshift going downhill which causes me to laugh at how they ride the brakes trying to maintain appropriate downhill speed. I know some vehicles have downhill descent assist but I prefer to control my vehicles my way. Example people coming down from the top of Pikes Peak and entering the brake temperature checkpoint and having to pull over to let the brakes cool. I had to chuckle when the person checking the brake temperature of my vehicle said to me, whatever you are doing continue doing it and sent me on my way!

      Reply
      1. Down shift coming to a stop? That is something a 16 year old does that has an automatic and wants to sound like they have a manual… Downhill, yes you should always downshift. Good thing is you don’t need a big cumbersome console shifter to shift an automatic, all manufacturers have way to pick your own gear. Easy to do, on my Silverado there are buttons on the column shifter. Put it in M and hit the plus or minus button, pick the gear and go down the mountain. Then I have a massive console I can put my chicken dinner on when on a road trip or a place for a laptop or some other larger item along with tons of storage for smaller items. The need for a console shifter is negated as all other types of selectors have and ability to change gears manually, and they are so smart most handle the task automatically, for those few times you need to pick manually that option is still there.

        Side note, after the research event they had a round table to participate in. One guy in there when asked about the shifter liked the console shifter because it “looked cool” and “sporty”. Sporty… It is a truck, about as far from sporty as one can get. And looks don’t matter when it takes away from functionality with no added benefit. That is the problem with these current truck buyers and why Ford had to develop a complicated console shifter to appease those that buy them for the image. Same reason people aren’t buying the minivan that is a much better choice and tons more room compared to a CUV or SUV, they prefer what they think looks cool over functionality. Though joke is on them as that Explorer or Traverse looks just like a minivan with 2/3rds the room and no added coolness factor. You are in your 40’s with kids, nothing you do will make you cool so get the best tool for the job…

        Reply
        1. This 👆man spoke it better than I ever could

          Reply
        2. I am well beyond the 40’s. Having driven 4-speeds on the floor with one hand on the steering wheel and the other on the floor shifter I am satisfied and fully comfortable in this driving posture. I do not eat a chicken dinner placed on top of a console while driving. My attention is on my driving and other drivers who need to be paid attention to that are distracted. Possibly looking for a place to store items they did not properly take care if prior to heading out. What all to you need at your finger tips while driving that you need so much storage at your side?

          Reply
        3. You are right, but I’m sorry. My wife and I just couldn’t do a mini-van lol. But yes, they are the best tool for a family hauler for sure….unless you need family hauler that can tow bigger things. That’s when those big SUVs come into play.

          Reply
      2. aftermarket paddle shifters are available

        Reply
  18. The main suspension change I see is the shock mounts are moved. They appear to no longer hang down below the axle.

    I did read someone said they though they saw several GM trucks plugged in in Colorado high alt testing. Not sure what that was about.

    Reply
  19. 6 lugs? Do the current ones have 6?

    Reply
    1. Yes the current model has 6 lugs.

      Reply
    2. Yes ,My 2015 Chevy Colorado Crew cab 6′ bed has 6 lugs and still do to date in 2021!

      Reply
    3. I’ll jump for joy if the make the lug pattern the same as the full size trucks.

      Reply
      1. Couldn’t you just change the hubs?

        Reply
  20. Good to see the shock mounts and spare tire mounted higher as noted. I think the off-road guys are going to be upset about no diesel option, that said I think the 2.7 T is going to be awesome in this platform. Hopefully they opened up the wheel wells at the bottom corners a little more to accommodate a bigger tire than the current truck. I suppose GM would tell you they do it for aerodynamic reasons but they really need to get away from the habit of closing in the bottom edges of wheel wells on all their trucks both big and small. If this is good looking both inside and out they should have a contender, hoping for the best.

    Reply
  21. GMC Cyclone Please. Yes Thank you! 😁

    Reply
  22. Looks like it needs the leveling kit. Why

    Reply
    1. On the bright side, the air dam doesn’t look like it was tacked on with paper clips.

      Reply
  23. It looks like the designers used a level on those horizontal lines which makes for a more substantial appearance.
    The hood is higher and more squared off, maybe the cowl is a bit higher too.

    I also hope they square off and open up the rear passenger door glass as well.

    Reply
  24. 2.7 well be a good engine though I wish that they would offer the diesel engine also. As for the interior Chevy g m c really needs to step it up. Especially in seat comfort and driveability

    Reply
  25. Toyota is riding on its quality if the past… Ask current owners who have honestly compared…

    Reply
    1. The Tacoma remains an extremely reliable truck. But it’s uncomfortable and (arguably) under powered.

      IMO the Toyota has more/better tech and a better interior. It’s more reliable. But it’s less comfortable and doesn’t offer a diesel.

      GM needs to keep a diesel option.

      Reply
  26. Bittersweet.

    I love the current generation Colorado Z71, especially in red before the refresh.

    But I know the truck was hugely successful and drew a lot of new competitors/updated competitors to the segment. And it’s time to redesign it.

    It has an unreliable 8 speed auto and a bad interior. But the Diesel engine option, ZR2 trim, and the powerful V6 were high marks.

    Reply
    1. But the new engine is better than every single one of the old ones, and the zr2 trim is staying.

      Reply
  27. Did anyone else notice the mirrors are different colors?

    Reply
  28. They better not screw this up and avoid fixing the tight wheel wells. You can’t even fit 33×12.5 tires on the Colorado zr2 without lifting it. The bronco can fit 35s stock. It’s embarrassing that GM continues to miss here. Have to lift a Silverado to fit 33s yet ford can fit them no problem.

    They need to build a truck and not a city car with a bed. C’mon GM.

    Also, it will be a pretty big miss if they drop the diesel option. GM needs to expand their market research to non city truck drivers. Lacking designs that are embarrassing for a “truck.”

    Finally, they need better ground clearance plain and simple.

    Reply
    1. Why would you opt for the diesel when the l3b is a better engine. There’s a reason none of the old engines are coming back. It’s because the l3b is outright better in every way.

      L3b
      310hp 430lbs tq

      LWN
      181hp 369lbs tq

      So why should anyone care about this diesel option? It’s not coming back either, production is done.

      Reply
  29. GM has been keeping news about the two new midsizer’s quieter then most anything I remember. They better offer something with less then 300 hp to keep the budget minded on board. In less these trucks drastically reduce some weight fuel economy will surely suffer. I for one keep my eye on the gas pumps.

    Reply
  30. i need diesel duramax 3.0 or 2.8 is the best

    Reply
  31. The bed looks longer than the current generation. That would be awesome if that’s the case

    Reply
  32. As a customer or potential customer, you need to understand your needs, specifications and look for a brand that can give you what you want. Here are some tips that will help you on your way to buying the best brand table fan.

    Reply
  33. They should make a turbo-charged 5-cylinder engine for this truck — it would pay homage to the original Colorado and would be really powerful! Also, I wish they would bring back the original Colorado.

    Reply
  34. Diesel diesel diesel

    Reply
  35. Bring back the 1st Generation Colorado, with it’s unique 5-cylinder engine, and the 5.3 V-8 option.

    Reply

Leave a comment

Cancel