mobile-menu-icon
GM Authority

Comparing The 2023 GMC Canyon Denali And AT4 Prototypes

The upcoming 2023 GMC Canyon is set to introduce a complete overhaul for the pickup nameplate, ushering in a fresh third generation. So far, GM Authority has captured prototype models of both the 2023 GMC Canyon Denali and 2023 GMC Canyon AT4, and now, we’re placing both prototypes side by side for a comparison.

2023 GMC Canyon Denali prototype

2023 GMC Canyon Denali prototype

2023 GMC Canyon AT4 prototype

2023 GMC Canyon AT4 prototype

For those readers who may be unaware, the Denali trim level is the range-topper of the Canyon lineup, while the AT4 is designated as the off-road-ready trim. As such, the 2023 GMC Canyon Denali is equipped with 20-inch chrome wheels, whereas the 2023 GMC Canyon AT4 is running a set of 20-inch silver wheels with black accents.

2023 GMC Canyon Denali prototype

2023 GMC Canyon Denali prototype

2023 GMC Canyon AT4 prototype

2023 GMC Canyon AT4 prototype

The tire spec is also notably different, as the AT4 prototype is equipped with Goodyear Wrangler Territory MT rubber, the same tires used on Chevy Silverado ZR2 Trail Boss prototypes, while the Denali has less-aggressive Bridgestone Dueller A/T tires. That said, it should be noted that the Denali’s Dueller A/T tires are more rugged than what’s needed for the range-topping trim, but it could simply be that the 2023 GMC Canyon Denali will come with this chunkier robber going forward.

2023 GMC Canyon Denali prototype

2023 GMC Canyon Denali prototype

2023 GMC Canyon AT4 prototype

2023 GMC Canyon AT4 prototype

The running boards are also a notable point of departure between these two prototypes, with the Denali prototype equipped with low-hanging chrome running boards, and the AT4 prototype equipped with no running boards at all. This makes sense given the AT4’s focus on ground clearance, although the off-roader trim is also expected to offer a set of tightly tucked running boards as an optional extra.

2023 GMC Canyon Denali prototype

2023 GMC Canyon Denali prototype

2023 GMC Canyon AT4 prototype

2023 GMC Canyon AT4 prototype

Interestingly, the front fascia for both prototypes is surprisingly similar. Both have a tall, upright stance, a high rake, and loads of clearance, which could indicate that the Denali prototype is missing a few front-end trim bits, or that the Denali will get a new fascia. We also spot placeholder headlights with an LED signature up top and vertically oriented lighting up along the sides, a treatment that’s consistent with the face lifted 2023 GMC Sierra HD prototypes spied previously.

The stance is also worth pointing out, with the 2023 GMC Canyon AT4 prototype riding higher than the Denali prototype, as expected for an off-roader.

2023 GMC Canyon Denali prototype

2023 GMC Canyon Denali prototype

2023 GMC Canyon AT4 prototype

2023 GMC Canyon AT4 prototype

Additional details include prominent fender flares and an aggressive body surface development compared to the current GMC Canyon. In back, both models have placeholder tail lights and a single-exit exhaust pipe, with an angled finisher for the latter.

The new 2023 GMC Canyon will roll on an updated version of the GMT-31XX body-on-frame platform, dubbed 31XX-2. The interior will also be overhauled, while engine options will be limited to the all-new turbocharged 2.7L I4 L3B gasoline motor. Found under the hood of the GMC Sierra 1500, this engine is rated at 310 horsepower and 348 pound-feet of torque. The current model’s naturally aspirated 3.6L V6 LGZ and 2.5L I4 LCV gas engines, as well as the 2.8L I4 LWN turbodiesel baby Duramax will not be offered.

Also expect the new pickup to come with GM’s latest Global B electric architecture, offering the latest tech features and over-the-air (OTA) software updates. Production will take place at the GM Wentzville plant in Missouri, with sales in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. The next-generation pickup may also be sold in the Middle East.

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

[nggallery id=1164]

Jonathan is an automotive journalist based out of Southern California. He loves anything and everything on four wheels.

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. There’s a heavy hint of Tacoma coming from those covered trucks.

    Reply
    1. Doesn’t Toyota still offer a V-6 in their Tacoma ?

      Reply
    2. That’s what I thought. May be the light cover up over the grill making it appear so. Anyway we don’t need another Tacoma look a like.

      Reply
  2. Yet another questionable decision by GM Brass removing the 3.6L V-6 from the Denali package….and, to a lesser extent, their sweet-running Diesel too. It used to mean when you shelled-out big bucks for a “Denali” you could get a bigger engine too….now it’s all fluff .

    Reply
    1. The diesel got worse MPG than the Silverado diesel. Diesel is also more expensive than gas. The 2.7 will probably get better economy than the old diesel…. coupled with the price difference of gas vs diesels the 2.7 will cost way less to fill up at the pump. The 2.7 also has the same torque and at low rpm that the diesel does. It also has more HP than the 3.6 and the diesel. In fact it has more output as the LS 5.3… would you complain about dropping that in the Colorado? Or are you more worried about class and status that you insist having a pricier engine in you Denali to separate you from those who have a Colorado LT?

      Reply
      1. I would buy another Colorado if it came with the options that the Denali does, nothing to do with status. I know a couple people who have the Silverado with the 2.7 litre 4 cylinder. Fuel economy not any better than the 3.6 and towing ability is reduced.
        Both of them said they wish they would have got the 5.3 and would not buy another with the 2.7. I also have a friend who has the new Ranger, which is rated at 270 HP I believe. My Colorado gets better mileage than they do, and has more power, and tows better. Sorry, can’t sell me on a 4 cylinder for a truck. I have a 2020 Equinox Premier with the 2.0 litre turbo and we love it, lots of power for that vehicle, although that engine has now also been replaced by the lower level 1.5 litre engine. Hopefully things change before that one needs to be replaced

        Reply
        1. The 2.7 can tow more than the 3.6, it is rated at like 9k in the Silverado.

          So you are good with the power delivery and torque of the 2.0, what do you think a 2.7 would bring to the table?

          It is real simple, look at the numbers.

          The 3.6 has 308 hp at like 6800 rpm and 275 ftlb at 4000 rpm where the 2.7 has 310hp at 5600 rpm and 348ftlb at 1500rpm. Which one of those sounds more powerful? Which one will tow more? Which one will be faster? Hint, the displacement is smaller…

          No need for a separate engine for the Denali, especially when it is a downgrade to a 3.6 or 2.8 diesel. Displacement isn’t the end all. The 2.7 can easily replace both engines.

          Reply
  3. The Ranger is selling just fine with only one engine option. No need to increase build complexity when the 2.7T is a great engine with all the power and torque it needs in all trims.

    Reply
  4. If some folks stopped complaining and actually drive one of the turbo engine in this they will lose 90% of their argument.

    Look if it were easy they would keep the 6 in. The 4 may cost as much once all the Turbo and intercooler and oil coolers are added. It the 4 will help them meet the regulations they are facing.

    You will soon see the Toyota lose its V6 too.

    These companies are not doing this to piss you off or save money. If that were the case there would be no turbo.

    Look the mpg is going up and emissions regs are going up and the more cylinders the more emissions and less mpg.

    These engines are not the old Ford 4 cylinder turbo or 3.8 turbo that implode at 30,000 miles. These engines go long term and make more torque than some 8 cylinders.

    I used to be a V8 till I die guy but I miss my old turbo over the 3.6I have now. It is a good engine but no where as fun as my 2.0. I had it up to 23 psi of boost and drive it 10 years that way. If it will stand that it will take the stock boost here.

    Reply
  5. Is it confirmed no diesel? Bummer. Looks like I won’t be buying.

    GM continues to let me down with their decisions and truck designs.

    Reply
    1. You’ve had a long time to buy a diesel Colorado or canyon by now you were never going to buy one.

      Reply
      1. My dad has a 2017 with the 2.8 It’s been great for him. The reason I’ve held out is because I hate the narrow fenders of the current models. You cannot fit 33s on a zr2..that’s insane to me. The new bronco will fit 35s. The ranger fits 33s with a leveling kit.

        My current truck is a 1st gen Colorado and same issue. If you follow all my posts, you’ll see I’ve complained (too much, ha) about the design. The Silverado suffers the same problem.

        So I was hoping to see if the redesign fixed this issue. If not, I’ll settle for the 2nd gen model with the diesel. It just drives me crazy how much of a pain it is to get 33s on these trucks.

        I’m a bit of a truck snob and if I’m gonna spend $45k on something I’d like it to check my personal boxes… selfishly.

        Reply
        1. Why do people get hung up on a number? You can get a 32 on the ZR2 and a 33 with a few adjustments. That is a 0.5 inch difference in ground clearance, not a big deal. All these people buying trucks for the image think it is cool to say things like lockers and 35’s at their local starbucks when other dads tell them they have a cool truck sitting on a leveling kit and black off road wheels. Don’t get hung up on a number, just make sure it works for your uses and don’t buy a truck for the image please…

          Reply
      2. Not necessarily true. I wasn’t going to buy it until GM optioned it up for me. They never have—so far.

        Reply
  6. Also note that the current mpg of the 2.7 is not great. There have been tests done where the 5.3 got better mpgs.

    Sure it should do better in the Colorado/canyon vs Silverado/sierra, but no chance it beats the 2.8 Duramax.

    Really disappointed to see the 2.8l going away

    Reply
    1. I think the weight would be too high for a midsized truck. Better to have a lighter power dense 2.7T.

      Reply
    2. Emissions again. The V8 has higher emissions. They offered a V8 in the last gen and few bought it..

      The cost of the diesel and the increased regulations with low volume make it tough profit item.

      You want to make the customer happy but at the end of the day you need to make money and not just a little.

      Reply
      1. And your customer base shrinks as you start to limit options. The diesel is a global engine. Yes, they have to modify for US regulations vs other countries, but the 2.8 has sold very well from what I understand.

        The V6 is meh…whoever designed that engine should never be allowed to work on engines again. A truck should never have more horsepower than torque.

        So many misses from GM and so much potential lost. Given up market share that will be tough to get back and they are never market leaders… always followers.

        Why am I so loyal to a brand (speaking of trucks) that I disagree with so much?

        Reply
        1. Also, the 3.6 isn’t meh by any means. It’s just old. It’s bones date back to.. somebody help me… 2012? Where power was just shy of the then current 5.3? It was considered world class back then, has approved to be a reliable engine is not abused, though can be slightly fragile if flogged. Not a fan of it from that point. It has been updated slightly over the years, and still is a better engine than Rams pentastar and Toyotas 3.5. It’s not bad by any means…. Just no longer the clear and obvious superior engine.

          Reply
        2. The way things are anymore you can not offer everything to please everyone as if you try you either have to charge a lot more or you have to choose to loose money.

          The cost to make the diesel is increasing yearly and the regulations are getting more and more difficult. The problem here is while it sells ok in this truck it still is not enough volume to cover the cost involved. Even now a ZR2 can cost over $50k with the Diesel.

          The 3.6 is not a bad engine but it is an engine designed to run clean. It makes power jut past you have to rev it. The 4.3 was not as efficient or clean but they at the time did not have a Turbo 4 to replace it. The V8 was never even an option to choose.

          GM was a low profit company that went broke trying to make something for everyone. That just no longer works.

          VW and Toyota are the largest and most profitable companies and you have to take what they offer.

          Reply
    3. It will probably do better than the 2.8 diesel. The diesel is ancient. And honestly doesn’t get superb mileage. Seeing the 3.0 diesel gets 33 in the silverado, the 2.8 should have gotten mid 30’s in the Colorado. The problem with small displacement turbos is that they tend to run boost on the highway. That kicks into your economy. In the silverado, the 2.7 on the highway probably stays in high valve lift and slight boost. Look at the rangers 2.0 turbo abysmal mpg ratings on the highway and you’ll see what I mean…. And it’s got a 10 speed! In a smaller truck like the Colorado, the 2.7 should be able to take advantage of its low valve lift profile way more often. Low valve lift should increase cruising by 10%? And it’s smaller so 4-6mpg boost (20%) over the silverado with same engine? Meaning or exceeding the diesel. Everyone here is aware how the veritable valve lift works right?

      Reply
      1. It can get darn close to mid 30s with a tune. Duramaxtuners does an incredible job with their engine and tcm tunes that improve power, torque and mileage all keeping well within safe zone of engine and transmission constraints without impacting emissions.

        It’s sad what the stock calibration leaves off the table in regards to performance and mileage.

        Reply
  7. Opinions are sort of like assholes …Everyone has one ….LOL…

    Reply
    1. The trouble opinions are nothing when faced with market realities.

      Reply
  8. Having owned from brand new two Colorado’s 2015 and 2018, both having the V6 3.6 engines, if a 4 cylinder is the only option, then I hope Toyota or Nissan offers a V6 still.
    I have always owned GM products all my life, so it will be a sad day coming soon as I was hoping to replace my 2018 with a 2023 model. 😢

    Reply
    1. What do you think is better about the v-6? It has a LOT less torque, and less HP. It also makes its peak power at 6800 RPM.

      Reply
      1. I have got 30 miles per gallon on many occasions, I’m in sales and cover a large area so fuel mileage is great, but that’s not my main concern. I believe the horsepower is less than 10 hp 308hp vrs 315hp. I do tow a trailer as well around 6000 lbs loaded, the 3.6 handles it with ease. The 3.6 is rated at 7700 lbs tow capacity with an 8 spd trans, and I believe the 2.7 with the 9 spd trans is just under 7000. I can see the 2.7 making many shift points, and I would be close to max rating. My 3.6 would stay in gear longer, less wear and tear, Just my opinion, each to their own

        Reply
        1. Generally highway mileage is 25-26 on the V6. Around town 21.

          I own one so I really know what the V6 will do. Not 30 mpg.

          The numbers for a 2.7 Colorado have not been released and will be different than the full size truck.

          Reply
          1. I have had two, 2015 with the 6 spd and the 2018 with 8 spd. I have achieved 30 mpg on the highway with both of them several times.

            Reply
            1. BS.

              My 17 V6 even costing down hill with a tail wind will not legit get 30.

              Do that repeatedly over a week daily on several tanks and it will never happen.

              Reply
        2. The 2.7 DOES NOT come with a 9 speed. It comes with the 8 currently. Currently towing of the GM 2.7 turbo with 8 speed is 9100lbs. Keep in mind it was. Originally 6700 in 2019 and in 2020 it was revised to 9100 after a couple years of heavy towing testing. That included trucks already sold. In theory it would shift way less as it makes a lot of torque down low, peak at 1500 to be exact, so it’s more likely to remain in cruise gear and turbo up boost when you need to pass than the 3.6 which needs to downshift to rev up to max torque.

          Personally I though the occasion to add all the tech developed for the 2.7 turbo should have gone on a revised 4.3 with dynamic skip fire and GMs supper high compression ratio patent filed in 2018

          Reply
  9. Agree with ZVD. I have been waiting for the 2023 upgrade to the Colorado/Canyon trucks. I was hoping they were going to start offering more options like dual zone climate control and perhaps a sunroof. But I wanted the diesel. Drove the Ranger with it’s only engine, it’s OK unless you put a load behind it. Then the mpg goes down along with the torque at higher RPMs.. Simply not enough to pull any kind of load. It is my opinion that you need more horsepower and torque for towing. Without the diesel as an offering, I will be stuck buying another brand and buying a full-size half ton truck, not what I wanted to do. I would really be interested to know what the real world numbers are on the 2.7 in the full-size half ton. I’m guessing they might be disappointing.

    Reply
    1. Did you put a load behind it?

      Reply
    2. Ok…. So buy the 2.7. it has 15% more power than the rangers and 55% more power and similar torque to the diesel.

      And honestly… Good luck with getting a half ton in another brand. Rams hemi requires mid grade for daily driving, premium for it’s top power. The fords are more expensive all the way around. By the time you option up an XLT with the 2.7 it’s cheaper to get a Silverado RST with the 5.3. that’s why I keep buying GM. Your dollar will go a lot farther. You could try Nissan, but they have reported quality issues and not competitively priced.. or then theres the archaic tundra. Tell me how that goes.

      Reply
  10. I sound like a major complainer, sorry about that. I’m just a major truck guy, passionate and brand loyal about Chevy and their trucks and they keep missing on some major points for me so it’s frustrating.

    Reply
    1. You can have opinions as to what ever you like. That is fine.

      But you also need to balance it with the economic realities of today’s market as well the regulations of the market that are forcing these issues.

      The harsh reality is the mid size truck has a small box they can price it it snd the window of profit is even smaller. They don’t build 2 million units a year to hold the same scale to make things cheaper and profitable like on the full size.

      The 4 is coming because it is more efficient and will be cleaner than the diesel and V6. It is going to be shared with the full size line and it will make it higher volume and more profitable.

      If not for things like this this truck could be easily canceled as why build it if you are not going to make enough money to make it worth while.

      GM and Ford left the market once before and it could happen again.

      Reply
  11. I have a 2017 with the V6 and I love it! Plenty of power and will definitely get 30mpg on the highway! I bet the new engine will not get 30mpg!! I will not buy with a 4 cyl.

    Reply
    1. I Agree 100%!

      Reply
  12. The 3.6 will not average 30 mpg over any length of time.

    Setting it at speed on the highway till you get off is not real world numbers.

    I like my 6 but it is not a 30 mpg engine. If it were it would be on the sticker. I’m sure you have no secrets on GM.

    Reply
    1. I did not say it would average 30mpg, but in the right circumstances it will. I put 1/2 tank of 87 octane, 10 percent ethanol and 1/2 tank 93 octane non-ethanol in my truck and drove 37 miles to work, which included at least 6 traffic light stops and starts. It got 30.6mpg!! It was about 70 degrees F, no airconditioner, and all the windows up. I have even gotten 30mpg on all 87 octane and 10 percent ethanol. I have been driving for 50 years and thus is the quickest truck I have ever owned!

      Reply
  13. Just please don’t put the big rims on the off road packages, those wheels look silly on the regular truck let along one made to leave the pavement. How am I going to get any more grip or protection when airing down with a 20″ wheel. Put 18’s on it at the biggest and for those yuppies that want larger, they buy their dished black off road rims anyways… Other than that the stance is good. I see they raised up the spare tire for more clearance.

    Reply

Leave a comment

Cancel