2015 Chevrolet Colorado/GMC Canyon I-4 EPA Ratings

[Bryan1]

GM announced the fuel economy numbers for both the 2015 Chevrolet Colorado and its fraternal twin GMC Canyon today, and those numbers are about what we expected—good, but not great. In fact, the 2.5-liter I-4's ratings are only a little bit better than the Colorado and Canyon's V-6 EPA ratings.

 

Two-wheel drive, four-cylinder Colorado/Canyons with a six-speed automatic transmission get an EPA estimated 20 mpg in the city, and 27 mpg on the highway, with a combined rating of 22 mpg. Trucks with a manual transmission, because it’s slightly heavier, will get an EPA estimated 19/26/22.

 

http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2014/09/2015-chevrolet-coloradogmc-canyon-i-4-epa-ratings.html

[CurtisH]

I really expected a little better than this.

[silvrsvt]

So when do the F-150 numbers come out?

[Chevys1]

The 2.7 EB is going to be close to this imo. Best motor Ford has come out with in a good while. Will it actually deliver who knows but Ford has gotten conservative of late for good reason with their past fuel eonomy follies. LOL I think finally, they have the right sized engine in a truck but dear god what will it cost over the Coly? That is another issue. I just need a s10 sized truck or ranger. Driving my Sonoma to its grave due to costs of new trucks.

[jpd80]

So when do the F-150 numbers come out?

it's as though Ford is waiting for competitors to reveal their latest efforts before releasing 1'5 F150's fuel economy figures.

This will be more about convincing existing F150 owners that the new F150 is better than competitors and their existing trucks rather

than seeking to conquest other brands but, that could end up happening anyway if the 2.7 Ecoboost economy figures are impressive

Edited September 23, 2014 by jpd80

[RangerM]

No need for 2.7L. I can get pretty close to this--now--with a CC F150 EB.

[jpd80]

No need for 2.7L. I can get pretty close to this--now--with a CC F150 EB.

Apples to apples,

Yes I don't doubt that in the real world you can get those figures in steady state running but not when you follow the official EPA highway cycle.

I would expect that the 2.7 EB when driven for economy at steady state highway speeds will impress the heck out of a lot of people.

[Bryan1]

So when do the F-150 numbers come out?

 

Probably not for awhile. The I-4 Colorado fuel economy numbers did not come out to 3 days after the Colorado started shipping to dealers and the V6 numbers 2 weeks before. The F-150 doesn't start building until the end of October. Maybe Ford will release a couple number at the TX State Fair this week.

[AGR]

I was passing by our local Buick/GMC dealer today and saw a Canyon on the lot. It was a loaded crew cab model, V6, 4WD, leather seats, and all the bells and whistles. The sticker price was over $38,000...for a midsize pickup!

[akirby]

I was passing by our local Buick/GMC dealer today and saw a Canyon on the lot. It was a loaded crew cab model, V6, 4WD, leather seats, and all the bells and whistles. The sticker price was over $38,000...for a midsize pickup!

 

Exactly. If you build a truck that's 90% the size of a full-sized truck with the same aerodynamics and the same features then it's going to cost 90% and get roughly the same fuel economy. You can't change physics.

 

What makes sense is a small pickup that's significantly smaller and lighter and can use much smaller engines. But people don't want those. We stopped buying regular and supercabs years ago. Now everyone wants a 4 door pickup with more room and all the bells and whistles of the full size trucks. Can't have it both ways.

[Chevys1]

Well if the price is that high then pass. 18/26 with the v6 and 20/28 with the I4. Not much difference and I can tell you with experience the 3.6 lfx is one hell of a good engine and strong.

If its priced like a F150 then pass. Its still too big imo. I had high hopes but am not interested at all. GM blew it here imo and I was one of the few on board. THe new 2.7 Ford is what everybody is waiting on. I may be wrong yet again but I think this engine will be a game changer.

[akirby]

Not only did they fail with one vehicle - they failed with 2 different vehicles that are also different from the ROW vehicle.

 

Maybe GM has some kind of profit percentage cap like the phone company used to have when it was a monopoly. They used to go our of their way to spend as much as possible to offset profits.

[PRM]

I think 90% scale is about right. Understand a Sport Trac was roughly 90% the size of an F150 Supercrew. There was a clear differentiation there, and will be with the Colorado as well. We'll see what the market has to say in the coming months.

[akirby]

I think 90% scale is about right. Understand a Sport Trac was roughly 90% the size of an F150 Supercrew. There was a clear differentiation there, and will be with the Colorado as well. We'll see what the market has to say in the coming months.

Just don't forget to include any drop in Silvererra sales.

[PRM]

There's no doubt it will take some Silverado sales. But it will also capture what would have been F150, Tacoma, Tundra and RAM sales. But I am looking at it from a consumer perspective. My perspective. I would not purchase any of those larger trucks, but I would consider the new Colorado. Whether I could get by Chevy's record as of late is another story.

[RichardJensen]

But it will also capture what would have been F150, Tacoma, Tundra and RAM sales.

 

At what cost? Say it captures 500 F150 sales per month while chewing up 1,500 GM full size sales a month.

 

I think conquest sales will be trivial, at best, which means GM has paid, probably, somewhere between $500M and a billion dollars in order to reduce their profits.

Edited September 27, 2014 by RichardJensen

[jpd80]

When you consider that the new F150 in 2WD double cab is going to be fairly close in weight to T6 Ranger,

Ford would be crazy to introduce its global Mid Sized Truck for a zero or even negative nett gain.

 

This is GM arcane sales philosophy inertia telling them "you must compete everywhere"

when Ford's new philosophy is "where should we compete to get the best return".

and by that logic, Ford is already $500 million in front of GM without making a vehicle.

 

There's also a whole raft of reasons why no essential product volume and wasting resources is not good for business...

not that GM would ever listen to any plan involving simplifying production plans and maximizing return by doing less.

Edited September 27, 2014 by jpd80

[PRM]

I understand the business arguments as to whether it should be built. But the fact is, it is being built. As a consumer, that is good for me. It is easy to focus on the center of the buyer's bell curve from a corporate strategy. As a consumer, I like having some variety. In a year or so we'll start to get an idea as to the validity of their strategy. Chevy's marketing guy claims they are targeting CUV buyers back to the truck market.

 

Back to the size, the Sport Trac was nearly ideal for me so it serves as a nice baseline. A quick comparison between the Canyon and the Sport Trac, both 4x4:

 

Spec Colorado (5'2" Box) ST V-8

Length 212.7" 210.2

Width 74.3" 73.7"

Height 70.6" 72.5"

Weight 4380 4840

Towing 7000 6990

Payload 1590 1390

Hp 305 (V6) 292

Torque 269 315

MPG 17/24 14/19 V8, 13/19 V6

[RichardJensen]

Chevy's marketing guy claims they are targeting CUV buyers back to the truck market.

 

That just seems ---- odd.

 

I have to think that the margins are higher on CUVs than on this particular truck, and it seems a bit of a tough sell.

 

The ST comparison is quite enlightening.

[akirby]

I don't think GM cares much about profit margins these days. They seem hell bent on maximizing revenue and volumes as long as they aren't in the red overall.

[rmc523]

 

That just seems ---- odd.

 

I have to think that the margins are higher on CUVs than on this particular truck, and it seems a bit of a tough sell.

 

The ST comparison is quite enlightening.

 

Well, they have to try to sell it to someone I guess.

[sullynd]

That just seems ---- odd.

When I finally replace my Escape (Sometime in the next 12 mo) I'll probably check out the Canyon. It would likely be a good fit for me. There aren't many options in CUVs left that don't look like "Cute-Utes".

[CurtisH]

When I finally replace my Escape (Sometime in the next 12 mo) I'll probably check out the Canyon. It would likely be a good fit for me. There aren't many options in CUVs left that don't look like "Cute-Utes".

If you want something smaller than an Expedition or Tahoe that doesn't look like a Cute-Ute, you would probably need to look at Jeep.

 

Of course, the Tahoe is about 10 inches shorter than the Crew Cab Canyon. The Canyon is about 3 feet longer than your Escape.

[sullynd]

If you want something smaller than an Expedition or Tahoe that doesn't look like a Cute-Ute, you would probably need to look at Jeep.

Yeah. Can't stand the Cherokee. Like the Wrangler, but its hard to justify it's price for its crudeness (for my use). Grand Cherokee seems like a decent vehicle, and a reasonable value. I'd rather not buy a Fiat however. If GMC had cleaned up the Terrain just a bit it would probably be at the top of my list.

 

I'd love an F150, but its just a bit too big for my needs.

[Michael Larson]

Did they quit making the Canyon/Colorado for a few years?