Chevy Previews the 2021 Chevrolet Colorado ZR2

That is not good looking.  Even the Lexus predator face thinks that is too busy.

Going for a little of the GM Defense Colorado ZH2 Hydrogen Fuel Cell look.   

So no bumper across the front...that grille seems vulnerable..I wonder if there is a horizontal crash bar behind the grille.  Not sure about the styling...too much Magneto's Helmet/ Camaro SS with a touch of Silverado HD.

I think it looks good for a dedicated off-roader. 

1 hour ago, Robert Hall said:

So no bumper across the front...that grille seems vulnerable..I wonder if there is a horizontal crash bar behind the grille.  Not sure about the styling...too much Magneto's Helmet/ Camaro SS with a touch of Silverado HD.

Yeah, it would need to have a required DOT crash bar/bumper behind the lower part of the grille. GM needs the recent truck designers back over at Chevrolet, GMC definitely has the right design language for the Sierra.

10 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

I think it looks good for a dedicated off-roader. 

Probably better in person like the T1 Silverado too.

Had to stop over here and say... I love it, and the color.  Can't wait to see the Z71 trim, and the rest of the enhancements.  If you look real close at the rear end shot, you can see, mostly obscured in the dust, another emblem on the bottom right corner... is that to denote the 2.7t engine?  Sly preview, Chevy.

2 hours ago, ocnblu said:

Had to stop over here and say... I love it, and the color.  Can't wait to see the Z71 trim, and the rest of the enhancements.  If you look real close at the rear end shot, you can see, mostly obscured in the dust, another emblem on the bottom right corner... is that to denote the 2.7t engine?  Sly preview, Chevy.

That's the ZR2 badge...

5 hours ago, ocnblu said:

Had to stop over here and say... I love it, and the color.  Can't wait to see the Z71 trim, and the rest of the enhancements.  If you look real close at the rear end shot, you can see, mostly obscured in the dust, another emblem on the bottom right corner... is that to denote the 2.7t engine?  Sly preview, Chevy.

The 2.7T does seem like a natural fit for the Colorado though... especially with the Ranger running a 2.3T

18 hours ago, smk4565 said:

That is not good looking.  Even the Lexus predator face thinks that is too busy.

And still looks better than any Mercedes pick up. Oh wait...

Something just looks funky about that front end situation. 

I do really like "Chevrolet" across the tailgate. 

1 hour ago, Drew Dowdell said:

The 2.7T does seem like a natural fit for the Colorado though... especially with the Ranger running a 2.3T

I just hope they don't drop the 3.6L for the 2.7T, need to drop the abysmal 2.5 NA 4 banger, that thing is dangerously slow. I know it's for GM's CAFE number and for people who don't care, but still. I had one for a service loaner one time took it right back and told them I want a V6 or something different, it couldn't get out of it's own way. They even install it in the 2WD crew cabs, too much weight for it.

It's mostly just for fleet vehicles for a lowest possible price point, I'd assume. 

You'd think that would be the case, but look at this beast. Wouldn't even know it's 2WD or a gutless 2.5L being a Z71 Midnight Edition with leather and meaty tires. They do come with 4:10's at least. Still ridiculous they could even order it with all of that with that NA 4 banger. 

https://www.chevrolet.com/locate-inventory/previous-year/colorado/details?x-symbolic=vdp&x-carline=colorado&x-modelyear=2019&q-sourcepath=/vdccollections/2019/trucks/colorado/colorado/jcr:content/vdcVehicleInfoBlockConfig/vdcShoppingLinks#?radius=250&models=Colorado&years=2019&makes=Chevrolet&postalcode=85001&requestedPostalcode=85001&open-panel=Powertrain&open-panel=Hours&engineCodes=LCV&scrollposition=680&vin=1GCGSDEA5K1168683&filtermatched=exactmatch&bac=178568&pagenumber=1&sortby=bestMatch:desc,distance:asc&dealerSearchBy=postalCode&dlsearchlocation=1150+N+54TH+ST+CHANDLER+AZ+852261032&primarydealerdistance=10.6&longitude=-111.9691114&latitude=33.3225909&primarydealerid=178568&primarydealerpostalcode=85226&[email protected]&primarydealername=FREEWAY CHEVROLET&primarydealerphone=4807531234

11 minutes ago, USA-1 said:

You'd think that would be the case, but look at this beast. Wouldn't even know it's 2WD or a gutless 2.5L being a Z71 Midnight Edition with leather and meaty tires. They do come with 4:10's at least. Still ridiculous they could even order it with all of that with that NA 4 banger. 

https://www.chevrolet.com/locate-inventory/previous-year/colorado/details?x-symbolic=vdp&x-carline=colorado&x-modelyear=2019&q-sourcepath=/vdccollections/2019/trucks/colorado/colorado/jcr:content/vdcVehicleInfoBlockConfig/vdcShoppingLinks#?radius=250&models=Colorado&years=2019&makes=Chevrolet&postalcode=85001&requestedPostalcode=85001&open-panel=Powertrain&open-panel=Hours&engineCodes=LCV&scrollposition=680&vin=1GCGSDEA5K1168683&filtermatched=exactmatch&bac=178568&pagenumber=1&sortby=bestMatch:desc,distance:asc&dealerSearchBy=postalCode&dlsearchlocation=1150+N+54TH+ST+CHANDLER+AZ+852261032&primarydealerdistance=10.6&longitude=-111.9691114&latitude=33.3225909&primarydealerid=178568&primarydealerpostalcode=85226&[email protected]&primarydealername=FREEWAY CHEVROLET&primarydealerphone=4807531234

 

Well no, sh!t... I really never thought those would have even been available with the Z71 package or in any color other than white, lol.

Well, I'm serous about the Z71 part. That's surprising. I wouldn't imagine spending 34k on a vehicle with that engine. 

Now I'm curious how many of those 2.5's they move outside of fleets.. It's gotta be a lot more than I originally expected. 

Just now, ccap41 said:

Well no, sh!t... I really never thought those would have even been available with the Z71 package or in any color other than white, lol.

Well, I'm serous about the Z71 part. That's surprising. I wouldn't imagine spending 34k on a vehicle with that engine. 

Now I'm curious how many of those 2.5's they move outside of fleets.. It's gotta be a lot more than I originally expected. 

It's a special order and pretty rare, but they're out there! The one I had for a loaner for a brief moment was a typical rental fleet setup white and 2WD base model, but still a crew cab.

I would think standard cab and ext. cab would be the only layout they would go with, but at least they keep 4WD out of them.

5 hours ago, USA-1 said:

standard cab

There is no Colorado/Canyon standard cab.

11 hours ago, Robert Hall said:

That's the ZR2 badge...

Wishful thinking I guess.

46 minutes ago, ocnblu said:

There is no Colorado/Canyon standard cab.

I knew that, I was thinking the Silverado like I own now, but you get my point right? I owned a '17 Colorado Crew V6 4x4 Z71 in Silver Ice Met.

You are 100% right.  I would not recommend the 2.5 in a regular cab Silverado, no way, no how.

13 hours ago, ocnblu said:

You are 100% right.  I would not recommend the 2.5 in a regular cab Silverado, no way, no how.

No. What I stated originally had to do with the 2.5L I4 in the Colorado. I know the standard cab is not offered in the Colorado and stated above that I was thinking of the Silverado with the regular cab which had nothing to do with the 2.5L in the Silverado.   

Oh, OK.

3 minutes ago, ocnblu said:

Oh, OK.

I don't even agree with having the 2.7T in the Silverado, and it doesn't get very good gas mileage because it has to work so hard to pull the weight. Now the 2.7T in the Colorado would work well in either cab configuration.   

The 2.7T is perfectly fine for the 90% of truck buyers who never hook a trailer up to their truck. For those who do tow, they'll get something bigger, one of their three other engines to choose from. 

21 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

The 2.7T is perfectly fine for the 90% of truck buyers who never hook a trailer up to their truck. For those who do tow, they'll get something bigger, one of their three other engines to choose from. 

90%?! I disagree. I along with most truck buyers don't think a I4 belongs in a full size truck, boosted or not. Really the only boosted engine in a factory truck should be a diesel. The 2.7T was originally brought in to get high mpg to aid with GM's CAFE numbers, but it doesn't get very good Real World numbers (20 city 23 hwy 21 combined). The 5.3L V8 is rated at respectable 16/22/18 and the 6.2L 15/21/17. These smaller boosted engines including Ford EB's don't get the mileage they intended them to get. It shows that a larger NA V8 engine with less moving parts to break can be (and majority of the time is) nearly as efficient as a harder working smaller boosted 4 or 6 cylinder engine.    

My truck better have a V6....want my truck to move!

Too much comedy involved in being the guy who buys a 2.7t Silverado.  However, it could be a Goldilocks situation in the midsizers.  Colorado/Canyon buyers have proven they accept a DOHC V6 (a hurdle in the beginning for me and a lot of the internet), so a turbo 4 would less likely be seen as a joke than it is in the big trucks.

I still wish GM would treat their light duty diesels as utilitarian and economical by offering them in all cab and trim configurations, more like Ram does.  Instead, you are forced to pay bigger bucks in the Colorado for a crew cab, or a ZR2 extended cab, to get the diesel engine.  It's the same over with the Silverado... uplevel trim packages, etc. are a requirement.

4 hours ago, ocnblu said:

Too much comedy involved in being the guy who buys a 2.7t Silverado.  However, it could be a Goldilocks situation in the midsizers.  Colorado/Canyon buyers have proven they accept a DOHC V6 (a hurdle in the beginning for me and a lot of the internet), so a turbo 4 would less likely be seen as a joke than it is in the big trucks.

 

I still wish GM would treat their light duty diesels as utilitarian and economical by offering them in all cab and trim configurations, more like Ram does.  Instead, you are forced to pay bigger bucks in the Colorado for a crew cab, or a ZR2 extended cab, to get the diesel engine.  It's the same over with the Silverado... uplevel trim packages, etc. are a requirement.

That's not just with diesels... a lot of GM's packages require big upgrades first before you even have the ability to option into them.

5 hours ago, ocnblu said:

Too much comedy involved in being the guy who buys a 2.7t Silverado.  However, it could be a Goldilocks situation in the midsizers.  Colorado/Canyon buyers have proven they accept a DOHC V6 (a hurdle in the beginning for me and a lot of the internet), so a turbo 4 would less likely be seen as a joke than it is in the big trucks.

 

I still wish GM would treat their light duty diesels as utilitarian and economical by offering them in all cab and trim configurations, more like Ram does.  Instead, you are forced to pay bigger bucks in the Colorado for a crew cab, or a ZR2 extended cab, to get the diesel engine.  It's the same over with the Silverado... uplevel trim packages, etc. are a requirement.

I still wouldn't buy a Colorado with the 2.7T myself, but yes it would sell pretty well along with offering the 3.6L V6 and 2.8T I4 baby DMax. I think it's why the "new" Ranger sales have been a little stagnant with Ford just offering the 2.3T as the sole engine option, will be the same with Nissan offering the Titan with just the 5.6L now, buyers need powerplant options.

Actually, GM is getting better with offering the larger and/or higher horsepower engines in the lower models. The 6.2L is now available in the 2020 LT TrailBoss, where before you could only go as high as the 5.3L. I read the same for the 3.0T I6 DMax after the initial launch this year so hopefully 2021 lower models will have it available as well. It's good that GM is at least listening to buyers and potential buyers more.

1 hour ago, Drew Dowdell said:

That's not just with diesels... a lot of GM's packages require big upgrades first before you even have the ability to option into them.

The 6.2L is being offered in more models like LT TrailBoss for 2020 and eventually the 3.0T I6 DMax as well. I'm personally glad GM is listening to their buyers more. 

I'm not sure why people are still afraid of a smaller displacement turbo engine. 

20 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

I'm not sure why people are still afraid of a smaller displacement turbo engine. 

"No Replacement for Displacement" 

Seriously though, like I pointed out above I think turbos are fine in cars and needed in diesel trucks, but the smaller displacement turbo gas engines in the fullsize trucks getting stuffed with excess air and fuel really don't get much better fuel mileage than the NA V8's to really make the case in buying one. If a smaller displacement turbo engine is in a heavier fullsize truck like the 2.7T in the Silverado/Sierra they have to work a lot harder than it seems to get things moving. So in turn you're looking at premature turbo failures among other parts, this is especially true in hot climates. I know the Ford F150 EB V6 has had it's fair share of premature failures especially when towing and hopefully the GM 2.7T I4 doesn't suffer the same consequences.  

1 hour ago, ccap41 said:

I'm not sure why people are still afraid of a smaller displacement turbo engine. 

They're just not as satisfying as a bigger cylinder count and bigger displacement engine. 

Smaller turbocharged 4-cylinder engines belong in smaller cars... not truck.  It's just a way for manufacturers to game the EPA. 

2 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

They're just not as satisfying as a bigger cylinder count and bigger displacement engine. 

Smaller turbocharged 4-cylinder engines belong in smaller cars... not truck.  It's just a way for manufacturers to game the EPA. 

Exactly, it's all about CAFE and EPA.

I can't stand the thrashy sound of a 4 banger slamming away under the hood. Even the tried and true 3.6L DI V6 in the Colorado is a little thrashy sounding because of the Direct Injection and the non DI 3.6L is more docile, but not as powerful or fuel efficient. 

3 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

a way for manufacturers to game the EPA. 

Ding!  This is another reason why CAFE requirements are a waste of engineering time, talent and money.

Fuel economy demands on the manufacturers should come from the market... not the government.