Northstar

2007 Colorado Changes

43 posts in this topic

Deletions

- (L52) Engine, 3.5L DOHC, 5-cylinder, MFI (220 HP [164.1 kW] @ 5600 rpm, 225 lb.-ft. [303.7 N-m] @ 2800 rpm)

- (LK5) Engine, 2.8L DOHC, 4-cylinder, MFI (175 HP [130.5 kW] @ 5600 rpm, 185 lb.-ft. [249.7 N-m] @ 2800 rpm)

- (QGR) P235/50R17, all-season, blackwall tires

- (QA8) 4 - 17" x 8" (43.2 cm x 20.4 cm) aluminum wheels

- 100 amp alternator

- Exterior color (22U) Superior Blue Metallic

- Exterior color (94U) Cherry Red Metallic

New Features

- (N83) 4 - 15" x 7" (38.1 cm x 17.8 cm) chrome finish styled aluminum wheels (Interim 2006 offering with Z71 2LT/3LT)

- Exterior color (20U) Pace Blue

- Exterior color (37U) Imperial Blue Metallic

- Exterior color (66U) Deep Ruby Metallic

- (LLV) Engine, 2.9L DOHC 4-cylinder MFI (185 hp [137.9 kW] @ 5600 rpm), 195 lb-ft [263.2 Nm] @ 2800 rpm)

- (LLR) Engine, 3.7L DOHC 5-cylinder MFI (242 hp [180.4 kW] @ 5600 rpm), 242 lb-ft [326.7 Nm] @ 4600 rpm)

- (E01) Regular production accessory, Assist steps, gray tubular (Interim 2006 Offering on 4WD Z85 models)

- (KG7) 125 amp alternator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NICE powertrain improvements!

The L4 is class-leading.....but I'm still worried that GM won't be able to get over consumer perception that a "5" cylinder will be inherently inferior to a "6" cylinder or "8" cylinder.

The new I-5s numbers are strong. But what I really want to see them do is work on the insistent moaning and groaning that comes along with this engine. It's overall lack of refinement kills it for me more than even the performance.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NICE powertrain improvements!

The L4 is class-leading.....but I'm still worried that GM won't be able to get over consumer perception that a "5" cylinder will be inherently inferior to a "6" cylinder or "8" cylinder.

The new I-5s numbers are strong.  But what I really want to see them do is work on the insistent moaning and groaning that comes along with this engine.  It's overall lack of refinement kills it for me more than even the performance.....

I agree but I think the Colorado is a turd and GM screwed themselves with this vehicle.

Sales of the Tacoma and Fontier is proving that GM didn't do anyone any favors with the I-5, poor interior and 90's exterior styling.

All GM has to do is look at how the Foreign competition is doing and see what they offer in there small/midsized trucks!

The Truck is GM's game and because GM wanted to do the Colorado on the cheap we are stuck with a loser for years to come.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The revised engines and new colors are nice, but these class-lagging trucks were dated when they were unveiled at the Auto Show three years ago. And what's with 15" wheels? Its just not 1990 anymore....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These trucks are lame and outdated. The exterior styling sucks. The shape of the wheel wells are nice, and with the flares they look good, but that front end is crap. On all 3 NA versions of this truck (GMC/Chevy/Isuzu) they have no integration what so ever, and don't look proportioned. Isuzu should have just imported the D-Max, at least it makes an attempt at having a creative, intrgrated front end.

Posted Image

When I read a road test on it, the paint job was horrible, the build quality was just as bad, and the interior was cheap. I remember this being the general consensis from both auto123.com and edmunds.

These trucks just lag far behind all of the other ttrucks, with the exception of the old Ranger. They need a redesign or significant refresh ASAP.

Edited by Dodgefan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A new grille, interior and wheels would have been nice. The bump in power is most welcome, I just hope it's not to the detriment of the good fuel mileage I get.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont think that there is anything wrong with the exterior, and the interior is better looking than my Sonoma, but the 5-cylinder needs to go. The 4300 V6 in my Sonoma works just great, I dont understand why GM just couldnt fiddle around with it to squeeze some more power out. At least the new 5 cracks 220 hp so Toyota cant claim an hp advantage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest YellowJacket894

Please tell me other changes will be announced soon. Please. Unless this truck plans to, well, die in the next two years, it's going to need a lot to make it a good product.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, it's already dead reliable if you ask me. I've had no mechanical issues, 27 months and 33k miles into ownership... on an early, first-year vehicle. And believe me, it is not babied... it's got a nice indentation in the carpet below the gas pedal. Edited by ocnblu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest YellowJacket894

Should've clarified...

The complaints I have with the Colorado are basically the interior design and the front fascia. I hope they both get changed. It's the same issue I have with the Malibu.

The engine update sounds nice and it's what the I-5 and I-4 needed -- a horsepower boost. And I really don't understand what the deal with five-cylinders are. Acura and Volvo have both used them, and the buying public didn't bitch about it. (But wait, it's GM we're talking about here. :rolleyes: )

Edited by YellowJacket894

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please tell me other changes will be announced soon. Please. Unless this truck plans to, well, die in the next two years, it's going to need a lot to make it a good product.

Actually, rumor is that just might happen.

Gm still isn't happy with the sales, and the small truck market is one the way out,

nothing more than a niche market in the new future......

It would be better (and cheaper) just to do a lower price-point on the silverado...

with some good low end packages for it...(sport, 4wd, etc..)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Powerplant upgrades are great. 6 speed autos would have been greater still.

But exterior stlying--its an ugly duckling.

nah, the truck doesn't need a 6 speed...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont think that there is anything wrong with the exterior, and the interior is better looking than my Sonoma, but the 5-cylinder needs to go. The 4300 V6 in my Sonoma works just great, I dont understand why GM just couldnt fiddle around with it to squeeze some more power out. At least the new 5 cracks 220 hp so Toyota cant claim an hp advantage.

If GM would just listen to the people who can make the company great again, this is what they should build!

Posted Image

Posted Image

Then eyes would roll! :pbjtime:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know GM is hard up for money but Trucks is what GM is good at. And the idea that the Colorado is having poor sales is sad for a Chevy.

But, I still say that this is a self inflicted wound. The Toyota nor the Frontier is so great (ala Camry or Accord) that a fairly significant upgrade would not improve sales.

Have you noticed that Lutz nor Wagoner never talks about these trucks. They almost seem forgotten.

Well, they shouldn't be and GM needs to get their act together or the Imports will take this market segment for good!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If GM would just listen to the people who can make the company great again, this is what they should build!

Posted Image

Posted Image

Then eyes would roll! :pbjtime:

I have to admit, that would be a good colorado..... :idhitit:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still no 6 speed automatic! Still no interior improvement! Still no 4 wheel disk brakes! Still no higher towing capacity! Gosh GM is really screwing Chevy for model year 2007.

I don't know your background ponchoman, but you are way off the mark with your first comment.

Drivability is a combination of engine and transmission. If you have a good engine with a wide torque band, you don't need 6,7 or 8 speed automatics. The number

of gears in the transmission is a cover-up for a limited torque range of the

engine!

That's why the wimp motors with narrow torque bands NEED all those gears! To stay within the limits of the engines' torque range as loads change.

The rest of that rowing is strictly to appease a mind set!

Big trucks have multi-bands and lots of gears, because most have low-speed motors that need lots of help moving heavy loads. On the other hand,

Jim Halls' Chapparel race cars only had two-speed Powerglide trannys! -- But

BIG engines, for the size of the load.

4-wheel discs, when they first appeared seemed to be the answer. But latest

thinking is that with big wheels, and bigger brake drums, on the rear, the extra

cost and mechanism complications of rear discs are not necessary!

On tow capacity---- we come back to the engine choice again. In this truck, the

5.3L V-8 would answer many problems.

Above I showed the Woodward Cruise show truck that GM built. Somebody there

had their head screwed on straight when they did that one! But, nobdy up top appears to be listening.............. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know your background ponchoman, but you are way off the mark with your first comment.

Drivability is a combination of engine and transmission. If you have a good engine with a wide torque band, you don't need 6,7 or 8 speed automatics. The number

of gears in the transmission is a cover-up for a limited torque range of the

engine!

That's why the wimp motors with narrow torque bands NEED all those gears! To stay within the limits of the engines' torque range as loads change.

The rest of that rowing is strictly to appease a mind set!

Big trucks have multi-bands and lots of gears, because most have low-speed motors that need lots of help moving heavy loads. On the other hand,

Jim Halls' Chapparel race cars only had two-speed Powerglide trannys! -- But

BIG engines, for the size of the load.

4-wheel discs, when they first appeared seemed to be the answer. But latest

thinking is that with big wheels, and bigger brake drums, on the rear, the extra

cost and mechanism complications of rear discs are not necessary!

On tow capacity---- we come back to the engine choice again. In this truck, the

5.3L V-8 would answer many problems.

Above I showed the Woodward Cruise show truck that GM built. Somebody there

had their head screwed on straight when they did that one! But, nobdy up top appears to be listening.............. :(

My background had my ass driving a rental 4 door 4WD Colorado with the 5 cylinder/4 speed automatic trans. The 5 cylinder does not have a really good powerband. It peels out a tiny bit, then power sags until rpms climb and the vvt gives that extra bit of kick then all of a sudden second gear comes with an enormous chasm with the engine gasping until rpm's climb again. I have driven lots of CVT and 5/6 speed automatics and know exactly how it affects engine power. My whole point about adding the 6 speed automatic has nothing to do with what others are saying or the dumb auto rags but this engines lack of power in this obviously weighty truck. The 6 speed automatic would offer a big improvement in low end response with a much better first gear. Then with a second gear ratio that doesn't drop like water over a cliff the engine can stay revving in it's band as it shifts up towards it's tall 6th gear which combined with a lower axle ratio in the rear would improve highway mileage. As these vehicles keep getting bigger and bigger, heavier and heavier extra tranny gears are becoming a necessity. As for the disk brakes, drums are more complicated and are seldom in adjustment after a few years of driving. Many mechanics screw them up and disk brakes are just plain easier to change out and offer better less fading stopping distances. And when your a giant ship that is slowly sinking you DO NOT need antique 1982 designed transmissions and outdated drum brakes on a truck that is hardly competitive to start with! Perception plays a big roll on which vehicle a consumer plunks down his hard earned cash for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All some very good points, ponchoman, especially your driving experiences with the Colorado.

But I still say that it goes back to the engine first for drivability. I totally agree with you, whoever had the wet dream of the 5 cyl. engine--- should get transferred back to Volvo! Maybe a bean counter got the numbers mixed up? Maybe it was supposed to be---- 5.3L, not 5 cyl.!!!

Your comments about more gears in the tranny is also valid---- with this

current puny engine, --- it needs all the help it can get, and wide-spaced ratios definitely do not help a weak engine! :rolleyes:

Edited by rkmdogs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to flog a dead horse Ponchoman, but I just got my April 24th issue of the

New Autoweek. p.26 article on Mitsu Eclipse GT makes my point on engine/gearbox packages. It states:

"Every tester on staff had similar opinions. A V6 of nearly four liters is usually about torque more than horsepower."( The new Eclipse V6 is 263hp,260 lbs.-ft,

froma 3.8L V-6)

"Why have six speeds when the torque peaks at 4500rpm? To prove it could be done without working at it, I drove 40 miles without topping 2500 rpm. You can shift it 1-3-6 and skip half the gears."

"One tester at the track agreed: Sixth gear and to an extent even fifth are almost useless even on the freeway. I use fourth gear to pass. This car does not need six speeds. I can cruise comfortably in fifth gear on the freeway."

Now maybe GM needs to offer a better gearbox selection than what may be current with the Colorado, but I would prefer if they stepped up and give the truck a more potent engine first! I think most folks would even be happy with the 4.8L LS2 engine. :yes:

Edited by rkmdogs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know I'd be happy with the 4.8L V8. Had to floor it in an Express van to get out of some idiot's way on the beltway. Really nice pickup, especially in something that was heavier than a Colorado. I know I wouldnt have made it if the 5 cylinder was under the hood. If GM gave it Displacement on Demand or Active Fuel Management or whatever they call it now, folks would be really happy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well can you get anybody at the GM ivory towers to listen?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoticons maximum are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.