2007 Colorado Changes

[Northstar]

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

[The O.C.]

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.....

[drew770]

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.

[bobo]

The Coroado is in dire need of a major refresh. The additional power should help just a little bit.

[Mule Bakersdozen LS]

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....

[Intrepidation]

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.

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 April 22, 2006 by Dodgefan

[ocnblu]

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.

[DetroitNut90]

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.

[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.

[ocnblu]

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 April 23, 2006 by ocnblu

[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. )

Edited April 23, 2006 by YellowJacket894

[avro206]

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

But exterior stlying--its an ugly duckling.

[daves87rs]

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..)

[daves87rs]

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...

[Imaj]

I think the Colorado's exterior looks great, it's the interior and the powertrain that I don't like.

[rkmdogs]

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!

Then eyes would roll!

[drew770]

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!

[ponchoman49]

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.

[daves87rs]

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

Then eyes would roll!

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

[rkmdogs]

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..............

[ponchoman49]

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.

[rkmdogs]

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!

Edited April 25, 2006 by rkmdogs

[rkmdogs]

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.

Edited April 25, 2006 by rkmdogs

[DetroitNut90]

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.

[rkmdogs]

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

[The O.C.]

... it's got a nice indentation in the carpet below the gas pedal. 

Makes sense.....the SLUG that it is.....you probably HAVE to keep your foot to the floor all the time....

(just razzing you ocnblu.....just kidding)

[The O.C.]

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. )

.....yeah.....but have you DRIVEN an import 5cyl like a Volvo or the new Jetta 2.5L.....?

They are WAY more refined and cultured sounding than the I5 in the Colorado....

NVH is the killer with the GM I-5......IMHO.

[The O.C.]

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.

Yeah.....that's why GM spent the money to engineer the new 6-speed automatic for the CORVETTE....and the XLR....and the STS-v....

....because those are all wimp motors with narrow torque bands...!

[ocnblu]

17.11 sec @ 81.2 mph at Maple Grove Raceway. Not exactly a Corvette, but I wouldn't call it a slug either, and that's with little old unprofessional me behind the wheel. That was best of 2 runs and I slept on green... .87 reaction time, ha.

[jry]

budget truck? truck that is too small for most?

maybe the new 5 is more refined/less noisey.

[avro206]

17.11 sec @ 81.2 mph at Maple Grove Raceway.  Not exactly a Corvette, but I wouldn't call it a slug either, and that's with little old unprofessional me behind the wheel.  That was best of 2 runs and I slept on green... .87 reaction time, ha.

damn thats slow. But if you can live with it.

R/T has no bearing on what your run is. You have to trip the beam to start the clock.

Is that ext acb, 2WD, 4wd ect, what gears?

Edited April 26, 2006 by avro206

[rkmdogs]

Yeah.....that's why GM spent the money to engineer the new 6-speed automatic for the CORVETTE....and the XLR....and the STS-v....

....because those are all wimp motors with narrow torque bands...!

No, that was done to pacify the loose nut on the end of the steering wheel!..... and to play the "my guns bigger than your gun" game!

Like I said before, Jim Hall did it with two gears...... do you want to get angry at him for that?

AND, there is a BIG distinction between race driving @ 9/10 or 10/10, not

street driving where you barely, if ever get above 4/10!

Edited April 29, 2006 by rkmdogs

[avro206]

Fact is there is an improvement in fuel economy and performance. Now were are talking under 10% but it is still worth while to squeeze that extra gas milage for CAFE.

Now why are people against 6 speed autos?

[njtex]

The HP boost is nice but it looks like it pushes the torque peak up the RMP range. A 6 or 7-speed auto would be even nicer now!

Anyone know why the I5 sounds so much better in the H3?

[ocnblu]

avro, my launch sucked, I was nursing it for axle hop. I feel I could have gotten it into the high 16's with more practice. It's a 4X4, extended cab Z71 (so it's got the big tires) and 3.73 posi rear end.

[Chevysnumberone]

Ok guys i have some good news. I just got off the Edmund auto news web and todays article is that GM has been listing to our complaints of the Colorado/Canyon H3 being underpower, without the help of the people that are happy with the 5cylinder. GM is offering a V6 and V8 in Colorado/Canyon,H3 in 2007 and a diesel in the H3 a little later.

[Matt276]

Ok guys i have some good news. I just got off  the Edmund auto news web and todays article is that GM has been listing to our complaints of the Colorado/Canyon H3 being underpower, without the help of the people that are happy with the 5cylinder. GM is offering a V6 and V8 in Colorado/Canyon,H3 in 2007 and a diesel in the H3 a little later.

Are you sure or it's just a rumor? But it would be great

[Chevysnumberone]

Are you sure or it's just a rumor?   But it would be great

man i fill so great now! I hope it is not a rumor. Youall need to go to Edmond or Edmund auto news to see it for your self.

[Matt276]

Ok I need a link cause I don't see it anywhere.

[Coach]

There's an old saying that goes, "you can put lipstick on a pig but it's still just a pig." I feel as if GM just added lipstick to the Colorado with these minor upgrades. The market decides as to whether a vehicle is a winner or not, not a web site. I think the one thing everyone can agree is that the Colorado isn't selling all that well and a few minor upgrades aren't going to do much to help with sales. The last couple of input from C&G readers note that a 6 or small V8 may come soon. That may be enough...but again...the market will decide.

[Chevysnumberone]

Ok I need a link cause I don't see it anywhere.

Matt276 this is the way i found the information, I wrote on web search,Will GM offer the V6 And V8 engines in the Colorado/Canyon pickups and H3 in the future? My web found a number of links including Edmonds.com Inside Line.

[5.3Avalanche]

Two suggestions about improving this truck from personal experience.

1. The seats seem to be inadequate. For short trips they're fine, but sit in them for 2+ hours and they really demonstrate how they need more support. They just aren't big enough physically which seems to be the obvious problem but is excusable since the truck isn't very wide. I wonder if shrinking the Avalanche/Silverado seats would be possible as those are beautiful seats that are extremely comfortable.

2. The transmission although extremely smooth, seems to be geared far too high. Though this may get the truck good mileage, it isn't the best for those of us that want to accelerate quickly or pass. Under average acceleration from a stoplight, the current 3.5 in the crew cab with the 4speed auto is perfect. But tach out the shifts and you notice what's wrong. At redline in 1st gear, the truck has just hit 80 kmph (50 mph). This is an extremely fast first gear! Shifting into second is smooth but the rpm drop is just too much and the power drop is quite apparent. But, as the rpm's build , the truck starts to accelerate hard again right up to 120 kmph (75 mph). In conclusion, an extra cog in the tranny would pay dividends in the 1-2 shift and the 2-3 shift in the auto transmission. Although the new power is greatly welcomed, a 5-speed auto would just be the icing on the cake for an already great vehilce.

Overall thoughts: GM got this truck pretty much perfect in my opinion right from the get-go except for transmission and the seat quality/comfort. The 3.5 engine is beautiful (excellent mileage and power), the interior is logically laid out, looks good and is very funcitonal for various types of people (workers, average city driving person, the adventuresome person etc) and it just looks great overall. In my opinion this is the best midsize on the market, regardless of whether or not the competition has a bigger cab, more pulling capacity, or a V8 option. If you want those features, get a full size...that's why there are different classes of vehicles.

[loki]

2.  The transmission although extremely smooth, seems to be geared far too high.  Though this may get the truck good mileage, it isn't the best for those of us that want to accelerate quickly or pass.  Under average acceleration from a stoplight, the current 3.5 in the crew cab with the 4speed auto is perfect.  But tach out the shifts and you notice what's wrong.  At redline in 1st gear, the truck has just hit 80 kmph (50 mph).  This is an extremely fast first gear!  Shifting into second is smooth but the rpm drop is just too much and the power drop is quite apparent.  But, as the rpm's build , the truck starts to accelerate hard again right up to 120 kmph (75 mph).  In conclusion, an extra cog in the tranny would pay dividends in the 1-2 shift and the 2-3 shift in the auto transmission.  Although the new power is greatly welcomed, a 5-speed auto would just be the icing on the cake for an already great vehilce.

w/ no personal exp.~ doesn't the new impala shift at or over 60 w/ the 3.5L V6?

it will be GREAT when any GM vehicle you buy at least has a 6speed option, but until then they'll just have to give us more power where those shifts happen to land.