ccap41

The Canyon looks great wearing those 20's.

Is it my ignorance or is this the first time of hearing the actual numbers on the 3.0TT? 400/400 is awesome! ESPECIALLY if they decide later on a V Series. Building one and came across a "dark emerald metallic". Holy hell that color is awesome. I still don't think I could get it on this car but it is still an AWESOME color. Whew, I tried to even be a litle generous but I built one the way I'd probably have it and it was 79k. That is the 3.0TT, Premium package, 20's(that come with active ride control and magnetic ride suspension), then Driver's assist package(really just want active cruise control..never driven a vehicle with it). Oh, I think I also added the 2100 ground effects kit as well that is probably easily taken off but it gives it a little more aggressive and lowered look.

Nice car and congrats to your daughter! She has a good pappa bear because I know I never got anything that nice as a 16 year old.. but my dad doesn't also have a Stingray and CTS-V! I take it it has the 3.6? That is the LFX, correct? That should actually be a pretty "peppy" vehicle and PLENTY for any 16 year old. That's awesome she knew to stay in America!

Well from MT's Real MPG testing it was right in the middle of the two Ram diesels mpg-wise. "Motor Trend was able to snag an example long enough to run the diesel Titan XD through its Real MPG test. The result was 15.8 city, 20.8 highway, 17.7 combined miles per gallon." "The puts the tweener Titan - said by Nissan to have a max payload of 2,000 pounds and a tow rating of "12,000-plus pounds" - betwixt the two diesels in the Ram truck line, the only other diesel trucks to far tested in the Real MPG program. The four-wheel-drive Ram 3.0-liter 1500 EcoDiesel Crew Cab scored 18.3 city, 27.2 highway, and 21.6 combined, the four-wheel-drive Ram 3500HD Laramie Longhorn Crew Cab with a 6.7-liter Cummins returned 14.1 city, 17.6 highway, and 15.5 combined mpg. We'll know more when we get into it next month, but the bell for round one is rung."

Well, had it not underperformed I think it would have filled that gap very well actually. An adequately sized diesel v8 that isn't under powered or overpowered that SHOULD have returned good mileage would have been great.. it just underperformed on all of those fronts. I mean take the 7200lbs out of the equation and just think of a 5500lb Ram/Chevy/Ford with a 5.0 Cummins in it. That would be a fantastic truck. They just..screwed up somewhere..

I don't think it's really a failure if it's actually capable in its lesser trims. Most people that are buying a truck to do work aren't buying them in mega cab, full leather, and full bed. It's made to carry an ass-ton of weight for it's class. While it doesn't tow much more than just an F150 the weight of itself should lend it to be a more secure haul. But, ya know what..as of yet it hasn't proven anything so I'm not as optimistic as I was a week ago.

I'm just disappointed because I thought this was going to be a beast. Maybe in its lesser trims it still will be. But at 7200lbs that's quiet some heft to carry around.

Looks familiar!! nice ride! You said it has the tow package, so does his not have the auto lift gate? I'm pretty sure in '13 you couldn't have both.

I REALLY like the line in the Acura commercial, "When you don't think of them as dummies, something amazing happens"

Damn. I still have high hopes for its performs when not fully loaded and full can and bed. I have to believe it can shave 1000lbs just configured differently. I definitely thought in any configuration it would wallop the 3.0 Ram. Though I don't think a single sole expected a weight north of 7000lbs. I'm curious if that configuration would still be good for towing 12,000lbs. They never touched on that.

Is that like the cool down mile it takes to get their excuses in their head so when they stop next to the 'Maro they have all sorts of excuses on deck?? Lol Like..like..like.. The Camaro had an extra year of innovation! The Camaro has more gear ratios! The Camaro has less weight! Hahaha

*random thought(in wrong thread, knowingly* I think it's funny that somebody else and myself can talk about Parks and Recs in a car thread and nobody bats an eye. Somebody mentions something that at least has to do with cars and gets told to get back on topic..lol at everybody. Just curious, what's a "Mustang Mile"?

C'mon, man. You've got to be kidding, right? 10-15 years ago there wasn't a Camaro and a Mustang GT had 260hp/290tq and a solid rear axle. I don't know how one can honestly say either of these you're speaking of are bad cars and deserve talking down to. Interiors have improved ten fold, everyday drivability head and shoulders above the 10-15 year old cars, then the engines and transmissions are superior to even some super cars back then. 435-455hp is nuts for any car that is considered affordable to the masses.

Only sad to those who care more about numbers than the cars themselves. You can't lose buying either. Both leaps and bounds greater than cars 10-15 years ago. It's great we're in a time when these two are battling again. THAT brings the best out of both of them.

I didn't have a problem but that was not on a Mac OS. My phone has been fine(iPhone 6) too. Buuuut none of them are Mac laptops or desktops. It was incredibly windy here today. Last night through today was 20-40mph winds. STL.

You might want to report stuff like that to the site admin. Edit: Can one of the two of you take a screen shot of what you're seeing and PM it to me? Should be fixed now. Yes it is! Thank you! Well I wasn't sure if it was just me or not that's why I wanted to ask if anybody else was having the issue or if it was just me on my phone.

Well, I admit, I initially criticized the looks quite a bit but it's grown on me quite a bit. I agree about the interior. It looks fantastic! I'm actually kind of surprised it won't base with the 2.0 here too. Figured it could be a way to keep base price down while giving them a little edge in mpg too.

Ahhhhh! so it is a 4-cylinder! Well, I guess that justifies why I thought it was a 4-cylinder this whole time, lol.

Dang, that's impressive. That means that in the real world you could realistically expect a 35mpg truck rolling around(with a light foot and modest speeds). Ya know what? For some reason I didn't realize till now that the 2.8 was a v6. For some reason I was thinking it was a large 4, probably because turbo diesels have done that before. I could see anybody who puts even a decent amount of miles on their trucks to be able to justify the additional price.

That white Colorado looks awesome!! What's one of those kits cost? Not sure but they look secksi as HECK lifted! yeah! They really don't even look like a "small" truck at all when lifted. Not like they do not lifted either but even more so with that lift kit and aftermarket wheels. I see the same thing....iPhone 6, Safari browser... Well..at least it isn't just mine..lol

That white Colorado looks awesome!! What's one of those kits cost?

Has the moble site slightly changed for anybody else? You can't click the "new content" link because it is staggered under the "main menu" link unless I turn my phone sideways. Anybody else? I have an iPhone 6.

Haaaaaaappy birthday, Drew!

Heck, once the car is on lots it will be even less than 24months of being on sale without it.