# Chevy Colorado



## 86burban (Apr 16, 2003)

From what I understand, this is chevy's Replacement for the S10. Now, I was wondering if anyone here has one yet? I am looking at getting a new truck and I want to know if its any good. I have yet to see one but I have seen them at Chevy.com. Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks,

Tony


----------



## Eyesell (Nov 7, 2003)

Go with a Ford, you won't be disappointed LOLOLOLOL


----------



## ronsracing (Oct 15, 2003)

I understood that the colorado was new mid sized pickup.I don't think they are replacing s-10. I think I heard they are due out 1st quater of 04.


----------



## lownrangr (Nov 21, 2003)

yes, the S-10 is history. The Colorado is its successor.


----------



## 86burban (Apr 16, 2003)

I got a Ford, thats what Im getting rid of.


----------



## ratlover (May 5, 2003)

I bet they would make a sweet little drivway rig. All the info makes em look nice and it looks like they have a good motor.

Looks like you get to be the guinne pig


----------



## 86burban (Apr 16, 2003)

Im going on saturday to the chevy dealer to look into ordering one. I will see if there is a snow plow prep package available.

Tony


----------



## VictoryRedK1500 (Mar 31, 2003)

I haven't seen one yet in person, but I think they look very nice especially in the regular cab Z71 4x4. My dealer is supposed to have one in later this month, and they told me to come in and take it for a drive when they get it. Some people think I am crazy, but I like that Sunburst Orange Metallic. It really looks sharp. If you want to read a good story about the Colorado with some nice pictures, go to www.pickuptruck.com . The link to the story is on the homepage. You can't miss it.


----------



## BigRedBarn (Jan 4, 2003)

I'm guessing that GM will keep the S-10 trucks around a while while the Colorado gets into the marketplace (much like the old Blazer is still sold while the new Trailblazer is taking off in sales, and as they did with the Malibu, too, renaming the old Malibu the Malibu Classic or some dang thing and selling it mostly for fleet use).

I think I read where the 4-door S-10's will definitely be kept around for a little while longer, but I don't know how long. Regardless, I'm sure if you want an S-10 you can get a good deal. But, the press have said that the new trucks are worth the wait if only for the new engines.

So far, all the automotive magazines I've read seem to give glowing reviews of the new GM mid-size trucks. Autoweek went on a off-road trip set up by GM for the press and said these new trucks did fine off road. Here's the AW article: http://www.autoweek.com/cat_content.mv?port_code=autoweek&cat_code=reviews&loc_code=index&content_code=02885062

In case you're not aware, GM has all-new engines in these trucks, sort of. They're an I-4 and I-5 based on the Trailblazer's I-6 engine, which is absolutely sweet (I have an 03 Trailblazer). I understand that both new engines have the proper balance systems (only I-6, V-12, etc. engines are inherently balanced, so the 4 and 5 cylinder versions need some sort of balancing system).

My Trailblazer's I-6 engine is rated at 275 HP and 275 lb-ft torque. It's really effortless power (mine has 3.73 gears) which is nice in a truck that weighs in at about 4600 pounds. With dual overhead cams operating 4 valves per cylinder, it's really a decent output for the engine size. Typically, multi-valve engine don't have low-end torque, but these engines have been designed to minimize that design effect. The engine does like to wind out a bit, but it's so smooth there's no problem with letting it do just that. I'd like better mileage, but you can't have everything in a 4600 pound truck.


----------



## thannigan (Nov 26, 2003)

I'm not to trying to start anything here, but isn't a v4 a small engine for a midsize pickup? I heard that it had a v4 in it, does anybody no what is under the hood? Yes they look very nice and seem afforatable.
TIM


----------



## phoenix827 (Nov 15, 2003)

I-4 or I-5, Don't remember the size tho. I checked the chevy site after seeing this post. Looks like a decent lite duty truck.


----------



## VictoryRedK1500 (Mar 31, 2003)

It's a 2.8 liter Inline 4 cylinder and a 3.5 liter Inline 5 cylinder.


----------



## thannigan (Nov 26, 2003)

Thanks for the feedback. I'm guessing that the colorado will be similar to the nissan frontier. Well I hope everyone is busy plowing. -TIM


----------



## BigRedBarn (Jan 4, 2003)

> _Originally posted by thannigan _
> *I'm not to trying to start anything here, but isn't a v4 a small engine for a midsize pickup? I heard that it had a v4 in it, does anybody no what is under the hood? Yes they look very nice and seem afforatable.
> TIM *


Please remember that the smaller (lighter weight, I suppose) trucks (regular cab, etc.) will have the I-4 and the more expensive trucks will have the I-5.

Please also remember that we're talking 4 valves per cylinder. That means these engines produce more HP than comparable 2-valve/cylinder types. I'm not sure what the typical ratio is, but I'm guessing there's a 20-40% increase in HP rating with 4 valves/cylinder.

Plus, these engines will benefit from other improvements made to engines designed in the past few years.


----------



## thannigan (Nov 26, 2003)

BRB- I'm not thinking on a level as high as yours, so that hp concept never crossed my mind. What you said is important, because it shows that the size does not effect the total performance of the truck.
TIM


----------



## lownrangr (Nov 21, 2003)

I was curious so I compared the new 3.5L I-5 with the 4.3L V6 in the S-10. The new I-5 does have a few more ponies BUT at a higher RPM. The Colorado also has less ft-lbs of torque at the same RPM. Here are the numbers: The Colorado with the 4.0 I-5 has 220 hp @5600 RPM and 225 ft-lb @ 2800. The 4.3L has 190 hp @ 4400 RPM and 250 @ 2800 RPM.

Now I was under the impression that the the higher hp and torque generated with the lower RPM was better. Right? If so, than GM shoulda stuck with the 4.3L. Maybe gas mileage is better with the 5 cylinder since it does have less displacement.

BTW, I saw the GMC Canyon today on the road. Just an FYI thing...


----------



## BigRedBarn (Jan 4, 2003)

> _Originally posted by lownrangr _
> *I was curious so I compared the new 3.5L I-5 with the 4.3L V6 in the S-10. The new I-5 does have a few more ponies BUT at a higher RPM. The Colorado also has less ft-lbs of torque at the same RPM. Here are the numbers: The Colorado with the 4.0 I-5 has 220 hp @5600 RPM and 225 ft-lb @ 2800. The 4.3L has 190 hp @ 4400 RPM and 250 @ 2800 RPM.
> 
> Now I was under the impression that the the higher hp and torque generated with the lower RPM was better. Right? If so, than GM shoulda stuck with the 4.3L. Maybe gas mileage is better with the 5 cylinder since it does have less displacement.
> ...


Yes, a 4-valve engine will rev higher because that's where it makes it's power better, at the higher revs, where freer breathing has an effect.

Yes, 4-valve engines have less torque, sort of. Typically, a 4-valve engine will have a HP and torque rating close in number, whereas a 2-valve engine will have a higher torque number compared to the HP rating. Again, the 4-valve engines excel in HP, but the torque is about the same as a comparable 2-valve engine.

If you think about it, that's right. After all, you have the same force pushing down on the piston in turn turning the crank, regardless of number of valves. Thus, torque wouldn't be improved all that much with more valves. I guess that's right.

A 4-valve engine should be better gas-mileage-wise. But, my Trailblazer's 15-16 MPG doesn't exactly prove that out!!!


----------

