2015 Chevy Colorado

[chevys]

Nobody buys regular cab full-sized pickups any more so I'm not sure this would be any different. The only reason fleets buy regular cabs is because it's the least expensive option, not because they wanted a regular cab.

Money matters and they are making a mistake here imo by not offering the reg cab. Fleet people are going to wear out their Rangers sooner or later and need to replace them. Extended cab is nice but not worth the extra money to some. Normal buyers may be in the minority here by a long shot but I dont think fleet buyers will be.

[chevys]

Agree on the reg cab. Does it clearly state that? Sounds to me like they are giving up a whole market segment- Like Orkin the pest control guys-they were always a Ranger fleet. Most of the auto parts stores around here anyway used Ranger, Colorado reg cabs etc etc.

According to this there is no regular cab.

 

http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2013/11/2015-chevrolet-colorado-first-look.html

 

I think it sucks but it is what it is.

[Anthony]

I don't think creating a regular cab option just for a small subset of fleet buyers would be appropriate usage of resources. Seeing a regular cab anything is quite the rarity these days.

[silvrsvt]

Money matters and they are making a mistake here imo by not offering the reg cab. Fleet people are going to wear out their Rangers sooner or later and need to replace them. Extended cab is nice but not worth the extra money to some. Normal buyers may be in the minority here by a long shot but I dont think fleet buyers will be.

 

I'm sure that someone will figure out how to seal/vent a Transit Connect/NX200 or the Chevy version so they can keep chemicals back there

[Bryan1]

GM and PUTC say it only shares the roof and a bag of bolts with the global.

 

[NickF1011]

GM and PUTC say it only shares the roof and a bag of bolts with the global.

 

 

So much for global product consolidation at GM.

[Bryan1]

Because of fuel economy and design challenges, GM engineers were selective about what strategies to carry over from the global Holden Colorado. Some design cues are similar, but the only carryover parts include the roof and a handful of bolts.

 

 

http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2013/11/2015-chevrolet-colorado-first-look.html

[92LX302]

This is a nice pickup. Nothing revolutionnary, but considering the Tacoma is nearly a decade old it will do good to the market.

 

Because of fuel economy and design challenges, GM engineers were selective about what strategies to carry over from the global Holden Colorado. Some design cues are similar, but the only carryover parts include the roof and a handful of bolts.

 

 

http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2013/11/2015-chevrolet-colorado-first-look.html

 

Are all the commentors on this website retarded or what? This article isn't that bad, but I was looking at other thread and.. Ouch.

[RichardJensen]

Because of fuel economy and design challenges, GM engineers were selective about what strategies to carry over from the global Holden Colorado. Some design cues are similar, but the only carryover parts include the roof and a handful of bolts.

 

 

http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2013/11/2015-chevrolet-colorado-first-look.html

 

Wow. That's '80 Ford Escort level bad.

 

I just can't see how this works without significant global parts sharing. Why didn't they share the wiring harnesses, seatframes, binnacles, HVAC, door panels, etc.? Why? Why aren't they sharing any powertrain components? Why aren't they sharing the glass if they're sharing the roof panels?

[NickF1011]

 

Wow. That's '80 Ford Escort level bad.

 

I just can't see how this works without significant global parts sharing. Why didn't they share the wiring harnesses, seatframes, binnacles, HVAC, door panels, etc.? Why? Why aren't they sharing any powertrain components? Why aren't they sharing the glass if they're sharing the roof panels?

 

Because GM.

[akirby]

 

Because GM.

 

Duh.

[mackinaw]

Nice looking, but still too big for those who want a true compact truck (think 1980's Ranger).

 

I do see the Colorado siphoning off sales from the Silverado. Chevrolet, without knowing it, just guaranteed that the F-150 will stay the best-selling pickup truck.

[chevys]

Nice looking, but still too big for those who want a true compact truck (think 1980's Ranger).

 

I do see the Colorado siphoning off sales from the Silverado. Chevrolet, without knowing it, just guaranteed that the F-150 will stay the best-selling pickup truck.

I think it will depend on price and fuel economy. They already kicked themselves in the nuts with no reg cab for a bare bones price. I would cross shop it against a reg cab full size but thats me.

[CKNSLS]

If they price it right then it might be cross shopped by potential Tacoma buyers.

[akirby]

They already kicked themselves in the nuts with no reg cab for a bare bones price.

 

If by "kicked themselves in the nuts" you mean they "declined to build a cheap version that would negatively impact profits and would only appeal to a few cheap buyers" and instead chose to build versions that more people want to buy for more money and more profit - I agree.

[Kris Kolman]

+1

[PRM]

Looks real nice to me. Disappointed I just sold my Sport Track and bought another vehicle. Really would have liked a mid-sized truck. The F150 is simply too big for me (commuting, home garage, parking garages, mpg, etc.). Nobody has produced a modern rendition of a mid-size truck. Looks like Chevy is giving it a go. As a lifelong Ford owner (until now) it would pain me to look at Chevy, but I would have looked hard at this. Since Ford doesn't build what I am looking for I had to look elsewhere. Guess we'll find out if there is a market.

[jpd80]

I think it will depend on price and fuel economy. They already kicked themselves in the nuts with no reg cab for a bare bones price. I would cross shop it against a reg cab full size but thats me.

This is the problem and why Ford decided to get out of the Mid Sized Truck market,

most former Ranger buyers really only wanted cheap trucks in the $16K to $20K zone.

 

So its sounds like GMNA wanted their own truck but based on the global Colorado and

with that amount of differentiation, it's really one step short of a unique design anyway...

 

That's still a significant investment in a market that may not want to pay what is effectively

full sized truck prices for double cab mid sized offering - time will tell

Edited November 21, 2013 by jpd80

[RichardJensen]

If the only thing shared is a stamped panel, then there is no point in calling it a global design, as those stamped panels almost certainly require their own dies, which means the savings to GM in terms of plant hardware & per-unit costs is a big fat zero.

 

I'll grant you, they probably saved a fair bit during design and engineering by having an existing vehicle to modify, but everything after that? Bupkis.

[Extreme4x4]

There is no compelling reason for loyal Tacoma and Frontier buyers to switch to the Chevy, until the diesel is available.

 

With this being a shrinking market, and with almost full assurance that this truck will only be a couple of thousand dollars less than the equal Silverado, I expect the vast majority of sales to be to potential GM fullsize truck buyers.

 

Toyota sells a lot of Tacomas, and sells few Tundras. It doesn't seem that a manufacturer can have great success in both. One always cannibalizes the other as the cost to manufacturer the different sizes is not much different................... thus the actual price is not much different.

 

This is why Ford got out of this market in the US.

[chevys]

Forget about gas mileage and capability for a moment. F150 starts at 24445. Tacoma starts at 17800. About 7 grand difference to be compelling when you dont need a F series. I am still plugging around in a 96 Sonoma that does everything I ask of it and is as handy as a pocket on a shirt. Where the new Gm trucks come in price wise is going to be a big deal to those really interested.

[jpd80]

And if Chevrolet is only looking at double cabs only, forget about a $17,000 price tag

because chances are it will align with Tacoma pricing and start at near on $23K.

[fordmantpw]

Forget about gas mileage and capability for a moment. F150 starts at 24445. Tacoma starts at 17800. About 7 grand difference to be compelling when you dont need a F series. I am still plugging around in a 96 Sonoma that does everything I ask of it and is as handy as a pocket on a shirt. Where the new Gm trucks come in price wise is going to be a big deal to those really interested.

 

But the rebates and discounts you can get off of a full size truck are much higher as they have a bit more leeway in their sale price. That brings the difference a LOT closer than $7k you mentioned (which is actually $6645).

[Bob Rosadini]

 

If by "kicked themselves in the nuts" you mean they "declined to build a cheap version that would negatively impact profits and would only appeal to a few cheap buyers" and instead chose to build versions that more people want to buy for more money and more profit - I agree.

I have to disagree. First of all, just how expensive could it be to design/produce a conventional cab? From an engineering viewpoint, I would have to think you are building to a less stressful standard than either a super cab or a quad cab. And from a marketing viewpoint, doesn't it make sense to appeal to as broad a market as you can? Again, I'm basing this on my belief that the cost of producing a conventional cab is NOT a significant incremental cost factor. Tell me why I'm wrong. The only time my company would buy anything other than a standard cab was if the vehicle was being used by a supervisor and the super cab was a better alternative to a bed mounted box.

 

I would agree that most trucks in dealer inventories are super cabs or crew cabs. Most fleet buyers however are not buying from inventory.

[jpd80]

LINK

 

Revisions to the Colorado from a model newly on sale in Thailand include taller bedsides to better secure cargo,

and likely to better accommodate some of the many accessories GM plans to market with the truck.

Fuel economy estimates, as well as pricing, will come closer to the on-sale date.

 

 

The automaker will make three body styles available, including an extended-cab model with a 6-ft. (1.8 m) bed;

a crew cab with a 5-ft. (1.5 m) bed and a crew cab with a 6-ft. bed. With the tailgate down, the 6-ft. bed will

accommodate items 8 ft. (2.4 m) long. Three trim levels, each available with 2-wheel-drive or 4-wheel-drive layouts,

will be offered. The trim levels include a Z71 off-road package.

Edited November 22, 2013 by jpd80