mmarshall

A Review of the all-new 2015 Chevrolet Colorado/GMC Canyon

Colorado website: http://www.chevrolet.com/colorado-small-truck.html

Canyon website: http://www.gmc.com/canyon-small-pickup-truck.html

IN A NUTSHELL: One of the worst of the smaller pickups suddenly becomes one of the best.

CLOSEST AMERICAN-MARKET COMPETITORS: Toyota Tacoma, Nissan Frontier, and, outside of the U.S. market, the Ford Ranger (keep your fingers crossed.....next year's 2016 Ranger might be returning to the U.S.). The Frontier and Ranger are in currently a slightly smaller size class, but basically compete.


;


;


;


;


;


;


;


;









OVERVIEW:

While compact and mid-size pickup trucks, in the U.S., have never been as popular as the traditional cowboy/rancher/construction full-sizers, there has, nevertheless, always been a place for them, even going back as far as the old smaller Studebaker, Jeep, and International pickups, and the small imported pickups from Japan that were often rebadged or sold under American nameplates. Rather than spend time, money, and resources to develop their own smaller pickups, is was often easier and cheaper just to rebadge small trucks developed and built in other countries.....usually Japan, although VW also sold a small, German-designed Rabbit/Golf-based pickup here for a few years. The Chevrolet Luv (Isuzu) and Ford Courier (Mazda) were good examples of this. Of course, Asian manufacturers sometimes did some rebadging of their own, like with the Mitsubishi Raider (a rebadged Dodge Dakota), Suzuki Equator (a rebadged Nissan Frontier), and the 1994-1999 Mazda B-series (a rebadged Ford Ranger). The Dodge Ram 50 was a rebadged compact Mitsubishi pickup, while the mid-size Dodge Dakotas were Dodge-designed and built.

So, into this plethora of small and mid-sized trucks came the first-generation Chevrolet Colorado and GMC Canyon mid-sized pickups.........DEFINITELY not one of GM's better designs. In fact, by modern standards, it was, IMO, one of the worst. I don't like to go overboard panning vehicles that I review or test-drive (and I always try and look objectively for both the good and bad). But, for those of you who follow my posts, it is no secret that I had a generally low opinion of those two twins (a third, rebadged version was sold as the Isuzu I-270/350 until GM pulled the plug on that version and Isuzu was reduced to only the Ascender SUV, a Chevy TrailBlazer rebadge). Isuzu, of course, soon pulled its own plug and left the American market after that.

So, from the wheezy and unrefined five-cylinder engine under the hood, appliance-grade paint finish, crude interior materials, uncomfortable seats, thin sheet metal, road noise, bronco-like ride, and doors that, by truck standards, felt like tin cans, these were simply not first-class trucks by any stretch of the imagination. Were they the worst or most uncomfortable trucks I ever sat in or drove? No, to be honest, they weren't (and I know that I might ta ke some flak in this review from some former Colorado/Canyon owners). But, by modern standards, IMO, they left quite a bit to be desired....and Consumer Reports also rated them pretty low, with low customer-satisfaction ratings.

Of course, with the introduction of the all-new (all-new is probably an understatement) second-generation Colorado/Canyon, those days are now history. And wow, what an improvement. I haven't seen or driven the upcoming latest-generation 2016 Toyota Tacoma yet, the closest Colorado/Canyon U.S.-market competitor (it will also be all-new), but I think I can safely say that the new Colorado/Canyon, unlike the former ones, will definitely be competitive this time. The new Tundra , to keep up, is going to have its work cut out for it this time.

For 2015, the all-new Colorado comes in WT and LT trim-versions, RWD or 4WD, Crew-Cab long/short bed, and Extended-Cab long-bed. Engines include a 2.5L in-line four of 200 HP/191 ft-lbs of torque and a 3.6L V6 of 305 HP/269 ft-lbs. of torque. Most versions use a 6-speed automatic, though a traditional manual can be had with the four. GMC Canyons come in base and SLE trim levels, with the same engines/ transmission/rear-end ratios, same choice of RWD/4WD, and same choice of cab/bed lengths. The Z71 off-road package is available, as before. The usual wide array of options and accessories can be had (see the web sites for details), both from the factory and aftermarket, though probably not as many as for the full-size Silverado/Sierra pickups. Base prices run from $20,120 to $33,855, depending on truck/trim-level/configuration/equipment....again, see the web site for details. An all-new Colorado ZR-2 Ultimate off-road Edition will also be upcoming, more or less aimed at (but not quite as super-tough) as the Ford F-150 Raptor......Chevy officials noted that it was not meant to be a direct Raptor competitor. Pricing for the ZR-2 has not been announced yet. Also, word from the Chevy people is that a 2.8L in-line four-cylinder DuraMax turbo-diesel will be offered later this year or next year.

As I write this, new Colorado/Canyon models are very hard to come by in the D.C. area where I live (and, apparently, also in other regions, too). Dealership typically have one or two of them, usually pre-sold. Demand for them will probably ease somewhat (and supply increase) when the new 2016 Toyota Tacoma debuts later this year.....one Chevy salesperson told me that several of his Colorado customers were owners trading in older Tacomas for them. I checked out and static-reviewed (no test-drive) the interiors/beds/exteriors/underhoods of a few available models.....one of them a white Colorado Z71 (off-road suspension) V6 Long-Box Extended-cab model that listed for a little over 33K. There are, of course, a number of different possible interior/cab and trim-level possibilities, from basic work-trucks to quite nicely-done interiors....I obviously didn't have time to hunt down a sample of each one, especially when they were all in such short supply.

For the test-drive, an unsold black GMC 4WD SLE Extended-cab version with a V6 was available....and that's the one I actually took out to check its road-manners. That's also the one I officially listed for the review, below.


MODEL REVIEWED: 2015 GMC Canyon 4WD SLE Extended-Cab

BASE PRICE: $31,145


OPTIONS:


All-Terrain Package: $1475

3.6L V6: $950

Off-Road Assist Steps (in other words, running boards): $745

SLE Convenience Package: $500

Premium Bose Audio: $500

Spray-On Bedliner: $475

Trailer-Package: $250


DESTINATION/FREIGHT: $925 (about average for a vehicle this size)

LIST PRICE AS REVIEWED: $36,965


DRIVETRAIN: RWD/4WD, Longitudinally-mounted 3.6L V6, 305 HP @ 6800 RPM, Torque 269 Ft-lbs. @ 4000 RPM, 6-speed automatic transmission.


EPA MILEAGE RATING: 17 City, 24 Highway, 20 Combined


EXTERIOR COLOR: Black Onyx Metallic

INTERIOR: Jet Black Cloth with Cobalt-Red stitching.




PLUSSES:

Smooth-shifting 6-speed automatic transmission.

Decent ride-comfort by truck standards, even with Z71 suspension.

Minimal body roll by truck standards.

Good underhood layout/space efficiency.

Nice paint-color choice on Colorado.

Nicely-done paint jobs overall.

Fairly comfortable front seats.

Well-designed, easily-legible gauges.

(Mostly) good equality interior hardware.

Clear, easy-to-use buttons/*****/controls. (without NAV screen)




MINUSES:

V6 probably necessary on many versions.

Some road and wind noise noticeable.

Less than ideal brake-pedal placement for large feet.

Over-hood visibility not the best for shorter persons.

Flimsy glove box door and latch.

Awkward front seat-belt release-buttons.

Rear seats in Extended-cab models unsuitable for taller adults.

Exterior gas filler-door does not lock.

Currently hard to find in stock at dealerships.....may be difficult to bargain on.

Why two different truck divisions at GM selling essentially the same products?



EXTERIOR:

The new Colorado and Canyon, though mechanically the same under the skin, seem to vary somewhat in the skin itself from front to rear. From the sides, the profile between the two trucks looks quite similar, and the rear end/tailgate areas are quite similar except for the GMC taillights having a little more trim around them. Both trucks have the same fenders/fender-housings, cabin-profiles, and bed profiles. Up front, though, there is a major difference between the two....and it is obvious why the GMC costs more. The Colorado, while not ugly or cheap-looking by any means, has a basic, down-to-earth look, with the gold Chevy bow-tie symbol in the usual place for the Chevy family....on a horizontal bar slitting the upper and lower grille. The Canyon, in contrast, has a much larger, block-shaped, all-chrome grille with black/chrome horizontal bars and the red GMC symbol, giving the whole front end a larger, chunkier look, with rectangular chrome trim around the headlights and front turn-signals. The sheet metal for the body panels felt a little thin, perhaps in accordance with weight-control and an attempt to echo the much-publicised lightening of new aluminum F-150, except with steel instead of aluminum panels. The doors, though, despite the thinnish sheet metal, closed with a fairly solid thunk...especially the rear-hinged half-door on the extended-cab model. The tailgate closed with a very solid thunk....more on the tailgate below. I was very pleased with the Colorado's array of ten exterior paint colors, which included several nice bright cheerful ones that tended to keep your eyes open....the Canyon's nine exterior colors, in comparison, except for a couple of reds, looked more like something out of a funeral home, or what a limo would be panted. Both trucks had very large, high wheel wells, in comparison to the tires, which allow for easy cleaning inside of them with a hose....and yes, a work, snow-bunny, or off-road truck is going to get dirty. The fairly large side mirrors made for relatively good visibility to the rear (trailers, of course, sometimes still require mirror-extenders), and the plastic mirror-housings swiveled and snap-locked in place smoothly and crisply. Again, the GMC's higher price is evident here...it comes with chrome mirror-housings instead of black or body-color.* One thing on the exterior that I didn't care for (besides the usual lack of standard body-side moldings to help ward off door-dings) is the non-locking gas-filler flap behind the left-rear door....that is very common with American-designed vehicles. Usually, that's no big deal....unless the price of gas goes back up to four or five dollars a gallon, some cheapskate decides he or she doesn't want to pay to fill their tank, and handily takes out some of yours with a siphon-hose. But, overall, a very nice job on the exterior for both trucks (more so for the GMC than the Chevy)....and far better than their predecessors.


UNDERHOOD:

Like the body panels, the sheet metal on the hood is fairly thin by truck standards, but the hood still had a solid feel and thunk when opening or closing. On the underside of the hood is the typical black insulation pad. A nice pair of gas struts hold up the hood for you, at least on the specific version(s) I was looking at....no fumbling around with a manual prop-rod, which, considering the relatively high-stance of this truck (not quite as high as its brother full-size Silverado/Sierra), would be a significant problem for some short people.

The underhood layout space itself is quite good, owing at least partly to its relatively large size....even for a mid-size truck. Both the in-line four and V6, longitudinally-mounted, fit in very well, with plenty of space around the engine blocks to reach components. The large black plastic engine-covers on both the four and V6 do block some top access to the engine, but it's a breeze (at least for taller people) to reach around or below them to access components lower on the block. The battery is mounted all the way to the right, partly back, with one of the two terminals open and easily-accessed, and the other one under a half-cover. All of the fluid reservoirs, dipsticks, and filler-caps are relatively easy to reach and use.



INTERIOR:

Inside, it's also evident why the GMC costs a little more, but that's not to say that the Colorado is cheap or spartan by any means, especially on the upmarket versions. Like with Ford's new F-150, there is a no-nonsense basic-work-truck (WT) version, with rubber flooring and vinyl seats, although those are usually not kept in stock because there isn't as much profit on them as with the upmarket version. I looked at a couple of interiors, though, as stated in the opening section above, I wasn't able to necessarily find an example of each different type one to check out. The white Colorado Z71 extended-cab model I sat in had a decently nice interior overall, with black fabric seats that were fairly comfortable, though a little on the flat side. Nice imitation carbon-fiber inserts were placed on the door panels and console, around the shifter. Most of the materials inside looked and felt of decent quality....far better than the El Cheapo parts of its predecessor. The *****/buttons were generally solidly-attached and easy to use, the steering wheel was well-placed and had a nice feel, and the rest of the trim, though not lavish, was well-attached and had a decent, reasonably-solid feel. A row of toggle-down buttons is on a ledge under the center-dash. The gauges are very clear, well-located, and easy to read. I found the front seat-belt latch-buttons rather awkward and difficult to latch and release. Unlike most of the rest of the interior hardware, I found the glove box door and latch light and flimsy-feeling....somewhat like the one on the new Toyota Avalon and Lexus ES.

As is usually the case with pickups, both headroom and legroom in the front seat was fine for even most tall persons. Headroom in back, on the extended-cab model, is fine, but the seats themselves (and legroom) are best left for either the kiddies or small adults. On some versions, the rear seats can either fold down for added interior cargo space, or flip up to expose an under-seat storage compartment. On each version I looked at, one looks out straight ahead, through the windshield, over a large, high hood.....most people aren't going to see much of the road closely ahead of the front bumper, though the Colorado/Canyon's hood-level is not as high or vision-obtrusive as on the larger Silverado/Sierra. The stereo sound quality, on the optional (500) premium Bose package, was excellent by pickup truck standards. The climate-control was the usual powerful GM standards, with quick warm-up and cool-down of the interior....as a while, GM, Toyota, and Lexus seem to have the most powerful A/C units.

As aforementioned, the GMC version is generally a little more upmarket inside than the Chevy, with more chrome/brushed-metallic trim, * more standard features, and a slightly more plush look and feel, though the difference isn't that great between the two, and the two interiors are actually more alike than the exteriors. In both the Chevy and GMC (at least in my opinion), the two-tone interiors looked nicer and more plush than the monotone all-black ones. The Colorado only has a black/gray two tone...the Canyon has a plusher-looking Cocoa brown two-tone.

* Some GMC versions, like the one I test-drove, also have black side-mirror housings and black trim inside instead of chrome.


CARGO BED:

The white V6 Z71 I looked at had a 74-inch bed (just over 6 feet), with a locking tailgate. The Chevy people at the dealership I was say it's very important to keep the tailgate locked when not in use, as tailgates are often stolen. I myself have not heard much of that, but they say their body shop replaces a fair number of stolen tailgates. A nice damping mechanism, built into the rear hinges, smooths and softens the gate-motion coming down, so that it doesn't hit bottom with a bang or crash. A choice of either spray-on bedliner, rubber bed-mat, or fitted bed-liner is optional....this particular truck, with bare sheet metal, didn't have either one. (I myself would probably go with the spray-on, as it vastly lessens the chance that water, salt, or other corrosive substances can leak past and/or get trapped between the bed's sheet-metal and the liner). Like with most pickup trucks, a REAL spare tire and wheel is standard.....none of that compact/temporary/donut/inflator-can stuff so prevalent in most other vehicles today.




ON THE ROAD:

On my particular truck, start up the V6 with a conventional side-column ignition key. It comes to life and idles smoothly and quietly. It remains fairly smooth and quiet on the road, though a fair amount of exhaust noise penetrates the cabin on any more acceleration than about a quarter-throttle. Even with the fairly thin sheet metal and other weight-cutting measures taken in this brand-new design, the truck is heavy enough, with the added weight of 4WD components, that the V6 still has its work cut out for it. Power level is adequate for most needs, but it is not going to win any drag races. Even without test-driving the 2.5L in-line four to verify it, I'm going to go ahead and recommend the V6 and its extra $950...at least for the heavier extended, long-bed, and Crew cab versions with 4WD. The new Duramax diesel, when it debuts, will have some 100 more ft.-lbs. of torque than the gas V6., and might give it some more spunk at lower speeds.

The 6-speed transmission, typical of GM automatics, shifts silkly-smooth and quietly. As this is generally not a sport-oriented vehicle, there are no shift-paddles or manual-shift gate for the lever. The truck's weight, combined with even the V6's power level, means that the transmission downshifts rather quickly with throttle pressure (known as a kickdown) especially at heavier throttle. Sometimes, it will even downshift two gears under moderate or heavy throttle pressure, with a fair amount of engine noise and RPMs.

The new chassis, by small/mid-size pickup standards, was quite impressive. Ride comfort was noticeably better than the last version, and almost the equal of the new (and larger) Ford F-150, though, if I was taking an all-day trip, the newer Dodge Rams would still be my choice for comfort and quietness. Steering response, while not particularly quick overall, was fine by truck standards, though the electric power steering, like most electric units, is short on tactile and road-feel. There was little body roll for such a high-stance vehicle. My particular test-truck had the optional off-road Z71 suspension, which probably explained the roll-stiffness...it ride comfort would probably have been even smoother with the standard suspension. Road nose and wind noise, while not obtrusive by any means, were noticeable.....again, get the Dodge Ram if you want the ultimate in truck quietness. The brakes were generally effective, without too much mushiness, though the placement of the brake pedal, higher than and fairly close to the gas legal, meant that the tip of my big size-15 clown-shoe, upon lifting from gas to brake, sometimes caught on the under-edge of the brake pedal.......something that I often have trouble with in a number of vehicles.



THE VERDICT:

This is not the first time in recent years that GM is taken a classic sow's ear and turned it into a silk purse (or close to a silk purse). We saw it previously with the 2008 Chevy Malibu, its brother Saturn Aura (before that division folded), the present-generation Opel-derived Buick Regal, and the 2Gen Cadillac CTS. Now, GM seems to have infused some of that into its mid-sized trucks...but, of course, part of that is also in comparison to the fact that the former models were so unimpressive. Still, there is no denying that the new 2Gen Colorado and Canyon are now fully competitive with other compact and mid-size trucks, and worthy of a truck buyer's hard-earned dollars.

And, while it goes somewhat beyond the main subject of this review, it also, IMO, begs the question of why GM, even after its major reorganization and restructuring, continues to operate two large divisions selling essentially the same trucks, crossovers, and SUVs. Though there are some noticeable differences between Chevy and GMC versions in exterior and interior trim, mechanically they are almost identical, under the skin. As I see it, much of what is currently sold at GMC could be sold under the Chevy nameplate as upmarket trim-options on the Chevy trucks....sort of like Ford's Lariat/King Ranch trim levels on the F-150, or the impressive Laramie versions of the Dodge Ram. Or, conversely, if GM chose to keep the GMC division, the corresponding Chevy versions of GMC products could be grafted in as lower-trim versions, freeing up Chevy to concentrate on other products. In fact, many of today's Chevy and GMC products are even sold under the same roof, at the same dealerships, such as the one where I got my Buick Verano, which actually sells all three brands.

In short, though, while the new Colorado/Canyon is light-years ahead of its unimpressive predecessor in many ways, it still doesn't set the standard for refinement and comfort in pickups. That, without question (at least in my experience), still falls to the latest versions of the Dodge Ram, although the new aluminum-skin 2015 Ford F-150 also comes close in comfort to the Ram. Of course, as a mid-size pickup, it is not the Colorado/Canyon's job to compete directly with the F-150 and Ram....that mission, of course, belongs to the full-size Chevy Silverado and GMC Sierra. But, as mid-size pickups, the Colorado/Canyon are now at least competitive with other small and medium mid-size trucks (and better than most of them), which is a big step forward. And, of course, we'll see how the new mid-sized Toyota Tacoma, debuting later this year, also compares.....and if the Ford Ranger returns to the U.S. next year, as some sources hint at.

And, as always......Happy Truck-Shopping.

MM

Aron9000

Just as a correction, you can get a six speed manual with the 4 cylinder. V6 models are all automatic.

I'm also curious as to why GM stuck the 3.6 V6 from their car lineup in this truck. As you noted, it felt down on power. In most of the car applications, that V6 is noted to be more of a revver, with good mid-range and top end power, not much in the way of low end torque. I'm curious as to why they didn't stick the 4.3 pushrod V6 from the Silverado under the hood, as that motor has more low end pull and was designed for truck use originally.

mmarshall

Thanks. Good catch. I'll correct that. I went over the powertrain specs carefully in the website, but, somehow, that one got past me.

Also, in the car-applications, it is usually transversely mounted with FWD/AWD, where, of course, in the trucks it is longitudinal with RWD/4WD. Some other modifications may have also been made to the engine for truck application, besides the obvious ones needed to switch the layout, but I don't know all the details.


That's a good question. There's probably enough room under the hood for it, given the clearance I saw with the 3.6L. From what I remember, though, older versions of the 4.3L were unreliable.

swajames

mmarshall, your reviews are easily as good as anything the "professionals" publish, and probably more relevant as you write from the perspective of the customer.

Keep up the most excellent work!

PS - having tested the Colorado/Canyon when I was in the market lately I think you nailed it with the review.

mmarshall

Thanks. Glad you enjoy them. For several reasons, I never wanted to be part of the regular auto press. I do (casually) know John Davis, though, of Motorweek....a super-nice guy. I've always thought highly of him.

Which version did you try out? Right now, unless one has a press-sample, they are generally hard to come by, as most of them come in already pre-sold.

swajames

Yep, they were pretty rare with very little in inventory, but My GMC and Chevy dealers here (which are right next door to each other) happened to have a V6 SLE Canyon and an LT Colorado. I originally started shopping for these two, mainly the Canyon, but the one thing that (for me) counted against them was that as you get into the nicer trims they aren't that much cheaper than their full-size cousins. I thought they were really good trucks, for all the reasons you state in the review, they just got too close in price to their bigger brothers.

mmarshall

That's basically what killed off the Ford Ranger in the U.S. a few years ago (an F-150 for not a whole lot more), although Ford is considering a return for the Ranger. Still, money or not, the new Colorado and Canyon, at least for now, is selling as fast as dealers can get them. And, despite the sales, GM is offering 3.9% or $1500 rebate.....something not usually seen on a hot-selling new vehicle that is getting a lot of attention.

And, to be objective, there are sometimes reasons why someone might prefer a compact or mid-size truck to a full-size one. A full-size truck can be very unwieldy to maneuver, park, and fit in some garages or under low ceilings. Short people sometimes have trouble getting in and out of them, even with running-boards. And, with large engines and work-oriented final-drive ratios, they can, and often do, guzzle gas like it's going out of style, though diesel models are sometimes more economical.

Fizzboy7

From the ones I've seen in person and in driveways, they appeared nearly as long as a full-sized pickup. I too do not think there's enough difference between these and their bigger brothers.

Your salesman's story of customers trading in their Tacomas for these bites me as typical salesman garbage. The Taco is ancient and has sold in large numbers while GM has offered nothing worthy as a competitor. It's only natural and logical people would be parting with their well-used Tacomas and shopping for the newest and latest offerings, which is the new GM units. Once the new Tacoma goes on sale, all will balance out.

Great review. I like these new trucks, minus the overdone fenders on the GMC.

mmarshall

Depends, of course, on the cab and bed lengths. Also, of course, the full-size trucks themselves vary quite a bit in length depending on their own cab and bed sizes.

Perhaps so, but there were, in fact, Tacomas for sale in the dealer's used-vehicle section, and they have a very large lot for used trucks right across the street. Just what those Tacomas were traded in on can't be proved without going through dealer records. But I wouldn't be surprised......the new Colorado/Canyon appears to be a worthy competitor.

Absolutely......until now. The last, 1Gen Colorado/Canyon was about as impressive as overcooked pasta.

Yes, perhaps so....especially if the new Tacoma is as much improved over the old one as these trucks are. I can't comment on that (yet) without seeing them. Also, the Ranger may be coming back next year.

Thanks. GMC actually started that block-fender look with the Terrain.....though we've also seen that before on non-GM products (Mitsubishi Endeavor, past Jeep Grand-Cherokees, etc....)

mmarshall

Next planned review: 2016 Lincoln MKX...but it may not be released for a couple of months yet.

Toys4RJill

I would say cost savings, the 4.3 was just too old to keep going and fuel efficiency was to low for an engine the size of the 4.3.

I was a bit underwhelmed with the Canyon and Colorado. The size seemed a little to large and the interior seemed a little cheap for a new trucks.

Although I haven't had a chance to read this review, I have read in Car and Driver that eye level is the same in both the smaller GM trucks and the large ones. I also read that the size of the largest Canyon is the same length as the Yukon XL.

Also, pricing is way to close to a large pick up, so you might as well just get a large truck.

I still think the interior, exterior and even power train of the current Tacoma is superior. And probably more reliable

Hoovey689

iTrader: (16)

They were probably talking about the new 4.3L LV3 EcoTec3 4300 V6 (Gen V) launched on the 2014 Silverado and Sierra, replaced the 4.3L Vortec 4300 V6

Aron9000

Yes, the NEW 4.3 ecotech V6 in the Silverado. 285hp@5300rpm, 305lb ft torque at 3900rpm, 18 city/24 highway in the new 2wd Silverado. The Colorado V6, auto, 2wd with the 3.6 V6 is rated at 18 city/26 highway. 3.6 V6 in the Colorado is 305hp@6800rpm, 269lb-ft torque at 4000rpm. Like I said, that DOCH 3.6 V6 is a screamer with a lack of low end torque, the type of motor that's fun in a sporty car, but not really what you want in a truck application.


Just for comparison that's better than the fuel economy numbers than my 1992 SC300, way better than the 2015 V6 2wd Tacoma, which is rated at 17 city/21 highway. The Tacoma is so long in the tooth IMO, its a great truck, but its the same truck that was introduced in 2005. Time and technology marches on. And really I wouldn't have that much of a problem with the Tacoma being outdated if Toyota priced the whole line about $5000 cheaper, right now they are really expensive trucks for what you get IMO.

mmarshall

Yes, the 3.6L, while still adequate, is probably not one of the truck's better points. Few truck owners routinely wind the engines to 4000 RPM to get maximum torque, unless it is in low gears climbing steep hills.


The old Tacoma, though, even with its dated design and weaknesses, is still probably a much better truck than the old Colorado/Canyon. Let's see what Toyota does with it when the new version debuts.

mmarshall

Correct. I don't think anybody would want the old Vortec 4.3L today, especially with its poor reliability. .