Here's links to some official pics of the Colorado

[HuJass]

Here's links to some official pics of the Colorado and Canyon.

 

Colorado:

http://www.autonews.com/files....olorado

 

 

Canyon:

http://www.autonews.com/files....n

 

Enjoy!!

[Likarok]

WOW What a Surprise to open the site today and see the Colorado.....Finally.

 

But first I am still laughing at your name Hu. That's great!!!!

 

Is there going to be more follow-up on the Colorado?????      

[HuJass]

I think MervZ is going to post some more pics and info either tonight or tomorrow.

[DBinder]

I realize I'm not a frequent poster, but I had to comment on the specs for the Colorado/Canyon.  I read the specs on both of them just to make sure there wansn't an error...but, it says there will be rear DRUMS on these trucks.  That's pretty surprising, considering they all have 4-wheel discs now.  My '02 & '00 Sonomas have/had much better brakes than our '95 did with its rear drums.  The pedal feel, wear & effectiveness differences are so noticeable I swore off rear drums for life.

 

I was a little dissappointed to see they didn't carry the coil IFS from the Trialblazer to this truck (still using torsion bars), but I don't think I can get past the brake issue after having the good stuff.  I really like everything else about the trucks, inside and out.  I don't know how it will compete w/the dakota's 4.7, but I'm a GM guy, so its not like I'm going to switch.  Maybe some of the provided specs are not accurate yet...hopefully.

 

Anyone else?

[Larry]

Dbinder,

 

Contrary to popular belief the Colorado/Canyon have very little in common parts with the Trailblazer/Envoy. But, I too am surprised that the Colorado and Canyon will not be using rear disk brakes as well.  We all have to keep in mind this truck doesn’t even start production until October 03” so it is unlikely, but possible it still could show up with rear disk.  I would have to say GM is most likely aggressively pricing this truck towards the small truck first time buyer crowd and trying to keep the cost down by not offering some appointments that are found on the full-size GMT800’s.  It is forecasted that the majority of the Colorado’s will roll out the door for 20K or less.  If you look at the target competitors to the Colorado (Ranger, Tacoma, Dakota, Frontier) I think you will find those trucks don’t have rear disk either but I bet when they do...GM will be there too.  

 

I disagree with you on the Trailblazer front suspension though.  First, I must say that I am not a big fan of IFS to begin with but it is here to stay so I guess we’ll all have to live with it.  IFS isn’t the strongest suspension in the world but is up to the chore of handling a truck of this size.  In defense of this rigs IFS, I feel torsion bars are more inline for abuse that a truck will see over what coils springs could handle.

 

Have you noticed how GM achieved that low ride height on the Trailblazer and Envoy?  In addition to low mount coil IFS they have the front differential bolted to the oil pan.  Com’on!  The oil pan!?  Some engineer must have done this just to prove to his beer buddies that he could do it a people would buy it.  I am sure there are thousands of GM techs working in dealerships with a bounty on that engineers head right about now as it is a total service nightmare.

 

At least on the Colorado and Canyon us guys that like to lift our trucks will have a much lesser problem in doing so than the Trailblazer/Envoy crowd as the trucks will retain the typical GM spec IFS axle mounted to the frame with halfshafts running out to the spindles  (There isn’t a lift kit on the market for the Trailblazer and probably will not be for quite some time) I have driven several Trailblazers and although I love the power of the 4200 I6, the spongy ride reminds me of the boat like ride of a 73’ Caprice ghetto cruiser with worn-out Kmart shocks.  On another note, the move toward rear IFS is right around the corner for GM full-size and mid-size suvs and it would sure be a shame to see that appear in these trucks too but I wouldn't doubt if it shows up some day.

 

Now the big disappointment is the lack of the 4200 I6 in these trucks.  That is a true bummer.

[DBinder]

I certainly see your point regarding the IFS, I assumed the design they will use has to do w/cost & durability.  The truck does seem to sit higher and have a more filled-out front end, unlike the Trailblazer, going along with your point regarding the non-similarities between the two, also allowing for the front end to sit below the oil pan, as opposed to on/thru it.  For most people, I'm sure the torsion bars are fine.  They just seem outdated to me, like they're one step above leaf springs.  I like the suspension tech. used on new vehicles, coils just seem more refined.  What about what dodge/jeep does w/SFA & coils?  This would seem like a good compromise.  

 

It never bothered me so much until my last truck ('00 Sonoma 4x4) and the one I have now.  My '00 always seemed to lean a bit, but I didn't know how common it was to have it adjusted until I started talking to people about the truck I have now...which was really leaning.  It's taken 2 dealer adjustments, and I'm still not sure its right.  Also, the fact that the bars sit in so far seems like it would make the truck more prone to lean around turns than it might with coils placed closer to the wheels, regardless of anti-sway bars.

 

Unless the wrong size coil springs were installed, it seems like more trucks would come from the factory sitting level if they used them (for 4x4's, I know many 4x2's already use coils).  I know the bars aren't going anywhere soon in the full sized trucks, but I was hoping for something different w/the mid-sizers.  

 

If I ever were to OWN a truck w/tbars (currently lease), I'm sure better shocks would make enough of a difference to forget about the trivial stuff like this....Sorry for the long post.