What kind of car do you drive??

[Kit Gerhart]

Originally Posted by greencactus3

well i dont know too much about the colorado/canyon and such but a couple years back in the s10/sonoma/blazer/jimmy era. there were so many types of the truck that you cant just say "an s10 is sweet" or "sucks".. the zr2 lifted etc package, the stock, the zq8 'performance' suspension... the xtreme.. so theres like a type for everyone. and some that just dont work for others..
.... i wish i had a posi. or a lasd or locker of some sorts... an open one just doesnt work in snow...

I had a '95 S10 for about a year, and while it convinced me that I'm not a "pickup truck person." It was kind of fun, it its way. It was a short bed 2wd standard cab, and had the 4.3 engine and 5-speed manual. By far the most fun I had with it was when I won my class in an SCCA autocross with it. It was a small event with not very tough competition, but in the class it ran, (H stock) that S10 was a fairly good autocrosser. The engine had lots of torque, so I just started in first, shifted to second, and didn't need to shift any more the rest of the run. I had 215x60 tires on the stock wheels. With the stock 205x75 tires, it would not have autocrossed at all well.

As far as the Canyon/Colorado, a complaint common to AutoWeek, Car and Driver, and Consumer Reports tests is that the truck was slower than the V-6 competition but didn't get any better gas mileage. As I remember, all of these tests were of 4wd, extended or crew cab automatics. I'd suspect that a "light weight" i.e. 2wd standard cab Canyon/Colorado with the I-5 and 5-speed manual would be quite peppy, and could get good fuel economy if not driven too hard.

[greencactus3]

oh really... ive never really read many opinions on those but number wise i thought i heard that the I-5 has more balls than the 4.3 v6. and lighter. and better gas mileage. they hafta compare stdcab vs std cab. but i guess nowadays everyone wants xcab or crewcab. and 4wd i guess. i like my 2wd except uphills in ice

[Kit Gerhart]

Originally Posted by greencactus3

oh really... ive never really read many opinions on those but number wise i thought i heard that the I-5 has more balls than the 4.3 v6. and lighter. and better gas mileage. they hafta compare stdcab vs std cab. but i guess nowadays everyone wants xcab or crewcab. and 4wd i guess. i like my 2wd except uphills in ice

The new I-5 has more horsepower than the 4.3, but you need to rev it higher to get the power. I suspect GM's still using a 4-speed autobox and wider gear spacing compared to the 5-speeds in most of the competition hurts the Colorado's 0-60 and quarter mile times. Everything else being equal, I'm sure the new I-5 gets better fuel economy than the 4.3. I only got about 21-22 on the highway with my manual transmission 4.3, and quite a bit less than that in city driving, and my S10 was a regular cab, short bed 2wd, the lightest version of the S10.

[greencactus3]

Originally Posted by Kit Gerhart

The new I-5 has more horsepower than the 4.3, but you need to rev it higher to get the power. I suspect GM's still using a 4-speed autobox and wider gear spacing compared to the 5-speeds in most of the competition hurts the Colorado's 0-60 and quarter mile times. Everything else being equal, I'm sure the new I-5 gets better fuel economy than the 4.3. I only got about 21-22 on the highway with my manual transmission 4.3, and quite a bit less than that in city driving, and my S10 was a regular cab, short bed 2wd, the lightest version of the S10.

and just to show how off an 2wd/4.3l/auto/stdcab/longbed might make a difference with shortbox stdcab, im getting about average of 16mpg in city driving.

[Wetzel]

Originally Posted by Mini-D67

( great milage, I get ~20 wit lots of city driving... plus its pretty peppy )

~20 might be great mileage for a truck, but in general it is rather crappy. I'm averaging ~37MPG so far with my Civic.

Is ~20 really great for a truck?

Wetzel

[greencactus3]

Originally Posted by Wetzel

~20 might be great mileage for a truck, but in general it is rather crappy. I'm averaging ~37MPG so far with my Civic.

Is ~20 really great for a truck?

Wetzel

YA. amazing for a truck thats not a 4banger

[Mini-D67]

Compared to the 13mpg I was getting with my old truck, yes, its pretty good, lol But seriously, for a truck its size it gets great milage.

As for it being slow... its not at all. Its not like, Corvette fast or anything, but its waaay faster than most in its class. Heck, my old truck ( 4.3L V6, recently rebuilt w/Edelbrock intake manifold and throttle body, Heddman headers w/Super Turbo mufflers, and an HEI powerpack ) was pretty dang quick, but the 'Rado blows it away.

Heres a video I took of a 0-75ish acceleration, as you can see its not to shabby...

HPI RS4 pro sport! huah! that's a 1/10th scale rc for those who don't know... it's kickin enough for me.

For when I start driving though, it's a sweet toyata corolla le. Unless I can convince my dad to let me attempt to make the black 76 'vette start again.... Though it needs an exhaust system (doesn't have one at all...), and a new carb. However, I'll probably also have to take out the nitrus.... My grandfather used it for streetracing in his glory days. Personally, my favorite part of the beast is the dual 900 watt subs in the back- With those you can make the whole monster bounce!

[Kit Gerhart]

Originally Posted by Mini-D67

Compared to the 13mpg I was getting with my old truck, yes, its pretty good, lol But seriously, for a truck its size it gets great milage.

As for it being slow... its not at all. Its not like, Corvette fast or anything, but its waaay faster than most in its class.

A Car and Driver comparison test of 4wd automatic crew cab trucks with the largest available engines came up with the following results for 0-60 times. Other magazine test have produced similar results. These acceleration times are part of why the Colorado/Canyon has received some less-than-favorable magazine reviews.

Chevy Colorado 8.7 sec
Dodge Dakota 8.5 sec
Honda Ridgeline 7.9 sec
Nissan Frontier 7.6 sec
Toyota Tacoma 7.1 sec

The thing is, all of these trucks are "plenty fast enough" which is why the drivers of Colorados are perfectly satisfied with the acceleration of their machines. I had a VW Jetta TDI which was "plenty fast enough" to blend in with freeway traffic, etc., even with a 0-60 time of 11 seconds or so.

[Mini-D67]

Well, you all know that those numbers can be flawed... if those are just "stomp it" accelerations, then yeah sure the I-5 will be slower. With a good lauch however, its quicker ( most of its power is higher up in the RPM range, like a 4 banger, so if its revved up a little it hook better ) off the line. I've timed it and I get to 60 in about 7.2ish seconds with a good 1.5k RPM launch on new tires...

But, I didn't buy the truck for performance... its nice little perk, but not the point

[Bcahn836]

Originally Posted by Kit Gerhart

A Car and Driver comparison test of 4wd automatic crew cab trucks with the largest available engines came up with the following results for 0-60 times. Other magazine test have produced similar results. These acceleration times are part of why the Colorado/Canyon has received some less-than-favorable magazine reviews.

Chevy Colorado 8.7 sec
Dodge Dakota 8.5 sec
Honda Ridgeline 7.9 sec
Nissan Frontier 7.6 sec
Toyota Tacoma 7.1 sec

The thing is, all of these trucks are "plenty fast enough" which is why the drivers of Colorados are perfectly satisfied with the acceleration of their machines. I had a VW Jetta TDI which was "plenty fast enough" to blend in with freeway traffic, etc., even with a 0-60 time of 11 seconds or so.

I miss my 99 Dodge Dakota Sport. It had the extended cab, 6ft bed with the tonoue cover and with the cover i got around 22 mpg if i was light on the gas, but most of the time i got around 18-19mpg. And under the hood was a 318 5.2L V8. 0-60 in around 6.8-7.0. I loved that truck and a 5.2L was way too much engine for it. Honda civics and other tuners got a surprise when they pulled up next to my truck. . .

[Kit Gerhart]

Originally Posted by Mini-D67

Well, you all know that those numbers can be flawed... if those are just "stomp it" accelerations, then yeah sure the I-5 will be slower. With a good lauch however, its quicker ( most of its power is higher up in the RPM range, like a 4 banger, so if its revved up a little it hook better ) off the line. I've timed it and I get to 60 in about 7.2ish seconds with a good 1.5k RPM launch on new tires...

Is yours a manual transmission? I suspect that would definitely be a "good thing" from a performance standpoint with the Colorado. The test I posted, and all comparison tests I've seen on these trucks have been automatics.

When testing automatics, the "car buff" magazines like Car and Driver do what it takes to get the best times short of dropping it in gear with the engines revved. Generally, they would be "torquing up" with one foot on the brake and one on the throttle. Except for the Honda which is full time 4wd, they probably would have tested these trucks in 2wd since they were part-time 4wd with no center diff.

Unless they have changed their procedure since the last time I read their description, Consumer Reports just "floors it" when testing automatics rather than going for the best times like the enthusiast magazines.

[Mini-D67]

Unfortunatly, the crewcab isn't offered in a manual

From what I saw of the comparision they did on the C&D TV show, they just punched it with no launch... Not sure if thats how they did it for the magizine though.

But anyway, if I really wanted performance, I could've got a Cobalt SS or something, its a truck lol

[greencactus3]

Originally Posted by Kit Gerhart

When testing automatics, the "car buff" magazines like Car and Driver do what it takes to get the best times short of dropping it in gear with the engines revved. Generally, they would be "torquing up" with one foot on the brake and one on the throttle. Except for the Honda which is full time 4wd, they probably would have tested these trucks in 2wd since they were part-time 4wd with no center diff.

Unless they have changed their procedure since the last time I read their description, Consumer Reports just "floors it" when testing automatics rather than going for the best times like the enthusiast magazines.

hmm. unless theyhad a nice sugarwatercoated grippy ground with upgraded tires, i doubt they "just floored it" much less brake torqued it. half those trucks would not be going anywhere... just sitting there with one tire smoking. unless they used a truck with anything other than an open diff, the stock tires dont bite enough to send the truck forwards... no weight over the axle + lotsa torque = no traction.

[Kit Gerhart]

Originally Posted by greencactus3

hmm. unless theyhad a nice sugarwatercoated grippy ground with upgraded tires, i doubt they "just floored it" much less brake torqued it. half those trucks would not be going anywhere... just sitting there with one tire smoking. unless they used a truck with anything other than an open diff, the stock tires dont bite enough to send the truck forwards... no weight over the axle + lotsa torque = no traction.

The way to get the best time would vary depending upon the characteristics of each vehicle. Of these trucks, the Dakota, with its big displacement, mildly tuned V-8, you would need to modulate the throttle in order to control wheel spin. The same might be the case with the Nissan and Toyota's V-6's, but they would have less torque at low rpm. With the Colorado, you could probably "torque it up" at full throttle and not get too much wheel spin. With the Honda's full time four wheel drive, you could "torque up" at full throttle and not get wheel spin at all. The bottom line is that the enthusiast magazines experiment and use whatever technique gets the best times.