please delete-Tell me why I shouldn't buy a colorado

I know nothing about GMC and Chevy. But growing up around friends with them I was always told GMC has better luxury stuff like interior and things. But I have no clue if that's right.

My old roommate had a Chevy Z71 full size LTZ. And that thing was pimped out from leather, navigation, and every other option you could think of. So if GMC is better than that they must really really be nice.

 

My Colly as a daily driver and no more didn't even make 90K. Nuff said

 

This is my second post. Maybe ask a Chevy guy?

 

If anyone else is there..I was on it for a while when I had my 06 Colly and nowhere near the users or feedback here.

 

My service experience with two Corvettes blew me off a third and GM in general. The dealers here have 60 year old stores. Everything is tight. One can barley get to the service drive with ONE lane, that's too little for a Chevy. I would still have the Vette if they had a Toyota like service area and courtesy, When You own a Corvette , everything is expensive and there is no telling if there is a "Corvette" guy at a dealership with few allocations, and no speed shop means bye bye Corvette and GM.

Colorado looks like a Malibu up front. Same as the Ridgeline looking like a Pilot.

 

I stopped and looked at a Colorado when they first came out. Wasn't looking to trade, but I was curious to see what all the fuss was about. It reminded me too much of my mother-in-laws Equinox. The Canyon though is a good lucking truck, IMO. The interior though looked terrible to me. Gauges and center stack looked kinda cheap. Interior has always been more important to me, since that's what I have to look at while driving. My concern would be that it would feel like a 10 year old truck after a year and a half. My previous 3 Chevy trucks did not age well and neither did any of the other GM vehicles in my family. My 08 TRD OR was still a pleasure to drive after almost 8 years.

Maybe the new GM twins will be different. Only time will tell. I am glad that GM re-entered the mid size market and I hope they do well. I wish more people would buy mid size vehicles in general. Far too many people driving full size trucks and SUVs that can't maintain their lane or park inside the lines.

OP, buy what you like and what fits your needs and enjoy it.

 

I test drove both Colorado Z71. If feels like an SUV, not a truck. I like the seats much better than the Tacoma though. However, thats about the only thing I like about the GM twins. Tacoma was way better.

 

Their recommendation's are based on their biased opinion of the vehicle, not reliability data. I don't care what someone else thinks of how it drives, if they like the tech, or comfort. I can determine that for myself and what I like won't be the same at what others like for those items.

What I care about most is reliability, and Toyota has always been at the top of the reliability ratings which is simply cold hard data, no opinions, or bias. The GM twins aren't simply unreliable, they are ranked as the least reliable trucks.

Granted the 3rd Gen Tacoma is new and we don't even have a full years worth of data yet. Maybe the Tacoma won't be the top rated compact truck for reliability as it has been for year after year, but I am confident that it will always be one of the best. So when you have the choice of a confirmed least reliable truck vs. something that has always been ranked the best I don't think its a difficult choice.

 

It has a locking rear diff on the Z71 package.

 

Owner satisfaction is usually good after the first year. Give them time to fall apart. You left out one important stat on there, and that is the Chev/ Gmcs have a much worse than average reliability rating where as the Tacos have been steady on reliability for years. As far as a $700 dollar difference on resale after 5 years, that's pure bullshit. Tacoma and Tundra have dominated on resale value for years.

 

After driving the GM platform, and this one, I bought a Tacoma, first one I've ever owned, and my last 5 cars were GMs...that tell you anything?

 

To no ones surprise the reliability winning is Toyota.

Red = good & black = bad.

 

So which of the sub ratings from CR justify their overall poor reliability rating? I would expect to see some black somewhere in there to justify their rating.

 

Where's the Tacoma?

Not familiar with that particular chart but, is it "as compared" or raw data based. So in other words "compared" to other vehicles or is it a "if defect is reported by 1%" it's average kinda thing?

 

Have to agree on the surface that doesn't make much sense.

I've not read it much recently but perhaps that is the predicted.

Perhaps too the trans issues that while only average on the graph shouldn't be there in a year old vehicle drag it down.

 

Heart...personality...soul...love...companion...

 

Way I see it..

In 2009 my wife's 96 Tacoma with 170K needing a clutch got bought back for double the value and we had a free rental for over 60 days. While yes it was a defect, I reckon rust issues on a 13 yr old vehicle in New England are not uncommon.

In 2012 my 2006 Colorado with 70K blew the engine (see my previous post). GM obviously acknowledged it as a defect by writing a secret warranty. That cost me $2k, no truck for almost 3 weeks as they wouldn't help me with a rental even partially.

So who should I invest more in? Hmmm..

 

CR tends to have a hard on against US manufacturers and it's been like that for decades.

 

That's pretty interesting.

 

Sounds like your talking about your wife