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

Loved that stupid episode, use a generator to drive a winch, and then tout some POS British 4x4 that the Land Cruiser basically killed and buried. [the biggest issue with Land Rovers is that the Brits built them, wankers all around between the cheap ass CEO's and workers that rolled poorly assembled poomobiles out the doors.]

 

Had them run lease numbers on both colorado and tacoma over 3 years. Tacoma retains 70 to 72 % of its value, Colorado retains 52% ......... Colorado feels like it was designed in the fisher price plastics plant.....

 

That's preposterous! You are required on here to love one and hate the other.

 

Don't buy it because it's a Chevy

 

G.M.C.= Garage Man's Companion.

 

Looks early on that they have some transmission issues.

http://www.carcomplaints.com/Chevrolet/Colorado/2015/

 

It's simple, you signed up on Tacomaworld and posted this thread. You are already committed to a new Tacoma.

 

I went back and forth for a while on a canyon all terrain before I ordered my Tacoma. After driving one I felt that it just didn't have much personality. Interior is bland, exterior is lacking something and the motor was pretty smooth and had good power but lacked anything special. Another big thing was that the sierras were about the same price after discounts so I was thinking that resale would be very hurt by that. The Tacoma has some quirks but is a fun and capable truck and I can tell you I get people asking and complimenting on it all the time

 

This is funny, calling the Colorado ugly compared to the Taco. Have you seen the base tacoma? The entire front bumper is black plastic, come on man...

People discussing reliability on two completely brand new trucks and basing it off 20 year old versions. Ok, how about there are more old GM trucks and SUV's with well over 200k than Toyota? Go ahead, search that. It is a moot point, vehicles these days mechanically are so realiable all the quibbles have to do with a rattle here or infotainment quirk there.

OP, buy which fits your needs best and your budget, both will last a long time. Depreciation, the new GM twins are only a few percentage points behind. Whoa Tacoma is 61.7% after 60 months and Chevy is 58.6%, omg huge difference

http://www.kbb.com/new-cars/best-resale-value-awards/best-resale-mid-size-pickup-truck/

Good luck OP. Also even though Toyota people tend to drink the koolaid a little harsher than others if you joined the Colorado forums it would be pretty one sided too. Make your own decision, these places will be biased... You can't go wrong either way, both are warrantied and reliable.

Tyler

 

Consumer Reports rated the Canyon/ Colorado as the least reliable pick-ups... that for me would be all I need to know to cross them off the list immediately!

 

If you replaced Colorado with Tacoma, it would be just as accurate.

I don't think the 2016 Tacoma fares well between transmission complaints and NVH complaints myself.

 

The Colorado/Canyon isn't priced less. Here's my friends truck. It's nice. But cost $42k.

 

Chevy's are junk, enough said!!!

 

Sat in a Colorado and got out in less than 1 minute. Knew it wasn't for me. Just feels cheap.

 

Buy a Tacoma for over Colorado for two main reasons: reliability and re-sale value. But Toyota is also a better auto company. GM would never replace a frame on a 10 year old truck, because the truck isn't worth anything and the GM engine/drivetrain wouldn't last that long...Toyota stands behind its product. Another major reason Toyota trucks are better, they can handle off-road abuse. The vast majority of off-road trucks are Toyotas and Jeeps. There is a reason for that...

 

What is everyone's obsession with diesel? Modern diesels have a lot more maintenance requirements and tend to not be the most reliable, and the Colorado diesel only tows something like 700lbs more? ... Plus, they cost more. The Colorado diesel is what, $3500 more than the petrol engine? $3500 or whatever the engine costs will buy a lot of fuel. Even with slightly better gas mileage, in most places diesel does cost more, so that's going to offset the gas mileage increase somewhat. ... so factor that in, and I doubt you really see any actual real world savings going with a diesel. That's of course neglecting the additional running costs of maintenance and repairs ... So, yea, overseas diesels are popular, but there is also more diesel fuel available so it is cheaper than petrol, and the governments don't require the same emissions equipment so the engines tend to still be reliable like the older diesels in the US ... again, I really don't see why so many people in the US seem to think diesel is such a great thing ... But yea, whatever ... roll coal, wheeeee

 

The Canyon 'locking diff' is not the same as the TRD locker.

Basically....from what I understand.....it's more of a mechanical LSD. Works via centrifugal force. When one wheel goes a certain rpm faster than the other, gears engage to lock both wheels together. It's not something you can engage or disengage.

 

That was such a biased "study" ... all they looked at was the total number of vehicles over 200k. Not really that shocked when the all time most high selling vehicle, the F150, is at the top of that list ... it's a common fleet service vehicle, so sees lots of miles, and they sell 700k units/year. What's really impressive is that the 4Runner, they sell like 50k-70k units/year, was 3rd ... So yea, I guess it's great that GM/Ford/Ram make it over 200k, but it's also should really not be shocking that there are more of them on the road over 200k, because well ... again, they sell literally an order of magnitude more than Toyota's vehicles...

 

Do you really think Jeeps are of higher quality then GM's are? For trails, ANYTHING with a narrower width and shorter wheelbase will likely be better, heck the Suzuki's Sami's rocked back in the day. For HP and mud, well, Toyota isn't even an also ran. They are the guys that sit on the side of the mudholes and take pictures of the full size trucks.

As far as frames, GM never had to replace 6-10 year old frames that rusted out, EVER. My biggeat issue with the whole deal is that, even after knowing of the issues, they didn't really do much to fix the problem and the frames are still poorly treated and prone to rust on the 2016s and we'll be seeing rusty frame pics before too long on them. Do I think they are better? Yes, Do I think they still cheap out when it comes to coatings, damn right I do. Funny thing is, look under a Rav or Toyota car and the rust, taking into consideration mileage and area it was used in, is far FAR less due to the better metal treatment. [and steel quality]

Unless you're into your 40s, I've owned Toyota's longer then you have been walking the face of the earth and there are just certain things Toyota seems to struggle with when there are easy fix's out there. They can also make some damn good stuff....

FWIW, I have 200,600 miles on my GMC work vehicle, close to 11,000 hours of engine time, it's loaded down so heavy [and always is] that even though it's a 3500 it squats in the rear and it still doesn't burn a drop of oil, gets the oil changed twice a year no matter the miles, still is on the original transmission, gov loc grenader rear end and most issues were related to fleet stuff put on it, not actual GM parts. Had a few issues like leaking coolant hoses, trans hoses and oil hoses but they were easy fixes. Biggest compalint is the damn thing eats rear light bulbs quite often but that could be the washboard roads it runs on a regular basis.

I'm actually reasonably impressed with it. Company wouldn't even touch A Toyota because they don't make anything US importable that would last 1/2 the miles we keep them for. [FWIW, they won't touch Dodges or Fords either though they have tried them both in the past]