The 2023 GMC Canyon starts at $38,395 including a $1,495 freight charge, which is a lot of money considering the Chevrolet Colorado starts at $30,695. Even more eyebrow-raising, a top-trim Canyon AT4X stickers for $56,995, while the equally off-road-focused Colorado ZR2 starts at $48,295. On the face of it, the new Canyon seems like a tough sale considering that GMC trucks have historically just been Chevrolets with different grilles and emblems. However, GMC insists that the new Canyon is different. I drove the truck to test this claim.
Over the decades, GMC’s Denali trim has developed a reputation of its own, and now the marque is trying to download that upscale vibe to the rest of the 2023 GMC Canyon lineup. So, how does GMC plan on standing out from the pack, and do these measures work in practice? To find out, I headed to Asheville, N.C.
[Full disclosure: While I was out in Asheville for the launch of the stellar new Chevrolet Trax, GMC put me up in a cabin by a river for the launch of the new Canyon. The automaker also offered food served in a big tent, showed off its new Sierra 2500 AT4X, and got me back into my cabin after I locked myself out. Amateur move, I know. -TH]
How Does It Look?
With scooped-out bumper corners for wheel clearance and a squared-off grille, the 2023 GMC Canyon appears ready for a bar fight. However, because this is still a midsize truck, it doesn’t have the frontal area of a Peterbilt, meaning you won’t risk running Miata drivers over since the forward blind spot isn’t comically large. There’s something nice about that. While I’m not a huge fan of the prominent fender swage lines that just die before they reach the doors, I adore how prominently the fenders bulge out from the bodywork, and that strong set of horizontal lower character lines that run through the doors really works for me. The overall visual package is properly tough yet unique, owing surprisingly little to its Sierra big brother.
Once your peer into the details, things get delightfully weird. The angular arch extensions feature translucent amber accents reminiscent of clearance lights, the grille mesh on the Elevation trim seems like it’s repeating smaller interpretations of the grille frame, and tailgate storage like a steel kangaroo pouch is Ivy League clever.
GMC makes a big deal about the Canyon’s “high and wide” stance, and it’s easy to see where it’s coming from. The tires are pumped out towards the flared fenders for a bulldog stance that gives the Canyon meaty road presence.
GMC only offers one bed length and one cab length in a one-size-fits-all decision. Indeed, the crew cab layout makes a ton of sense given the recreational theme of midsize trucks, and the five-foot two-inch bed is slightly longer than what you get in a crew cab Ford Ranger or short-bed Nissan Frontier. However, the current Ranger, Nissan Frontier, and Toyota Tacoma all offer longer bed options for those more concerned about carrying cargo, and the latter two also pair a longer bed with four full-size doors.
What’s The Interior Like?
Another area in which GMC hopes to distinguish the Canyon from its Colorado sibling is interior comfort. While the predominant door card material in the Canyon is still hardwearing plastic, GMC’s spruced things up nicely with softer dashboard trim, plush door inserts, more mature HVAC vents, and everyone’s least-favorite smudge-prone material: piano black plastic. While these don’t sound like huge changes, they make a remarkable difference. A Chevrolet Colorado LT feels noticeably cheaper by comparison, so the GMC’s interior goes a way to justifying its price premium.
Speaking of things that feel nice, how about these front seats? With heaps of thigh support, a huge range of adjustment, and couch-comfy cushions, this has to be the most comfortable first row in the entire midsize truck class. Alright, so the adjustable steering column could use a larger telescoping range, but that’s minor compared to say, the entire driving position in the current Toyota Tacoma. Moving to the back, there’s solid space in the 2nd row for a 5’10” adult, even with the sunroof optioned, and plenty of legroom. Regardless of whether you’re driving, calling shotgun, or simply tagging along, there really isn’t a bad seat in this midsize pickup house. That being said, the details aren’t flawless.
View this post on Instagram
While the row of physical switches running along the dashboard is appreciated, the button to drop all four windows is weird. There’s no way of raising the windows from that switch, and GMC cited anti-pinch requirements.
The new infotainment system is fairly slick with an 11.3-inch screen that features superb black levels, but it also means that an unusual number of functions are buried in sub-menus. Functions like the headlights, for example. While the Canyon defaults to automatic lighting upon restart like most recent GM products, having a virtual headlight switch feels like reinventing the wheel. Add in the lack of a physical home button, and this infotainment system is likely to both delight and infuriate.
It’s a similar deal with the digital instrument cluster. This screen is far prettier than the gauge setup in the outgoing truck, with great clarity and fonts that don’t look like they were picked in 2002. It’s also wonderfully configurable with pages for off-roading, navigation, engine info, or just taking it chill, but the learning curve for basic functions like resetting the trip computer is half-pipe steep. Add in the semi-related ergonomic quirk of enormous stereo steering wheel controls on the back of the steering wheel spokes, and there are times you’ll wish for more intuitive tech.
Speaking of tech, the optional Bose sound system is better than you’d expect. It seems like Bose scooped the mids a bit as guitar riffs don’t really pop and rolled off the sub-bass as this system just doesn’t reproduce certain low notes, but those are typical tricks of the trade. Bass reproduction could also be a bit tighter, but most people will be perfectly happy with this branded system. It’s not clinically-flat, there’s plenty of power on tap, and staging seems alright from the driver’s seat.
How Does It Drive?
After driving a range of Canyons, a tale emerged of three different trucks. Let’s start with what all three have in common. No matter which trim of 2023 GMC Canyon you choose, you get a 2.7-liter turbocharged four-cylinder engine in a wicked state of tune. While 310 horsepower is promising enough, the headline figure is 430 lb.-ft. of torque. All of that grunt makes its way to the ground through an eight-speed automatic gearbox, and the combination generally works seamlessly, aside from some minor quirks. It’s marvelously punchy when it gets into boost; I’d estimate zero-to-60 to happen in around seven seconds, a very reasonable figure for a vehicle of this nature. Peak towing capacity clocks in at 7,700 pounds, which sounds perfect for pulling lighter cars.
Now, let’s get into the differences between models, starting with the base Elevation trim. Hop inside, glance at the transfer case selector, and you’ll see options for high-range 2WD, high-range 4WD, an automatic mode, and that’s it. There’s no low-range crawl ratio in the Elevation’s transfer case to help you up the really rough stuff, an odd omission given the segment but not likely a huge deal given the typical use case of this truck. On all-terrain tires, the Elevation rode and handled more or less exactly how you’d expect a midsize truck to. Ride quality was great, the steering felt numb, and while objectively capable, it’s hard to build confidence in the front end. Still, it’s solid cruiser with an engine that’s pleasantly hushed at speed.
Step up to the Denali, and it’s easy to see where the extra money went. This posh midsizer’s wheel and tire package yields much quicker reflexes than the Elevation’s roly-poly setup, resulting in a midsize truck that can feels as agile as many unibody SUVs. Not only is the steering pleasantly-weighted with enough linear heft to suggest the tie rods are doing something, it will also very quietly tell you when the front end is close to its limit of adhesion. Mind you, the Denali trim is more than just a wheel and tire package. It gets acoustic insulated glass and an extra level of cabin insulation to keep things serene. Best of all, these newfound road manners result in little penalty over rocky cottage trails, which when combined with the presence of a two-speed transfer case (also found in the AT4 trim), mean this Denali isn’t just a pavement princess.
However, just because the Denali steers well for a truck doesn’t mean it enjoys being hustled over any terrain. Traction control is defeatable but stability control isn’t, occasionally kicking in while braking in a straight line on gravel and wet tarmac. If you want to have fun in your Canyon, you’ll need to pop for the $56,995 AT4X trim. That sounds like a lot of money for a midsize pickup truck, but it includes a lot of hardware and software to justify the $4,500 price increase over a Denali.
Let’s start with the obvious: The suspension. While a very slight 1.1-inch bump in ground clearance over the Denali isn’t worth writing home about, the AT4X’s Multimatic DSSV dampers are. These novel shocks use a series of sprung cylindrical sleeves rather than steel discs to control damper oil flow, resulting in finer control, three distinct damper curves, and theoretically longer life. It’s a similar damping tech you’ll find on the Aston Martin One-77 and Ferrari Purosangue, and it promises superior performance both on and off the road. Then there’s the software. GMC has fitted the Canyon AT4X with something called Baja Mode that puts the stability control nannies on furlough. While it works great over the faster rough stuff, it has another use case that makes the AT4X the ultimate Canyon over all terrain.
For getting over really rough stuff, the Canyon AT4X has another set of tricks up its sleeve. The headlining act is a pair of electronically-actuated front and rear locking differentials; this off-road rig also features an impressive 36.9-degree approach angle, and respectable breakover and departure angles for a pickup truck of 24.5 degrees and 25 degrees, respectively. The AT4X also gets skid plates for its front end and transfer case, along with a sweet set of rock rails to prevent enthusiastic drivers from bashing the sills in.
As with other Canyons, the AT4X features a sort of one-pedal driving mode for off-roading which drags the brakes to keep the truck at a steady speed, making quick and easy work out of steep, rocky descents. Optional but highly-recommended is a set of underbody cameras that would help immensely if you don’t have a spotter. In practice, the AT4X’s suspension setup soaks up fast stuff nicely, while the cut-out bumper ends make a meaningful difference for getting the front wheels up onto obstacles. Although the Jeep Gladiator’s solid front axle and available front anti-roll bar disconnect may still have the edge in articulation, the Canyon AT4X is a proper trail tool that feels more focused and capable than almost all of its tin-topped competition. I say almost because the Chevrolet Colorado ZR2 shares an unsurprisingly similar set of hardware.
While the Canyon AT4X soaks up ruts and rocks with relative ease, that’s not exactly surprising. What is unusual is how this toughened-up rig tackles terrain that’s smoother than a terrazzo floor yet will absolutely flummox most pickup trucks in a blizzard of body roll and stability control intervention. Welcome to the mountain road, the domain of lightweight sports cars. Exactly the wrong environment for a typical pickup truck, especially an off-road-oriented model, but not the Canyon AT4X.
Once you learn to trust this truck, you can fling it along backroads at a pace that’s reasonably quick and properly fun. It’s a game of gaining useful rotation in hairpins, flowing with on-camber esses, and subconsciously trusting the front end to point where you want. This truck is no sports car or even sport compact car, but it’s a linebacker that can salsa, a far more nimble entity than its job description suggests. I have a hunch that on a rain-soaked ribbon of tarmac, an NA Miata on cheap off-brand tires might not be able to shake this brute of a truck.
That being said, it’s not perfect. This truck needs paddle shifters like the Great Plains need rain. Sure, you can slot the shifter into L and select a maximum gear using a rocker switch, but the Canyon won’t always hold that gear. Still, once you settle down and turn onto more-traveled roads, you’ll find great freeway ride composure, no chance of wandering, and a small enough turning circle for even tight parking lots. The 2023 GMC Canyon AT4X might be the first all-terrain-optimized midsize truck that’s genuinely better over all terrain than its cooking-variety siblings, and that’s one hell of an accomplishment.
What’s The Verdict?
Can the 2023 GMC Canyon be worth the premium it commands over a Chevrolet Colorado? In certain instances, it definitely can. Improved interior appointments and heaps more power all add up to a more compelling midsize truck than the outgoing Canyon and a strong reason to go GMC over Chevrolet other than “it was in stock.” However, there’s no getting around the fact that this thing faces stiff competition.
The Toyota Tacoma has a reputation for being made out of old anvils, offers a variety of cab and bed configurations, and can be ordered with a six-speed manual gearbox. The Jeep Gladiator wanders on the freeway like it took a fifth of Cuervo to the dome, but it’s absurdly fun once you get the roof and doors off and narrow enough to be nimble in the city. The Nissan Frontier is cheap, and most certainly the value pick of the class. Oh, and then there’s the Canyon’s platform-mate, the Chevrolet Colorado. Depending on how fancy you’re feeling, the Chevrolet can offer better value with less expensive, less extensively-equipped trims.
A mid-range Canyon AT4 starts at $45,395, while a Colorado Z71 loaded up with comparable equipment retails for $2,375 less and is almost the range-topping Colorado trim. The AT4X-analog Colorado ZR2 starts at $8,700 less than the aforementioned top-trim Canyon, the off-roady Colorado Trail Boss with its two-speed transfer case costs just $100 more than a two-wheel-drive base Canyon Elevation, and the volume-choice Colorado LT with the 310-horsepower engine option costs $715 to $4,015 less than a base-model two-wheel-drive Canyon Elevation depending on whether you spec four-wheel-drive or two-wheel-drive.
In addition to existing competition, we’re about to be inundated with new midsize trucks. There’s a new Ford Ranger debuting on May 10 even though we pretty much know what it will look like, plus Toyota’s showing off a new Tacoma on May 19. There are even rumors of Ram cooking up something in its kitchen of masculinity.
Against current competition, the 2023 GMC Canyon is one of the best options in its class, provided you want to spend money on something slightly posh. There are cheaper midsize trucks out there and midsize trucks with more pedals, but the Canyon provides full-size luxury and refinement in a package fit for small post-war driveways, plus the AT4X is one hell of a time.
Support our mission of championing car culture by becoming an Official Autopian Member.
-
The New 2023 GMC Canyon Looks Like A Menacing Off-Road Beast
-
The 2023 Chevy Colorado’s Headlight Switch Is In The Infotainment Screen. What Do You Think About That?
-
The New Chevrolet Colorado Promises Tons Of Kit And Turbocharged Power Even On The Base Model
-
Someone Apparently Sleuthed Toyota’s Website For The 2024 Toyota Tacoma And Found This Photo
-
I Just Saw The 2024 Ford Ranger And Ford Ranger Raptor But I Can’t Tell You Shit Until May 10 (But I Can Show You This Teaser)
Got a hot tip? Send it to us here. Or check out the stories on our homepage.
“The AT4X-analog Colorado ZR2 starts at $8,700 less than the aforementioned top-trim Canyon”
This is the comparison that needs to be done. Not GMC to GMC, but GMC to Chevy trim for trim. A top spec ZR2 is very well equipped, so does the AT4X have anything over it? For the cost difference, you can get the Bison package and quite a few other options; is there any reason dollar for dollar to go the GMC route?
man someone’s gotta do something about those front grilles, pedestrians are getting killed in droves
Gawd, that’s an ugly front end.
Are you talking to me?
There’s a house I near me I walk by with the dog who has a current gen GMC Canyon with an offroad package and a similar vintage Chevy Silverado, but a low trim for the Chevy. Still I’m struck by how close in size the two vehicles are despite one supposedly being a mid-size. Yes, I know the lift helps the GMC look bigger, but I just have a hard time seeing the point.
Marketing guy here. Change GMC name from Canyon to Canyonaro. Anytime anyone asks anything blast Canyonaro. You have to know GMC is so pissed they didnt think of the Canyonero name of first with a jingle as good but slightly less honest.
CANYONARO
“Hyah! Canyonero!”
That’s crazy money for a midsize pickup. I really like the GM twins but even the Chevy is a lot for what it is, the GMC is just absurd. My 2020 Ram 1500 was $52k(which has jumped to $59k for a 2023), but I can’t see spending that money for a 4-cylinder midsize truck.
“There’s no low-range crawl ratio in the Elevation’s transfer case to help you up the really rough stuff, an odd omission given the segment but not likely a huge deal given the typical use case of this truck.”
The segment being Pavement Mall-Crawler? Seems appropriate to me.
The 7700 lbs towing is great. But, IIRC, there’s only about 1500lbs cargo capacity.
Doing math:
You need to subtract tongue weight, passenger weight and hitch weight from your cargo capacity.
So, a 7700lb trailer will have about a 750lb tongue weight.
That pulls us down to 750lbs.
A weight distribution hitch (highly recommend) is about 100lbs.
We’re at 650 now.
3 passengers at 150 each is 450lbs.
We’re at 200lbs.
Driver weight is calculated at 150lbs. Let’s be honest about this, many of us guys are more than that.
We’re down to 150lbs cargo capacity.
What’s that? we threw on a hard tonneau cover and running boards?
We’re at 50lbs cargo capacity in the truck.
Hope you’re travelling light in the truck.
You will typically run out of cargo capacity before actual towing capacity in lighter trucks and SUV’s.
I mean, this is true for most trucks until you get to the 3/4 ton range. I’m pretty sure you can find instances where the tongue weight alone of a properly loaded trailer would overwhelm the cargo capacity of a truck. The fact that you can even tow at full capacity with four people in the truck is actually kind of impressive.
Everyone should understand how capacities work before towing several tons behind any vehicle. Many would be surprised to learn that they’re way over the rated limits of their truck.
The current GM 1500 trucks have about 2300lbs cargo capacity with 9000lbs towing, depending on config.
Put me down for 2. Not 2 trucks i weigh enough to count as 2 people. But fit just fine in my Canyonero.
am I the only one thinking trucks have jumped the shark?
No but yes for anyone driving a truck. Because i dont care about weight limits my truck can do more.
I still hold that the 1994 Dodge Ram was the moment that trucks jumped the shark.
Perfect for the person who craves the fuel efficiency of a full-size truck in a mid-size package.
I owned two of the last gen Canyons, and they were phenomenal trucks. About the perfect size for the city, great at the mild off roading I subjected them to, and the diesel one got amazing mpg for a truck (and towed damn well too).
I told myself I was done with these. But the new one has me thinking its time for a 3rd.
I’ll make this easy GM. No fucking way! This is just bullshit.
I don’t care that it keeps getting bigger and more fancy. It’s a god damn truck. There are no small trucks anymore and that just sucks.
Waiting for the new Toyota or whoever decides to build a real truck in a small size again. Fuck this and GM, et all.
Ford Maverick.
It is not a real truck. Sorry.
People need to get off of this real truck bs. It is enough truck for 90 percent of people.
ford maverick is not a real truck. unibody wont last over time and is not nearly as resilient or rebuildable as a BOF truck. You are also limited in options for flat beds or utility bed set ups. “real trucks” carry a higher resale value for these reasons, even if you arent towing or off roading or whatever, every day. people are correct. unibody trucks are disposable. that being said, you are correct that these are probably adequate for 90% of people.
Dragging brakes on a hill to control descent is just stupid. Gear this thing properly, and the engine should do most of the work. I understand GM’s desire to simplify the line-up, specifically the engine choices, but I am not sold on this at this time. Maybe give these motors to Chevy for their version and give GMC class exclusives in the form of an updated little duramax and a version of a plug in hybrid. Also give us something better than the GM 8 Speed with it’s shudder shake.
Cant they just create the truck with a decent tranny and add in a hill climbing declining gear?
brakes are a lot cheaper to service and replace than transmissions and engines.
I quick loan calculator tells me that unless the buyer is trading in something relatively valuable, they’re looking at $1,000/month for 6 years on the highly optioned version, assuming they have good credit and are at a minimum covering tax/title/registration with their trade/down payment. I’m trying to be charitable here. Total financed cost of 78k.
This is fine.
This is the reality of the I want my 15 dollars an hour to push a button on a Mickey D’s register. Inflation goes up to match these types of things and the only one that really hurts is the ones in an industry too slow to properly respond, generally in means middle class get screwed.
Wow you somehow found a way to blame poor people for expensive Denali trucks. Impressive.
It’s a tactic to get the middle and upper middle class to punch down on service workers to keep their place in the hierarchy. Don’t focus your ire on the people who reap profits off your labor, but rather focus on the guy who’s salary is creeping up towards yours.
If I become disappointed in the cost of a Big Mac meal, I guess I can complain about fast food labor costs. I’m certainly not going to blame the guy taking my order on the price of trucks.
Yes you are right Bill Gates Warren Buffet, AND ALL OF YOUR DOCTORS SHOULD MAKE THE SAME AMOUNT. I AM WILLING TO PAY MY SURGEON MORE THAN THE JELLO GUY. Kudos for your commitment. I am also willing to pay my brake guy more than my batista.
That’s not what were talking about here though.
I knew someone was going to say that. But if all you can do is hit pixture buttons on a cash register or push a broom abilities that are even now being deleted by robots it isnt the businesses fault you have not developed skills. A new study came out stating in the next 10 years 50% of the population will need to develope additional skills. Sorry pushing a broom or fries will not be high paying jobs ever. Now if we qant $100,000 Chevettes yes Corkie from Carry On or whatever that show was can be paid $35,000 a year as well as a social working making $65,000 making sure he doesnt die.
Do they even teach economics anymore? It certainly doesnt seem to be a class many people take anymore. CANYONARO.
> 50% of the population will need to develope additional skills
That includes a lot of people in their 50s and up, who’ve had decent incomes but won’t learn how to “use the computer” even though they’ve had 20+ years to learn, or prefer to rage at the woke electric car lobby taking away their ICE assembly lines.
Unrelated. Some people making 15$ an hour flipping burgers didn’t result in car manufacturers focusing on nothing but luxury goods.
Can we all stop trying to blame Joe Schmo flipping bugers at 15$ an hour for everything?
They blame joe schmo because they realize deep down they should have a wage increase.
For a business sure but some Bubba ho tep then thinks well i can by that with no tax breaks or anything for my personal truck. Hey you cant. Canyonaro
Absolutely insane. No wonder the average debt Americans are now in keeps climbing. With dealer markups, taxes and whatever this will easily be a $60k truck. For a midsized truck. I cannot in good faith feel good about paying that kind of money on a GM product of any kind because its a leap of faith: Either it’ll be great or its going to be pure junk.
Can’t comprehend spending that much on a 4 cylinder small truck when the same money buys you something much more capable in a 1500 or even HD.
I guess if your overwhelming consideration is fitting into a small garage or parking in a dense city, then maybe it makes sense. But how many people buying trucks actually fit that bill?
$60,000 for a loaded Canyon is genuinely shocking.
I just bought a Colorado over a Silverado primarily because it fit in my garage (which is actually quite large but I already have 3 other cars in it). It will do 99.9% of what I would do with a Silverado. It’s also nice not driving something so big I need to worry about clearance in parking garages and carwashes. Plus I don’t need to do a 7 point turn to get into a parking spot. I also have no image issues so I don’t mind being scoffed at by more manly full-size truck owners (really, this actually happens).
But, that price is pretty high… But so is the price of a Denali Sierra (can you say $85,000 once you check all the boxes?) and for capabilities that won’t get used. I wouldn’t buy either.
I cannot comprehend approaching a random stranger and caring enough about what kind of truck (or any vehicle really) that someone else chose to buy, just to comment on it in a negative manner. Ridiculous.
I also find the parking/maneuverability thing to be overblown. I manage a 22 foot crew cab long bed truck in typical suburbia without undue difficulty and I’m not any kind of professional driver. It fits everywhere I need it to go.
There are a lot of egos at the boat ramp.
On the other hand, I once saw someone pulling a fishing boat with a Chevy Malibu. I’d rather chat with that guy then the dude using a 2500 dully deisel to tow the same thing.
The parking comment is mostly around the city. Those lots are tight. Suburban Target and Home Depot lots are huge so not a problem.
My folk’s truck is also 22′ long. It fuckin’ sucks to borrow sometimes. I’ve gotta fold the mirrors in to fit it down my driveway, which then means backing up without mirrors. Loads (certainly not all) parking lots commonly mean I’m either overhanging into the spot behind me, or out into the aisle. Finding a parallel parking spot sometimes means you just can’t. Sure, driving down the road is perfectly fine, but getting to your destination sucks enough that I’d rather just call my folks up and ask to borrow their truck the two or three times a year I need it rather than live with it on a daily basis.
Yeah i had no trouble with my 24 foot E350 box truck on the busiest cities in the busiest towns.
Agreed. I’ve had this argument many times. I just don’t want to drive something as big as a crew cab full size every day. And the “oh they cost the same” argument only takes into account lower end full sizes vs a fairly loaded up mid size.
What gets me is that we’re not even seeing significant fuel economy gains with most of these modern truck engine solutions…and anyone who’s owned a turbo 4 can tell you that it’s really not much better than a bigger NA engine when it comes to city fuel economy. I’ve had two in a row and neither have come close to meeting their EPA ratings in the actual city I live in.
So we have engines that are much more complicated, will require much more upkeep, and give us gains in fuel economy gains that are more or less negligible in the grand scheme of things. I suppose their emissions are slightly lower but when I look at things like this 2.7 or the iForce Max stuff Toyota is doing I guess I just don’t see the point. If the engine is going to need more work to keep it going and is a higher risk to blow up prematurely and force the owner into another vehicle how much is any of it really helping?
what you should be asking is if this is more fuel efficient than the outgoing diesel that had the same towing capacity and got very good fuel economy.
In this case they seem to have aped the Tacoma styling yet followed ford on the engine options. I would venture to say these are not the best of those worlds to follow.
Probably should ask why Jeep has a really decent plug in hybrid option in the 4Xe for about the same money while we are going there.
I loved that diesel in my 2016. Should have bought it off lease.
I think maybe more than you think. Most folks who earn enough money to buy these live in denser areas. Typically higher pay near large, dense cities. Even in New England, specifically the Boston area, which likely has to my eye the lowest take rate of trucks vs non-trucks compared to other areas of the US that I have traveled, more and more upper trim Jeeps and other premium small cars/cuvs are more common. I don’t think people are as caught up with the whole “it has to be bigger to justify the bigger price tag” concept anymore. The mfgs are not dummies, they know the lower trims will lead in volume but if they can squeeze out more profit from a fully spec’d truck/any other vehicle, and please the customer’s who are willing to pay, sounds like a solid reason for this to exist. If I felt I needed a truck and still had to do my 20k miles per year in the area I live in, this would make more sense than a full sizer.
I mean if someone put a gun to my head and said “you have to buy a truck or face the void” this would probably be on my short list but I still think it’s too much of too much. “Midsize” is a misnomer in the American market. Modern trucks are either huge, comically huge, or “should require a CDL but doesn’t cause Murica”. This is no exception…and while I do think it’s decent looking it’s still angry and unnecessarily macho.
Also the prices…dear god almighty. $60,000 for a 4 cylinder truck. That 2.7 seems interesting on paper but I’ve read that they’ve had some issues with them, and the fuel economy benefits are minimal. I remain a bit confused as to why we’re seeing solutions like this or Toyota introducing that ridiculously complicated hybrid V6 only to see a couple MPG improvement.
It seems like the minor benefits will go out the window as soon as something goes wrong with them…and in practice are they really any better? I’ve seen YouTubers driving the Tundra/Sequoia as well as stuff equipped with this 2.7 and returning fuel economy that’s not really any different from the V8s they’re intended to replace. I’m hardly one of the “you can pry my ICE out of my cold, dead hands and I care more about being mildly inconvenienced than the needs of humanity” types that occasionally pop up around here but some of this stuff seems short sighted.
Using the 2.7 isn’t all about fuel mileage. It’s also largely about parts commonality and packaging. They can now design around a single block size with common output shaft location. Supporting a completely different engine costs money in design, manufacturing, and service. With the 2.7 in this chassis they can cover all of the power ranges consumers will want.
So, that cost reduction gets rolled back into pricing and I think most people would prefer to pay less then to get a V6 or V8 with nearly identical performance.
If the cost reduction has been rolled back into the pricing here, I’d hate to see it without.
I don’t enjoy driving these full to mega size trucks. For the vast majority of my trucky needs, I have a 1985 Nissan truck. I’ve owned like 6 of them. I love those trucks. I’m working on a quad cab version, but even when finished, it will be smaller than a long bed Dakota from the 90s. But I plan to put a better engine in. Currently that 4 cylinder gives me about 16 mpg, which ain’t exactly impressive.
To your point about the angry/unnecessarily macho styling, I have to wonder the degree to which truck styling reflects contemporary American culture. We’re constantly told to fear The Other, that every man is an island, that there’s a big bad world out there full of deviants who want to take your jobs and your guns away. Is it any wonder that the modern symbol of Rugged American Exceptionalism(tm) is trying to cosplay as an MRAP?
Building trucks is hard, building expensive mid-size trucks is easy
-GMC
Lots of folk brand-shop and don’t cross compare to the competition. This is who GMC is going after. Won’t outsell the Colorado, but it doesn’t have to.
Bose, might as well go to Wal Mart and buy some Kickers or Rockford Fosgate, probably sound better than the Bose. Which still perplexes my cynical ass, as to why the Corvette still uses shitty Bose. This isn’t the 1980s where the perceived notion that Bose was awesome. For $60 grand, I want audiophile quality, not Kid Rick quality.
BOSE = Buy Other Sound Equipment… any ‘phile worth their salt knows that already.
lol. $60K
In theory, that was supposed to be three launch Mavericks (though no one has probably paid less than $25k unless they were super early).
I just can’t imagine paying M2 money for a damn Canyon….and even if I step outside of my performance car centric brain for a second I can’t imagine your average truck buyer paying that much for a midsized 4 cylinder.
I had similar thoughts about how one could apply that $60K to other things. Like, I get these are viewed as family haulers that can do more, but at 60K, we’re into buy a car, buy a tow vehicle, and buy a boat territory. I could do that for $30K. It’s even easier at $60K.
In, cars that I would buy if I had the budget as an engineer for a $60k car, that’s a couple year old Volvo V60 Recharge Polestar with 458 horsepower. I believe the payload capacity is very similar, although towing is much less. The Volvo will make it up most of the roads these things are being taken up anyway. For serious off-roading I’d rather have something older that I wouldn’t care about scrapes and damage as much.
Alternatively a couple year old Cayman S is also approachable at that price, or if you need passenger space an older 911 Carrera. I’m sad I missed the days of $70k 911 996 Turbos in the early pandemic.
Have you seen what a similarly equipped Jeep Wrangler or Gladiator costs?