Appearances can be deceiving. Take the honey badger, for example. It looks cute and demure, but it’ll absolutely rip your nuts off. On the other hand, baseball isn’t the most exciting sport to watch on TV, but being at a game is properly exciting. The original Chevrolet Colorado is yet another great example of having more than meets the eye. It might not be the most exciting-looking truck, but it features some neat ideas that simply haven’t been tried on small trucks in America since.
Launched in the third quarter of 2003 for the 2004 model year, the original Chevrolet Colorado and GMC Canyon are prime examples of first-mover disadvantage, in that they came out right before everyone else redesigned their midsize trucks. In 2004, Car And Driver said of the GMC Canyon, “Right now, though, the Canyon stands as the gotta-have in the compact-truck class–tops in ride, fit and finish, solidity, impact isolation, and general driving refinement.”
By 2005, however, the climate changed, and the Colorado placed dead last in a five-truck comparison test against the redesigned Dodge Dakota, Toyota Tacoma, and Nissan Frontier, along with the then-new Honda Ridgeline. Here’s just a snippet of why, as per Car And Driver.
Everyone commented on the plain-Jane interior, the least inviting of the crowd, and if you like industrial-grade plastic, you’ll love the dashboard. The brake pedal is positioned too high off the floor. The front buckets feel flat and flimsy, as if they were providing the bare minimum of support but nothing more.
The rear seat isn’t any better since the backrest is uncomfortably close to vertical. Worst of all, that backrest simply folds down on top of the bottom cushion, leaving an angled, high shelf that reduces the usability of the space. The other trucks all have better folding solutions. One tester commented, “It’s as if Chevy were looking for ways not to compete.”
Ouch. It’s easy to forget just how much sub-full-sized trucks improved in the mid-aughts, and the Colorado and Canyon were not on the receiving end of those creature comfort improvements. However, look a bit deeper and something interesting happens — despite being one of the most conventional, old-school compact pickup trucks of its generation, GM’s entry-level trucks for the 2000s were deeply, endearingly weird.
The Colorado’s predecessor, the S-10, came standard with a little 2.2-liter four-cylinder engine making a measly 120 horsepower. This clearly wouldn’t be enough for the next-generation truck, so GM went with something bigger. Much, much bigger. Standard at launch was a 2.8-liter four-cylinder engine cranking out 175 horsepower and 185 lb.-ft. of torque. It’s worth noting that 2.8 liters of displacement is absolutely huge for a four-banger, and it only got bigger from there. In 2007, capacity grew to 2.9 liters, making it the largest gasoline-powered four-cylinder engine sold in an American-market light-duty vehicle since the Titanic three-liter unit in the Porsche 968.
That’s an interesting footnote in engine history, but what if you wanted more power? Well, in the beginning, the Colorado also offered a twin-cam 3.5-liter inline-five with dual balance shafts. Essentially a Vortec 4.2-liter inline-six minus one cylinder, the initial 3.5-liter version of the Vortec 3500 pumped out a somewhat mediocre 220 horsepower and 225 lb.-ft. of torque. Not hugely impressive output for the displacement, but not only did it line up nicely with what many competitors offered at the time, it also had a wide power band. Peak torque kicked in at just 2,800 rpm, peak power arrived at 5,600 rpm, and this engine didn’t hit redline until 6,300 rpm. Starting in 2007, this five-banger was bored out to 3.7 liters, and output climbed to 242 horsepower and 242 lb.-ft. of torque at a peakier 4,600 rpm.
With Car And Driver clocking zero-to-60 mph in 8.9 seconds from a 3.5-liter crew cab four-wheel-drive automatic GMC Canyon, these five-banger Colorados and Canyons won’t blow anyone’s socks off. However, the unusual choice of an inline-five does have an edge when it comes to the time-honored shitbox truck tradition of, uh, chopping the muffler off. Uncorking a five-cylinder Colorado actually results in something that sounds borderline exotic. Paired with the standard five-speed manual gearbox, this could be a fun little parts hauler. However, if a deeper note is what you’re looking for in a compact truck, Chevrolet made buyers wait. The wait was worth it.
For 2009, Chevrolet pulled the gloves off and dropped a variant of its 5.3-liter V8 into the Colorado. Called the LH8, this 9.9:1-compression, rather basic motor relied on sheer displacement to pump out 300 horsepower and 320 lb.-ft. of torque. For 2010, the LH8 was replaced by the LH9, which gained variable valve timing. How about that? Output stayed absolutely steady, but the updated engine could run on E85, and power even stayed steady for 2011 through 2012, when the LH9 saw a slight drop in compression from 9.9:1 to 9.7:1.
Mind you, the only transmission Chevrolet paired with the V8 was the infamous 4L60E, a four-speed automatic unit that might suddenly decide to have six neutrals if you get a bit too spicy with the loud pedal. Still, when in operable condition, it didn’t do much to hamper acceleration of the V8 Colorado, with Car And Driver running from zero-to-60 mph in 6.7 seconds. Even by today’s ludicrous standards, you wouldn’t exactly call that slow. Oh, and V8 models also got ZQ8 sport suspension, a faster steering ratio, and some cosmetic sundries like badges and body-color flares. If that wasn’t quite enough for you, you could even get a Sport trim with body-color bumpers, 18-inch alloy wheels, and a color-keyed grille. However, the sportiest-looking package didn’t quite live long enough to see the heyday of the V8, which is a shame. It was glorious.
Aww yeah, it’s time to talk about the 2005 to 2007 Colorado XTREME. God, I love street trucks. This package took a regular Colorado and threw on 18-inch wheels, a mesh grille, chromed headlight housings, a full body kit, unique gauges, and — on two-wheel-drive models — the ZQ8 sports suspension. It also deleted all the chrome and added some badging, and the result was a street truck that looked the business. Sure, it wasn’t any quicker than a regular Colorado, but it gave off the right image.
Were the original Chevrolet Colorado and GMC Canyon perfect trucks? No. Early 3.5-liter inline-five models did have issues with their valve seats, teething issues were common during the inaugural 2004 model year, and every complaint about interior materials is 100 percent accurate. At the same time, while models like the Toyota Tacoma and Dodge Dakota grew in width, the Colorado and Canyon kept things compact, with a width excluding mirrors of just 67.6 inches. However, in the context of today, there’s something appealing about the size of a true compact truck, particularly when you factor in the passenger-hauling ability of an optional crew cab.
In hindsight, the original Chevrolet Colorado and its GMC Canyon twin were hits, even if they never quite achieved the ubiquity or model longevity of the Ford Ranger. They were common sights, from fleet-spec regular cab work trucks outside auto parts stores to crew cab Z71 4×4 five-bangers in suburban driveways, and for the most part, they seem to hold up okay. Perhaps best of all, they’re still reasonably priced on the used market, so if you find one with a clean body and frame for a reasonable price, it seems like a decent option for a cheap compact truck.
(Photo credits: Chevrolet)
Support our mission of championing car culture by becoming an Official Autopian Member.
-
The Opel Speedster And Vauxhall VX220 Are Featherweight Sports Cars Worth Waiting Another Year For: GM Hit Or Miss
-
How GM Beat Everyone To The Punch With A Hybrid Pickup Truck And Then Completely Fell Off The Tracks
-
This Chevy Camaro Trim May Be One Of The Most Underrated And Forgotten Sports Cars Of All Time
-
The Front-Wheel-Drive Lotus Elan Was Technically A GM Product, As Weird As That Sounds
-
Why The Pontiac Solstice Deserves Its Flowers: GM Hit Or Miss
Please send tips about cool car things to tips@theautopian.com. You could even win a prize!
Worth mentioning that the first-gen Colorados were a partnership with Isuzu.
These are pretty cool, I just didn’t like the funky headlights setup
I remember seeing these trucks a ton when I worked at Valvoline in my teenage years. Always getting the cheapest oil changes and soldiering on to 150k+ miles. Now adays it seems like they’re mostly gone. Whether it was rust that got them or they were scrapped for little value, it’s kind of sad to see.
I will say I preferred the S10, the curvy front lines always looked better to me over the square face of the Colorado.
I have a co-worker with a v8 z71 in the teal. He hunted all over the country for like 6 months to find it. Genuine holy grail truck.
Always liked the sporty versions of these, but then I was yanked out by the head with a pair of pliers as a baby, so make of that what you will.
The Tacoma X-Runners are very cool as well.
My work at the time had several 2.8L, extended cab 4WD work truck models. These were hot seated in 12 hour shifts and had well over 200K on them. The powertrains were pretty reliable. The interior did NOT hold up the continuing use.
I haven’t driven the 5 cylinder variant if these.
Even though it’s rusting out at the rockers, I absolutely love my GMC Canyon. It’s a regular-cab, 2wd, 5-speed, with a 6-foot box, manual seats, door locks, and hand-crank windows.
I bought it used in 2015, and since I replaced the parking brake cables, everything still works just as well or better than when I bought it. My only problem with it has been a “SERV TPM” warning, which it has given me almost daily since the 250-mile drive home from the stealership 9 years ago.
Since I would like my next truck to follow the 1-2-3 rule, (1 row of seats, 2 doors, and 3 pedals) I have no idea what I will get to replace it once the frame rusts in pieces.
Had a 1993 Chevy S-10 with a 5 speed manual and the 2.8l v-6 making a mighty 125 hp and 160lb ft of torque.(I think so anyway) and remember how easy it was to break a tire loose and drift or leave a skid mark for at least 100 feet. Can’t even imagine what the 4.3 would have done. I still miss that truck despite being way too small for me and the awful interior quality. The engine ran strong the entire 100k+ miles I ran it. It was a high school car for me and I think it cost 7900 out of the door. That’s only 17,900 k or so in today’s money.
It reminds me about my dad’s truck when I started driving stickshift: a 1989 Ranger reg cab long bed with the 2.9 Cologne V6. 140hp and a 3000 lbs curb weight (with less than 50% over the rear axle when unloaded) made for a fun experience.
If you think about it that’s a better power to weight ratio than some compact CUVs
I feel like I’ve never seen these things for some reason.
Ah yes, the 4L60E. A transmission that keeps me wary of most aughts Expresses.
I mean, the E40D (last I checked) didn’t have an equivalent Facebook group to “4L60E go PNNNNNN”
(in all seriousness, I have no clue how exaggerated its problems are or not. I only know my Econoline’s transmission and engine were two of the only things that never gave me trouble with the van as a whole.)
that’s because the E4OD was a C6 with OD which was also used on the early 7.3 Powerstrokes , hence more comparable to a 4L80E.
The 4L60E was more ubiquitous than the E4OD (and the more comparable AOD/4R70E), therefore you’ll see way more people complaining.
4L60E is not all that bad. Having a trans cooler and fluid/filter changes keeps them solid for 200k + mi. as long as your not towing a skid loader uphill all the time. Troubles are very overrated with these.
Keep it cool and maintain it to not have issues? Heresy! /s
I think it depends on how well you cared for them. A mechanic friend of mine told me back the biggest issue is that the cooler lines would leak, owners would ignore it, and lack of fluid would toast the transmissions.
My only anecdote with them is a coworker’s experience. He bought an ’01 Sierra 5.3 with this transmission brand new and drove it to 300k by 2020 before he replaced it with a new one. It was a work truck, tow rig, hunting rig, daily driver, and never had any transmission issues over its life. It didn’t have rockers left or a straight panel on it, but it just kept chugging along.
In counterpoint, my grandfather (rest his soul) mistook the throttle for the brake pedal in his 07 silverado, and attempted to drive through his work bench and make a new garage door on the wrong end of his garage.
Instead of telling us about it and making sure everything was OK, he proceeded to drive it to the neighbor’s for coffee and made it half way home afterward. The trail of transmission fluid ended at the same location the truck stopped having the ability to move under its own power.
The truck now has just over 90k miles, and a fresh transmission rebuild. They don’t tend to last long when run dry apparently. LOL.
The 5 cylinders definitely ran like a 6 with one misfiring cylinder, but when i worked at advance years ago we had 2wd 4 bangers for delivery trucks and they were drift monsters in the rain
I had to drive a few of these back when I worked for Advance Auto Parts.
They were horrible. How GM managed to make a truck worse than the S10 it was replacing will forever remain a mystery.
These days, the sheer number of Colorados, Canyons, Trailblazers, and Envoys I see that need engines is stunning, mainly because I didn’t realize that many of them were still running. They were turds new and got worse as they were driven.