Apparently my FiL has just bought a Colorado to replace his 95 Silverado that served him well for 250,000 km or so (but was going to need a transmission soon, and bodywork for the rusted-out cab corners, etc.)
So: anything I should know about Colorados? I wish I could offer specific info about year or engine or whatever, but that's all I know right now.
The 5 cylinder is a great truck, I had a Z71 package I5 '06 Colorado. I put a motorcycle in the back, and pulled a trailer full of everything I owned, and it hat no trouble passing tractor-trailers on the uphill through KY/TN.
The catalytic convertor is part of the exhaust manifold and you can get a significant amount of power with an exhaust upgrade, though you do have to shell out for an inline cat. It will still pass emissions in all but the most terrifying states.
Let us know if he starts singing Shania Twain songs.
foxtrapper wrote: Let us know if he starts singing Shania Twain songs.
Actually, that's funnier than you thought, considering that Ms. Twain is also Canadian. 
Good trucks. I've had mine for 5 years, and will replace it with another.
Dont know much about it other than riding in and getting to check one out on a lift... I liked it. Its the best compact truck out there imo, considering i dont think frontiers and tacomas are compacts.
Neither is the Colorado
anything less cramped than a ranger = not compact?
When I got mine, my nephew was driving a 1990 full size GM, and the Canyon was the same size. That, and it's the same size as Tacoma, and Frontier.
I must be too picky, but I can't stand the C-C twins. From the foreign key orientation, stupid reverse bolted rotors, 6 lug wheels, ugly styling, uncomfortable seats, etc.... then various timing chain problems I have ran into in the past, no way in h, e, double hockey sticks would I buy one.
Vigo wrote: anything less cramped than a ranger = not compact?
I wandered over to cars.come and plonked in 2007 as an arbitrary year. What makes the Colorado more compact than a Tacoma you mentioned as not compact earlier? It certainly isn't wheelbase or weight. The Frontier's a bit tougher to compare because there's no small cab option as far as I can tell. But then does a Colorado become not compact if you switch the cab?
Either all three are, or none are.
I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to say.
Zomby woof wrote: I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to say.
If you meant me, that's why I deleted it. It wasn't clear. I'm saying both of your methods for determining compact or not are dubious at best.
His picking one out of those three and as compact and the others as not compact was bogus. At least by what seem to me to be the obvious measurables (length and weight) they're pretty damn comparable.
On the other hand, your comparing sizes across multiple decades wasn't much better. [EDIT TO ADD]: To clarify, in case it's still not clear: My wife's a forester. In the parking lot where she works are a bunch of work-owned, relatively new, full-sized trucks. Being a bunch of foresters, quite a few show up to work in old, beater, full-sized trucks. The size difference is quite apparent. Does that mean the old ones suddenly become compact trucks?
You'll need to log in to post.
