Midsize trucks are hot. Actually, all trucks are hot right now, have been for some time, and will likely continue to be so for the foreseeable future, at least here in North America. But midsizers have seen quite a lot of growth over the last few years with some new (or renewed) competition and without leaving much, if any, evidence of doing so at the expense of larger ones.
GMC’s Canyon, sister to the Chevrolet Colorado, has remained as a relatively minor player in the game, however there’s not really any reason why that should be so. After all, GMC is General Motors’ truck division and sells nothing but. Nowadays there is more visual differentiation from the sister model at Chevy and instead of just opting for the same thing with a different badge, the trucks have more of their own identity, as with this new AT4 version of the Canyon.
The GMC in this case actually looks larger than the Chevy, most of which comes down to the front end. Obviously drawing inspiration from the larger models, the grille is a scaled down version of the ones on those trucks, but in the end does impart a more square-jawed front than does the more sculpted front of its sister. In the AT4 variant it’s not shiny chrome, but rather sports a dark chrome look that tones it down quite a bit, of course it stands out on this Summit White example, however the large squared off headlights and pronounced LED foglights serve to act as highlights that pull attention elsewhere as well.
With a lower front bumper in black, but also the removal of the airdam in this one that has the supplemental and grandly named AT4 Off-Road Performance Edition Package on top of already being the AT4 trim level, it attempts to show it’s serious and not just a gussied up street truck. Of course the required red front tow hooks (two of them) are included here as well to convey its off-road credentials. I guess if you don’t need easy to see tow hooks then you really weren’t trying hard enough to get stuck to begin with.
While the hooks are standard, the Package continues with the black wheels that supplant the perfectly attractive non-black standard items and are still wrapped in 31″ diameter All-Terrain tires, a 1″ leveling kit, a set of rocker protection rails, an approximately 1/4″ thick skid plate under the front end and a smaller one under the middle of the truck.
However it doesn’t go whole hog in that there is no upgraded famous maker suspension package or bespoke bodywork or anything like that. Which is fine, the AT4 is actually GMC’s mid-priced offering with the Elevation and Denali trims bracketing it. Around here at least, the AT4 trim level across GMC’s range appears to be very popular and the new naming conventions seem to help set it further apart from the Chevys with their trim levels that have carried the same alphanumeric names forever and are similar to what GMC used to use.
Available in two bed lengths measuring in at a couple of inches longer than five and six feet respectively, the Canyon AT4 can be had in four door Crew Cab format with either bed length, the extra foot results in an upcharge of only a few hundred dollars. Included with every Canyon is a rear bumper with handy cutouts for ‘yer boots, although the truck is low enough to make the climb into the bed less of a scramble than with a larger one. Still, it helps, the climb doesn’t get any easier as one gets older. The Canyon in general can also be had as an extended cab with the longer bed only, but not as an AT4.
Around the back end the taillights are attractive with a clear exterior lens and colored lamps inside and the tailgate, while not powered, is nicely damped and locks with the central locking, This one doesn’t have a tow package installed but a Canyon like this one can tow up to 7,000 pounds which seems perfectly adequate for a smaller truck. Payload caacity is right around 1,500 pounds for one like this.
Opening the doors reveals a pretty much all black interior (appropriately named Jet Black) but with stitching in a color named Kalahari. The front seats are leather covered with a trim band around the edges that sort of curiously looks like it has a visual carbon fiber pattern but of course is soft and not at all rigid, and are comfortable to slide into without a huge step up. The rock slider rails protecting the rocker panels jut out just enough to protect the cab without becoming a huge hindrance to have to step over or worry about soiling the backs of your jeans.
Space is plentiful, while not as large as a full-sizer it’s no shoebox either, there’s no feeling of encroachment relative to a passenger and headroom was excellent, I and my 6’1″ frame with 32″ inseam exulted in several luxurious inches of it, a very stark contrast to the segment leader Tacoma specifically.
Interestingly the seats in front both have power controls for the bases but not the backrests. However they also have power lumbar controls on both sides (more or less only, fixed for location)
As far as the rest of the interior goes, there’s a large expanse of material fronting the cabin that’s delineated by a band of the same contrasting stitching as seen on the seats, it’s soft and squishy with similar on the doors and then the rest is mainly harder and durable plastic.
The steering wheel is leather-appointed and while I’m not really a fan of the sort of membrane covered buttons on this steering wheel, I can concede that they are likely a better solution for an interior that may get touched by wet or muddy hands than a plethora of small hard buttons with lots of crevices. These buttons include one to heat the steering wheel, as well as audio controls and cruise control(s). More audio controls for volume and preset selections are on the back of the wheel.
To the left of the wheel and slightly below are the automatic headlight knob and the 4WD selector knob – the downside is both are hidden by the wheel for which there really is no excuse, but on the upside the drive modes include an Automatic 4WD mode, making things so much easier for much of the year with constantly changing conditions on the road. Of course the standard 2Hi, 4Hi, and 4Lo are also available on the dial.
To the right of the wheel is the center stack, with a large 8″ touch screen, in this case equipped with Navigation as well as the standard Audio, HVAC, and Communication programs along with a menu of settings to adjust. Android Auto and Apple CarPlay are also included here and the Voice Recognition worked very well – it knew my phone was connected via Bluetooth but since I was asking to dial someone but had not uploaded my contacts, it actually apologized and then explained that I should use Siri to make my call through CarPlay instead of through it. Mom, is that you in there? It was a little odd, but appreciated and worked perfectly. Progress!
Another nicety is when talking on the phone via Bluetooth, the system turns down the fan speed (if it’s high) so that you can hear the other side of the conversation without it being drowned out by rushing air. Once the call is disconnected the HVAC system goes back to its quest to achieve the desired temperature.
I like GM’s Navigation imagery, I find the color palette soothing and the system display easy to read and understand. The same screen shows the camera view when packing up with very good resolution, again better than the class standard. The Bose audio system was decent here, it came as part of the larger infotainment package but didn’t necessarily wow anyone, however the upgrade is not overly expensive, we’ll get to that later as usual.
Below the screen is a single zone automatic HVAC system, and all knobs (including the audio ones above) were rubber covered with minimal play, feeling like quality pieces that would perform over the long haul. Buttons and knobs were large enough to be worked with normal gloves, but maybe not mittens or something really over the top.
Lower still is a lineup of toggles for stability control, lane departure assistance, parking assistance, hazard lights, trailering, descent control, and the cargo light. Between these was a tiny little cubby that somehow seemed as if made for my garage door opener, so that’s where I placed it. It’s too shallow for anything else really besides maybe a parking ticket stub. Right underneath were the buttons for the heated seats, in typical (and appreciated!) GM fashion with separate options to heat one’s back only or the whole seat.
At the bottom a fairly deep catch-all bin which is where the wireless charger should have been, however the charger mat was inexplicably placed at the rear of the console just below the console bin – the problem is that space isn’t large enough for a modern smartphone, in my case an iPhone 11 (not at all the latest or largest model), even without any case on it it can not lay flat to make contact with the charging surface, so it’s useless to most people in that regard. The front bin would have worked perfectly though for this.
Between these spaces lies the basically utterly conventional shifter but with gear selector/limiter buttons on the left side of the grip, and two cupholders to the right of it with a glossy plastic patterned surround. The passenger gets a decently sized glovebox ahead of them and an expanse of the soft material.
On the whole it falls pretty much right in the middle of the midsize market’s interiors, maybe with a bit more softness than most actually, in the end a design that is hard to find serious fault with and is fairly practical and easy to become familiar with.
The rear seat area is, as expected, not as good as in a fullsize truck, this Crew Cab is sort of like an extended cab fullsizer in that my knees were touching the front seatback and my head was at the headliner. My 12-year-old was perfectly comfortable, my 14-year-old said he would tolerate it for an hour or so but not all day. Fair enough.
The rear window has a manually opening slider portion and the rear seats can fold in various combinations. First the rear bench and back are split 2/3rds, 1/3rd and either portion of the back can fold down OR the seat bottom can fold up to give access to a set of storage compartments underneath.
I neglected to actually test if one side could have the seatback down while the other had the seat bottom up, but see no reason why that could not be so.
But there are a lot of options back here and the headrests fold down as well at the touch of the button on them. The seat bottom folds up by pulling a lever and the seatback folds down by pulling up on a strap at the top. It’s all quite intuitive.
While the truck has remote keyless entry and even remote start, both on a separate fob, you do need an actual bladed key to turn the engine on and drive away. Keys seem to be a feature of some of the midsize set, which some here will find very welcome I think. Twisting it causes the engine to instantly fire and settle into a quiet idle.
Please select Page 2 below to continue…
Pages: 1 2
Yet another Simpson’s prediction that has come true.
The Canyonero…
I was waiting for a description of another turbo 4 but was happy to see a decent sized v6 still being offered.
In my area, there are a lot of trucks but I have not seen many of these mid-sizers. It may be as you note, the “for just a little more you can have. . . ” syndrome.
A few random thoughts….
If I were seeking a GM built truck, a GMC would be preferable due to its relative uniqueness.
The 3.6 V6 is a wonderful engine and seems a natural in this assignment.
Given the Canyon/Colorado production, along with the eternal full-sized van, at Wentzville, I can’t help but wonder if Wentzville may be one of GM’s better profit per unit plants.
Several weeks ago I discovered an absolute honey hole of Canyons and Colorados. There was a very large plot at 370 and Earth City Expressway (right on the MO River in St. Charles, east of Wentzville) covered with every color, trim, and configuration imaginable. I can’t help but wonder if the chip shortage many manufacturers are currently experiencing plays into the explanation of why those are parked there.
I’ll bet it is. I know someone who ordered one back in January and still hasn’t got it. Apparently it’s been built, but waiting for chips?? Strange days for sure.
Jim you should have taken a picture of yourself next to the truck, it looks enormous in the photos.
It isn’t that large, but the styling makes it look somewhat larger/blockier than it is. As an anecdote, it was graduation weekend and i had several occasions where I was transporting a couple of 70+ year old ladies (I’m of course guessing as one does not ask a lady her exact age) and neither had any issues whatsoever getting into the truck (neither owns or regularly uses a truck either)
Is it as large (or should I now say small) as the full size Silverado from the 90’s?
No, it’s quite a bit smaller.
A 1999 Silverado was not available in CrewCab but the length of an extended cab truck with the regular bed is the same as a CrewCab with the short bed in more modern times. So we can use that as a proxy.
Silverado length was 227.6″ WITHOUT a bumper so add what, 8″? for about 235″ total. The Canyon with a bumper is 212.4″
So the 1999 Silverado is about two feet longer. That’s a huge amount.
The 1999 Silverado is also 4″ wider without counting mirrors on either. Looking at pictures the Silverado looks like it has larger mirrors.
The 1999 Silverado is also 3.5″ taller in 4WD form as compared to this Canyon AT4 – 73.9″ vs 70.4″.
My office takes me past car dealer row every day and dealer lots are getting noticeably sparse, and that’s after they sprinkle used cars and trucks in the prominent spots.
GMC exists for only one reason = “Generate More Cash”
That would seem to be the raison d’etre for any business, no?
As a current-gen Toyota Tacoma owner, it’s interesting to see the little detail differences. For example, I’m glad that my wireless charger is plenty big for my phone. And that I have keyless start, as entering the vehicle, sitting down, and then needing to extract the key from my pocket sounds much less convenient than using the key to unlock the door. But I wish that I could feel any sense of my V6 pushing me along … the Taco powerband is reluctant unless you rev it. And I like the factory Duratracs and real rocker guards that GM offers, not to mention the “automatic” AWD option.
I like the interior! Looks surprisingly just a little more upscale than the Toyotas you’ve recently reviewed. The flip folding rear seat puzzles me though… it seems overly flexible and the only thing I can think useful is the flat albeit taller loading floor?
I think the reason the seats flip up is to access whatever one might store underneath them. And down to perhaps load stuff on the seatback that you might not want on the seat itself or in the back. Nice to have the option I think, especially with the split 2/3rds / 1/3rd.
Adequacy is not a reason to blow $40,000. “Not bad” isn’t good enough. Frankly, it isn’t about price – it is about a vehicle from a company seemingly more concerned about preventing a mistake, than giving owners a reason to get excited about owning one. Was the Canyon designed to be a fleet vehicle? It sure seems that way.
Huh? It’s quite good with a lot to like. First and most importantly that someone not much taller than the average can actually sit in it without discomfort.
$40k is the new $20k. 1990 was a long time ago. 🙂
I admire these from afar, and loved the feel behind the wheel of a diesel Colorado Z71 I test drove a few years ago, but with a growing family the midsize cab is simply not enough space, when there are much roomier half tons sitting right there across the showroom floor that get about the same mpg, and cost barely (if any) more after discounts. C&D got an amazing 6.1 second 0-60 out of a 8spd+V6 one of these, absolutely incredible numbers IMO. GM has revised the 3.6L V6 a number of times since the came out in the mid 2000s, at this point I’m not sure whether or not they’ve FINALLY sorted the timing chain stretch issues they were having as late as the LFXs in W-body Impalas. The diesel clocks in at an eye-watering premium, and I know they were having a bunch of problems with the first few years of production (US-spec emissions gear I assume). But boy is that a sweet driving motor. On my test drive I remember easing into the throttle and the truck picked up speed 70->75 uphill with the torque converter locked up like it was nothing. Contrast that to a rental Tacoma TRD-OR with the 3.5L that was downshifting for the tiniest of rises in the interstate.
I think the sweet spot overall would be a lesser-optioned Z71 with milder tread tires that would still get you the spin locker and uprated shocks and skid plates.
The only Canyonado I’ve driven was a 2.8 Duramax. The power train was amazing compared to my 3.5 Taco but diesel is often at such a premium cost here in California that it’s hard to justify. The guy who let me drive it still owns it after several years and is very happy with it.
It’s a little early, but I wonder when the “you could get a full-size pickup for that much!” comments will be starting. For many, midsize is just fine with the primary allure simply being a lot easier to maneuver around than a full-sizer.
With that said, I’m impressed with GM sweating small details like the HVAC fan slowing down when an incoming call is received. That’s the kind of little common-sense feature that can make a big difference in how someone perceives a vehicle.
Another I just read about which may (or may not) apply to the Canyon is a fail-safe feature for the proximity remote fob. Everyone has read (or maybe even experienced) a situation where they’ve forgotten their proximity fob but a passenger did not. So, the vehicle starts and drives, but when the passenger exits, if the vehicle is not turned off, the driver continues on (albeit with warnings). When the vehicle is later turned off, well, since the fob has left the vehicle, there’s no way to get it going, again.
I’ve read that the Bolt (and, presumably, other GM products) will not turn off if it doesn’t detect a fob in the vehicle. If true, it’s just another example of GM correctly addressing a potential problem.
OTOH, the back-up lights that come on when the remote door locks are activated was a truly boneheaded move.
I think it’s kind of hard to objectively judge “easier to park,” would you say it’s the added width of the half ton that makes it harder or the length? Looking at some numbers a Colorado/Canyon crew cab short box is 7 inches shorter than my 2006 Suburban and 2 inches narrower (both numbers without mirrors), I’d imagine both would be a bit of a handful to park in a NYC garage, but also perfectly manageable just about anywhere else. Not to open a big ol’ can of worms….
I think that not being able to shut off the car w/o a fob present sounds like a bad idea.
On my Fords the horn will honk if you close the door on a running vehicle w/o a fob inside the vehicle. Once you do shut if off w/o a fob present then it will give a warning on the instrument cluster that no key is present and that you can immediately (30 seconds?) restart it w/o the fob.
Interesting, these considerations of price and excessive vs maneuverable sizes has parallels to the phenomenon of old ladies buying Sevilles because they were smaller and more manageable. Indeed the full size pickup is the defacto PLC heir apparent!
I am a person who likes to keep my trucks for decades. My 1990’s era Dodges are right on the cusp of being too difficult to keep up with over time, what with lots of plastic, electronics, and various gizmos that wear out or go bad. Unlike, say, Paul’s ‘60s Ford that could, theoretically, and with Autozone still stocking parts indefinitely, go on forever.
Not to blame this GMC specifically, but it appears that light trucks have truly entered the age of finite lifetimes and disposability (as have cars, smartphones, etc.). Lease them, use them, abuse them, and get rid of them, on to the next one.
I guess there’s a point where everyday usability and comfort enter the picture too. What I mean by that is that (in my opinion), the latter ’90s were really the first trucks that could be (and were) used for non-truckish things.
Paul’s truck may be able to go on forever but compared to the total number of 1960s Ford trucks sold, how many of those are still on the road? Likely a tiny fraction, we just notice them specifically due to their infrequence. Additionally if he actually tried to use it the way many people use modern trucks (i.e. haul the family including little kids, commute 40 miles on a freeway each way daily to an office, get some semblance of real fuel economy over that distance, take it on vacation while towing a boat or camping trailer and with any concern for life or limb in what would be a non-event accident today he’d likely choose something far more modern as well. It’s (and I say this with all respect to him and the truck) the equivalent of a rusty wheelbarrow, around for the purpose of conveniently and cheaply hauling things that need hauling. I have a similar (but somewhat newer) truck that largely serves to fulfill the same purpose. Note he is taking the Scion xB on an offroad trip next month and not the truck as well as using the Scion for the majority of his total annual mileage. Most trucks back in the day (or at least the ones that are still on the road) didn’t see the common 25-30k miles (or far more) per year usage that many of today’s trucks see around here with minimal maintenance or repair over (the first) 200k miles.
All of that being said, this GMC Canyon (and any of the midsizers on offer for that matter) struck me as being more durable than the average $45,000 vehicle on the road today. Whether that means a 30yr lifespan vs a 15year one I don’t know, but it had a key for a start (although I’m not the first to have to replace parts or the entirety of a keyed ignition assembly!).
IMO the sweet spot is precisely the 90s-mid 2000s, speaking specifically of GM trucks in my own experience. New enough to have modern-tier comfort and everyday usability, not many “gizmos” to go bad, predates the troublesome “AFM” cylinder shutoff tech.
I have to agree with that, which is why I see so many GMT400 and early GMT800 trucks still on the road. I don’t think of any classic truck that really compares (except for the 67-72 GM trucks, which are hugely popular around the SoCal area), and most modern trucks are being used for either family cars or as automotive peacocking with lift kits and light bars. Most trucks from about 89-2006 are still used as work trucks in addition to daily drivers, probably with well over a couple 100k on the odometer. The only things I can really ding these trucks on is the low-grade plastic of the interior and the below-average fuel economy, but those seem like minutia compared to their positives.
To me, the age/high mileage, and the relatively poor fuel economy, make the ‘90s full size trucks increasingly marginal as DD’s. I am not sure where to go from my beloved Ram 1500s, as slightly newer used trucks don’t have any obvious virtues to me, and the new trucks are awfully pricey. I may explore leasing a new one, and simply define the future date on which I ditch the thing, right up front. Or go EV and save a truck for weekend and towing duties.
Cheap plastics perhaps, but I absolutely LOVE the plush grey velour seats in my ’06 Suburban. Wouldn’t trade it for leather, especially what’s seen in modern GM trucks, to say nothing of the horrible scratchy burlap-sack-grade “cloth” in current cars. And yes the MPG isn’t great, but still palatable IMO, I get 18mpg-ish on the open road in the ‘burb, as high as 20-21 keeping speeds to 65-70mph on state roads. I lambast the AFM tech and low hanging chin spoilers of modern GM fullsize trucks, but its effect on MPG is no joke: I’ve gotten 24mpg in 73-75mph sustained cruising in a rental Tahoe driving Indianapolis-Chicago and back. The key is right around 74/75mph is the point where aerodynamic drag makes it hard to keep it in AFM mode on level ground.
My suburban has just short of 300k miles, I got it with 289k last summer, it’s had a transmission rebuild at 130k and a rear end replaced at around 200k (last owner towed a boat with it in Colorado). It’s needed a lot of catch up maintenance and deferred repairs to get fully sorted, but I’d like to think at this point I’ve got it in tip-top shape, and it’s a fantastic all around utility vehicle. The most important factor to me is that it’s a totally rust free Colorado truck and I plan to keep it that way with aggressive lanolin undercoating and underbody washes in the winter/spring.
06 is the last year of the GMT800 in the SUVs (2007 saw one more year of the “cat eye” pickups), and I think they are a perfect blend of 90s SUV simplicity and with features like steel bumpers, great visibility and plush seats, the perfect powertrain (the stupendous LS-series V8, but before AFM), and better roadholding/comfort than the earlier GMT400s. I will say I think the GMT400 is the handsomest truck/SUV made in the last three decades.
The seats are also very comfortable in my Dodges, and I can drive all day with no discomfort. My SLT offers all sorts of adjustability, but the less adjustable base seats in the other truck are perfect, too.
I envy your fuel mileage. The 5.9 (360) automatic gets 12 mpg, real world, and the 5.2 (318) 5 speed gets 15 mpg. They tow well, and towing/heavy loads hardly change the mileage, but there it is. Here in CA, fuel prices have gone from $3 to $4, on the way to $5 or more. GM seems to have found a much more fuel efficient way of going about their truck building.
so i guess it doesn’t have the start stop feature then ? great review as always.
Nope, no stop/start. It does have variable cylinder management where sometimes it goes into V4 mode. Completely unnoticeable transitioning either way except for the little V4 light in the gauge cluster. It did not seem to go into V4 mode very much for me though, I usually had the AC on a moderately high setting and engines work a little harder at my elevation too.
The headroom alone is why a Tacoma would not be suitable for me. That and its seating position (low). This looks much more comfortable.
Thanks for another very thorough review. I feel like I know these trucks better now. The fan reducing speed during a phone call is one of those aha! things; so obvious and useful.
A radio feature on my Ford Five Hundred was to reduce the volume at low speeds or a stop, and increase it as vehicle speed (and background noise) increased. I don’t know if it is a popular feature on high end cars, but I don’t see it in the Hondas and such that we own today. Once one has that feature, it is missed where it doesn’t exist.
That was one of the features in the tech-out 2005 Acura RL 🙂
And to the poster below,GM radios had that too, called I believe AVLS (auto volume leveling system) but was more of a gimmick in the Alero I experienced it in, with noticeable steps in volume as you say, exited a freeway.
The Ford unit was completely adjustable/tuneable, once one went into the settings mode. The changes sounded linear, and did not seem to “jump”, at least to my ears. Particularly in my trucks, where wind and engine noise go up and down much more with vehicle speed, I am always diddling with the volume controls while driving in town.
I had to do a double take on that engine picture. The way the engine cover is wider than deeper along with the way the air intake comes out made me think transverse engine.
I do think the proximity entry but not start is one of the dumbest things that automakers do. If I don’t have to pull out the fob to open the door I shouldn’t have to pull it out to start it either.
I agree that you don’t seem to get much for your money in the performance off-road upgrade.
Regarding the fan speed changing when you make a call the big question is whether you can disable it. Seriously there are lots of people, mainly those who live in hot climates that don’t like that feature. It seems those people also don’t find it acceptable to have to bump the fan speed up manually. Apparently on the older GMs with this feature you can’t override it, while on many of the Fords with it you can. Personally I do like the feature on our cars so equipped but then again I don’t see a lot of 90+ degree weather nor much really cold weather so I appreciate it and haven’t turned it off.
I think I phrased that poorly and corrected it – it doesn’t have proximity entry, just remote keyless – you don’t need the key but you do need the keyfob and need to press unlock on it to get in. So it’ll be in hand once you open the door to start the engine.
The last Tacoma I reviewed used a key as well, however it was a manual transmission, apparently the automatics don’t.
I can confirm everything good about these trucks. These compared to the Toyota Tacoma is no contest. Much better interior room for taller folks, a more sensible seating position, better engine options that don’t feel recalcitrant to get up to speed, and most importantly for me at least, a ride that doesn’t feel like the suspension bits were replaced with quick-dry cement. I will always say for anyone looking for a mid-size truck, get a Colorado/Canyon, they’re not like the first gen versions at all and they will serve you well.
I also think mid-size trucks are becoming a bit more popular from the ever increasing size in trucks now. Most Full-size pickups are not only physically bigger, but are increasingly being sold with crew-cabs for family hauling. As a result, they tend to feel more unwieldy and cumbersome for most folks. Heck, a newer Silverado feels more difficult to maneuver than my granddad’s (now mine) 2008 Sierra. Even disregarding the differences in set up (my truck is a single cab short bed, vs a mostly crew-cab normal bed setup), the sheer difference in size between the two is staggering to behold and can feel intimidating for those with little experience. By contrast, a new Colorado or Canyon is about the same size as a C/K 1500 from the GMT400 era. Not a lot of people would call a 90s GMT400 truck unwieldy or hard to drive, so the newer mid-size trucks have the advantage of being more forgiving in that regard.
The only thing I wish these had was a column shifter option, but that’s me being a slave to traditionalism. Otherwise, I really do think the newer GM mid-size trucks are borderline underrated in some cases.
Isuzu has a deservedly good name for the quality its trucks (and diesels), and I am sure the profit margin for GM in selling this handsomely re-fendered and re-grilled 2012 model has to approach at least 50% by now. Anyway, it’s not as if safety considerations have moved much in nine years, and passenger-side frontal crashes – marginal for this vehicle – aren’t too common, I guess.
Four years ago, I drove a brand spanking Holden-badged 4wd top-liner which was all-but identical to this inside, and it must be said, the entire vehicle very nearly rose above slightly crude to the level of almost adequate.
The NA version of the Colorado/Canyon differ a fair amount under the skin from the global version. It has a unique frame and many other changes including safety features. The IHS gave it a 4 star safety rating; not stellar, but the same as the Tacoma and Ranger.
50% profit margin? GM would love that. Development costs are not quite as big a factor in profit margins as you might think, especially since the NA version was so extensively re-engineered. Labor is the big cost factor, and these are built in the US, so that is going to be a damper on gross margins.
The Monroney Sticker shows the NHTSA crash test ratings (which of course are not the same as other testing regimens but provide a comparative benchmark when vehicle shopping).
The overall vehicle score achieved was 4 stars out of 5 possible.
Driver and Passenger both scored 4 stars in a frontal crash, which is the risk of injury in a frontal crash. This should ONLY be compared to other vehicles of similar size and weight, it’s not an absolute relative to all vehicles.
The side impact test resulted in 5 stars for both the front and back seats, defined as the risk of injury in a side crash.
The rollover test (defined as the risk of a rollover in a single vehicle crash, nothing to do with protections) generated 3 stars.
As far as interior and exterior “quality” is concerned relative to visible parameters such as material choices and precision of assembly, this vehicle is at least class competitive, nothing in the current directly comparable class is obviously significantly “better” than any of the others in my opinion (Jeep, Toyota, Nissan, Chevy, Ford). Is an Audi A3 or whatever nicer inside for the same price? Of course. But you’re not going to haul stuff to the dump in that. Is a fullsize pickup “safer”? Perhaps – but does the world need another full-size truck to wreak greater havoc on smaller cars in an accident when a mid-size fills a particular buyer’s need?
I’ll confess to looking with a frown and set jaw at anything GM these days – alright, negative bias – but I don’t think it’s nearly good enough for the world’s second biggest car company to sell anything less than top safety rated cars. There’s been a new Isuzu D-Max for a year and half now, a top-scorer, structurally and for all the latest safety do-dads standard.
It’s also got an interior that brings it up towards the standard of an Amarok or Hi-Lux in finish, rather than the 2012-based dash and plastics. The Colorado/D-Max wasn’t class-competitive here in that way: both sold on price (and Isuzu’s rep for toughness).
The crudity I mention was in the driving, which was very truck-like, and it seemed worse to me than the (also fairly trucky) competitors I’ve ridden in. Reviews tend to say the same.
As for size, god yes, less monster-munchy roadbuggers to squash me and mine is all good, though that’s truly one of those region-specific things – the top-selling double-cab market cars of this Canyon’s size in Oz ARE the big bastards here!
You have me at a disadvantage with some of the vast competition available to you in your market.
GM isn’t (and hasn’t been in some time) the #2 automaker, I believe the current ranking is Toyota, then VW, then Renault/Nissan/Mitsubishi for the top three places. Which doesn’t mean your comment should be viewed differently although it could be argued that’s what should happen. Toyota also does not sell the top safety rated products in every segment. My belief is that Tesla, a tiny company in terms of production, sales, and actual cash on hand does far better in crash safety in the segments they currently compete in.
Tacoma, Frontier, Ranger all have the same topline NHTSA 4star safety rating as the Canyon. I don’t disagree with you that there could be massive improvement but the market as a while finds 4 out of 5 to be perfectly acceptable. Safety is NOT a factor ever given by anyone here to not buy a midsize pickup truck. GM’s job is to make money for their shareholders. They aren’t going to make as much money by spending as much as possible to bubblewrap the occupants. You want a safer truck? Buy a Silverado is the prevailing answer, you’re less likely to die in it than in a midsize. Sorry about the suckers in the other car, hopefully for them they’re in an F150 or Tundra or Ram. Or better yet, a GMC Sierra.
But here’s the rub and what I am looking at in comparison to you:
1. The Hilux is not the same as the Tacoma and is not sold here. I believe the Hilux has a more modern interior among other aspects. The Tacoma was restyled a few years ago but basically is still a quite old chassis underneath.
2. VW declines to sell us the Amarok and currently operates a factory in this country that they could choose to build it in to circumvent the tariff. Mexico, commonly and erroneously viewed as a third world country separated from us by a falling down picket fence to the south does get it though.
So your top two picks are not available here (or in Canada).
3. Nissan still sells us the 2005 (yes, 16years old) Frontier/Navara. We did not get the newer one that Mexico also has received for years now. The new one that we ARE finally getting has not arrived as of yet. I guess we got the new engine and trans just last year as I reviewed but the rest of the truck is indistinguishable from the 2005.
4. Isuzu pulled out of our market years (decades?) ago. Their last truck here was a rebadged Chevy S-10.
5. Mitsubishi hasn’t sold a pickup here in over a decade either.
6. Mazda hasn’t sold a truck here in over a decade, its last one was a rebadged Ford Ranger (not the Ranger you got).
7. Our current Ford Ranger is the model developed in Australia what, over a decade ago, and reworked slightly over here to pass our crash tests.
8. The Jeep Gladiator and Honda Ridgeline are a little outside of the main mid-size market. Gladiator at my Jeep dealer two days ago when I was there for an oil change is advertised for 10% off sticker (in a market where not much is discounted at all currently and every dealer is short of product) leading me to assume it’s overpriced at best and I already know how you feel about Jeep Wrangler safety 🙂 . Ridgeline, while probably exactly what many could very well use, is hampered in this market by being based on a unibody FWD platform. That’s it for the choices.
The only midsize trucks here with a diesel are the Canyon/Colorado and the Gladiator. Everything else is gas V6s except the Ranger’s T4. They all drive like trucks. None (besides maybe the Ridgeline) are overly “carlike” in their mannerisms but are all perfectly drivable for distances long and short while carrying loads or carrying people or not. People (actual buyers) seem to like the truckishness of trucks, I don’t think “car reviewers” even realize that (it’s a feature, not a bug to many buyers) but the general public understands (and likes?) that a BOF truck is not going to feel like a Honda Civic. I don’t drive my own truck the way I drove my sedan or sports car and don’t judge them by the same yardstick.
One truck may handle or brake a little better than the other, it’s not significant enough for me to suss out without having to both back to back on a closed course which I don’t have access to. I don’t have a 5-7000 pound trailer to test the trucks with either to see how they do going up and down from my 5,000ft to the 11,000 feet of the Eisenhower tunnel.
But in a nutshell that’s the dirty little secret of the American mid-size truck scene in the largest pickup market in the world as far as I am aware. There is no truly modern competition in this segment. Every maker does as little as they need to in order to keep selling if they even bother to compete. And people keep buying the ones that are for sale so there’s no incentive to really improve them.
The Ridgeline is the major exception in this group, as in my opinion it is vastly better in almost every respect than the others, but then it costs significantly more. It is based on Honda’s NA unibody Pilot/Odyssey platform, and has a mucu roomier and nicer cab, IRS, and a sophisticated ride and handling. And 5 star safety rating too. It’s very much the one I would pick if I was getting a truck.
Keep in mind Justy that in NA, these trucks are very much targeted to a younger demographic, who really mostly doesn’t care about some of these qualities.That alone may be a substantial difference from Australia. Older guys generally do not buy them, as they prefer the comfort and other qualities of an F150 or so.
This aspect alone has shaped the mid size truck market here considerably. And just about every Ridgeline driver I see is older, for obvious reasons. The fact that it’s a unibody seems to work against it from the younger buyers, despite it not being an issue at all.
Well, that’s what I’d call a learning, on more than one front too. Stuff for me to ponder.
All of the badges mentioned (bar Ridgeline at all, and, for newness, Ranger) have pretty new-design dual-cabs here. The Hilux was all-new in about ’18, and that in particular felt rather high quality and seemed a deal less jouncy and tippy than the Colorado, though in truth, the differences can’t ever be that big: high-set BOF and stiff rear leaves (except Nissan) is pretty limiting for refinement.
As for your last para, I’ve become a bit of the JP Cavanagh school when it comes to things like CAFE and mandating economy or somesuch, as it’s too blunt a tool for an arguably disputed outcome, as well as resulting in things not necessarily wanted. But with safety, I go the other way, especially knowing folk (or makers) rarely want to pay for better: squeeze the manufacturers till they have to, as each advance in safety is just that, an incremental movement upwards that protects us in doing something we’ve long forgotten is inherently dangerous for a soft bag of blood and bone that was designed, at best, for running speeds.
So a pox on all their mid-sized houses for currently doing what they’re doing for Americans.
It appears to me that the lack of development of the North American mid-size pickups relative to those sold in Asian/Pacific markets is perhaps a calculated effort by the manufacturers to differentiate these trucks from their full-size offerings, especially with respect to price. Even so, the cost differential between a Canyon/Colorado and a Sierra/Silverado, especially after considering manufacturer’s incentives and financing, is narrow enough that price-conscious buyers might be able to justify spending a little more for a bigger truck.
All that said, I find the size and maneuverability of the Canyon to be major selling points, especially after watching the driver of a brand-new Silverado crew cab do a 17-point turn in an effort to get out of a tight parking lot at lunch today.
Still, I am disappointed to learn that Jim’s 14-year old son found the rear legroom wanting in the 212″ long Canyon. Perhaps the 210″ long Ridgeline is a better template for the less-than-full-size North American pickup, but then, what do I know – I fit into the Ridgeline demographic as noted by Paul and am not much of a truck guy to begin with.
I’ll never get why GM always puts the 4WD knobs/switches to the left of the steering wheel.
For manueuverability: How much lower is the hood front on this than the full-size? It seems a lot like the big brother.
I don’t have measurements but this picture shows the entire 2021 AT4 trim level lineup. The truck at the left is the Sierra 1500 AT4, second from left is the Canyon AT4. Third from left is the Sierra 2500 AT4 (similar to the red Silverado 2500 Z71 I tested a few months ago). The Canyon is for sure lower.
Useful photo. It certainly is lower.
But it’s a bit amazing how modern trucks have blind spots in front. I wonder if front-facing cameras will be the next thing.
They already exist. Many use them for surround vision capability especially for parking, even much lower cars. They are very handy when I pull into my somewhat space constrained garage and can actually see how close I am getting to the front before impacting something. Cameras are very cheap to integrate since the screen already is mandated with the backup cameras, adding one to the front end is mostly immaterial.
A number of off-road oriented vehicles use them (such as the Jeep Gladiator Rubicon) so that the driver can see what he’s about to land on as he crests a steep hill with a dropoff beyond (even the lowest front end doesn’t help in this case), on that rig it’s even equipped with a squirter to rinse it off, something many backup cameras could use too.
Every time I see one of these or a new Ranger I am astonished at how tiny the bed is. That doesn’t stop a lot of locals from buying them, and frequently making the bed even more useless by bolting a tent on top. I’d be more interested in an extended cab and a full 6′ box but I seem to be a minority.
As an almost empty nester I want a cab to hold 2 in comfort 3-4 for short hops and a respectable amount of stuff in the bed for hauling lumber, kayaks, etc. and the ability to tow a decent sized camper. I suspect a full sized half ton is really my sweet spot, although shorter and with better mileage than my current F150 with an 8′ bed and 5.4
One detail I question is the rear seat folding, a setup that folds the cushion and leaves a clear floor is much more useful for hauling.
4.5-5′ has been the standard for compact/mid-size double cab pickups around the world for decades before they came to the US, and they seem to have worked just fine.