It was February of 2023 and I was in the process of moving to California to start a new business and a new life. After having received an invitation from Chevrolet to drive its then-new Colorado, I decided to stop by San Diego to see what Chevy’s all-new mid-size truck was all about. Fast forward over three years later, and I still haven’t written that review. That all changes right now, because someone drove their 2025 Chevrolet Colorado ZR2 to Galpin Ford (The Autopian’s sister company) and traded it in for a Ford Bronco Sport. Let’s see if I can understand why.
Early 2023 was a lot for me. I was moving from Detroit, where I had lived for a decade, to California to start The Autopian, and all the while, I was starting a relationship with a West Side-girl I’d met at Pebble Beach the prior August — a West Side-girl who would become my wife and mother of my child. With so many moving parts, I was only able to squeeze one article out of my Chevy Colorado press event — an article about the truck’s touchscreen headlight switch. “I’ll publish a full review soon,” I wrote. But here were are 3.5 years later; I’m thrilled to finally right this wrong.
This beautiful 2025 Chevy Colorado ZR2 review-unit comes courtesy of a Galpin customer who traded the truck in for a 2026 Ford Bronco Sport. Autopian video manager Griffin Riley filmed my impressions of the truck in our latest Trade-In Tuesday YouTube video:
I actually still have the notes from my unpublished evaluation back in February of 2023. Check it out:
In those notes, I wrote “a little buzzy” in reference to the 2.7-liter turbocharged four-cylinder engine.
I also mention turbo lag, good-but-not-great shifting from the eight-speed automatic, decent ride/handling and pleasant steering. “Not fast,” I wrote about the truck’s acceleration, noting a “wave of torque” and some high-rev downshifts. In addition, my notes criticize the packaging, saying “Seats very good on a short drive, good forward visibility, [but] not great cargo packaging in the cab.” That packaging criticism specifically notes the center console and under-rear-bench storage area.
Otherwise, I write that the truck looks nice inside and out.
Later, when I drove a higher-spec truck, I mention hard plastics, road noise, and a high floor.
Fast forward three years later, and while driving this trade-in I mention many of the same qualms. As you can see in the video, I criticize the packaging up front, noting the short center console…
…the absolutely laughable door pockets…
…and the skinny center tunnel whose limited space is wasted by the shifter:
While I don’t discuss the under-rear-bench storage since I didn’t look back there during my short drive, it appears that my 2023-self wasn’t completely full of it, because Chevy Colorado customers on Reddit have been complaining about that very thing.
Another thing I mention in my review of the 2025 trade-in is that the engine feels a bit harsh. “At idle you can kinda feel some vibration through the steering wheel. This is not your grandpa’s straight six…when you rev it, it’s not exactly silky smooth.” This aligns with my old note about the 2.7-liter being “buzzy,” something that I recorded back in 2023 to show you all:
It’s an odd-sounding truck! Almost vacuum cleaner-like.
Speaking of that engine and its sound, I have a few notes from my 2023 discussion with the engine’s Assistant Chief Engineer, Kevin Luchanski.
Here I note that there are three variants of the 2.7-liter offered in the Colorado — Turbo, Turbo Plus, and Turbo High-Output. The Turbo engine makes 237 horepower and 260 lb-ft of torque, while the Turbo-Plus and Turbo High-Output make 310 horsepower and 390 and 430 lb-ft of torque, respectively.
Obviously, this many years after having written these notes, they’re hard to parse, but I get the impression that Chevrolet learned from the Silverado that shares this engine, and tried to mask the 4-cylinder sound. “Silverado Lessons Learned — smoothness, sound — ‘Kinda sounded like a 4 cylinder in a truck,'” I wrote, quoting Luchanski.
In the notes above, I wrote down that Luchanski said these 2.7s are actually “really robust,” with changes made a few year after its 2018 launch to crank that durability up even further, as this is GM’s truck line, and expectations are high. I recall him claiming GM has been beating thee motors up, and they seem to be able to take it. I wrote down “forged steel crank, forged steel main caps” and “electric [water pump].” I could write a whole story about active thermal management and everything that an electric water pump enables, but suffice it to say: I’m a fan.
“Sounds like a big 4 cylinder, almost like a diesel, ” he told me, before noting how much lighter the motor is than the outgoing V6, and how it makes diesel-like amounts of torque.
This next note seems to suggest GM had a strategy to get oil up to temperature quickly to help deal with unwanted engine noise:
What’s more important than my chickenscratch is the fact that Luchanski actually showed us hardware, which was epic:
Here’s some NVH foam for the fuel rail — something that gets removed on the WT “Work Truck” trims: 
Here’s the cylinder head and a fancy electronic coolant valve:
Here’s the deck:
Here you can see the NVH foam that normally goes over the high pressure fuel pump; this is removed on the base truck: 
Here’s the classic gas-engine-cutaway shot, showing the cam, valvetrain, and cylinder:
I remembered three years ago that Luchanski and I broke away from the rest of the group so he could show me the custom wooden crate GM had built to transport the motor:
Anyway, back to modern-day: Another area where my modern self agrees with my 2023 self is in regards to interior plastics. They are indeed hard, but as I note, as long as they’re durable I’m cool with it:
While driving the trade-in around the San Fernando Valley, I mention a little bit of acceleration-lag when I pressed the pedal down, and I call the vehicle “not particularly fast,” because it’s just not. 310 horsepower going to 3.42:1 axles and 33-inch tires to propel almost 5,000 pounds isn’t going to lead to earth-shattering quickness, though the eight-speed automatic does a good job helping pull off a zero to 60 mph time of around 7 seconds, per Motor Trend. Seven seconds ain’t bad, and that’s how I’d characterize the Colorado ZR2’s motor; it ain’t bad. But it’s also not great.
While discussing in the video why I think someone traded this truck in for a Ford Bronco Sport, I mention the size — especially the height, just as I did in my old notes. “It’s really high,” I say in the Trade-In Tuesday clip. “That’s the big thing. It’s I can lower my seat, but I mean, at a certain point, there’s a floor there.”
The truck just feels like it’s towering above most cars out here in the streets of Van Nuys. Porsche 911s, Ford Fiestas, VW Jettas — they’re all somewhere at an altitude I can barely see from the Colorado’s lofty cabin. It’s a big-ass truck, and in the traffic of LA, this is a bit cumbersome.
The Colorado’s height is officially listed at over 80-inches, which is F-450 territory. In truth, per Redditors who own the ZR2, this figure likely accounts for the tall antenna on the base truck, with one owner saying the truck is closer to 75″. This is full-size truck territory, and when combined with the length and width of the truck, it just feels a bit nervy in heavy traffic.
The other factor that I suspect played into the previous owner’s decision to trade the truck in is efficiency — namely, the lack of it. Just look at these fuel economy numbers:
Seventeen miles per gallon when a gallon of fuel is $6/gallon is absolute madness. And the fact that this poor fuel economy is coming from a 2.7-liter four-cylinder that only makes 310 horsepower… it’s a bit sad. As is the real-world fuel economy, which, per my trip computer, dips to about 16 MPG:
Obviously, it’s a heavy, big truck with big all-terrain tires being shoved around by a small motor, so this isn’t that surprising, but it just underscores how I feel about the motor. It ain’t bad, but it also ain’t good.
The on-road ride falls into that same category. It’s a bit bouncy, but soft at the same time. It and the somewhat clumsy handling are definitely tolerable, but compared to a Bronco Sport, it’s definitely a compromise.
If you factor in price — this 9,000 mile 2025 Colorado is for sale at Galpin for about $47,000, while you can buy a Bronco Sport for $34,000 all day — the trade-in makes even more sense. In the current economy, trading down to get $10,000 in your pocket, 50% fuel savings at the pump, a better on-road ride, and more maneuverability makes a lot of sense. 
With that said, I bet it was still a hard thing to do.
The Colorado ZR2 Is A Beast
Back in 2019, when I reviewed the Jeep Gladiator, I said that, in terms of low-speed off-road capability, it was “at the top of the pack.” Shortly after publishing that, I wanted to retract it, because, though the Gladiator features a solid front axle that flexes like crazy, the advantages of that articulation are almost entirely canceled out by the truck’s less-than-optimal dimensions. You’ll see what I mean in this video of TFL Truck trying to drag the big Gladiator’s belly and big rear bumper through the Rubicon Trail:
That’s not to say the Gladiator isn’t among the top-dogs when it comes to off-road trucks, but I don’t know that it’s better than the Colorado ZR2. The ZR2’s superpower is its 25 degree breakover angle. Though the Gladiator’s approach angle is five degrees higher, and its departure angle is actually a degree higher, it’s the Colorado’s 4 degree higher breakover angle that, to me, is the bigger deal given that the big belly is clearly the limiting factor offroad.
The reality is that the 5-inch-shorter (6-inch-shorter-wheelbase) ZR2 wins in the most important area — geometry — and this more than makes up for whatever articulation disadvantage it has when compared to the Jeep. Here’s a Motor Trend comparison test coming to what I would have guessed to be the right conclusion:
The ZR2 is an extremely cool truck. It looks awesome, it’s got locking front and rear diffs, a Multimatic DSSV shock system that does well at high speeds, plenty of skid plates (minus the fuel tank unless you buy the Bison) — I myself love it, and if I had to choose a mid-size pickup right now, it would probably be between it and the Ford Ranger Raptor. And I say this as someone who was on the engineering team for the Gladiator.
So yeah, even though there are great reasons to trade it in for a much less capable but still fun Bronco Sport (fuel economy, price, maneuverability, ride), I’d have had a hard time doing it on cool factor alone.
I had a ’23 Colorado Trail Boss for exactly 6 months before I traded it in for a Silverado. The interior packaging on these is absolutely terrible. The whole truck just seems phoned in and an exercise in cost-reduction. It is a night & day difference between the Colorado and Silverado in terms of interior quality.
Ironically, my Silverado has the same 2.7T and I regularly average 26-27mpg on the highway.
The Colorado is so bad compared to the Tacoma it’s not even funny. And yet it doesn’t really look like that on paper.
The Colorado is one of the chintziest cars on the market full stop, especially TRAIL BASE.
1000%
I had a 2020 Tacoma TRD Sport, which I sold in 2021 for $7k over MSRP. All the Colorado did was make me regret doing that.
I sold my 21 Tacoma TRDORP Army Green for $5000 profit after driving it for only 6 months.
Then I got a lime rush 4Runner TRD Pro and I made $12,500 on that one after driving it for two years.
I also had my IS 300 F Sport sell at the same time that was $20,000 at lease end and then I sold it for $28,000.
Now I have a 24 GX 550 Overtrail and it’s getting to the end of its lease. My purchase price is $47k at lease end and it’s worth like $70k.
I have the same 2.7 in my 2026 Silverado and can get over 25mpg on long drives. I find the 2.7 to be pretty damn quick around town and the 8 speed shift really nicely.
Yeah, I have no complaints about this engine in the Silverado. My transmission will occasionally forget to up-shift though.
My theory is that there is some sort of formula out there on the internet where you take miles driven divided by gallons of fuel added and then you mutliply that number by two. This is simply based on my personal experience driving vehicles versus what I read on the internet.
Fuelly says that this engine gets about 19 mpg in a 1500. It gets about the same in the Colorado. The ZR2 that Tracy reviews consumes far more gas. I get aboiut 17 mpg with most 1/2 ton and midsize pickups that end up in my rental fleet. I haven’t had a 2.7L rental truck yet, however.
Two points
One: The ZR-2 was engineered and tested regularly on the Rubicon trail so it is one of the big dogs there.
Two: A ZR-2 is born and bred to be an off road critter. For someone to buy it and judge it on pavement skills is delusional.
To be fair to DT the car had been bought (and by the looks of it operated) by someone who lives in downtown LA. So in that context I think it’s pretty valid.
I’m totally ok with David. It’s the original owner that I have a bond to pick.
You don’t date a porn star for her sewing and social skills.
Yeah, it seems like the most ridiculous vehicle to buy, especially if (judging by the added steps) you’re quite small yourself.
On the other hand, I’m sure porn stars are quite good at social skills? They always seem to be very accommodating when tradespeople come to visit.
Wouldn’t you be if they actually showed up on time?
Biggest fantasy ever
“You don’t date a porn star for her sewing and social skills.”
Maybe you don’t. 🙂
LOL!!!
Bingo
What amazing time we live in that a 340 hp truck with a 7-second 0-60 time is considered “slow”.
Hey, I didn’t call it slow!
You didn’t mention the MPG for the hybrid version of the Colorado… Oh wait.
He also didn’t mention the MPG for the hybrid Bronco Sport for the same reasons. My PHEV Escape is getting 50, and I only charge 3 times per tank. Even not charging at all, it gets 40.
Why don’t you mention the hybrid version of the Taco which for a $4000 premium only gets you a lousy 1 to 2 MPG better fuel economy?
Another way of phrasing this is that the hybrid is quicker than the ZR2 while getting 10-15% better fuel economy.
The $4,000 premium is another matter. I don’t know why anyone is willing to pay this much.
Check those stats again. Hybrid is clocked in at 7.2 to 7.6 seconds 0-60, while the ZR2 is at 6.8 seconds. Not that anyone gives a rats ass about 0-60 times on an off road truck.
Ah, I was looking at the ZR2 Bison, which I see has larger wheels.
But regular ZR2 vs TRD Pro hybrid are equal in C&D acceleration tests and the Toyota gets better tested fuel economy. Pretty massive turbo lag evident from the 2.7 as well, which the hybrid doesn’t have. And the Ranger Raptor is far more powerful than either, yet matches the Chevy’s fuel consumption.
There are tradeoffs.
How I wish that were true, but you can now buy a Jeep Wrangler with a 6.4L engine, and the TRX / Raptor R off-road trucks are pulling sub 4.0 second 0-60 times.
This past April in my state, someone crashed their TRX into a restaurant at 82mph, injuring the one employee still in the restaurant. I realize this stupidity is not exclusive to off-road trucks, but they are not dynamically suited for this kind of power.
If there is a bright side to current fuel prices, elimination of these toys would certainly warm my heart.
Always nice to see someone else with handwriting as poor as my own. Thanks .
Poor hand writing? Thank God I thought I was having a stroke.
Agreed. Trying to read my notes from last week is often an exercise in frustration. Last year? God help me when I have no short term memory of what I wrote. Also an engineer.
I know it hasn’t been offered since the 90’s, but imagine this in a regular cab. That would make it a really nice off road setup.
Hell yeah!
I’ll stick with my 40 mpg Maverick. Yeah, I know the intended use is different, but sheesh, 17 mpg?
My 1988 Dakota got 12. It is what it is.
This truck seems like a fish out of water in LA. A dense city famous for gridlock is probably the worst place to own something like this.
This truck could make a lot more sense elsewhere. In my part of Florida, traffic is light (I presume that 16 mpg would be closer to 20 in our light suburban traffic), gas is $4.15 per gallon, and every other vehicle is a lifted 3/4 ton truck. A change of scenery isn’t going to turn a Colorado into a Prius, but the negatives of this truck would be far less impactful in Suburbville, FL than LA. I can see why the owner would trade this in for a Bronco Sport, but it is less about the truck and more about where/how the driver is using it.
Incidentally, thank you for furthering my confusion as to what day it is. I kept thinking today was Tuesday, but I remember watching Monday Night Football two days ago. Then I saw this was published on September 30th (aka today, which my calendar claims is Wednesday) but under the heading Trade-in Tuesday. When I watch football tomorrow I’m going to be confused as to why Thursday Night Football is lying to me by playing on Wednesday. And I have absolutely no idea what day I’m going to show up for work next Monday.
Hey David, did you ever do any hand drafted drawings in school? Would love to try and read those dims 😀
I did! I used a T-square and different pencil types for hidden lines vs center lines etc etc
I had two of the prior gen Canyons and absolutely loved them. I thought about getting one of the new ones when they first came out but it was the wrong vehicle for me at the time. They still turn my head, but the thought of daily driving a 17mpg truck these days is a big turn off to me. If I went back to one of these I’d seek out the prior gen diesel (assuming diesel prices ever return to earth).
Let’s be clear, any lifted, big tire off-road focused vehicle is going to suck down on gas. On the lower trims with less aggressive off road features, you can definitely be in the 20s in terms of MPG.
Oh absolutely. I had the prior gen- one with the Diesel and one with the V6. The diesel had less aggressive tires than the gas one, but even on the gas one with the air dam removed I was able to pull mid 20s on the highway. I don’t think the 4cyl was the right move in these.
Agree with the first part of your post, but totally disagree with the last sentence. That 2.7 has been tested in the larger and heavier Silverado as the base engine for years before they made it the only engine in the new 3rd gen Colorados. That engine is bullet proof and has lots of power everywhere in the rev range. And even with that power, it really isn’t that far behind the far more expensive hybrid engine in terms of fuel economy in the new Taco.
My ZR2 diesel averages 23-ish mpg in daily driving duties, mainly city traffic commuting. That’ll bump up to 25-27 as long as I keep it under 70mph on road trips.
When diesel was less than a dollar more than gas it made sense, compared to my 2010 Xterra that got 17mpg no matter what.
On the Colorado forums, I think guys have posted about getting low 20s to mid 20s in their ZR2s in the 3rd generation trucks. I have a Z71 and can get low to mid 20s if not for the fact that too many of my trips are very short (which is murder on fuel economy).
Being that it is gas, means its way cheaper than a diesel getting similar mileage.
Yeah, I’ve seen those claims. I’m sure it’s possible if you’re running 55mph on a two-laner to get ~23mpg in a 3rd gen ZR2, but in those same conditions I’m getting ~27mpg. Buddy of mine picked up a 2026 ZR2 a few months back, I need to ask him what sort of mileage he’s getting. Knowing him and his heavy foot, probably 16-17..
I’ve been tempted to pick up a 3rd gen, but just can’t give up my extended cab / long box. Plus it’s pretty much paid off and I’d like to live without a car loan for a while.
I love my truck, but if yours is paid off and does what you need, then at least wait till the refresh that we are hoping is coming in 2028 (with the more powerful motor) or maybe an eventual 4th gen. I have zero use for a long bed, so I’m perfectly fine with the 5′ one in these trucks now.
It’s already been confirmed that 2027 Colorado is getting the 350hp upgraded L4B.
I kayak fish quite a bit, and the extra foot of bed length lets me carry my kayaks without a hitch extension. Plus I think the 2nd gen has a ‘just right’ amount of tech. Touchscreen with Android Auto but buttons for all the other controls. In over 4 years of ownership I’ve used the touchscreen for hvac maybe twice? I would like ventilated seats, though.
I’m about to hit 92k on the odo for my ’22. So far it’s been solid, and none of the emissions equipment has given me any issue. I’ve been tempted to delete and tune now before anything goes wrong, but I’ve also read plenty of horror stories about tunes and having to deal with de-rates and other stuff.
1) David, hyphen placement is VERY important. “West side-girl” has an entirely different implication from “West-side girl.”
2) I’m not sure why newer cars have such terrible lag but it’s really irritating. Rented a Caravan for a week and I had to carefully plan when to pull into the street so I could hit the accelerator a half-second in advance. Otherwise I’d push the accelerator, push it more, then finally the thing engaged and peeled out. (And no, this was not due to idle-stop.)
Obligatory XKCD
There’s one for every occasion!
And in the LA context isn’t “Westside” (and “Eastside”) usually written as one word?
What’s going on? Where’s the trade-in-Tuesday intro music and DT dance? Don’t take it away from me.
I personally think it should go back in, but our Video Manger, Griffin, nixed it because it’s “not high enough quality”? Or some such. Griffin, get in here and defend yourself!
Listennnn. DT is accurately quoting me; the OG intro was extremely low resolution (I sincerely think 480) and nobody knows where the master is so I can’t even find a way to juice it up.
DT and I have talked a bunch about reshooting one but we’ve often been pretty time-restricted when we shoot; I’ll make sure we make time on the next go at it I promise
I bet AI could upscale that sucker. I’ll see myself out.
See, that COULD be the case, but here’s the ultimate kicker: I don’t even have the original export of the intro. That means the few times I’ve used it (before our reboot), I had to rip it from old YT videos that would’ve been exported at 1080p at best (we only do 4k exports for bigger projects like the Taxi trip or the Jeep Moab vid) before going through YT’s horrible compression algorithms that just chop everything up.
If I had the OG 1080 export? Maybe. But a compressed version of a compressed video? Brother
This makes my heart sing.
🙂
I may not always be active on everything but believe me, I read and see the feedback. Commenters on YT have been talking about it for a minute now as well and I’ve been studying the old pimp my ride intros to see how we can continue emulating it while keeping the old spirit alive
gotta keep the original. MASH and Cheers are low-res and everyone watches ’em
Yes and no. Proper productions typically keep old film scans so you can infinitely re-scan it as film scanners get better, and because film has a theoretically infinite resolution, the film can infinitely scale up with the scanners. And fun fact: the NFL is actually some of the best in the world at this perpetual upscaling of old tape. The low-res is more so just cuz things were primitive (lighting, blocking, general cinematography techniques), and lenses were basic (literally poorly resolved with plenty of imperfections).
What’s funny tho as a general note about this stuff, is that there’s kinda no scaling of digital in the future. Digital will always be hard-locked at one resolution; you can’t just find more resolution with a new export technique. Just kind of an interesting thought
Have you tried saying “Enhance” repeatedly? It works really well on CSI type shows.
ENHANCE! ENHANCE! ENHANCE!
(Beetlejuice shows up.)
(Followed by Torch who says “did someone say Beetle?)
I would also think that trade-in makes sense for many people if they are simply honest with themselves about their actual level of outdoorsy activities. The ZR2 is an impressive machine. It is capable direct from the factory of tackling something like the Rubicon Trail. Most people simply do not need that capability and will not use that capability. Even if they are pretty outdoorsy, many people would be better off with a vehicle that drives will in the day-to-day and has very mild offroad capability. Bronco Sport would fit that bill quite nicely.
I think even a lot of people who might use the capability overbuy. When I was in college circa 2003 me and some buddies got very into off roading, mostly full size ’70s Pickups and SUVs with 4-6″ lifts and 33-35″ tires. At some point I had gotten sick of driving a lifted full size blazer on 33″ tires since it was also my daily driver and “downgraded” to a XJ Cherokee with a 2″ lift and 31″ tires and outside of deep mud and exceptionally tall obstacles my XJ could go most places my buddy could take his Ramcharger on 35″ tires outside of full on mud bogs.
During Covid I bought my dad’s older Cayenne thinking I’d get back into some overlanding and camping and even that thing with AT good tires on it would go further than my willingness (and certainly my wife’s lol) to see how far I could take it.
All that to say, agreed a Bronco Sport is more than enough for anyone who isn’t doing hardcore off roading and bogging and I imagine most folks won’t even ever use it to full capacity. The one caveat is having low range is one of those things you don’t use until you need it but when you need it you usually need it badly. Absolutely saved my butt on an unexpectedly icy hill once (though ironically in the city)
Your standard trim 4×4 pickup truck with all season tires is waaaay more capable than most people realize. Yes, you need to take it easy and pick good lines, but the basic low range + 4×4 + rear axle flexibility formula holds up.
The nice thing about stock-ish tires is that you are operating within the parameters the vehicle was engineered for. You don’t need to stress so much about breaking drivetrain or suspension parts.
End of the day, people just want to project an image. I’ve had the pleasure to ride a few very rough mountain roads in Peru by motorcycle. You think you’ve overcome a real challenge, and then a family rolls up in a perfectly stock Toyota Corolla.
We did some trails in and around Moab with my buddy’s ’98 4runner a few years back, bone stock besides +1 mud tires and could not believe the places we went, crawling with one wheel in the air and everything. I think on our second trip we did break a sway bar end link, but that’s on a truck that already had nearly 200K on the clock. And maybe that’s cherry picking an unusually good midsize (compact by today’s standards) platform but to your point that’s the same basic configuration most mid-size pickups have.
We finally reached a rock step we couldn’t figure out how to get over and hiked up to see the top and maybe the other way was easier but up comes some bone stock GM CUV slowly making it’s way up lol. Living in the PNW nearly every rough af forest service road we drive up for a hike has at least one Prius in the parking lot for the trailhead.
Icy hill in a city actually makes sense. Snow gets packed by the traffic.
I live in Minnesota and have a 1st gen Highlander. It has done everything I need it to do despite basically just being a tall Camry with pretty simple AWD set-up. But also my outdoorsy activities mostly just need me to get to the trailhead and then my legs take over.
It’s funny that you mention the MPG so much. I used to complain to the GM corporate overlords when I sold GMCs that it was nearly impossible to sell Canyons when there’s a diesel half-ton Sierra right next to it that gets nearly 30 mpg, more space and is about the same price.
GM spent millions on their new I6 diesel, make an I5 or I4 version and put it in the Colorado/Canyon
Should be a lot easier now that diesel is 6-7 bucks a gallon.
I really appreciate seeing your notes post facto with real world reports. Something I’ve always wondered is which auto journalists are clocking the highs and lows of a vehicle at a presser and which of their concerns are more because they get to drive a ton of different stuff, and what’s material to me.
Turns out you pretty much nailed everything good and bad from one look before any were out on the market. I think that’s pretty impressive.
I had a Dodge Dakota that I really liked, but the gas mileage was just as bad as a 3/4 ton full size.
I can easily get 22mpg at highway speeds with my 23 Sierra 1500 with the same engine. If traffic is running at 100 km/h it will get up to 27mpg.
The transmission is not the best, but engine noise must be much better damped on the Sierra, I barely notice it.
The tires are the major culprit here, plus the aerodynamic implications of the lift and off-road bodywork.
The ZR2 really is quite a serious off-road package. I’d be curious to see what a WT or other highway-focused Colorado would return in normal driving.
The other factor is size. At this point, the only thing ‘mid size’ about these trucks is the width and height of the cabin. In terms of weight and capability, we are basically looking at a full-size truck.
Yeah, it’s the Coast Down Coefficients, especially b & c.
There is a publicly available database somewhere on the EPA site that lets you find the ABCs for all cars. No clue where that went…
That’s a cool formula!
I should clarify, I meant I was curious how a basic Colorado would perform in Paul B’s driving, given he is reporting significantly better milage than the EPA for a 2.7 Sierra.
Google / EPA says:
Colorado WT 4WD: 17 city / 21–22 highway / 19 combined
Sierra WT 2.7L 4WD: 17 city / 20 highway / 18–19 combined
It is shocking how little difference there is between the “mid” & full-size trucks, through the Colorado does have a very slight edge.
I have a 50km, one way trip to work. Most days the trip summary falls between 8-10 l/100km. I don’t hypermile, but I’m easy on the accelerator, which makes the biggest difference for me.
But even then, 100 km round trip at 10l/100 and gas at $2/l, that’s $20 in gas everyday.
The Equinox EV is my daily for work for obvious reasons. Math comes out to about $1.40 for the same trip.
I can’t wait until we build our home and I can buy an EV…
We don’t have much of a commute at all, but I have to travel about 40km into town a few times a week, and it adds up.
We have an F150 with the 2.7, and 10l/100km is exactly our yearly average. Thankfully it doesn’t need premium gas for light-duty use.
It seems these small turbocharged engines use just as much fuel under heavy load, but the increased efficiency really rewards gentle driving.
Everyone is harping on the 17 MPG thing without realizing that you put those tires on nearly any vehicle, and it’s going to guzzle fuel. But put on more reasonable street tires and you’ll be in the 20s without much effort.
Love “G80” in the notes, real ball knowledge.
As for the MPG, I’m not sure what people realistically expect. Off road tires make a lot bigger difference than some realize.
The proliferation of all terrain tires is… not good for the average consumer, lol. My inlaws have a Pathfinder that came with them that they absolutely shouldn’t have. It’s costing them at least 4mpg. Which is absolutely crazy to make their car louder and handle worse to… never ever leave pavement.
About a year after I got my 2021 Canyon AT4, I got a letter from GM with a $600 gift card in it. When GM added the Goodyear all terrains to the AT4 for 2021 they did not re-certify the fuel economy. They didn’t realize how much those tires made a difference compared to the much more highway oriented all terrains they had on the AT4 in prior years. The $600 was their attempt to make up for additional fuel costs.
It would be interesting to swap them out to see the actual difference.
A “regular” 4×4 Colorado gets 17/19/22 mpg, compared to 17/17/17 for the ZR2.
So a rough guess is 2-5 mpg, maybe slightly less if the regular truck has better aero as well.
Interesting. Using the highway numbers, those tires are costing you an extra 1.3 gallons per hundred miles. 130 gallons/$500+ per year at 10,000 miles. Real world will be less since ppl don’t drive on highways all the time. Still, plenty of ppl out there think $500/yr is well worth it to look cool.
Plus, you’ll likely have to replace them more frequently and they can be even more expensive than ‘normal’ tires.
It’s like getting a car with the higher-HP turbocharged engine; higher initial cost, higher ongoing costs, higher potential costs. The gift that keeps on giving.
Now go drive a 2024 TuRD-PRO Tacoma turbo 4-cylinder and write about the annoying turbo whistle and the abysmal fuel mileage on those as well.
Almost all of these newer ‘mid-sized’ trucks are way too big. My regular-cab 2wd Canyon gets 25 mpg and my regular-cab S-10 could get close to 30 hwy. mpg if I kept it to around 60 mph.
Bring back the compact regular-cab trucks! I’d even drive a regular-cab, FWD Montana like they used to sell south of the border.
I want to buy a new vehicle to replace my old beater, but everything is huge. This thing is already the size of my old Yukon XL, and an F150 or Sierra is even wider and longer than that. I couldn’t even get a current gen half-ton to the cabin without wrecking the bodywork.
The problem with midsize trucks is they’ve gotten so big and expensive that there’s no point. An Ecoboost F150 gets better MPG’s, is more capable, more comfortable and just nicer in general. And you get to be a real big boy in your big ol truck honk honk.
People trading in large off-road vehicles for basic crossovers isn’t the worst thing in the world. I get that some people see 17mpg and say “that’s terrible for a small truck” but like… look at this fucking thing lol. Everything about it’s form is a middle finger to efficiency.
In this economy, there’s only going to be so much appetite to suffer for fashion. US manufacturers better be forewarned… the doubling down of truck everything for margins feels awfully ’08 coded.
I’d consider a midsized truck if it had back seats that are appropriate for family duty and got reasonable-for-2026 fuel economy. I have no idea why that’s an impossible ask, it would be a huge hit.
Yeah there’s no reason that can’t be done. But I agree with you that Ford/GM is not interested in getting families to “downsize” (lol) into midsizers. They’re very happy to sell hockey-dads Sierras and F-150s for family duty, as silly as it is.
The weird thing is the Maverick has a notably roomier backseat than the Ranger. As in, normal size adults can sit back there and be reasonably comfortable. I’m not sure if it’s unibody vs BOF, transverse FWD-biased vs longitudinal RWD-biased or just better packaging, but the Mav seems to be a lot more space efficient, possibly why I see probably 10 mavericks on the road for every 1 ranger.
I think the longitudinal rwd/4wd layout eats a lot of space. Guessing this is part of why all the sedans went fwd in the ’80s. When I had my Cayenne I was surprised how little interior space it had vs other SUVs with a similar small-end of mid-size footprint.
I… don’t disagree!
I’ll also say that… higher gas prices are a bad thing for lots of reasons, BUT, it is a market-driven way to bring about more fuel efficient vehicles. We’ll see what comes of it.
Yeah I’m not exactly stoked about the price of gas. I’m driving around a V6 minivan. It’s thirstier than I’d like, lol.
But yeah, the 4$+ threshold for just about everyone in the country has been exceeded, and people are going to be forced to really assess whether or not it’s important to them to sacrifice financially to maintain a truck. US manufacturers have to be very nervous, or at least the staff that is willing to remember lessons of the past anyway…
I remember the gas price spike that killed the Hummer. You had people trading in Suburbans for a Geo.
GM has a brand-new diesel that they could shove in this and get upper 20’s even in the ZR2 trim. They’re being GM again
I’ve toyed with the idea of a midsize truck and I remain convinced that they’re intentionally nerfed so dealerships can upsell folks to half tons. I just do not understand the overall package here. The backseats are too small, most of the option packages raise the height to the point that the size advantages of a “smaller” truck are more or less mitigated, and they get god awful fuel economy despite the downsized engines.
The only hybrid in the entire class is the Taco and in practice it’s no better than the ICE version because Toyota borked the iForce Max powertrain badly. The damn Turbomax engine GM sunk an inordinate amount of resources in to is basically as inefficient as a damn V8. How do you manage to fuck up the assignment that badly? Even in the non off-road trims these things return real world mileage in the teens.
See what I’m saying here? At this point just get the hilariously oversized half ton with a V8. I just do not understand why this class of trucks is so compromised…but again, I think it’s by design. I’m holding out hope for the next generation Ridgeline, because apparently it’s going to get Passport like styling and a hybrid option.
I just lampooned the Ridgeline situation at Honda, but if they really manage to make it look like a Passport (which now is genuinely good looking) and add a hybrid, it may finally make sense.
I would be the target demographic for that exact configuration.
My interest would be piqued for sure.
I have a 23 Ridgeline and love it. Does all the truck stuff I need to do. I don’t tow anything.
But the V6 hybrid Honda is developing for the Pilot/Passport/Ridgeline would be awesome.
26mpg on the highway is much better than my 06 Silverado but mid 30’s would be even nicer.
The couple of people I know that have them absolutely love them, the only complaint is the efficiency which, is a complaint for really all of Hondas large vehicles. That hybrid can’t come soon enough.
I would also argue the Ridgeline could use a little juice even in the form of Honda actually painting some of them in a fun color.
Around here people off road their trucks in the forest, so having a narrower body is an asset. You see tons of older Tacomas and 4Runners. But the newer midsize trucks are as wide a full-size and cost the same. I bet most of these people just keep their older Tacos forever.
Wow a big brick with giant off roady tires gets terrible fuel economy? Say whaaaaaaaaat
But also, GM really should consider dropping in the new 5.3 in there and it would make for a much more interesting proposition and would be completely unique to the segment
There is no new 5.3. It’s going to be a 5.7.
Correct, but point still stands
Might as well add the 5.7 as an option. The 1st-gens offered the 5.3, but only if you got the bloated crew-cab model. And this new generation of Colorado/Canyons are even bigger, so I agree that the 5.7 makes sense.
I understand trading in that Colorado. I’ve never heard anything but disappointment from people who have them. But bronco sport with the 1.5 is just as bad maybe worse. Hybrid maverick would have made a ton of sense. Why ford doesn’t have a hybrid bronco sport for people who realize they didn’t need to haul sailboat fuel is beyond me.
I kind of figured that the Hybrid option would show up for the 2027 models since they have excess capacity due to dropping the Escape but unfortunately that doesn’t seem to be happening.
There seems to be that new platform for escape hybrids so many hope for 28. But still they should have had them from the start. Just not logical. They aren’t even going to piss anyone off. People were always begging for something like it.
I understand why the Bronco Sport didn’t launch with a Hybrid system, they rightly figured it would be popular in the Maverick, at least with fleets, and with much higher than expected retail demand they ended up short on supply as it was.
But now with the Escape gone they should have the capacity.
As for the Escape’s ICE/Hybrid replacement I haven’t heard too many details on exactly what it will be, but it sounds like it will be built on the same line that currently builds the BS and Mav and potentially will be displacing the BS.
We will just have to wait and see.
So many people buying the bronco sport including fleets would love a hybrid. So I see no logic in not offering it. Supply shortages are one thing. But they are just giving competition more business then usual.
I know that a lot of people would be interested, even more so now than when it launched. Even though my wife kind of liked the looks, the lack of a hybrid version kept it off the list.
They also need to do the PHEV version of the Maverick, upon introduction they said the protected the space for the pack used in the Escape PHEV. However with sales far exceeding original expectations I don’t seem them bringing it to market any time soon.
Could launch it after the fathom. That seems to be their priority now.
I genuinely would’ve looked at a Bronco Sport Hybrid if it had maintained having some soft-road chops. Even the Escape for that matter if it had come with a credible AWD system, not sure how Ford missed this.
It’s quite a head scratcher. Ford could kill many birds with one stone. It would likely be the most popular powertrain. It’s almost like they don’t look at what toyota can’t keep on the lots.
And it’s obvious to anybody who’s paying attention (regardless of whether most people need it) that AWD is one of the big selling points of CUVs and that FWD ones barely sell so why would you only package the hybrid with the least popular drive option.
Definitely, they fixed that with the maverick I’m sure they could with the bronco sport as well. Just an e axle. Like Toyota has done since 05 / 06. They are starting to be pretty cheap to build.
No need for an E-axle, the Escape Hybrid had mechanical AWD as does the finally introduced AWD Maverick Hybrid
The Escape Hybrid was always available with AWD and only available in AWD for the 2026 MY vehicles. Now the PHEV is only FWD since the battery blocks the path for the driveshaft. Yes they could do a rear motor but that is locked behind the Lincoln paywall, along with a significant reduction in both ICE and EV efficiency.
Ah my bad, I was thinking of the PHEV, would’ve been very interested if it had been offered a few years ago.
And while I get that it’s theoretically less efficient, I think it would hit a happy medium for our situation. We already have a charger at our house courtesy of the previous owner, nearly all my wife’s in town trips would be EV only on mostly hydro generated power, so for us I think it makes sense where the gas engine is really only something we need for road trips so we’re not orienting all our outdoor activities around the sketchy availability of chargers in rural mountain towns.
While I can’t say specifically why the Corsair Grand Touring, 33 mpg combined 27 mi EV, is so much less efficient than the Escape PHEV, 40 mpg combined 37 mi EV, I just don’t see that extra motor making up all of the difference. I’m sure larger wheels are part of it, and maybe added weight?
For the standard Hybrid Escape with mechanical drive there is no AWD penalty in MPG. The Mav sees a 2 MPG drop in the city and 1 MPG on the other numbers. The RAV4 Hybrid does have a 2mpg penalty across the board with eAWD. Unfortunately they only offer an AWD PHEV so can’t compare those numbers.
I bought my wife a 2022 Escape PHEV new and it has been so cheap to run when I found another, identical except for color with even lower miles at a rock bottom price, I ended up getting one for my daily driver. I’ve done as much as 1500 mi and 2 full months on a single tank of gas.
On road trips with zero charging it can get into the mid 40’s when driving mostly on roads with limits of 60 mph or below. to as low as 36 when traveling on interstates with 80 mph speed limits.
Yeh we had a PHEV Escape as a rental in Norway a couple years ago and were quite impressed with it. Granted slow speed mountain and coastal roads probably play quite well to its strength but we got like 50mpg and halved what I’d budgeted us to spend for gas. And it was a pleasant blend of good to drive but comfortable, decent seats, looks nice nicer than many CUVs.
The recently discontinued Escape was supposed to cover the hybrid compact crossover segment. The Bronco Sport has really terrible aero that the hybrid system wouldn’t be able to overcome on the highway, but at least the city score would be higher.
Doesn’t hurt to give the option. It’s better then the maverick. 0.37 for the bronco sport , 0.55 for the maverick
I know a guy who just traded his 2 year old Colorado for a new RAV4 hybrid because the mileage was so bad on the truck.
Just some quick math, a 2026 Colorado has a 21 gallon fuel tank. If it was getting 12MPG and fuel was $4.50 per gallon you’d be paying $94 to go 252 miles!!