A friend called me and asked about buying an extended or crew cab Chevy Colorado. He asked if the 5 cylinder was efficient and dependable. All I know about that engine is that it's a shortened version of that 270 horse inline six they put in the Trailblazers. I had no first hand information for him. Anyone have anything to say about these?
Reliability of Chevy Colorado 5 Cylinder??
- Thread starter NYEngineer
- Start date
I think early ones had problems with overheating. I do not know if that issue was resolved or not.
I heard it's a good engine. Not everone knows, but the I-5 is an inherently balanced engine design.
I have owned both a 4 cyl and a 5 cyl Colorado. Both 5-speed manuals. I won't own an automatic if I can help it. The 4 cyl got great MPG but was slow. The 5 cyl had 50 more hp and ran like an 8-legged dog. I too have heard there were problems with the early 2.8 and 3.5 engines, something about the cylinder heads having serious issues. I don't know all the details on it. I think GM may have issued some special warranty coverage for whatever the problem was with the heads on the engines. I traded my 5 cyl Colorado before the problems became very well known. Some others complained about the air conditioner making odd noises but I never noticed it. Also the AC was kind of weak unless you always had it on recirculate. Others complained of thin paint and I did notice the paint would chip pretty easily.
The 5 cyl was an extended cab and the 4 cyl was a regular cab. They both were OK little trucks but I thought they were kind of cheaply built. I never had any trouble with either one except the brake light switches broke on both trucks at about the same mileage. The only real problem I saw was with both trucks the doors were hard to close when you close them from the outside. And to save money GM only put a door lock key cylinder on the driver's door so if your friend likes to open the door for his wife/girlfriend he better consider keyless entry or get the LS which will have the OEM keyless.
All trucks willl have their good and bad points. The 5 cyl got about 28 mpg around town and over 30 on the highway. It was quick when I needed it to be. I wasn't real crazy about the drive by wire system. I traded the 5 cyl Colorado at 20K for a used 2001 Dakota with a V6 and 5 speed. My Dakota has much more of a solid feel to it but it's much heavier and has less hp with a 170hp V6. I've done a few things to speed it up and it runs perfectly fine for me. I get about 22 MPG around town and 25 on the highway, a little better when I can use the cruise. And the interior is nicer too. I also like having a full gauge cluster on the dash. The Colorado's only had a temperature gauge. The Dodge 3.9 is a good reliable engine that I don't need a degree from MIT to work on.
Your friend can take a look at http://www.coloradofans.com to find out a lot more about the Colorado and read the "common issues" page. All in all, mine were pretty good little trucks. I worked for a GM contractor at the time so I got good prices on both of mine. I would say get the extended cab or 4 door though. There's not enough room in the reg. cab IMHO.
The 5 cyl was an extended cab and the 4 cyl was a regular cab. They both were OK little trucks but I thought they were kind of cheaply built. I never had any trouble with either one except the brake light switches broke on both trucks at about the same mileage. The only real problem I saw was with both trucks the doors were hard to close when you close them from the outside. And to save money GM only put a door lock key cylinder on the driver's door so if your friend likes to open the door for his wife/girlfriend he better consider keyless entry or get the LS which will have the OEM keyless.
All trucks willl have their good and bad points. The 5 cyl got about 28 mpg around town and over 30 on the highway. It was quick when I needed it to be. I wasn't real crazy about the drive by wire system. I traded the 5 cyl Colorado at 20K for a used 2001 Dakota with a V6 and 5 speed. My Dakota has much more of a solid feel to it but it's much heavier and has less hp with a 170hp V6. I've done a few things to speed it up and it runs perfectly fine for me. I get about 22 MPG around town and 25 on the highway, a little better when I can use the cruise. And the interior is nicer too. I also like having a full gauge cluster on the dash. The Colorado's only had a temperature gauge. The Dodge 3.9 is a good reliable engine that I don't need a degree from MIT to work on.
Your friend can take a look at http://www.coloradofans.com to find out a lot more about the Colorado and read the "common issues" page. All in all, mine were pretty good little trucks. I worked for a GM contractor at the time so I got good prices on both of mine. I would say get the extended cab or 4 door though. There's not enough room in the reg. cab IMHO.
Ya the older ones had head problems but have been resolved. (not sure the date tho) I have an extended cab 4cyl/5 speed. It's slow in the summer with the ac on but otherwise adequit. I love the truck.
in the 4 years I've worked at a local gmc dealer as a technician I've seen about 4 that required removal of the head due to leaking exhaust valves. 07 up do not seem to have this problem. still though it is not that common. other minor things like the blower resistor and connector needing replacment... other than that they are nice trucks I would buy one.
I had the I6 version of the Atlas series in our 2005 Trailblazer. Loved the engine, just hated the truck wrapped around it. You may find the same thing with the Colorado/Canyon. I don't know that we ever exceeded 17-18mpg with the 4.2L. In regards to the poster that got 28/30mpg with his I5, all I have to say is WOW! That is highly unusual for any of the GM Vortec/Atlas series engines. They are not normally that good on fuel.
Joel
Joel
Thanks for the replies, guys. This was the kind of information I was looking to pass on to him.
28/30mpg? Ha! I never got anywhere near that. 19city (at worst) and 23highway. I think some people don't know how to calculate mpgs correctly.
That's a cute engine, except the dipstick looks like an afterthought. I like inline engines.
To a post above, I-5 engines are not inherently balanced, I-6 engines are. The Atlas I-5 has a balance shaft for sure.
To a post above, I-5 engines are not inherently balanced, I-6 engines are. The Atlas I-5 has a balance shaft for sure.
28 around town with Colorado 4cylinder? Doesn't add up. Ratings are 18/25. I believe the 28-30 on highway, maybe, but not 28 in town. The 18/25 is for the 2.8 4 banger with 2 wheel drive, regular cap, manual tranny.
Um, sorry for not providing exact figures on the MPG I got with trucks I owned 3 and 4 years ago. Back then I figured it out by dividing the gas used in the 50 mile round trip commute to work I had at the time, and by figuring the amount of gas it took me for round trips to Savannah, GA from my home near Tampa. Maybe I was off a few MPG in my response. Both trucks got great MPG, that's what matters. I get great MPG in my Dakota too, because I drive sensibly, keep my truck maintained on or ahead of schedule and keep the the wheels balanced and in perfect alignment with the right air pressure and I prefer a manual transmission. I don't buy cheap gas either. I drove and took care of the Colorado's the same way and got great MPG. Sometimes I wondered if the gas gauges in the Colorado's were even working. It would take 2 round trips to the office for it to even move off of the full mark.
Uh, yeah, an I-5 is inherently imbalanced. FWIW, I have had one as a work truck since 2006 and it's never had a minute's trouble. I've put it through all sorts of abuse off-road that it wasn't meant to take. Only issue I've ever seen was some of the stick on rubber sealing between the dash and the windshield bubbled up after about a year. But no major issues. It does feel a tad more loose after putting A/T tires on it, though. But I guess that's to be expected....
Originally Posted By: BrianWC
Uh, yeah, an I-5 is inherently imbalanced.
This is evident from the 'bulge' you see from the counter balance shaft on the block skirt of the I5. I'm not sure if the 4 or I6 have them.
Joel
Uh, yeah, an I-5 is inherently imbalanced.
This is evident from the 'bulge' you see from the counter balance shaft on the block skirt of the I5. I'm not sure if the 4 or I6 have them.
Joel
Here's a good read:
http://www.autozine.org/technical_school/engine/smooth2.htm
also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straight-5
http://www.autozine.org/technical_school/engine/smooth2.htm
also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straight-5
Originally Posted By: glennc
Maybe he meant the 4-cyl got 28/30 since he said earlier in the post that the four was the one that got good mileage. Also he said he had manual trannies in his trucks, which would help.
Even for a four that's really good mileage.
Mine is a 4cyl. Manual tranny too.
Maybe he meant the 4-cyl got 28/30 since he said earlier in the post that the four was the one that got good mileage. Also he said he had manual trannies in his trucks, which would help.
Even for a four that's really good mileage.
Mine is a 4cyl. Manual tranny too.
I'm with you INMY01TA. I'd be very surprised if even the 4cyl did better than ~24mpg on straight hywy travel, fill-up to fill-up. Lots of people quote MPG readings based on a partial tank. That's meaningless IMO.
Joel
Joel
Similar threads
