Super sized for me. The S-10 trucks and SUVs were just a little too narrow in the shoulder room. I’m built like a Gorilla, and I really liked my Blazer, but I was so happy that I had enough shoulder room when we got our Grand Cherokee that replaced it.
I believe it depends on what you need for what job. If you need to tow a large trailer (5th wheelers, etc.), a full-sized truck like a Chevy/GMC CK2500/3500, Ford F250 or F350, or a (Dodge) Ram 2500 or 3500, etc.
But suppose you don’t need, or want such a large truck? Maybe your old Chevy S10/GMC S15 works just fine, thank you. Just because your neighbour has a larger truck, does that mean you need one as well? If all you need to do is tow a smaller cargo trailer, or smaller travel trailer, the smaller truck should work for you.
It’s kind of a shame fun sized trucks aren’t sold in the U.S. anymore even though there is likely a market for them. I saw a new Chevy Colorado setting near a 1968 C10 the other day and noticed they were virtually the same size.
Collected some specs and yes the width is significantly different but otherwise specs are quite close. The closest apples to apples comparison of the ‘late ’60s truck to the new truck would probably be the C10 short bed to the new Colorado regular cab 2WD.
1. There is no new regular cab Colorado, only extended and crew cabs.
2. The width, track, WB, and length measurements seem very off. Actually, all the other measurements seem off too. Searching “2016 chevy colorado specs” gives me this:
WB: 128.3″ for EC and CCSB models, 140.5″ for CCLB models
OAL: 212.7″ for EC and CCSB models, 224.9″ for CCLB models
W: 74.3″
Track: 62.4″
H: 70.5″
David Cline
Posted April 25, 2016 at 8:43 AM
I found the diagram I got those dims from and they were actually from the previous gen Colorado.
DUH ! to me.
We did prove a point though. Looking at these figures one can see how ‘little’ trucks are growing in size, approaching or even surpassing what was once considered a full sized truck.
Still not right. The track you give for the Colorado (42.6″) is more like from a model T.
David Cline
Posted April 25, 2016 at 10:25 AM
Track width of the 2010 2WD: 57.5. I believe the span of 42.6 was actually meant to show the tailgate opening. (wadding up said diagram and throwing in the trash.)
Anyone else notice that even though the Sonoma appears to be a 2wd, it has more clearance at the air dam than the Silverado which is likely a 4×4.
Ever since the ’88 revamp, the GM fullsize trucks have always sat low like 2wds even when equipped with 4wd. FWIW, my neighbor has had 2 Z71s since I bought my townhouse. His ’03 4×4 sat a good 3″ or so lower than my ’05 2wd Ram 1500. Once I lowered it, my truck still sits close to the same height at the roof as his. Needless to say, IFS equipped GM trucks aren’t exactly popular with the offroad crowd….
While logic would dictate Fun-Size, I have to admit I’m irrationally drawn to Super-Sized. Personally I’d take a Ram. So over-the-top and so uniquely American. They’ll be gone one day… like dinosaurs, nothing that big can last forever. But they are awesome in their too-much way.
A buddy of mine had an Isuzu Pickup with an inline 4. We pulled cow trainers, ran from NOLA to Orlando for vacations, and moved lots of furniture for relatives and friends. It was far more reliable than his step-dad’s Ram 150 which was in the shop more than it was on the farm.
The problem is they’ve grown larger and larger with each life cycle till they somewhat bloated. An old Colorado/Sonoma in good condition would be fine with me.
If she wanted a truck that’s between supersized and hypersized, she could probably get a Titan XD, and if she wanted a medium sized truck, probably a Colorado is good.
I really wish truck makers would drop the 18 wheeler front end look that every fullsize truck seems to have. The only pick up that looked good with that look was the 1994-2002 Dodge Ram.
Despite Ford’s assertions that you have to have a full size truck to do any job, 90% of all the things that you need to do with a pickup truck can be done with a small truck and not a large one.
I would rather take the Sonoma over the fullsize chevy truck. Its is very odd but despite it being 11 years since the S-10/Sonoma trucks were killed off (in 2005(its last year) they offered only the crew cab version), there are still loads of them out on the roads. I guess these are true cockroaches on the roads
I’d be happy if the full size trucks simply went back to their late ’90s proportions. The 2002 “Mayor of Truckville” came along and it’s been a bloat race ever since.
I’ve long thought Honda should make a regular cab longbed Ridgeline. It wouldn’t sell all that well but would burnish the crewcabs’ “real truck” cred. (Can the cheapest version be called a halo model?)
Hear, hear! I’ve been saving this for when I have time to properly write it up (which will eventually happen), but I recently replaced my ’99 F-250 4×4 Powerstroke with a ’15 RAM 2500. Here it is next to my Dad’s ’98 Ranger:
That’s not the only bloat. I recently saw an ad on Craigslist for a 1970 Plymouth Fury. It was parked between two Nissan Sentras, one of which was new. Guess which was vastly taller and appeared just as wide.
According to wikipedia, a new Sentra is 58.9″ tall and 69.3″ wide.
A 1970 Fury is 54.5″-55.8″ tall, and 79.6″ wide. Most of the old full sizers seem to be right shy of 80″ wide, and they look extremely wide because of how low they are.
I own a Ford F-150 Supercrew and for my job it’s perfect. Although I always desire a smaller truck on my next purchase, when I get down to the usable space with it’s combination of interior and external carrying capacity and versatility, I can’t justify it the supercrew always wins. at least when I get behind the wheel I’m rewarded with a ride and handling that beats any large BOF American of the Sixties or Seventies. In my mind thats why they’re so popular today, they fill the contempory American niche for the large sedans of yore.
I don’t often have good things to say about the super-size trucks of today, but after riding in a co-worker’s, I “get it”. If you’ve never been in a crew cab variant of one of these, you’d be amazed just how much passenger space they have. Absolutely cavernous, and you can sit three full-sized adults across the back row without breaking a sweat. If it was a bench you could fit three adults up front (the one I rode in had an enormous console instead).
It’s the modern equivalent of a six-passenger sedan. Just much, much taller, and without the comparatively stellar fuel economy that aerodynamic styling and higher specific ouptut engines have given passenger cars.
A couple of nights ago my wife and I were looking over the stock at our local GM dealer. It’s time replace my ’10 Sierra 1500 with 325,000 km on it. I’d about narrowed it down to a new GM 1500 or the Ford F-150 when she convinced me to look at the new Colorado/Canyon. I don’t really need a full size truck anymore and with retirement on the horizon she wants something smaller in case we downsize to one vehicle. I was coming around to her way of thinking, and then we looked the prices.
Yes the Colorado is nice, yes the new full size trucks are too damn big, but I can actually get a decently equipped full sizer for less real money than the equivalent 3/4 scale version. I suspect it’ll retain more of it’s value at resale time as well.
I may go for the Colorado anyway, since a happy wife is the best investment of all but I do wonder how many of these big behemoths are out there just because there isn’t really a viable option anymore?
You have hit the nail on the head. GM, Ford and Dodge are not able to make a cheap small or midsize truck anymore and the cost of them are close to/ exceed the cost of a large truck so it seems dumb to pay more for it new then a full size truck. This is sad because despite the bigger is better mantra the dealers chant, most folks really do not need a full size truck. A smaller Ranger or 2004-2013 Colorado sized truck is is fine for most folks.
However used 2004- 2013Colorado/Canyon, Ford rangers, S10/Sonoma don’t sit on the used car lot too long as they tend to be snapped up quickly.
Even at Carmax’s inflated prices Colorado and Rangers don’t sit on the lots long before they are sold.
Here is my 2011 Colorado work truck. I got it with low miles for under $7000 and I got the cap(brand new) for $700 installed(I value function over form so I don’t mind the color). This truck has all the room for what I need it for and it is very roomy in the cab area.
Those Colorados aren’t very small on the outside either. The long bed crew is longer than my ’06 F-150 crew with smaller cargo volume and of course it’s too narrow to carry 4×8 materials.
Fun sized please. Just traded in my 2003 standard cab/long bed S-10. 2.5 4 cyl, 2wd automatic and pretty much UNKILLABLE unless you drove it into a bridge abutment or into the Grand Canyon. Owned it 11.5 years and it never stranded me anywhere. Got me to 100K and still had life in it. Like another poster said the new Colorado/Canyon is too big. They’re basically 3/4 size full sizers.
The original picture is that of a ’90s Sonoma 2wd and a ’14-’15 Silverado 4wd (evidenced by [barely visible] front row hooks and the “4X4” insignia on top tailing edge of bed). The air dam is lower on the newer full-size truck for fuel economy purposes. On GM trucks that plastic piece is designed to be easily R&R’ed for off-road duty.
A previous poster comparing the new Colorado and a ’68 C10 is comparing a reg cab C10 to an extended cab Colorado; they do not offer a reg cab Colorado anymore. Jason Shafer’s F-150 has a deeper bed because Ford intentionally designed it deeper than the pre-2004 models, to bump up bed volume stats. In fact it has a higher reach-over than a standard F-250. I wouldn’t be caught dead in a unibody fake truck such as the Ridgeline; essentially a pickup version of the Pilot (same idea as the Avalanche/Suburban).
That all said, I drive numerous vehicles all day as an inventory manager for a large Chevy dealership. The new Silverado 1500 is a bit larger than I prefer. No need for a 2500 unless you need a diesel or a laden service body. The new Colorado is good, if you insist on new and need a 15% price reduction; otherwise the cabin is narrow and bed space is, while not unusable, is “compact”. And too damn high off the ground! ALL the full-size half-ton trucks have ridiculous reach-over heights.
Most people will find a Colorado/Tacoma/Frontier adequate for most hauling and towing needs. Comfort? That’s subjective. If you need more room, or need to tow a trailer with 2 axles, a half-ton should do. Only the most severe towing (in excess of 8k lbs) or permanently loaded trucks need to be 3/4 ton or greater.
My 2003 plain-jane F-150 with a six cylinder does most everything I can throw at it. ( I did have to have that skid-steer delivered, they wouldn’t let me tow it away from the rental store).
I think trucks these days are an extension of its owner’s ego (and its wishes if he’s male). Really the only trucks that seem to do any work is the humbler of pickups. I was amused when I used to tool around in my 2011 Ranger loaded to the gills going to the dump for my widow mother and be passed (sometimes violently) by empty full-sizers.
But I really like to think back at what my commercial truck instructor referred to any light duty pick up as: tinker toys.
Fun sized please. I used to own an S-10. It was a slow, but inexpensive, basic truck. It was all I needed, and I liked it.
Super sized for me. The S-10 trucks and SUVs were just a little too narrow in the shoulder room. I’m built like a Gorilla, and I really liked my Blazer, but I was so happy that I had enough shoulder room when we got our Grand Cherokee that replaced it.
I believe it depends on what you need for what job. If you need to tow a large trailer (5th wheelers, etc.), a full-sized truck like a Chevy/GMC CK2500/3500, Ford F250 or F350, or a (Dodge) Ram 2500 or 3500, etc.
But suppose you don’t need, or want such a large truck? Maybe your old Chevy S10/GMC S15 works just fine, thank you. Just because your neighbour has a larger truck, does that mean you need one as well? If all you need to do is tow a smaller cargo trailer, or smaller travel trailer, the smaller truck should work for you.
It’s kind of a shame fun sized trucks aren’t sold in the U.S. anymore even though there is likely a market for them. I saw a new Chevy Colorado setting near a 1968 C10 the other day and noticed they were virtually the same size.
Not quite. Similar wheelbase, and the Colorado is taller, but the C-10 is significantly wider and has a longer bed.
Collected some specs and yes the width is significantly different but otherwise specs are quite close. The closest apples to apples comparison of the ‘late ’60s truck to the new truck would probably be the C10 short bed to the new Colorado regular cab 2WD.
Bed length: ’68 C10 – 6.5′ / ’16 Colorado – 6’
Wheelbase: C10 – 115″ / Colorado – 111.3″
Length: C10 – 186.75″ / Colorado – 192.4″
Width: C10 – 79″ / Colorado – 57.2″
Track: C10 – 62″ (average front & rear) / Colorado – 42.6″
Height: C10 – 70″ / Colorado – 63″
That’s a huge difference in width. 57.2 seems awful narrow though…
1. There is no new regular cab Colorado, only extended and crew cabs.
2. The width, track, WB, and length measurements seem very off. Actually, all the other measurements seem off too. Searching “2016 chevy colorado specs” gives me this:
WB: 128.3″ for EC and CCSB models, 140.5″ for CCLB models
OAL: 212.7″ for EC and CCSB models, 224.9″ for CCLB models
W: 74.3″
Track: 62.4″
H: 70.5″
I found the diagram I got those dims from and they were actually from the previous gen Colorado.
DUH ! to me.
We did prove a point though. Looking at these figures one can see how ‘little’ trucks are growing in size, approaching or even surpassing what was once considered a full sized truck.
Still not right. The track you give for the Colorado (42.6″) is more like from a model T.
Track width of the 2010 2WD: 57.5. I believe the span of 42.6 was actually meant to show the tailgate opening. (wadding up said diagram and throwing in the trash.)
Anyone else notice that even though the Sonoma appears to be a 2wd, it has more clearance at the air dam than the Silverado which is likely a 4×4.
Ever since the ’88 revamp, the GM fullsize trucks have always sat low like 2wds even when equipped with 4wd. FWIW, my neighbor has had 2 Z71s since I bought my townhouse. His ’03 4×4 sat a good 3″ or so lower than my ’05 2wd Ram 1500. Once I lowered it, my truck still sits close to the same height at the roof as his. Needless to say, IFS equipped GM trucks aren’t exactly popular with the offroad crowd….
You are correct that GM’s 4×4 pickups always seem to sit the lowest of any of the Big 3’s, but I think this Sonoma is actually 4×4 as well.
I would want the smallest truck I could find that I could use to plow my driveway in the winter, even if it took an engine upgrade.
Make mine the Jeep please…
While logic would dictate Fun-Size, I have to admit I’m irrationally drawn to Super-Sized. Personally I’d take a Ram. So over-the-top and so uniquely American. They’ll be gone one day… like dinosaurs, nothing that big can last forever. But they are awesome in their too-much way.
Frankly, something about 1/2 way between the two would be just about perfect….. about the size of a ’67 Chevy 1/2 ton.
A buddy of mine had an Isuzu Pickup with an inline 4. We pulled cow trainers, ran from NOLA to Orlando for vacations, and moved lots of furniture for relatives and friends. It was far more reliable than his step-dad’s Ram 150 which was in the shop more than it was on the farm.
The problem is they’ve grown larger and larger with each life cycle till they somewhat bloated. An old Colorado/Sonoma in good condition would be fine with me.
. . . and Goldilocks was left unsatisfied with trucks that were either too big or too small.
If she wanted a truck that’s between supersized and hypersized, she could probably get a Titan XD, and if she wanted a medium sized truck, probably a Colorado is good.
Those overinflated puddle jumpers make me laugh to big to be usefull too small to be a real truck.
I really wish truck makers would drop the 18 wheeler front end look that every fullsize truck seems to have. The only pick up that looked good with that look was the 1994-2002 Dodge Ram.
Despite Ford’s assertions that you have to have a full size truck to do any job, 90% of all the things that you need to do with a pickup truck can be done with a small truck and not a large one.
I would rather take the Sonoma over the fullsize chevy truck. Its is very odd but despite it being 11 years since the S-10/Sonoma trucks were killed off (in 2005(its last year) they offered only the crew cab version), there are still loads of them out on the roads. I guess these are true cockroaches on the roads
I’d be happy if the full size trucks simply went back to their late ’90s proportions. The 2002 “Mayor of Truckville” came along and it’s been a bloat race ever since.
Being contrarian, this looks like right sized and junior sized. That S-10 is simply incapable of doing what I need done.
Now, as for comparisons, here’s my F-150 next to a Honda Ridgeline. Not a lot of difference in bed height although my bed appears to be deeper.
I’ve long thought Honda should make a regular cab longbed Ridgeline. It wouldn’t sell all that well but would burnish the crewcabs’ “real truck” cred. (Can the cheapest version be called a halo model?)
I’ve always kind of liked the Ridgeline, but their beds are so shallow. And the new ones appear to be worse.
Under the bed is more storage (mostly used for a spare tire, I think).
Right, and that helps off set it. It’s actually a nice size space, but I’d rather have a deeper bed.
Hear, hear! I’ve been saving this for when I have time to properly write it up (which will eventually happen), but I recently replaced my ’99 F-250 4×4 Powerstroke with a ’15 RAM 2500. Here it is next to my Dad’s ’98 Ranger:
That Ram is a terrific color. It’ll take whatever you throw at it; that Ranger, not so much.
Civics are now the size of olders Accords… and the trucks are getting ridiculously bloated. Everything seems bigger now a days but my d…
They’re getting bulkier, but not actually any bigger (though the cabs in F-150s did get longer in 2004).
That’s not the only bloat. I recently saw an ad on Craigslist for a 1970 Plymouth Fury. It was parked between two Nissan Sentras, one of which was new. Guess which was vastly taller and appeared just as wide.
According to wikipedia, a new Sentra is 58.9″ tall and 69.3″ wide.
A 1970 Fury is 54.5″-55.8″ tall, and 79.6″ wide. Most of the old full sizers seem to be right shy of 80″ wide, and they look extremely wide because of how low they are.
http://www.hamtramck-historical.com/images/vintage-advertising/1970PlymouthPressRelease/p29%20pf-3.jpg
I own a Ford F-150 Supercrew and for my job it’s perfect. Although I always desire a smaller truck on my next purchase, when I get down to the usable space with it’s combination of interior and external carrying capacity and versatility, I can’t justify it the supercrew always wins. at least when I get behind the wheel I’m rewarded with a ride and handling that beats any large BOF American of the Sixties or Seventies. In my mind thats why they’re so popular today, they fill the contempory American niche for the large sedans of yore.
I don’t often have good things to say about the super-size trucks of today, but after riding in a co-worker’s, I “get it”. If you’ve never been in a crew cab variant of one of these, you’d be amazed just how much passenger space they have. Absolutely cavernous, and you can sit three full-sized adults across the back row without breaking a sweat. If it was a bench you could fit three adults up front (the one I rode in had an enormous console instead).
It’s the modern equivalent of a six-passenger sedan. Just much, much taller, and without the comparatively stellar fuel economy that aerodynamic styling and higher specific ouptut engines have given passenger cars.
Make mine the parkable-size. 🙂
A couple of nights ago my wife and I were looking over the stock at our local GM dealer. It’s time replace my ’10 Sierra 1500 with 325,000 km on it. I’d about narrowed it down to a new GM 1500 or the Ford F-150 when she convinced me to look at the new Colorado/Canyon. I don’t really need a full size truck anymore and with retirement on the horizon she wants something smaller in case we downsize to one vehicle. I was coming around to her way of thinking, and then we looked the prices.
Yes the Colorado is nice, yes the new full size trucks are too damn big, but I can actually get a decently equipped full sizer for less real money than the equivalent 3/4 scale version. I suspect it’ll retain more of it’s value at resale time as well.
I may go for the Colorado anyway, since a happy wife is the best investment of all but I do wonder how many of these big behemoths are out there just because there isn’t really a viable option anymore?
You have hit the nail on the head. GM, Ford and Dodge are not able to make a cheap small or midsize truck anymore and the cost of them are close to/ exceed the cost of a large truck so it seems dumb to pay more for it new then a full size truck. This is sad because despite the bigger is better mantra the dealers chant, most folks really do not need a full size truck. A smaller Ranger or 2004-2013 Colorado sized truck is is fine for most folks.
However used 2004- 2013Colorado/Canyon, Ford rangers, S10/Sonoma don’t sit on the used car lot too long as they tend to be snapped up quickly.
Even at Carmax’s inflated prices Colorado and Rangers don’t sit on the lots long before they are sold.
Here is my 2011 Colorado work truck. I got it with low miles for under $7000 and I got the cap(brand new) for $700 installed(I value function over form so I don’t mind the color). This truck has all the room for what I need it for and it is very roomy in the cab area.
Those Colorados aren’t very small on the outside either. The long bed crew is longer than my ’06 F-150 crew with smaller cargo volume and of course it’s too narrow to carry 4×8 materials.
Colorado CCLB: 224.9″
2006 F-150 CCSB: 223.6″
I’m sure that extra 1.3″ really makes a difference. (But you’re mostly right about everything else.)
“[B]ut I can actually get a decently equipped full sizer for less real money than the equivalent 3/4 scale version.”
That’s really what it comes down to in much of the Midwest, where people buy cars by the pound and space is not an issue.
Fun sized please. Just traded in my 2003 standard cab/long bed S-10. 2.5 4 cyl, 2wd automatic and pretty much UNKILLABLE unless you drove it into a bridge abutment or into the Grand Canyon. Owned it 11.5 years and it never stranded me anywhere. Got me to 100K and still had life in it. Like another poster said the new Colorado/Canyon is too big. They’re basically 3/4 size full sizers.
The original picture is that of a ’90s Sonoma 2wd and a ’14-’15 Silverado 4wd (evidenced by [barely visible] front row hooks and the “4X4” insignia on top tailing edge of bed). The air dam is lower on the newer full-size truck for fuel economy purposes. On GM trucks that plastic piece is designed to be easily R&R’ed for off-road duty.
A previous poster comparing the new Colorado and a ’68 C10 is comparing a reg cab C10 to an extended cab Colorado; they do not offer a reg cab Colorado anymore. Jason Shafer’s F-150 has a deeper bed because Ford intentionally designed it deeper than the pre-2004 models, to bump up bed volume stats. In fact it has a higher reach-over than a standard F-250. I wouldn’t be caught dead in a unibody fake truck such as the Ridgeline; essentially a pickup version of the Pilot (same idea as the Avalanche/Suburban).
That all said, I drive numerous vehicles all day as an inventory manager for a large Chevy dealership. The new Silverado 1500 is a bit larger than I prefer. No need for a 2500 unless you need a diesel or a laden service body. The new Colorado is good, if you insist on new and need a 15% price reduction; otherwise the cabin is narrow and bed space is, while not unusable, is “compact”. And too damn high off the ground! ALL the full-size half-ton trucks have ridiculous reach-over heights.
Most people will find a Colorado/Tacoma/Frontier adequate for most hauling and towing needs. Comfort? That’s subjective. If you need more room, or need to tow a trailer with 2 axles, a half-ton should do. Only the most severe towing (in excess of 8k lbs) or permanently loaded trucks need to be 3/4 ton or greater.
My 2003 plain-jane F-150 with a six cylinder does most everything I can throw at it. ( I did have to have that skid-steer delivered, they wouldn’t let me tow it away from the rental store).
I think trucks these days are an extension of its owner’s ego (and its wishes if he’s male). Really the only trucks that seem to do any work is the humbler of pickups. I was amused when I used to tool around in my 2011 Ranger loaded to the gills going to the dump for my widow mother and be passed (sometimes violently) by empty full-sizers.
But I really like to think back at what my commercial truck instructor referred to any light duty pick up as: tinker toys.
There, I said it.