2009 Gmc Sierra K1500 4 Door Ext Cab on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Chevy Colorado configurator goes live as GM touts fuel efficiency

While the news of today is destined to be dominated by a certain plucky Japanese roadster, props to Chevrolet and GMC for announcing its own significant bit of news about their newest pickup twins, the midsize Colorado and Canyon. The two GM-owned brands announced that the twins' 3.6-liter V6 will return up to 26 miles per gallon on the freeway.
To get such efficiency from the 305-horsepower mill, you'll need to live without four-wheel drive and be okay with a max city fuel economy of 18 mpg. The combined rating for the 2WD model sits at 21 mpg. Adding four-wheel drive drops the city and combined ratings by one mpg, while the highway rating dips from 26 to 24 mpg.
As for the twins' eagerly anticipated 2.8-liter diesel engine, it's destined for model year 2016, meaning we've got a ways to go before its efficiency and output are certified.

Junkyard Gem: 1990 GMC S-15 Jimmy 4x4

The General sold the GMC-badged version of the first-generation Chevy S-10 Blazer, known as the S-15 Jimmy or just the Jimmy, from the 1982 through 1994 model years. These trucks were based on the small S-10 pickup and sold well (until small trucks were forced to get bigger and less truck-like after the dawn of the Ford Explorer-inspired commuter-truck era), but they have become difficult to find in vehicle graveyards in our current century. Here's a '90 Jimmy 4x4 with red-primer paint job, found in a self-service yard on California's Central Coast last month. GMC shoppers could get the 1990 Jimmy as a rear-wheel-drive truck, but this one has the four-wheel-drive option that allowed Tahoe-bound skiers to skip the chain monkeys on the way to the slopes (the CHP, understanding that California drivers have a 95% mortality rate on snow or ice, requires chains or four-wheel-drive to get over Donner Pass when there's a hint of snow forecast). GM sold so many millions of small-block Chevrolet V8s that it made economic sense to use the same tooling to produce a V6 version. The result was this truck's 4.3-liter V6 that was three-quarters of the good old Chevy 350 (5.7-liter) V8 that powered so many Camaros, Chevelles and Impalas. The 4.3 didn't make smooth power, but it got the job done and held together quite well. This one was rated at 160 horsepower, good enough for the Jimmy 4x4's 3,512-pound curb weight. These days, though, used-truck shoppers insist on at least two tons of heft plus four doors. Some discount lot in Monterey or Salinas couldn't even get $999 for this truck, and so it ended up in the final stop before the cold steel jaws of the crusher. 1990 was the last model year for the two-door-only Jimmy; for 1991, the Jimmy came with a choice of two doors (for devil-may-care types) or four doors (for drop-the-kids-at-school types). I've always liked the look of the instrument panels on the early S-10s and its siblings; even though the designers had to work within strict budgetary limitations, they made the panels look interesting. This truck nearly made it to 170,000 miles before the end. This content is hosted by a third party. To view it, please update your privacy preferences. Manage Settings. So powerful with the 4.3 (the regular S-15 pickup still came with a 2.8-liter V6 as base equipment) that it could destroy a TV camera.

Full-size trucks are the best and worst vehicles in America

You don’t need me to tell you that Americans love pickup trucks. And the bigger the truck, the more likely it seems to be seen as an object of desire. Monthly and yearly sales charts are something of a broken record; track one is the Ford F-Series, followed by the Chevy Silverado, RamÂ’s line of haulers, and somewhere not far down the line, the GMC Sierra. The big Japanese players fall in place a bit further below — not that thereÂ’s anything wrong with a hundred thousand Toyota Tundra sales — and one-size-smaller trucks like the Toyota Tacoma, Ford Ranger and Chevy Colorado have proven awfully popular, too. Along with their sales numbers, the average cost of new trucks has similarly been on the rise. Now, I donÂ’t pretend to have the right to tell people what they should or shouldnÂ’t buy with their own money. But I just canÂ’t wrap my head around why a growing number of Americans are choosing to spend huge sums of money on super luxurious pickup trucks. Let me first say I do understand the appeal. People like nice things, after all. I know I do. I myself am willing to spend way more than the average American on all sorts of discretionary things, from wine and liquor to cameras and lenses. IÂ’ve even spent my own money on vehicles that I donÂ’t need but want anyway. A certain vintage VW camper van certainly qualifies. I also currently own a big, inefficient SUV with a 454-cubic-inch big block V8. So if your answer to the question IÂ’m posing here is that youÂ’re willing to pay the better part of a hundred grand on a chromed-out and leather-lined pickup simply because you want to, then by all means — not that you need my permission — go buy one. The part I donÂ’t understand is this: Why wouldn't you, as a rational person, rather split your garage in half? On one side would sit a nice car that is quiet, rides and handles equally well and gets above average fuel mileage. Maybe it has a few hundred gasoline-fueled horsepower, or heck, maybe itÂ’s electric. On the other side (or even outside) is parked a decent pickup truck. One that can tow 10,000 pounds, haul something near a ton in the bed, and has all the goodies most Americans want in their cars, like cruise control, power windows and locks, keyless entry, and a decent infotainment screen.