2017 Chevy Colorado ZR2

[calicamper]

Wean, as though it's a requirement to do so?

Those paddles to me would be super annoying. If I'm buying an automatic transmission it's because I don't want to deal with shifting anymore, so pull the lever to drive and go. I don't want to interact with it anymore, fire and forget. It's an annoyance of mine generally. Why put a console and shift in the first place? It's to remind the driver that some people are still cool and shift their own gears. I think putting the shifter on the column like they were in the 70s and 80s makes more sense. Free up all that space in the middle of the truck for a bigger Tuffy box and a place to put your coffee mug.

Paddle shifters, in my mind, are like putting a cueing lever on a CD player or a choke lever on an EFI engine. There's no point to it.

Agreed. I have paddles on my Subaru, add # of turns lock to lock in a truck and your chasing paddles given unlike wiper stalks and lighting controlles that are fixed ie do not rotate with the steering wheel. Super annoying.
The gear shift location being static is far superior.
Super cars with like one turn lock to lock with flappy paddles might work ok. But not 3-4 turns lock to lock in a truck.

 

[RF2200]

Again, it's not a deal killer. You yourself went bigger 37" tires on your PW. Almost everyone will have their different tastes. So why equip a truck with a specific tire that a good portion will swap out anyway? Do you have any data that support sale-fails on a Rubicon or "X" vehicle because of OE tires?? Do you really think people that want a mid-size diesel truck with front and rear lockers will put their wallets back in their pockets because of tires? That's silly.
_
G wagens are a different category. How many do you know that buys a $100k car to off-road? Not too many, I'd wager. Hardcore offroaders isn't their target market.

I would argue that essentially no one is going to go with smaller tires on a truck like this or swap out AT tires for P-rated tires. That you can't even fit 32" tires on an "Off-Road" truck with lockers front and rear without major modification and essentially throwing away the suspension that you just paid a bunch of money for will definitely have people putting their wallets away.

I own a $65K Jeep Rubicon. The sticker on my Power Wagon was $65K+. My Unimog is stupid expensive. My Defender is expensive as well. I would own a G-Wagon if I could order the Professional Edition in the US. People are lining up to pay $95K for AEV Prospector XL trucks. And why do they buy the Prospector XL? To run 40" tires.

 

[RF2200]

The 80 series Land Cruiser had 31" (275/70R16) SL-rated tires with the optional FR and RR lockers. I don't think anyone really bemoans the G-wagen or the Cruiser, they are excellent starting points. I like that Chevy put a legitimate tire in a perfectly useable size tire on the truck. I only run a 32" tire on my truck, I wasn't looking to fill the wheel well to the point of rubbing or not leaving room for chains. Not everyone wants to build a monster truck for rock crawling. I'm not a fan of the Duratrac but I wouldn't have a problem running it until one failed.

Yes, in 1991, people bought vehicles with lockers and 31 inch tires. 25 years later, in 2016, people want larger tires on off-road trucks.

 

[DaveInDenver]

Yes, in 1991, people bought vehicles with lockers and 31 inch tires. 25 years later, in 2016, people want larger tires on off-road trucks.

That's been true for longer than that. Trucks used to come with 28" tires and people put "huge" 31" tires on them back then. I think it's a matter of perception, always second guessing the designers more than really assessing a need that meets a use. Fact is dual lockers and an aggressive 31" tire will more than exceed 99% of buyers actual need. A very, very small number of potential buyers can both afford the payments and be willing to test the limits of the ZR2. You know as well as I that most trails we run, even harder rock trails, can be done with 31" ATs, low range and some driver skill, especially if you have even a little willingness to risk a door ding. Nah, 31, 32, 33, it's all for marketing. And I know I'm a dinosaur and the world has passed me by.

 

[calicamper]

Yes, in 1991, people bought vehicles with lockers and 31 inch tires. 25 years later, in 2016, people want larger tires on off-road trucks.

Numbers show fewer people are driving long distances. RV industry is in full court press as is AAA to spur the concept of road trips with the under 40 generations.

25yrs ago we ran the Dodge Tophand 300,000 miles between hauling cattle in the stock trailer, doing trips and such, not to mention working the ranch. We never ran big tires because it sucked on long drives. But the local only trucks we ran larger tires because it didnt matter and we could often get into and out of soggy pastures without sinking in like we did in the Tophand.

Today is no different, tire size simply goes to what you need and how far you travel.

 

[p nut]

I would argue that essentially no one is going to go with smaller tires on a truck like this or swap out AT tires for P-rated tires. That you can't even fit 32" tires on an "Off-Road" truck with lockers front and rear without major modification and essentially throwing away the suspension that you just paid a bunch of money for will definitely have people putting their wallets away...

Except that you don't need major mods to fit 32's (if any). Essentially stock Colorado's will fit 32" tires. I'd guess with the higher suspension height on the ZR2, it will also be of no issue.

 

[RF2200]

That's been true for longer than that. Trucks used to come with 28" tires and people put "huge" 31" tires on them back then. I think it's a matter of perception, always second guessing the designers more than really assessing a need that meets a use. Fact is dual lockers and an aggressive 31" tire will more than exceed 99% of buyers actual need. A very, very small number of potential buyers can both afford the payments and be willing to test the limits of the ZR2. You know as well as I that most trails we run, even harder rock trails, can be done with 31" ATs, low range and some driver skill, especially if you have even a little willingness to risk a door ding. Nah, 31, 32, 33, it's all for marketing. And I know I'm a dinosaur and the world has passed me by.

I remember when 33" tires were huge. Then 37" tires. Now 40" tires. Most people who buy this truck will buy it because they think it looks cool. I have 245/75R16 Duratracs on my Series 1 Discovery and I love that vehicle. I have 235/85R16 BFG Commercial AT tires on my Defender and I love that vehicle. I have have 35s on my JK. I have 37s on my Power Wagon. I have massive tires on the Unimog. They are all fun in their own way but to say that the difference in capability between a 30" tire and a 46" tire is just marketing is nonsense. My Unimog could literally drive over my Discovery.

I have put 25K miles on my PW with 37" tires in the past year. To say that you need small tires to travel is not true. It is definitely less expensive, however.

 

[calicamper]

I remember when 33" tires were huge. Then 37" tires. Now 40" tires. Most people who buy this truck will buy it because they think it looks cool. I have 245/75R16 Duratracs on my Series 1 Discovery and I love that vehicle. I have 235/85R16 BFG Commercial AT tires on my Defender and I love that vehicle. I have have 35s on my JK. I have 37s on my Power Wagon. I have massive tires on the Unimog. They are all fun in their own way but to say that the difference in capability between a 30" tire and a 46" tire is just marketing is nonsense. My Unimog could literally drive over my Discovery.

Agreed. And your not going to drive the mog on a 20+ hr highway trip either. You'll opt for the Disco with decent highway tires every time.

 

[RF2200]

Agreed. And your not going to drive the mog on a 20+ hr highway trip either. You'll opt for the Disco with decent highway tires every time.

I'll opt for the Power Wagon with 37" tires and 10MPG. Love the view in the Discovery with all that glass though.

 

[RF2200]

Except that you don't need major mods to fit 32's (if any). Essentially stock Colorado's will fit 32" tires. I'd guess with the higher suspension height on the ZR2, it will also be of no issue.

The point is that you can fit 35s on a JK by simply installing a high clearance fender and offset wheels. You can't do that with the ZR2.

 

[2025 deleted member]

People are lining up to pay $95K for AEV Prospector XL trucks.

Not really

 

[p nut]

The point is that you can fit 35s on a JK by simply installing a high clearance fender and offset wheels. You can't do that with the ZR2.

Now, 35's, probably not without major mods. If you want to fit 35's to fit easily, it's definitely not the right truck. Same goes for all other mid-size trucks. This doesn't equate to GM "missing the ball."

 

[RF2200]

Now, 35's, probably not without major mods. If you want to fit 35's to fit easily, it's definitely not the right truck. Same goes for all other mid-size trucks. This doesn't equate to GM "missing the ball."

Jeep will be coming out with their Gladiator, or whatever they choose to call their midsize pickup, in the next year. If, when the Gladiator is launched, it is substantially better than the ZR2 off-road GM will have made a mistake. Undoubtedly the ZR2 will be more comfortable on-road and get better fuel economy, but if it can't hang off road with the other options coming in the segment people won't buy the ZR2 package. Larger tires are very important to the buyers of this vehicle. Which, most of you guys don't seem to represent. It seems like most of you don't even have vehicles that are less than 6 years old. GM would have been wise to design this vehicle to have similar tire sizes available as the competitors who will be coming to the segment. Let's say that the Gladiator comes from the factory with a 420 FT/LB Ecodiesel, respectable payload, manual transmission, respectable towing, locking differentials and similar price. Would you choose the Gladiator Rubicon or the ZR2. I think I would choose the Gladiator.

 

[Clutch]

Your right its a truck. A 40k midsized upper trim SLT needs to sport interior materials at least on par with 30k Subarus. The Canyon slt seats look far better than the Colorado Z 1 seats. But they lack very basic touches that Ford will no doubt put in the Ranger. GM has a 3yr jump on Ford. Simply pointing out the easy stuff GM can address that would make it easier to gain market share.

I dont care if its a truck, a 40k mid sized anything today there are a few basics buyers expect.

Yeah for that coin it needs to be pretty nice. (I am just giving ya hard time )

For an off-road play rig...would like to have something super durable. Did notice that rubber flooring is an option, so that is cool


Chevy did really knock it out of the park for a turn key play truck. Everything else is just nit picking. If I wasn't such a cheap SOB, would love to have one. Really cool truck.

Tires-wise...are they really 31's? Because I am reading a 265 on the spare...can't see what the other number is. Usually 265's are 31.7 there abouts. Depending on the manufacture the difference betwee a 31 and a 32 is only a 1/2" or 1". Not going to matter much at the end of the day.

 

[calicamper]

I wont transport my family in Wrangler derivitive for one simple reason. Crash ratings. Also a big reason I haven't had much interest in the 4dr Pickups even though I keep trying to buy one every few yrs. The current Canyon/Colorado is about par to our Subaru on that aspect today.

I have seen far too many wrangler wrecks and know a few people caught in them its just not of any interest for this family guy. If I were a single guy or married with no kids. Those Jeep products are pretty cool I might have one.