Chevy Colorado & GMC Canyon banner

1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
190 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I have seen bed length number, but not internal width.

Has anyone seen a spec of the internal dimensions of the bed? I was wondering what the width between the wheel wells is. I haven't seen that anywhere.

My assumption is that it will be narrower than 48", but thought I would ask.

Thanks!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,252 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
287 Posts
There are two width's mentioned in the Standard Equipment sheet.

Cargo Area Width = 57.8"
Inside Width = 44.4"

I'm not 100% sure, but I think the Inside Width is the interior distance between wheel wells.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,252 Posts
There are two width's mentioned in the Standard Equipment sheet.

Cargo Area Width = 57.8"
Inside Width = 44.4"

I'm not 100% sure, but I think the Inside Width is the interior distance between wheel wells.
The Order Guide specifically states it is between the wheel wells.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
76 Posts
There are two width's mentioned in the Standard Equipment sheet.

Cargo Area Width = 57.8"
Inside Width = 44.4"

I'm not 100% sure, but I think the Inside Width is the interior distance between wheel wells.
The inside width is the distance between the wheel wells, and it is an amazingly stupid dimension. Those 3.6 extra inches would have been trivially easy to engineer into a brand new truck. Its hard for me to imagine that GM is incompetent enough to not make it to 48" between wheel wells, which makes me think that they made a business decision to try to move people up to a silverado.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,454 Posts
The track of the truck would have been required to be 4" wider. Which would make it like 1" more narrow than a FS.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
76 Posts
The track of the truck would have been required to be 4" wider. Which would make it like 1" more narrow than a FS.

It wouldn't need to be 4" wider. 3" at most considering the current Honda Ridgeline is 3" wider and manages 48"+ between the wheel wells. Give it an extra inch in height, an extra inch or two in width, reshape the wheel wells and you'd have your 48" which makes the bed *much* more usable than 44" is. IF they knew they were going to have a stupid bed width the bed should've been structured like the current Tacoma bed, which isn't too bad for putting 4x8 sheets in. Instead they went with those stupid accessory bars, which may be useful for some things, but the height they are at for holding 4x8 sheets is pretty **** stupid.

In other words since the truck is already considered too big by all of those who want a tiny micro truck a couple more inches tacked onto a dimension or two with a little bit of thoughtfulness would go a long way towards making the beds more useful.
 
A

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
It wouldn't need to be 4" wider. 3" at most considering the current Honda Ridgeline is 3" wider and manages 48"+ between the wheel wells. Give it an extra inch in height, an extra inch or two in width, reshape the wheel wells and you'd have your 48" which makes the bed *much* more usable than 44" is. IF they knew they were going to have a stupid bed width the bed should've been structured like the current Tacoma bed, which isn't too bad for putting 4x8 sheets in. Instead they went with those stupid accessory bars, which may be useful for some things, but the height they are at for holding 4x8 sheets is pretty **** stupid.

In other words since the truck is already considered too big by all of those who want a tiny micro truck a couple more inches tacked onto a dimension or two with a little bit of thoughtfulness would go a long way towards making the beds more useful.
As stated to get that it would have been too close to a full size if you wanted to get that extra width between the wheel wells or settle for a skinnier tire. There are plenty of ways to get 4x8's in the bed, that is what the two tier loading is for. These things don't have the payload to hold a full pallet of pretty much anything so it is a moot point, calm down and if you really need the 48 step up to a full size. Any time we have hauled 4x8's in the colorado it has worked just fine...

The ridgeline runs an IRS, unibody and is almost 78 inches wide, completely different character.

Tyler
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
76 Posts
As stated to get that it would have been too close to a full size if you wanted to get that extra width between the wheel wells or settle for a skinnier tire.
I don't care what was stated. A couple extra inches is not a big deal when dealing with a truck already the size of the colorado, it makes an ENORMOUS difference in getting utility out of the bed.

There are plenty of ways to get 4x8's in the bed, that is what the two tier loading is for.
The "two tier loading" in the Colorado sucks - plain and simple. GM wants you to use their accessory bars (probably an additional expense) to setup a platform ~2/3 of the way up the bed to stack 4x8 sheets on. That is the stupidest thing I have ever seen. IF you're not going to go 48" between the wheel wells (which is dumb) you should setup the wheel wells and bedsides like Toyota did where 4x8 sheets can be stacked right on top of the wheel wells, at least then they can start being stacked further down the bed.

These things don't have the payload to hold a full pallet of pretty much anything so it is a moot point,
No, its really not a moot point. Stacking 4x8s from the floor of the pickup box is much easier than stacking it across stupid accessory bars. Having things stacked from the bottom and being fully enclosed in the box is better than stacking them starting 2/3 up and having them near or over the top of the box. It would have taken very little additional effort on GM's part to pull this off.


calm down and if you really need the 48 step up to a full size.
And there it is. That is EXACTLY the attitude that will kill the Colorado/Canyon before they even get off the ground.

Any time we have hauled 4x8's in the colorado it has worked just fine...
You haven't hauled 4x8's in the new Colorado. The old one with the tilted tailgate was a better system than what they have on these new ones.


The ridgeline runs an IRS, unibody and is almost 78 inches wide, completely different character.

Tyler
IRS is irrelevant to distance between wheel wells, other than its more difficult to engineer an IRS and Honda managed to pull it off anyway. The RL is ~3inches wider than the current Colorado and it has plenty heft in its bedsides where an easy inch could be shaved. It obviously has a completely different character but that doesn't mean that GM couldn't have taken a good idea or two from the Ridgeline. 48' between the wheel wells is one. Dual swing tailgate is another.

As an aside I really do wonder why GM chose to use a metal instead of resin bed in these trucks. Plastic should weigh less and is more amenable a useful design like the tacoma uses.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
35 Posts
GM can see the future, when 4'x8' sheets are down-sized 10%, making them 44" wide, able to fit between the wheel wells,,,,,

Just like 1/2 gallon containers of ice cream are 1.5 litres,,,,,,

Heck, wouldn't surprise me to see them go "metric", 1000mm x 2000mm (39.37" x 78.74"). Then they'd fit nicely in the long bed w/the tailgate down.

just kidding, of course,,,,

HRG
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
287 Posts
I'm guessing a FS's inside width (speaking generally of all makes) will accommodate a sheet of plywood without having to upgrade to a dually?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,252 Posts
I'm guessing a FS's inside width (speaking generally of all makes) will accommodate a sheet of plywood without having to upgrade to a dually?
Typically, a 1/2 ton PU has 49" between the wheel wells. With that, a spray in bedliner still allows for a 48" wide sheet of plywood.

Also, here is the discussion on this topic from a few months back. (I lost the argument back then...)

http://coloradofans.com/forums/114-2015-chevrolet-colorado-forum-2015-gmc-canyon-forum/174953-bed-dimensions.html
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1 Posts
GM can see the future, when 4'x8' sheets are down-sized 10%, making them 44" wide, able to fit between the wheel wells,,,,,

Just like 1/2 gallon containers of ice cream are 1.5 litres,,,,,,

Heck, wouldn't surprise me to see them go "metric", 1000mm x 2000mm (39.37" x 78.74"). Then they'd fit nicely in the long bed w/the tailgate down.

just kidding, of course,,,,

HRG
Lol probably why the phones don't fit the chargers either
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
157 Posts
There are two width's mentioned in the Standard Equipment sheet.

Cargo Area Width = 57.8"
Inside Width = 44.4"

I'm not 100% sure, but I think the Inside Width is the interior distance between wheel wells.
Not sure where they come up with 57.8" width? I consider cargo area to be between the bed rails. With the plastic bed rail protectors from the factory, my bed rails are 54 7/8" between them. They must be measuring under the bed rails to the bed walls.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
141 Posts
I don't care what was stated. A couple extra inches is not a big deal when dealing with a truck already the size of the colorado, it makes an ENORMOUS difference in getting utility out of the bed.

Yes it is when the truck you are trying to sell as a smaller, easier to park alternative to a full size is only 2 inches. Hard sell to others, especially when I park our Silverado versus our Canyon in the garage next to a car, it makes a big difference.

The "two tier loading" in the Colorado sucks - plain and simple. GM wants you to use their accessory bars (probably an additional expense) to setup a platform ~2/3 of the way up the bed to stack 4x8 sheets on. That is the stupidest thing I have ever seen. IF you're not going to go 48" between the wheel wells (which is dumb) you should setup the wheel wells and bedsides like Toyota did where 4x8 sheets can be stacked right on top of the wheel wells, at least then they can start being stacked further down the bed.

Apparently you haven't seen all the two tier loading systems Tacoma owners use to handle those loads, they aren't loading them on the wheel wells, there are notches cut out for them just like all trucks have. You don't have to buy an expensive tiered system if you have any idea how to work a saw and a 2x4...

No, its really not a moot point. Stacking 4x8s from the floor of the pickup box is much easier than stacking it across stupid accessory bars. Having things stacked from the bottom and being fully enclosed in the box is better than stacking them starting 2/3 up and having them near or over the top of the box. It would have taken very little additional effort on GM's part to pull this off.

It is better to haul it flat, but then why hasn't any midsize trucks solved this problem outside of the unibody IRS Honda that is much wider? Space, they can't go as wide without going thin on the tires and clearances. Do that and everyone will be complaining they can't fit a 295 or 11.50 tire under there. There are trade offs, plain and simple. It is able to haul the sheets just fine. So you have to go up a little higher (approximately 6 inches), boo hoo. New Ranger, Gladiator, etc, none of the new trucks can handle it, basic physics...


And there it is. That is EXACTLY the attitude that will kill the Colorado/Canyon before they even get off the ground.

Huh, here we are 4 years later and it is a success, guess the not carrying a 4x8 sheet flat wasn't a killer then?

You haven't hauled 4x8's in the new Colorado. The old one with the tilted tailgate was a better system than what they have on these new ones.

We have hauled them in the new Canyon, no issues. You can wrap the tailgate cable over the latch and add one extra board (or a single 4x4) toward the back of the bed to ease the small transition to the slightly higher tailgate.

IRS is irrelevant to distance between wheel wells, other than its more difficult to engineer an IRS and Honda managed to pull it off anyway. The RL is ~3inches wider than the current Colorado and it has plenty heft in its bedsides where an easy inch could be shaved. It obviously has a completely different character but that doesn't mean that GM couldn't have taken a good idea or two from the Ridgeline. 48' between the wheel wells is one. Dual swing tailgate is another.

Not irrelevant, IRS and unibody vehicles can be packaged much more efficiently with much tighter tolerances. There is a reason the full size suv's with an IRS have more room and better 3rd row room and seating efficiency than the solid rear axle GM SUV's (the new ones come out next week with an IRS).

As an aside I really do wonder why GM chose to use a metal instead of resin bed in these trucks. Plastic should weigh less and is more amenable a useful design like the tacoma uses.

Sounds like you want a Tacoma, a metal bed is stronger plain and simple and less puncture prone. I'd drill in to a metal bed side to add a tie down or accessory, I won't do that to plastic and expect it to haul and hold weight.
Just for fun since this thread popped up and I saw this...

Tyler
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top