Chevy Colorado & GMC Canyon banner
Cancel
Create thread New Garage Forums

GMC Canyon Syclone - 455hp!

Jump to Latest
21 - 40 of 48 Posts
#22 ·
KMPrengerMO said:
3.6 a big mistake...why?

Close to 50K for a Colorado/Canyon....ummmm…..K.
Click to expand...

GM only added the 3.6 to the Colorado on the basis that people buy Colorado's for gas mileage and the 3.6 supposedly got better mileage than the 4.3 during the testing phase. Then they go out and advertise the 4.3 is a real heavy duty truck engine when it went into the base full size. Overhead cams, much higher rpm design with peak HP and torque way above any other GM truck offering to date,which is not what you need to tow with . The 4.3, torque much higher and at a lower peak along with a lower peak HP like any other truck engine.
I do believe GM is making sure the Colorado is a sub performer to the full size ones. A 4.3 in a base model fullsize is going to cost a shade less then a 3.6 equipped Colorado and I do believe the full size will pull X weight better then the Colorado will.
Back in the day a 4.3 equipped S10 which was a small truck, not a midsize could do the opposite fora much less cost. Then some jackass deemed the S10 needed to be removed and replaced with a under powered Colorado.


Yup $50K, we have locally a few Denali Canyon tipping $47-48K close enough and many more at $40+K. At that price and the power difference if your actually using the truck as a truck, its a no brainer, FULLSIZE! But that's when the little cock disease strikes. Um more money than brains some call it.
Money, profits is all the manufacturers are thinking today and its pricing the normal person out!!!
 
#23 · (Edited)
SVE is aftermarket not the manufacturer. GM has always kept things under tuned etc.
And people post the Syclone was only 280 H.P. compared to 450+ now, wow!!!!

Well any decent backyard tuner could coax 350+ out of the cyclone and with aftermarkets help 450 was attainable, now that was near 30 years ago and now were comparing apples to apples!!!
 
#24 ·
KMPrengerMO said:
3.6 a big mistake...why?

Close to 50K for a Colorado/Canyon....ummmm…..K.
Click to expand...
The 3.6 was not some conspiracy it was more about mpg, emissions and the fact they were up against Toyota in a Segment DOHC is the expected engine.

He 4.3 was a 90 degree Engine that was prone to NHV issues hence it was mostly found in entry level trucks once the HV 60 degree arrived.

Today much is done just for emissions. The 4 valves are just easier to tune for power and keep it clean.

I have had several 4.3 engines and don’t miss a single one. My buddy just traded his full size GMC for a new V8 because he hated his 4.3.

GM tunes and options these trucks to the class they are in. They are right at the leading edge in most areas. They also equip for price to try to keep the price down as once you hit $50k the sales drop off fast. Also with 4500 pounds max there are limits to how much you haul or tow. You really don’t want 15000 behind you in a truck this light.

Most people buy a mid size for the size. I think most here can relate to that.

As for this truck it is like a Callaway Truck or SUV. It will be a low volume high price toy that an outside vendor can supply to GM and not cost GM much to any development cost. The overhead is lower for the vendor so they can live if the sell less than a couple hundred.

With enough money and time you can make a lot of power out of anything the problem is finding someone to pay for it.
 
#26 · (Edited)
It sounded great until the price. $38K plus the donor truck, no way for that little in performance. At that price point, just get a Raptor or a turbo L83 V8 swap from Current Performance. For $38K more, it better be twin-turbo V6 or V8 with 600hp/600lbs torque, 15" Brembo brakes, and a full Recaro Leather racing seats (ie. ST Focus).

https://www.chevyhardcore.com/featu.../car-features/current-performance-wirings-14-colorado-rocks-a-turbod-gen-v-l83/

Does anyone do a twin-turbo v6 of the newer 3.6L engine? I would love to install a twin-turbo setup on my 2018 V6 ZR2.
 
#27 · (Edited)
NY Rado 09 said:
GM only added the 3.6 to the Colorado on the basis that people buy Colorado's for gas mileage and the 3.6 supposedly got better mileage than the 4.3 during the testing phase. Then they go out and advertise the 4.3 is a real heavy duty truck engine when it went into the base full size. Overhead cams, much higher rpm design with peak HP and torque way above any other GM truck offering to date,which is not what you need to tow with . The 4.3, torque much higher and at a lower peak along with a lower peak HP like any other truck engine.
I do believe GM is making sure the Colorado is a sub performer to the full size ones. A 4.3 in a base model fullsize is going to cost a shade less then a 3.6 equipped Colorado and I do believe the full size will pull X weight better then the Colorado will.
Back in the day a 4.3 equipped S10 which was a small truck, not a midsize could do the opposite fora much less cost. Then some jackass deemed the S10 needed to be removed and replaced with a under powered Colorado.


Yup $50K, we have locally a few Denali Canyon tipping $47-48K close enough and many more at $40+K. At that price and the power difference if your actually using the truck as a truck, its a no brainer, FULLSIZE! But that's when the little cock disease strikes. Um more money than brains some call it.
Money, profits is all the manufacturers are thinking today and its pricing the normal person out!!!
Click to expand...
yeah I understand the difference between the 3.6 and the 4.3, and why (we think) GM used it instead of the 4.3.

The 3.6 works perfectly fine for this truck in my opinion, and if it actually did get better mpg, then I can't fault them for using it. Sure, the 4.3 would have been awesome for that more "truck like" power delivery, but I also love the 3.6. This truck is more of a lifestyle truck like it or not, than a work truck, but also happens to be able to do a modest amount of work. Nobody that really needs to tow for a living should be looking at a mid-size truck. Maybe with the 4.3, the truck might have been rated at 7,500 or closer to 8 (doubtful), but who cares. If you constantly need to tow close to the limit, then it's time to step up to a FS.

I can't get onboard with your nearly 50K argument. It's not really fair. At that price, you are quoting MSRP prices for a very loaded up (extra options) Canyon Denali. Under this scenario, we could take a 4wd crew Canyon Denali that retails at under 44K (I built it on the GMC website), then compare it to a crew cab Sierra SLT (because you can get pretty much every Canyon Denali feature on the Sierra SLT) with similar options and you are looking at 11 grand more.

In the real world, this argument doesn't hold as much water, but I can still go out and buy that same Canyon Denali for under 40K right now. The Sierra has much larger rebates on it, but will still cost me another 5 - 7 grand. If you want the power and the size, then that extra dough likely makes sense, but many of us (including myself) don't need either.

…

Unless they want to give us a real offroad or sport mid-size with 400+ HP....yeah I want that lol.

1gokart said:
...

Does anyone do a twin-turbo v6 of the newer 3.6L engine? I would love to install a twin-turbo setup on my 2018 V6 ZR2.
Click to expand...
GM currently makes a TTV6 in 3.0 and 3.6 flavors with good HP and TQ. Either of those would be nice options to have.
 
#28 ·
Coming from a huge Syclone fan, I think it's pretty slick -- just way overpriced. Maybe GM will keep an eye on how it sells to see if they should do something similar (for less money). I'm tired of all the factory off-road trucks and miss the days of the Syclone, 454SS, Lightning and SRT10.
 
#29 ·
KMPrengerMO said:
This truck is more of a lifestyle truck like it or not, than a work truck, but also happens to be able to do a modest amount of work. Nobody that really needs to tow for a living should be looking at a mid-size truck. Maybe with the 4.3, the truck might have been rated at 7,500 or closer to 8 (doubtful), but who cares. If you constantly need to tow close to the limit, then it's time to step up to a FS.

I can't get onboard with your nearly 50K argument. It's not really fair. At that price, you are quoting MSRP prices for a very loaded up (extra options) Canyon Denali. Under this scenario, we could take a 4wd crew Canyon Denali that retails at under 44K (I built it on the GMC website), then compare it to a crew cab Sierra SLT (because you can get pretty much every Canyon Denali feature on the Sierra SLT) with similar options and you are looking at 11 grand more.

In the real world, this argument doesn't hold as much water, but I can still go out and buy that same Canyon Denali for under 40K right now. The Sierra has much larger rebates on it, but will still cost me another 5 - 7 grand. If you want the power and the size, then that extra dough likely makes sense, but many of us (including myself) don't need either.
Click to expand...

Lifestyle, I won't argue that in anyway and actually alluded to it quite a few times.
Full size guys by supersized margin other than a small percentage of mid life crisis guys USE their trucks for what it was built for.
The S10 was dropped because a growing demographic was asking for something a bit bigger yet still affordable for some or useless asa full size for a higher price point. The S10 more than did its job as a light duty truck and you had people that used them, some that played either more toward a sport truck, mini truck etc. But GM couldnt ignore the new group, the ones you conceded to being the LIFESTYLE people. Ones that don't need a truck, have no use for one, that were buying imported models because they think there lacking something that owning a truck fixes. So GM did there homework because a small truck just DID NOT fix that one major issue and this new group was growing fast.

And then the Canyon and Colorado was born. Badly powered, ugly but bigger and they had a hard time dumping them. S10 guys somewhat took the bait but found out quickly that the changes made weren't inheritant to a sport mini title, but this new group to the bait and ran and was still growing. Then the new gen we have now reminds more of what a S10 would look like reborn and looks much better. So if you arent towing over 2500lbs frequently, need something that can haul, the 4 cylinder fits the bill and if you need to tow more then the diesel makes more sense, if diesel's are your thing. Me, I'd go full size at that point but I would have gotten a 4.3 Colorado if they offered one.



50K argument still holds. If they actually were moving these overpriced trucks, full or midsized the rebates and deals would be off. IMO paying over $35K for a truck when you need one and will use it as a truck is price gouging to a point and not due to supply and demand, which the rebates etc are indicating.

Read my posts, I alluded to the Lifestyle a couple of times.
 
#31 ·
The small truck died mostly due to the lack of interest. The CUV came along and started to pick off many of the buyers for the S10 and Blazer. Most were hauling suburban yard work material not gravel.

The first gen Colorado and Canyons struggled on but they were also were not class leading and they were more expensive. I tried all I could to buy one but just could not bring myself to pull the trigger. It had more power but the interior and styling for that price just did not click with me. I was at Detroit at the intro with great anticipation and left feeling let down. The 5 cylinder was more powerful than any 4.3 but it was more expensive to build. The 4.3 was a engine that took advantage of the economy of scales where it share many parts with a V8 but being 90 degree it left it with a lot of NVH.

Today's truck is different. It is taking the place of the old full size truck that by today's standards is more mid sized. Most of us are here because we want a smaller truck but still able to use it for many things. Also these truck are snagging people from the SUV class like the Trailblazer etc that would like an open bed but still have a back seat. The buyer demo is a little more diverse than it was before.

As for prices they are all too expensive but what's not today. The full size have enough volume they can rebate to $18K off and still make money. This shows how a King Ranch, High Country and Denali are so profitable.

Some companies are coming with the unibody trucks that are more car like or UTE like. This fits a even more diverse demo of customer who wants a truck but does not need the towing or off road. They need it for just around the house. Or they just don't want to look like they are driving the wife's SUV. LOL!

All the MFGs are watching this class and seeing gauging the interest. GM has been watching but has yet to move. Ford is reportedly working on one.

The future will be interesting with the future mutation of the CUV and trucks. Every company is looking for what catches on with interest.
 
#32 ·
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#33 ·
hyperv6 said:
The small truck died mostly due to the lack of interest. The CUV came along and started to pick off many of the buyers for the S10 and Blazer. Most were hauling suburban yard work material not gravel.

The first gen Colorado and Canyons struggled on but they were also were not class leading and they were more expensive. I tried all I could to buy one but just could not bring myself to pull the trigger. It had more power but the interior and styling for that price just did not click with me. I was at Detroit at the intro with great anticipation and left feeling let down. The 5 cylinder was more powerful than any 4.3 but it was more expensive to build. The 4.3 was a engine that took advantage of the economy of scales where it share many parts with a V8 but being 90 degree it left it with a lot of NVH.

Today's truck is different. It is taking the place of the old full size truck that by today's standards is more mid sized. Most of us are here because we want a smaller truck but still able to use it for many things. Also these truck are snagging people from the SUV class like the Trailblazer etc that would like an open bed but still have a back seat. The buyer demo is a little more diverse than it was before.

As for prices they are all too expensive but what's not today. The full size have enough volume they can rebate to $18K off and still make money. This shows how a King Ranch, High Country and Denali are so profitable.

Some companies are coming with the unibody trucks that are more car like or UTE like. This fits a even more diverse demo of customer who wants a truck but does not need the towing or off road. They need it for just around the house. Or they just don't want to look like they are driving the wife's SUV. LOL!

All the MFGs are watching this class and seeing gauging the interest. GM has been watching but has yet to move. Ford is reportedly working on one.

The future will be interesting with the future mutation of the CUV and trucks. Every company is looking for what catches on with interest.
Click to expand...

The small truck did not die from lack of interest, it was straight up murdered by the US Government.



In 1963, LBJ was courting the UAW for votes and his way of ensuring their support was to add light-duty trucks to the eye-watering 25% import tariff plan against chicken, potato starch and brandy known as the Chicken Tax.



This is what led to interesting loopholes, like the Japanese importing chassis body trucks and "assembling" the truck in the US, by adding a bed. One of the more bizarre results of this is the Subaru Brat; by adding seats to the back, it became a "passenger vehicle" instead of a truck.



Lest you say that this is an old law that doesn't affect us recently, consider:


Ford imported all of its first generation Transit Connect models as passenger vehicles by including rear windows, rear seats, and rear seatbelts.



The vehicles are exported from Turkey, arrive in Baltimore, and are converted back into light trucks at [an American] facility by replacing the rear windows with metal panels and removing the rear seats and seatbelts. The removed parts are not shipped back to Turkey for reuse, but shredded and recycled in Ohio.



The process costs Ford hundreds of dollars per van but saves thousands in taxes."
Click to expand...
That's the kind of next-level stupidity I expect from the government. It's why those manufacturers are looking at unibody designs. It's resulted in over 50 years of a "fullsize monopoly" stifling light truck competition. Although perhaps without it, none of you or I would be here, because that stagnant, ignored market is why the Twins are successful.
 
#34 ·
Thunderbear said:
The small truck did not die from lack of interest, it was straight up murdered by the US Government.



In 1963, LBJ was courting the UAW for votes and his way of ensuring their support was to add light-duty trucks to the eye-watering 25% import tariff plan against chicken, potato starch and brandy known as the Chicken Tax.



This is what led to interesting loopholes, like the Japanese importing chassis body trucks and "assembling" the truck in the US, by adding a bed. One of the more bizarre results of this is the Subaru Brat; by adding seats to the back, it became a "passenger vehicle" instead of a truck.



Lest you say that this is an old law that doesn't affect us recently, consider:


That's the kind of next-level stupidity I expect from the government. It's why those manufacturers are looking at unibody designs. It's resulted in over 50 years of a "fullsize monopoly" stifling light truck competition. Although perhaps without it, none of you or I would be here, because that stagnant, ignored market is why the Twins are successful.
Click to expand...
Well you are correct on this aspect as the games of taxes etc. I was well aware of the Ford game to convert the vans over.

But the lack of interest in the small trucks just stalled about 10 years ago. Many with the high rebates also went full size but as the truck kept getting bigger.

Our mid size is not much different in size than the 1988 full size.

I am just glad it made a come back as I love the truck I have now.
 
#35 ·
Is this the true answer to the 8 speed shudder issue???? Lots and lots more HP to feed that transmission?? No wonder GM can't truly fix our shudder problems if it is going to cost as much as the original truck.

Seriously, what in the heck are they going to use for a transmission? Are they mating the old reliable 400 hydramatic?? A Muncie manual gearbox??? An upgraded GM 8 speed automatic with redesigned torque converter and a secret batch of Mobil pink label transmission fluid??
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#37 ·
caseih said:
Is this the true answer to the 8 speed shudder issue???? Lots and lots more HP to feed that transmission?? No wonder GM can't truly fix our shudder problems if it is going to cost as much as the original truck.

Seriously, what in the heck are they going to use for a transmission? Are they mating the old reliable 400 hydramatic?? A Muncie manual gearbox??? An upgraded GM 8 speed automatic with redesigned torque converter and a secret batch of Mobil pink label transmission fluid??
Click to expand...
There is an 8L90 used in several other vehicles that is externally the same as the 8L45.
 
#38 ·
Pretty cool, but I wish they went with the worktruck body or even CCSB over the extended cab. The more I see that extended cab the more it visually bothers me, there's something that doesn't flow right about it.
 
#39 ·
So pretty much, all I need is the supercharger? LOL! $40K over the price of the truck is ridiculous to say the least. I have less in mine than the overpriced Midnight Edition. Supercharger and a tuned doesnt run another $36K! I wonder how many idiots will leave everything that gets replaced behind on one of these after they just bought it? LMAO!!!
Image


Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
 
#40 ·
CreepeR said:
The more I see that extended cab the more it visually bothers me, there's something that doesn't flow right about it.
Click to expand...
100% agree. I didnt really need a CC, but it was a visual this as well with the extended cab that made me get a CC. LOL!



Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
 
21 - 40 of 48 Posts
About this Discussion
47 Replies
28 Participants
Last post:
Thunderbear
Chevy Colorado & GMC Canyon
posts
2M
members
150K
Since
2003
Join fellow enthusiasts to discuss modifications, troubleshooting tips, and share your experiences with these versatile midsize pickups, fostering a collaborative space for an exchange of knowledge and camaraderie among Chevy Colorado and GMC Canyon aficionados.
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
General Truck Chat 2nd Gen Chevrolet Colorado Forum / GMC Canyon Technical Questions / Tips / How To 2nd Gen Engines and Technical Discussion 2nd Gen Electronics, Audio, and Lighting