GMC Canyon input requested

[crashz]

I have sat in and test drove the Canyon and Ranger. The Canyon has plenty of room, decent seats and it overall very comfortable. The Ranger is a tight squeeze, but I like the seats better.

I like the design and ride of the GMC. They seem very popular around here. Seems like every 4th vehicle on the road is Colorado or Canyon. Of course, I want one so it seem like everyone has one!

 

[Industrial Toys]

If smaller trucks got better mileage, that would be a good reason to buy them. But most trucks in that class have poor mileage. I had a 6 & 8 Dakota which I loved, but they both got similar mileage to my 6.6 Duramax, which never got any mileage that one could brag about. So why suffer with a little truck with worse resale too?

 

[Jstpssng]

If smaller trucks got better mileage, that would be a good reason to buy them. But most trucks in that class have poor mileage. I had a 6 & 8 Dakota which I loved, but they both got similar mileage to my 6.6 Duramax, which never got any mileage that one could brag about. So why suffer with a little truck with worse resale too?

My '83 Ranger 2WD, my '85 Ranger 4WD, and my '91 Toyota 4WD all got between 23-24 mpg. That's considerably more than any full sized truck of the era. Then they started putting bigger engines which dropped them down in the full sized range... my '04 Ranger gets 17 on a good day. More often as it gets older I see 15-16... the same as my full sized Silverado. Yet the Ranger is smaller and 2000 lbs lighter so will go places that the big trucks can't; and also fits into parking spots which are about the only thing downsized in the last 20 years.

 

[RickB]

If smaller trucks got better mileage, that would be a good reason to buy them. But most trucks in that class have poor mileage. I had a 6 & 8 Dakota which I loved, but they both got similar mileage to my 6.6 Duramax, which never got any mileage that one could brag about. So why suffer with a little truck with worse resale too?

Not to make a debate out of this, but comparing gross mileage numbers between differing fuel types is absurd.
And I have found several used Canyons 2-3 years old with 20-30K miles and they are priced stupid high.
Calling any of these little is kind of silly as well, I had to measure carefully to see if a short bed crew was going to fit in the garage.
I am happy with the physical size of the truck, will gladly accept the 3-4 mpg advantage of the V6 over the full size with the V8 while enjoying the same hp and torque as my 2004 5.3L Sierra.
Yeah, I would like to get better mileage, but I get to choose among what is offered. One of the reasons I bought a 1500 in 2004 was because I didn’t want to feed a GM 6.0 gas engine.

 

[Industrial Toys]

YES, norlmally comparing apples with oranges makes little sense. But in my case I went from two Dakotas a 6 cyl to an 8 and then to a 6.6 Duramax and had the same fuel economy. Give or take. I just find that interesting.

 

[RickB]

YES, norlmally comparing apples with oranges makes little sense. But in my case I went from two Dakotas a 6 cyl to an 8 and then to a 6.6 Duramax and had the same fuel economy. Give or take. I just find that interesting.

Despite the obvious differences in abilities and capacity to do work I would be more inclined to look at fuel cost per mile as a more equitable comparison.

 

[Industrial Toys]

I just find it interesting that I never saved money driving a mid size (toy) truck. AND for what it's worth, I have always driven like an 80 year old man and miser that looks two miles ahead to try and determine my speed and distance to make a green light.

 

[Sawyer Rob]

I just find it interesting that I never saved money driving a mid size (toy) truck. AND for what it's worth, I have always driven like an 80 year old man and miser that looks two miles ahead to try and determine my speed and distance to make a green light.

The answer to that is, you had a Dakota!!

My brother has had a couple, they were NEVER even close to the same mpg of an equal sized Chevy!

SR

 

[RickB]

Maybe so. I have no need for a truck the size of today’s full size trucks, and I don’t want my ride sitting outside in the Southeast sun because I felt the need to have what everyone else drives. For me, it is pure overkill by every measure. There is not a single option or accessory that I want that will go lacking.

 

[Ford850]

It’s funny how these mid sized trucks get criticized for being too small and less than full sized. They are the same size as the ‘78 full sized trucks.
I don’t think you can go wrong with any of them, other than the occasional lemon from any brand. Test drive some and get one that feels good and is enjoyable to drive.

 

[Jstpssng]

The answer to that is, you had a Dakota!!

My brother has had a couple, they were NEVER even close to the same mpg of an equal sized Chevy!

SR

Exactly! Besides, the Dakota never was meant to be a small truck; it was touted as something in between small and full sized. They had all of the disadvantages of both and rode like an 8N Ford to boot.

I had two of them then bought a tired Toyota and couldn't believe the difference in cost to run the latter.

 

[ruffdog]

The answer to that is, you had a Dakota!!

My brother has had a couple, they were NEVER even close to the same mpg of an equal sized Chevy!

SR

Yeah, them Dakotas were never known to be good on gas. Comparing a old Dakota to new technology is like comparing a hammer to a scalpel.

 

[Industrial Toys]

As far as I am concerned, it was partly the stupid "SPORTY" appearance with wide tires that resulted in the sheity gas mileage.

I shouldn't say this, but driving the Dakota, and seeing FORD Rangers on the road, I wondered if they would ever figure out that you could use curved cabin glass! lol

 

[Sawyer Rob]

My new Silverado, it's shocking to me how good it is on gas!

I've had full side pu's since 1972 and they have gradually got better, but this new technology has really made them much better.

SR

 

[Industrial Toys]

It's not like there aren't a whole bunch of costs associated with modern vehicles that were not there in 72. Not to mention the purchace price adjusted for inflation of course.

 

[TCowner]

I had a 2017 GMC Canyon that I put just over 45,000 miles on. I thought it was a very good truck but I too had the transmission shutter issue at about 35,000 miles. GM changed the transmission fluid under warranty and much to my surprise, completely resolved the shutter issue. Other than that, the truck was trouble free. But I still had a concern about a potential problem down the road with the tranmission.

So when my lease was getting close to expiring I went shopping for a replacement truck. I was intrigued by the new Ford Ranger. At the end of 2019 Ford announced a pretty impressive rebate on the remaining 2019 XLT models. This is what I ended up getting.

The jury is out on whether I like the Ranger over the Canyon. I have just over 6,000 miles on the Ranger and I am not overwhelmed with the 2.3 Ecoboost. It has some low end torque that pretty nice but it loud and noisy at low rpm. My gas mileage experience is showing about 1 mpg less than the Canyon. So for right now, I would take the 3.6 v6 in the Canyon over the ecoboost in the Ford. The ten speed transmission is a bit jerky but again Ford says this is normal.

The Ford ride is quieter than the Canyon in my opinion. Some of the electronic gadgetry in the Ford drive me crazy but I suspect that is an issue with all new vehicles. I yearn for the day that every control related to heating and air conditioning was controlled with knobs. In the old days, you could actually turn the heat intensity down and still keep your eyes on the road.

So these are just my opinions. But I haven't decided which of these two mid size trucks I like better. Now, should Ford ever shoe horn the 2.7 Ecoboost into the Ranger, well then we will have a truck that would be hard to beat.

 

[RickB]

Thanks TCowner.

 

[Gem99ultra]

Interesting. So what have we solved here?

What we solved I think, is that one can find support for their whims regardless of which direction they want to go. What I have learned is that I believe nothing I read in Consumer's Report - they're very biased. And I believe nothing 100% in any "expert" evaluation be it about pocket knives or whatever. One I suppose is to determine what fits their needs and support that with their pocket books. The OP's choice is the only one that counts for his personal decision.

 

[Jstpssng]

I had a 2017 GMC Canyon that I put just over 45,000 miles on. I thought it was a very good truck but I too had the transmission shutter issue at about 35,000 miles. GM changed the transmission fluid under warranty and much to my surprise, completely resolved the shutter issue. Other than that, the truck was trouble free. But I still had a concern about a potential problem down the road with the tranmission.

So when my lease was getting close to expiring I went shopping for a replacement truck. I was intrigued by the new Ford Ranger. At the end of 2019 Ford announced a pretty impressive rebate on the remaining 2019 XLT models. This is what I ended up getting.

The jury is out on whether I like the Ranger over the Canyon. I have just over 6,000 miles on the Ranger and I am not overwhelmed with the 2.3 Ecoboost. It has some low end torque that pretty nice but it loud and noisy at low rpm. My gas mileage experience is showing about 1 mpg less than the Canyon. So for right now, I would take the 3.6 v6 in the Canyon over the ecoboost in the Ford. The ten speed transmission is a bit jerky but again Ford says this is normal.

The Ford ride is quieter than the Canyon in my opinion. Some of the electronic gadgetry in the Ford drive me crazy but I suspect that is an issue with all new vehicles. I yearn for the day that every control related to heating and air conditioning was controlled with knobs. In the old days, you could actually turn the heat intensity down and still keep your eyes on the road.

So these are just my opinions. But I haven't decided which of these two mid size trucks I like better. Now, should Ford ever shoe horn the 2.7 Ecoboost into the Ranger, well then we will have a truck that would be hard to beat.

You say that your Ranger gets 1mpg less than your Colorado did, would you care to share those actual numbers? Right now gas is cheap but I don't expect it to remain that way. My next truck will be to use when I retire and I want to be able to afford to run it.

 

[ArlyA]

Here is a thread concerning the new ford ranger. Many owners have posted in it, included TC.