Re: Death of the S-10?

For '04, Chevy will drop all of the S10 models except for the 4WD crew cab. Don't know how long they will continue the line after that.

Rimara

Well, being an S-10 owner for over a year, and being an admirer for many > prior to that, I've got to say that I love the little truck. Now, I know > that beginning with the production of the Colorado/Canyon for the 2004 model > year, the S-10/Sonoma will end production. But, does Chevy have any plans > for the future of the S-10? Will it leave us for a few years, only to come > back repackaged down the road, as Chevy has done with several of its > vehicles? I just don't understand why Chevy has to go with this crazy idea > of a "midsize" truck, and discontinue an already great truck. > > Anybody agree? Anybody know of any future plans? > > -Chris > >
Reply to
Rimara
Loading thread data ...

Reply to
Mike Levy

I agree....... Incidentally, rumor has it that the S10 will make a comeback in 2006 as a front wheel drive only mini-SUV.... powered by an all aluminum, 32 valve 4 cylinder gas-electric hybrid engine and a

3 foot cargo bed......God help us all !!! ; - )
Reply to
Jeff

Hi!

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhccccccccckkkkkkkk!

Yuck. If my S-10 saw that, it would probably die of embarrassment.

William

Reply to
William R. Walsh

Already did...called it the Cyclone. Did a Jimmy version called the Typhoon. Had the buick grand national motor in it.

John

Reply to
eightupman

My bad...it was a turbo motor, not supercharged.

John

Reply to
eightupman

*************** I know about them,that was back in 1991 or so! Chevy has let Ford walk all over them, when it comes to fast trucks...

Chas

Reply to
CHASLX200

*************** I think Chevy only made around 20 of those trucks.

Chas

Reply to
CHASLX200

Maybe I should not ask... But who wants a FRONT WHEEL DRIVE TRUCK? Remove NoSpam to reply, Thanks

Reply to
Kahlua53

I sure don't! Yuck!

Front wheel drive is good for cars, has no place in trucks.

William

Reply to
William R. Walsh

In article , Jimmy Neutron burped:

Uhm, look at the specs. The 4.3L V6 made 260 ft-lbs of torque at

1800rpm. The Canyon's I-5 doesn't even break the 200 ft-lb mark at 1800rpm, and tops out at around 225 ft-lbs at around 3,000 rpm.

Who gives a shit how much *horsepower* a truck engine has?! I mean, the whole point of a truck is to *haul* stuff. If it doesn't have enough grunt (torque) to get started, what's the point?!

But then, I guess the point is that the Canyon isn't a truck, it's an "xtreme sports accessory", thus why it has an I5 engine that would be better suited to a sports car than a truck.

Reply to
Eric Lee Green

In article , John Alt burped:

Err, the General has a perfectly good 4.2L straight 6, brand new design, overhead cams and all, powering the Chevy Trailblazer and its GMC stable-mate. In fact, the I-4 and I-5 in the Colorado are basically the 4.2L with one and two cylinders chopped off (respectively).

So why did the General do it? The 4.2L was introduced with the Chevy Trailblazer, which was, what, two years ago? The 4.3L V-6 was derived from the old Chevy 350 smallblock, and had nothing in common with the 4.2L I-6.

As for the Ford 300 I-6 from the late 1970's, that was a Ford 240 I-6 stroked (i.e., a mid 1960's design), rather than an all-new design. In fact, my father's van had a 300 block with 240 head and valve cover on it -- not exactly an "all-new design"!

Reply to
Eric Lee Green

anyone got links to some good pics of the Colorado/Canyons???

Reply to
smullen

Reply to
Mike Levy

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.