Register free!

The Green Industry's Resource Center



Reply
 
Thread Tools   Display Modes
  #11  
Old 08-06-2011, 12:12 PM
Exact Rototilling's Avatar
Exact Rototilling Exact Rototilling is offline
LawnSite Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Zone: 5B
Posts: 4,972
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawnboy dan View Post
the bed size on the colorado is so small its useless as a work truck
Just wondering how you decided? Seriously pondering the chassis cab option with aluminum UTE bed installed in Louisiana then shipped to dealer. All within the GM factory system. That way the bed is 6' wide right from the start and payload is extremely close to what the 1500 is.

A big wrecking yard in Spokane runs these exact rigs.
Posted via Mobile Device
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 08-06-2011, 01:42 PM
Exact Rototilling's Avatar
Exact Rototilling Exact Rototilling is offline
LawnSite Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Zone: 5B
Posts: 4,972
FWIW here is the link to the PDF file about 3 megs http://www.uteltd.com/PDF/ss/GM-Colorado-Ute.pdf






Attached Images
   
__________________
Posted via Mobile Device
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 08-06-2011, 11:25 PM
ecurbthims ecurbthims is offline
LawnSite Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: sudbury ontario
Posts: 436
any little truck I have ever owned [3 s10's, 2 rangers, 3 dakota's ] got no more than 1 or two mpg better mileage than a full-size truck ,and the size of the box and usefullness of the truck was worth more than the minute mpg. gain .Plus,a real truck is comfortable and rides better [I am 6'5" though ]
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 08-09-2011, 12:51 AM
Exact Rototilling's Avatar
Exact Rototilling Exact Rototilling is offline
LawnSite Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Zone: 5B
Posts: 4,972
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecurbthims View Post
any little truck I have ever owned [3 s10's, 2 rangers, 3 dakota's ] got no more than 1 or two mpg better mileage than a full-size truck ,and the size of the box and usefullness of the truck was worth more than the minute mpg. gain .Plus,a real truck is comfortable and rides better [I am 6'5" though ]
Did you have 4 cylinder Rangers with such poor mileage...

I see your point re: full size vs. mid size or Ranger. Then it goes 1/2 ton vs. 3/4 ton. If you're going full size why limit to half ton.

Frankly I'd rather have a UTE bed that is a full 7' wide and 8' 6" long on a full size truck frame vs. the smaller UTE bed at 6' wide and 7+ long which frankly is pretty respectable and useful as a dealer delivered option new on the Colorado. The chassis cab is limited to the 5 cylinder but 4 wheel drive is available.
__________________
Posted via Mobile Device
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 08-11-2011, 09:40 PM
ecurbthims ecurbthims is offline
LawnSite Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: sudbury ontario
Posts: 436
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exact Rototilling View Post
Did you have 4 cylinder Rangers with such poor mileage...

I see your point re: full size vs. mid size or Ranger. Then it goes 1/2 ton vs. 3/4 ton. If you're going full size why limit to half ton.

Frankly I'd rather have a UTE bed that is a full 7' wide and 8' 6" long on a full size truck frame vs. the smaller UTE bed at 6' wide and 7+ long which frankly is pretty respectable and useful as a dealer delivered option new on the Colorado. The chassis cab is limited to the 5 cylinder but 4 wheel drive is available.
yes ,one ranger was a manual 4 cylinder short box reg cab and it was more thirsty than the 6 cylinder manual ext cab ranger I had .
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump





Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1998 - 2012, LawnSite.comô - Moose River Media
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:36 AM.

Page generated in 0.07645 seconds with 8 queries