Stay informed with our newsletter.
.webp){kind=spacer}
EN
Chevrolet Colorado, Reigning Truck of the Year, Faces Off Against Fresh Competition from Toyota Tacoma and Ford Ranger in 2024 Battle
Chevrolet's revamped Colorado secures prestigious Truck of the Year accolade for 2024. Notably, the Colorado and its sophisticated counterpart, the GMC Canyon, were the sole midsize contenders in this year's TOTY contest. With the absence of the 2024 Toyota Tacoma and the delayed arrival of the 2024 Ford Ranger due to strike-related supply shortages, the field was narrowed. However, the arrival of these anticipated rivals has now leveled the playing field. While improvements are evident in both competitors, the question remains: Can they outshine the reigning Chevy?
The extensive range of models within the Colorado lineup played a pivotal role in securing its TOTY victory. However, for this comparison, we opted for the $36,795 Colorado LT 4WD, representing the middle ground—the quintessential choice among the selection. Our test vehicle came equipped with a plethora of comfort, convenience, and technology features, along with a trailering package, ultimately elevating the sticker price to $45,835.
Ensuring price parity among our contenders posed a significant challenge in assembling this comparison. However, Ford and Toyota delivered, presenting trucks priced within a mere $200 of the Colorado. Ford introduced the 2024 Ranger XLT 4x4, starting at a base price of $41,490. Our test vehicle was enhanced with a towing package, a spray-in bedliner, and several additional options, culminating in an as-tested price of $45,650. Meanwhile, Toyota contributed a Tacoma TRD Sport 4x4 featuring a 5-foot bed and automatic transmission, with a base price of $44,095. Notably, only the Tacoma provides long-bed and manual-transmission alternatives. An upgraded stereo elevated its as-tested price to $45,845.
Our initial focus was on stepping into the cabins and exploring our rides. Inside the Colorado, we encountered familiar surroundings but discovered plenty to appreciate: premium materials, a logical control layout, and a mature ambiance. The digital instrument cluster impressed us with its versatility, offering multiple configuration options. Despite the Colorado's infotainment screen being the smallest among the trio, we found it to be the most effective—especially given its ability to display a dynamic map in the instrument panel, a feature lacking in the other trucks. However, our primary grievances revolved around the cramped rear seat and the insufficient storage space, both on the dashboard and beneath the rear seats.
In contrast, the Toyota Tacoma mirrored the Chevrolet's tight rear seat space. However, the Tacoma excelled in offering numerous cubbies and storage options, particularly beneath the rear seat. While the Toyota's dashboard struck us as slightly gimmicky, we appreciated the body-color trim and large, tactile controls, which proved easy to operate even with gloves on. Nonetheless, we were taken aback by the presence of several switch blanks. Given that this was the priciest truck among the selection, we couldn't help but wonder: What features were we missing out on?
The Ford Ranger found a comfortable middle ground in several aspects. While the prominent center screen made a strong visual statement, some drivers found it a bit overwhelming to glance at quickly due to its extensive real estate. We welcomed the convenience of the power-sliding rear window, a feature absent in the Chevy and Toyota counterparts. However, the twist-key ignition felt out of place in a vehicle priced at $45,000. Additionally, the choice of beige seats, accompanied only by a cloth section on the armrests, seemed like a lackluster attempt to introduce visual appeal, especially considering they were already showing signs of staining. Nonetheless, what truly impressed us was the spaciousness of the back seat, surpassing that of the other trucks, even though it lacked the storage options found in the Toyota.
To gather concrete performance metrics, our next course of action involved taking our trucks to the test track. Despite similar weights— with the Ford tipping the scales at 4,453 pounds, making it the lightest, and the Chevy at 4,604 pounds, the heaviest—the power output from their turbo-fours exhibited significant variation. The 310-horsepower Chevy surged to 60 mph in 6.7 seconds, leading the pack, followed by the 270-horsepower Ford at 6.9 seconds and the 278-horsepower Tacoma at 7.4 seconds. The Ford's advantage can be attributed to the additional two ratios in its 10-speed transmission, compared to the eight-speed setups in the Chevy and Toyota.
In our braking evaluations, the Toyota halted from 60 mph in 121 feet, while the Chevrolet required 129 feet, both achieving panic stops with minimal drama. Conversely, the Ford displayed a tumultuous performance, exhibiting lurching, hopping, and chattering behavior, resulting in a 140-foot stopping distance. Furthermore, the Ranger demonstrated the lowest skidpad grip and was the slowest around our figure-eight course, while the Colorado showcased the highest grip and quickest performance. However, it's worth noting that our expectations were tempered by the presence of all-terrain tires on all three trucks.
While test data provides valuable insights, real-world driving experiences often paint a more nuanced picture. Setting off on our test loop from the northern end of Los Angeles' San Fernando Valley to Simi Valley and the winding canyons in between, the Chevrolet immediately took the lead as the most comfortable ride in the group. Its smoothness almost approached a car-like feel, although like its counterparts, it exhibited typical truck-like vibrations on the sectional concrete of State Route 118. Ascending the Santa Susana Pass, the Chevy exuded refinement while showcasing its formidable power from the largest and most potent engine among the trio. However, its lack of an effective lane-centering system emerged as a notable flaw, compounded by confusion surrounding the presence of a lane-centering button.
The Ford's lane-centering feature performed admirably, but the same couldn't be said for its powertrain, which proved sluggish in responding to downshift requests, resulting in engine surges when shifts eventually occurred. One tester lamented that the Ford possessed a capable engine hindered by subpar transmission tuning. Another noted that these issues could be mitigated by leaving the Ranger in Sport mode, albeit at the expense of heavier steering. Despite this, the Ranger boasted the most comfortable driver's seat, generously padded compared to the Toyota's and providing superior thigh support to the Chevy's. While its ride quality closely rivaled that of the Colorado, it faltered over bumps that the Chevy effortlessly absorbed.
Despite its coil-spring rear suspension, the Toyota Tacoma surprised us by exhibiting pronounced jiggling and jostling over nearly every road surface, making it notably less comfortable than the Ranger. Furthermore, the Tacoma's cabin was the most susceptible to wind and road noise. While the turbocharger's whine and whistle added some character, the engine's gravelly valvetrain noise, shared with the Ranger, left much to be desired. In contrast, the Chevy's engine note stood out as the most pleasing among the group. Despite excellent lane-centering capabilities, the Tacoma exhibited slightly more weaving compared to the Ranger.
Transitioning from freeway to canyon roads, it was the Ranger that impressed with its agility, despite its third-place finish in our instrumented handling tests. Its steering offered precision, although brake-pedal feel fell short compared to the other trucks. The Toyota's light steering facilitated easy maneuvering, but the obstructive hood hindered visibility, and pushing it through curves felt akin to driving a pickup truck—a sentiment echoed by many. Opinions on the Colorado were mixed; while it boasted superior refinement and comfort, some testers found it somewhat unwieldy in the sharpest turns. However, it's worth remembering that these are pickup trucks, not sports cars, a reality seemingly overlooked by the Ranger in its spirited performance.
A brief excursion on a rough dirt road brought us back to our starting point. Navigating through the ruts, we couldn't shake the constant worry of damaging the Tacoma's low-slung air dam, although upon closer examination, it appeared someone else had already met that fate. The Ford experienced traction loss first, but a swift switch to 4 high remedied the situation. Conversely, the Chevrolet didn't necessitate such intervention, being the sole truck among the trio to offer an automatic mode for its transfer case. However, it's worth noting that the Colorado lacked a low range, a feature reserved by Chevy for other variants of the Colorado.
In evaluating a midsize pickup truck, driving manners are undoubtedly crucial, but so is its capacity for labor. During our comparison, MotorTrend found itself in the midst of an office relocation, presenting an ideal opportunity to put these trucks to the test with some practical work—shifting furniture. (It's a phenomenon; owning a pickup seems to attract requests for help with moving.)
Right off the bat, the Tacoma's composite bed presented a double-edged sword. Its plastic composition, while slick and conducive to sliding furniture, also posed challenges in maintaining footing. Indeed, one of our team members experienced a nasty fall due to the bed's rain-slicked surface. Unique to the Tacoma was its utility track system, a welcome feature given the limited tie-down options—only two up front and floor-mounted D-rings toward the rear. However, we hesitated to secure the furniture tightly with ratchet straps on the seemingly fragile plastic cleats. It begged the question: Why aren't they constructed from metal? Additionally, the absence of power outlets in the Tacoma's bed was noted, leaving us wondering about the missed convenience.
Loading a sofa into the Ranger underscored the constraints of a 5-foot bed. However, the Ranger's thoughtful design featured plastic around the tailgate handle, safeguarding the paint from potential damage caused by the overhanging leg of our couch. Crucially, the Ranger boasted tie-down rings strategically placed at the front, middle, and rear, with the middle pair, positioned just aft of the fenders, proving invaluable in securing our bulky cargo.
Meanwhile, the Colorado stood out as the lone truck equipped with cutouts in the bumper serving as steps, facilitating easy access to and from the bed for our shorter testers. Although the corner-mounted tie-downs felt robust, we couldn't help but miss the absence of a middle set akin to the Ford's setup. While Chevrolet does offer additional accessory tie-downs that mount in the bed sidewalls, the absence of a utility track system in the Chevrolet option list struck us as a notable oversight. Additionally, the Colorado's tailgate storage bin, while novel, proved finicky to securely close, leaving us uncertain about its practicality
With roads traveled and furniture transported, the time had come for us to determine the winner. It was unanimously agreed that the Tacoma would secure third place. While undoubtedly a competent truck, we couldn't overlook its slick cargo box surface and limited tie-down options, detracting from its overall convenience. Despite its smooth powertrain and superior back-seat storage, the Tacoma failed to decisively outshine its rivals in any particular area, making it a harder sell for open-minded buyers comparing it to its competitors.
Selecting the runner-up proved to be a more challenging task. The Chevrolet emerged as the most comfortable of the three trucks, boasting an aesthetically pleasing cabin and superior displays. Leveraging the advantage of ease in driving and parking, a hallmark of midsize pickups over their full-size counterparts, the Chevrolet excelled in this aspect. Conversely, the Ranger offered practical advantages, featuring a significantly larger back seat, well-arranged tie-downs, and the option of a utility track system, along with the highest payload capacity. While towing wasn't part of our assessment, we noted the presence of Ford's trailer-backup-steering system, which we deemed particularly useful in maneuvering smaller single-axle trailers—common for midsize trucks—in reverse.
Ultimately, the determination of the winner appeared to hinge not on the trucks themselves, but rather on the criteria deemed most important. Balancing comfort and utility proved to be a challenging task, as a midsize pickup is expected to serve as both a daily driver and a capable workhorse. While the judges unanimously agreed that the Colorado excelled as the preferred daily driver, offering superior luxury, refinement, and comfort over the Ranger, it was the Ranger's emphasis on utility that ultimately clinched the victory.
Despite not being as pleasant to drive as the Chevy, the Ranger's larger back seat, well-designed bed, comprehensive towing aids, and inclusion of a low-range transfer case positioned it as the more practical option. While the difference in driving experience between the two trucks wasn't significant, it's worth noting that midsize pickups are not expected to deliver the same driving dynamics as sedans or SUVs. In the end, utility prevailed, and thus, the 2024 Ford Ranger emerged as the winner of this comparison test.
3rd Place: 2024 Toyota Tacoma TRD Sport
Pros
Cons
Verdict: A huge improvement over the old Tacoma, but the domestics still do it better.
Pros
Cons
Verdict: By far the nicest midsize truck to live with on a daily basis.
Pros
Cons
Verdict: If there’s a job that needs doing, the Ranger is the best choice.
Source: Motortrend
-min.jpg)
