Ah, yes. The honor of finishing dead last. Is there a difference between last and dead last? Semantics aside, there were two main character flaws that hindered the Chevy: a dated design and a generally unrefined feel.

Nobody actually hated the S-10's appearance; we all felt it was simply too blah. "Not a single distinguishing feature." "Not ugly, but dated." These were a few of the less-than-complimentary comments scribbled onto our eval sheets. The cabin was a mixed bag of good design (large, simple center stack controls) and bad (the separate cassette deck that is mounted nearly on the floor). And when are Chevrolet's engineers going to redesign that overburdened turn signal stalk? There's too much going on there, with the wipers and cruise control functions joining the turn signal and headlight dimming functions.

Up front, the bucket seats were deemed too soft. They feel fine at first, but don't offer enough support, which becomes apparent on longer drives. And the rear seat's bottom cushion was too short, making it feel as if we were sitting on the edge of an ottoman.

The slowest truck in the 0-to-60 dash and second slowest in the quarter-mile, the S-10 suffered even more when the bed was filled with our sandbags. The Chevy took 12.9 seconds to get to 60 mph with an 800-pound payload — more than a second behind the supercharged Nissan. And even the transmission, usually a strong area for GM, was criticized for being slow to downshift, though it did operate smoothly.

A few editors felt the brakes were a bit touchy, but once they were acclimated to the pedal, they felt it offered decent modulation. But even though it was the only truck fitted with rear discs, the Chevy produced the longest stopping distances, whether with an empty bed (139 feet) or with our payload in back (147 feet).

We had to look under the S-10 to be certain it was a 4x4 — with its minimal ground clearance, it looked like a 2WD truck. And unlike the extended-cab version, there is no off-road package offered on the S-10 crew cab. Yet, in spite of this seemingly large off-road disadvantage, the S-10 did fine, clambering over rocks with the best of 'em. Helping out in this respect were the 70-series tires with their big sidewalls that allowed the low-slung S-10 to get through tricky, rutted terrain. On the blacktop, the tires were quick to squeal as their soft sidewalls flexed, yet our test pilot was able to hustle the Chevy through the cones at 59.0 mph, only 1 mph slower than the leader.

The S-10's ride quality was mostly agreeable, save for a tendency to bounce, pogo stick-like, over freeway expansion joints.

We know GM can offer better than the S-10. In fact, the company will soon offer an all-new version designed and engineered by Isuzu and likely named the Colorado. Our advice? Wait for the new one.


Second Opinions:

Senior Editor Brent Romans says:
In our midsize SUV test, the 2000 Chevy TrailBlazer didn't fare too well. The 2000 TrailBlazer and the S-10 are very similar trucks in terms of hardware. So does it come as a big surprise that the S-10 didn't fare too well, either?

Most of the traits that I liked about the TrailBlazer are also found on the S-10. Despite the lack of upgraded off-road hardware or meaty tires (the ZR2 package isn't available on the Crew Cab), the S-10 crawled over rocks almost as well as the Tacoma or the Dodge did. It has a wonderful low-range transfer case that allows the truck to climb or descend steep trails with little problem.

I actually don't mind the interior, either. It's comfortable, with decent storage areas and easy-to-use controls. And piloting the S-10 is a perfectly agreeable experience, as well. OK, so the power is on the weak side. But it goes well enough, steers fine and has a decent ride. Oh, it's also affordable; our test truck was the cheapest in the test.

So why the lowly finish? The other trucks are simply better. The Ford has more features and style, the Dodge is more muscular, the Toyota has a better reputation for reliability. The Nissan looks better. If I were shopping in this segment, I'd also be worried about the S-10's generally low scores for crash safety. The 2001 S-10 Crew Cab isn't a horrible truck, but I'd certainly stick it out a couple more years to wait for the redesigned S-10 coming out in 2003.

Road Test Editor Ed Hellwig says:
Unlike the Nissan's, the S-10's low finish wasn't exactly a surprise. Not that it doesn't possess the hardware to compete in this segment. But when you're hoping to attract young male buyers, you're not going to do it with a truck that looks like this.

Granted, our test truck was shod with puny street tires and a standard suspension that together possess about one tenth of the appeal of the tricked-out ZR2 extended-cab S-10. But hey, the other trucks managed to look good; why not the S-10?

Off-road, the compliant suspension worked surprisingly well, allowing the Chevy to negotiate the same terrain as all the other trucks with barely a scratch. But on-road, the mushy ride and lifeless steering make you fully aware of this truck's ancient design. Even the big 4.3-liter Vortec V6 under the hood struggled to hold its own against the much smaller, but more technologically advanced, engines in the competition. There's plenty of grunt down low, but as the tach climbs, it runs out of steam quickly.

The interior also shows signs of age, with cheap plastic knobs and switches, and seats that offer little side or thigh bolstering. The rear seats are woefully inadequate for any decent-sized adults; their short seat cushions leave your legs hanging off the edge as if you were sitting on a diving board.

If you're a die-hard Chevy fan, take heart in knowing that a completely redesigned replacement is on the way soon. But if you're in the market for a four-door truck right now, you would be better off going for a stripped-down Tacoma or six-cylinder Dakota rather than trying to justify the value equation with an old-tech S-10.

Road Test Coordinator Neil Chirico says:
What surprised me about the Chevrolet was how well it did off-road, considering its low clearance. This thing rocked in the dirt; it was big fun and very stable.

The interior reminded me of our recently departed long-term GMC Sierra in appearance; it was the mini-me version of it with much of the same switchgear in a smaller package. Of course that brings up the whole issue of long-term quality, which our Sierra never had. Would the S-10 follow suit?

The switchgear is like the dummies' guide to switchgear. The various knobs and switches are large and clearly labeled and probably easy to manipulate with work gloves on, handy on those few occasions when one would actually drive with gloves on.

Visually, the Chevrolet is about as exciting as a loaf of white bread — actually, even some white breads come wrapped in more attractive packaging.

Hey, Chevy, this vehicle could use a better engine for the otherwise well done powertrain. I believe this truck would have placed higher if it had better engine performance.

Stereo Evaluation - Chevrolet S-10 LS Crew Cab