Review: GMC Terrain

Posted on 16. Nov, 2009 by in Auto News

Many people have asked why General Motors has so many brands. Why both Chevrolet and GMC have sold essentially the same vehicles? The new GMC Terrain, we could only answer. Or not.

The GMC Terrain essentially replaces the Pontiac Torrent crossover linuep in growing GM. Where the Wild brook a rebadge of the first generation Chevrolet Equinox, was the terrain share everything. Beneath the skin with the second-generation Equinox And yet it is not a rebadge. The Equinox is mildly attractive, was a moderate aero shape her from the design studio of a number of manufacturers have spent.

The terrain, in contrast. Bulky all angles, battering ram grille and bulging fender flares No one will ever mistake for a Equinox, and it is not attractive to the eyes. But for anyone who wants (yet) look like a lobster, but with the mechanicals, packaging and fuel efficiency of a car-like crossover is the terrain (with the partial exception of the failed Mitsubishi Endeavor-155 units in October) only current option.

With the interiors, GM has arisen for a number of IP panels and door panels, but the payoff is much lower than the exterior. The lines were different, for example, the Chevrolet outer air intakes, the right-left are not reversed for the GMC, but the interiors feel any different as a result. Side by side comparison is necessary to note the differences.

In any case, the interior is definitely a step up from that in the first generation Equinox. The middle between the two stack-shared models is particularly elegant, with its knobs and buttons arranged and shaped so you can look apart and you find (Memo to Honda). Vertical air intakes flanking the center console borrowed flair of the interior of the new Cadillac CTS, and they do the same here. Most of the interior plastics are hard, and some appear lower rent than others, but that's typical for the price. You were not really expecting a good finished loading, were you?

Red stitching on the door panels and seats and numerous faux aluminum trim bits almost save the black cloth interior from a work truck ambience. Those who should be a less sinister, but higher maintenance costs interior opt for the light gray cloth, which brings with it a high contrast gray / black interior trim. Want some real heat, even luxury? Then spend the extra money for the SLT with the brown leather.

Thanks to the blocky exterior design, the terrain appears to be larger than the Equinox, although Chevrolet is actually a few inches longer. Both the relative of a compact crossover to connect to the wheelbase and length of a medium. This leads to the inner dimensions. Also exceptional adults feel comfortable in the back seat, was a high cushion and plenty of legroom, unless there are three of them. Front and rear seats are contoured moderately firm and beautiful.

The driving position is largish SUV. While the cabin is not wide, you sit higher than most compact crossovers and the instrument panel is high and deep between massive A-pillars. The storage bin on top of the IP can not be achieved without far forward, and the base of the windshield to be in the near future to be. As a result of the terrain will not only look bigger than it is. Like many GM vehicles, it also feels under way bigger than it is. Some people might see this as a good thing. GM certainly always has. Bigger is better, right?

Not necessarily. Everyone hopes for agile handling (one can always hope, right?) Will not be found. The area of operation is accurate and secure, slim with nice weighted steering, good body control and modest body. But agile or sporty is not. GM does that. For imports

The terrain is relatively soft suspension absorbs bumps well without float, but transmits enough of the action, you know you're not. In a luxury vehicle Low wind noise, road noise is not quite as low.

Then there's the engine noise. GM is satisfied that engines are interchangeable with comparable benefits. Sun last year's base engine, a 3.4-liter V6 good for 185 hp, has been of a 2.4-liter four-cylinder replaces good for 182nd Only three fewer horses, but can replace the lost revolutions liter? 2.4 liter can move two tons?

That will be answered in a later review. The test car had the optional V6. Although only 3.0 liters, thanks to direct injection, it produces 264 hp, the same as last year's 3.6. Are you old enough to remember when the Honda enthusiasts worldwide inspired by? 270 PS of three liters in the Acura NSX Now GM expressed almost as much power from a 3.0 on regular gas and without titanium internals.

The problem is, engines make peak at 6950 rpm more sense in a sports car than truckish crossovers. The 3.0 moves the terrain pretty well at full throttle, if not as good as last year's 3.6 torquier moved easily Equinox, but suspect the quantity and quality of the resulting engine noise can be that you're doing something you really should not be. Even during normal cruising the six-speed gearbox must drop down a gear or three and barely-hill or the slightest demand for acceleration treat. The engine transmits any such downshifting with a dramatic increase in the induction and exhaust drone, maybe then you will know it is doing its bestest. Not a good fit for the site of the brawny appearance.

Also, the all-wheel-drive system. It was intended to come out through the terrain from the subdivision to the plow, and not to banish torque steer (which these less-than-torquey V6 yet achieved in front-drive applications). But without a low-range, skid or other non-aesthetic appearance towards off-road terrain, the situation will not pass through any wild terrain. Under the skin, it is just a great car pretending to be an SUV, only more apparent. The path is the less aggressive styling, compact Jeep Patriot conceded. The terrain is a superior Hummer H3 considering how most H3s are actually used.

The tip of the 3.0, you might assume the efficiency. And if you … assume, how about we check the numbers? Well, what do you know. Every vehicle in which both the 3.0 and the associated range of 3.6 3.6 gets the same or better EPA ratings The 3.0 would have a fuel economy compared with the 3.6 in a £ 3,500 (or lower) vehicle. But GM must still provide that, and may never, instead. Using a turbo four in such applications In the 4188-pound AWD GMC Terrain, as in the similarly violent Buick LaCrosse, Cadillac CTS, Cadillac SRX, the 3.0 does not make sense. Use this new engine into something a lot less solid or kill. Perhaps the 3.6 will take place at least its way into a future version Denali?

As it is, the GMC Terrain looks great, feels bigger, but it has an engine or drive train, which means that checks the tough guy exterior writes may have been robbed. Rear seat comfort (for two adults) and legroom are exceptional, and the interior can be stylish as long as the black cloth is not selected. The ride and handling are good, but not luxurious or sporty.

All in all, a good fit for what the typical two-row crossover buyers on a budget looking for-except for the styling. All other plus points and minus points are shared by the Equinox, the typical buyer of prettier Chevy attracted. The terrain is undeniably a different, less common aesthetic taste-no look-alikes that time. That's the advantage of multiple brands The site styling is too polarizing to any business with just one offering in this segment. But there are plenty of people who prefer chunky to creamy sheetmetal in their crossover? Lackluster powertrain despite GMC dealers are quickly sold any terrain they can get almost 3,000 of them in October, so we appear to our response to the point of the GMC have.

Michael Karesh owns and operates True Delta, reliability and cost-analysis survey site