Topic: Test Drive: 2010 GMC Terrain SLT-2 AWD

[ArticSteve]

Notice to ALL!     Ignore EPA numbers; meaningless

Could you shed some light and share some of your wisdom for those of us who use the EPA numbers as a relative reference to compare vehicles?

The 2.7 in the 4 Runner supplies 178 ft/lbs. of torque @ 3800 rpm thru a 4 speed auto.  There are ppl out there that love simplicity and buy with the intention of keeping a vehicle for 15 years.  This would be that vehicle.  Plenty of power for most.

Are you saying that the Toyota's 6 AT or even the 5 AT used in the V6 models would not last 15 years? 

You know that the real reason Toyota uses old/low tech in their cars is $$$ combined with the fact that whatever they make, ppl will buy because it's a Toyota (just like the bankrupt GM used to do).


Equinox/Terrain AWD is 4049 lbs. and the Venza AWD is 3945 lbs.  The 2.7 in the Venza works, the 2.4 in the Equinox/Terrain does not.

So you are saying that the 2.4L DI/182hp/174 lb.ft./6AT in the 3853 lbs Terrain 2WD does not work, but the 2.7L/157hp/178 lb ft/4AT in the  4295 lbs 4Runner 2WD works and there is “plenty of power for most” in the said 4Runner, but not enough in the Terrain. 

Could you shed some light and share some of your wisdom for those of us who use the EPA numbers as a relative reference to compare vehicles?

Drive as many new vehicles as I do you know the mileage estimates are just that;  calculations based on a theoretical route that no person would or could drive. The larger and more powerful the vehicle, the more the EPA numbers are off.

AND to those of you that think the "numbers" get better as the powertrain "breaks in"; wishful DREAMING.  I have a 06 extended wheel base 4WD Trailblazer to sell you whose original EPA mileage estimates were beyond fantasy.  Anyone who has driven a Trailblazer knows this.

Are you saying that the Toyota's 6 AT or even the 5 AT used in the V6 models would not last 15 years?

No, you said that. 

I'm saying that a very simple 4 speed tranny in a  2.7  I4  in the 2wd base 4Runner/Taco is what I think attracts those very type of base unit buyers.  It works perfectly in the Venza AWD.

  So you are saying that the 2.4L DI/182hp/174 lb.ft./6AT in the 3853 lbs Terrain 2WD does not work, but the 2.7L/157hp/178 lb ft/4AT in the  4295 lbs 4Runner 2WD works and there is “plenty of power for most” in the said 4Runner, but not enough in the Terrain. 

I am pleased to inform you that your reading comprehension has improved.  That is exactly what I said.

However, what you and the average buyer have in common is that you don't look beyond the superficial.

The Toyota 2.7 achieves it's maximum 157 HP @  5200 rpm and  180 Torque @ 3800 rpm

The Terrain HP  182 @ 6700 rpm and  torque 172 @ 4900 rpm

Mr. Chase points it out directly in his review:  Ultimately, though, what the Terrain really needs is a four-cylinder engine with more low-end torque

 

[ArticSteve]

But that 2.7 puts out roughly the same power as the GM 2.4 because of direct injection

I suppose it does if you like driving at 4900 rpm everywhere.

Then add the fact that the 2.4 is backed by a 6 speed and any power difference is a wash.

Your forgetting about the rear diff ratios/final drive ratio on the Taco/4 Runner. 

  Not every one is a lead foot.  Cruising on the highway the 4 is using a lot less gas than a 6 only if they both have the same amount of gears.

They may have the same amount of gears, but different ratios.  If your cruising at 125 kph, usually the 6 cylinder will deliver better mileage.

[swishguy]

My boss purchased a base 4cyl fwd Venza. I did test drive the new Equinox. My bosses Venza with the 2.7 crushed the equinox everywhere & the price was pretty close. Wanna make bets on re-sale 5 years down the road???

[Dante]

Venza is a good application for the 2.7L engine and I never disputed that. It's lighter (3760 lbs) and most likely more aerodynamic than the taller SUVs.
It's the 2.7L I4 in the 4Runner, Sienna and even Highlander. These are massive, heavy vehicles (4000-4300 lbs) and the fuel efficiency and performance will most likely take a major hit with the I4 versus V6 just like the I4 Equinox/Terrain and others.
Toyota has an excellent V6 - powerful and fuel efficient, but they, just like most manufacturers, jumped in the same bandwagon to put an I4 in every single vehicle they make without any real advantages other than the price perhaps.
The vehicle weight and body shape is equally important as the maximum torque and RPM (and yes, I’m well aware of the importance of these numbers Steve).

[Sir Osis of Liver]

Anyone driving with a bit of restraint can easily achieve the current EPA numbers regardless of vehicle size. I've managed to do it with everything from a Versa to a Ford Flex in the last year alone.

A four cylinder in a Terrain makes as much sense as it does in any other vehicle this size, Toyota-slappies' wharrgarbl to the contrary.

Given Toyota's current and expanding problems, I wouldn't bet on their resale going forward.

[Shnak]

Venza is a good application for the 2.7L engine and I never disputed that. It's lighter (3760 lbs) and most likely more aerodynamic than the taller SUVs.
It's the 2.7L I4 in the 4Runner, Sienna and even Highlander. These are massive, heavy vehicles (4000-4300 lbs) and the fuel efficiency and performance will most likely take a major hit with the I4 versus V6 just like the I4 Equinox/Terrain and others.
Toyota has an excellent V6 - powerful and fuel efficient, but they, just like most manufacturers, jumped in the same bandwagon to put an I4 in every single vehicle they make without any real advantages other than the price perhaps.
The vehicle weight and body shape is equally important as the maximum torque and RPM (and yes, I’m well aware of the importance of these numbers Steve).

Lower price, cheaper maintenance, likely better/proven reliability. Those are real advantages in my opinion. Not everyone needs to get to 100km/h in 5 seconds... most people are fine with getting to that speed in 10 seconds.

[Dante]

Venza is a good application for the 2.7L engine and I never disputed that. It's lighter (3760 lbs) and most likely more aerodynamic than the taller SUVs.
It's the 2.7L I4 in the 4Runner, Sienna and even Highlander. These are massive, heavy vehicles (4000-4300 lbs) and the fuel efficiency and performance will most likely take a major hit with the I4 versus V6 just like the I4 Equinox/Terrain and others.
Toyota has an excellent V6 - powerful and fuel efficient, but they, just like most manufacturers, jumped in the same bandwagon to put an I4 in every single vehicle they make without any real advantages other than the price perhaps.
The vehicle weight and body shape is equally important as the maximum torque and RPM (and yes, I’m well aware of the importance of these numbers Steve).

Lower price, cheaper maintenance, likely better/proven reliability. Those are real advantages in my opinion. Not everyone needs to get to 100km/h in 5 seconds... most people are fine with getting to that speed in 10 seconds.

That's fine, but in this case the same should apply for all manufacturers be it GM, Toyota or any other. This is my whole point.

Is it indeed cheaper to maintain an I4 versus a V6? I don't know, but from my experience so far, having both of them, I did not notice that. The only thing I can think of is changing the spark plugs at the dealership (expensive on my Outlander V6), but that's eventually one time over the estimated ownership period in my case.
Reliability? Not sure why a V6 would be less reliable than an I4? I would think the other way around. I thought the V6s have a longer expected life than the I4s in general.
Just wondering....

[Shnak]

Well, there are more pieces in a V6 engine than an I4 engine... more pieces generally mean lower reliability. The same usually applies for maintenance.

Also, someone who buys a 4Runner with the 4-cylinder engine knows full-well that he's not buying a rocket and thus won't mind the lower performance. On the other hand, someone who buys an Equinox with the I4 based on the advertisement campain from GM that says here's this great new vehicle with this great new engine that gives you plenty of power for the fuel econonmy of a Yaris. Then they get home and are disappointed in both the power because of the weight of the beast and the low real-world fuel econonmy. It's all about expectations and how you advertise the vehicle.

[Dante]

Also, someone who buys a 4Runner with the 4-cylinder engine knows full-well that he's not buying a rocket and thus won't mind the lower performance.

The same should be true for Terrain customers isn't it?
If they buy based on commericals, well.... that's their mistake. Just the same as people buy Toyotas thinking they never breake.... Oh well, life is full of surprises....

[Shnak]

Also, someone who buys a 4Runner with the 4-cylinder engine knows full-well that he's not buying a rocket and thus won't mind the lower performance.

The same should be true for Terrain customers isn't it?
If they buy based on commericals, well.... that's their mistake. Just the same as people buy Toyotas thinking they never breake.... Oh well, life is full of surprises....

Toyotas really do never break OR brake...