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

[safristi]

.... Wot do Generals Taste like....chicken       hawks.............

[sacrat]

Why does this exist? Surely it can't be worth it for them to dress up the Equinox in a different suit and try to sell it as a different vehicle? The Equinox is pretty nice for it's class, and if it proves reliable, they will have a success, but why is GM stuck on this idea of competing with itself.

This is GM's way of always losing the sales crown year after year to the Ford F150. They can't combine Chevy Silverado and GMC Sierra numbers together for essentially the same truck.

[Mozeby]

The 4-cylinder has such poor fuel consumption with the weight of this vehicle I wonder why anyone would opt for it rather than the V6 that is not much more?

Because the average Terrain buyer doesn't know jack about cars and believes all the BS ads they see on TV including the outrageous mileage claims.  If the TV says it long enough, it must be true.

GM, being a second tier manufacturer, only manufactures one 4 banger; the 2.4.  GM has always done the one size fits all thingy, regardless of application (famous GM parts bin).  It would be like Toyota putting their Camry/Rave 2.5 into a Venza. 

The positive about this vehicle is it's assembled in Ontario.

Toyota does put a 4 banger in the Venza.  My neighbour has one.  And from most other reviews I've read on the Equinox, they've all had postive things to say about the 4 cylinder.

[chrischasescars]

The 4-cylinder has such poor fuel consumption with the weight of this vehicle I wonder why anyone would opt for it rather than the V6 that is not much more?

Because the average Terrain buyer doesn't know jack about cars and believes all the BS ads they see on TV including the outrageous mileage claims.  If the TV says it long enough, it must be true.

GM, being a second tier manufacturer, only manufactures one 4 banger; the 2.4.  GM has always done the one size fits all thingy, regardless of application (famous GM parts bin).  It would be like Toyota putting their Camry/Rave 2.5 into a Venza. 

The positive about this vehicle is it's assembled in Ontario.

Toyota does put a 4 banger in the Venza.  My neighbour has one.  And from most other reviews I've read on the Equinox, they've all had postive things to say about the 4 cylinder.

And, the Venza uses a 2.7-litre engine, not the 2.5 used in Camry/RAV4. It's not actually that much more powerful on paper than the 2.5, but the bigger motor moves the Venza pretty well.

[Dante]

GM, being a second tier manufacturer, only manufactures one 4 banger; the 2.4.  GM has always done the one size fits all thingy, regardless of application (famous GM parts bin).  It would be like Toyota putting their Camry/Rave 2.5 into a Venza. 

How many V6 engines does Toyota have? Isn't that one 3.5L V6 used across the entire Toyota AND Lexus line-up (except for 4Runner and IS250)?
How many 4 bangers did Toyota have until last year? I think 2 - 1.8L and 2.4L. Period.
How many 6-cylinder engines does BMW have? One. The same can be said about many others (e.g. Subaru - one 2.5L through the entire line-up). This is a common practice in the industry I believe, not a GM thing.

The I4 in a heavy SUV it's not so smart regardless of the manufacturer (Hyundai/Kia picked-up on the idea too). Look no further than your beloved Toyota - they put an I4 in the 4Runner, which is as idiotic as the I4 in the GM SUVs. The 4Runner I4/2WD (4AT !!!!) gets exactly the same rating as the 4.0L V6 4WD. How retarded is that?

[aknutson]

GM, being a second tier manufacturer, only manufactures one 4 banger; the 2.4.  GM has always done the one size fits all thingy, regardless of application (famous GM parts bin).  It would be like Toyota putting their Camry/Rave 2.5 into a Venza. 

How many V6 engines does Toyota have? Isn't that one 3.5L V6 used across the entire Toyota AND Lexus line-up (except for 4Runner and IS250)?
How many 4 bangers did Toyota have until last year? I think 2 - 1.8L and 2.4L. Period.
How many 6-cylinder engines does BMW have? One. The same can be said about many others (e.g. Subaru - one 2.5L through the entire line-up). This is a common practice in the industry I believe, not a GM thing.

The I4 in a heavy SUV it's not so smart regardless of the manufacturer (Hyundai/Kia picked-up on the idea too). Look no further than your beloved Toyota - they put an I4 in the 4Runner, which is as idiotic as the I4 in the GM SUVs. The 4Runner I4/2WD (4AT !!!!) gets exactly the same rating as the 4.0L V6 4WD. How retarded is that?

It depends on the driver. I have a coworker who purchased a new CUV for his wife and family runabout vehicle, and he said he opted for an I4/AWD because she never really travels on the highway. Most trips are around town and speeds don't often exceed 80 km/h, so in this case a four-cylinder being lighter and with 2 less cylinders will perform the task sufficiently while keeping the MSRP and fuel costs lower. Makes a lot of sense actually, for certain people.

Don't believe everything you read from the EPA - almost every time a 'real world' test is done, city mileage is significantly better on four-cylinder cars than 6's. Highway they tend to equal out, but in urban driving a four-cylinder is more efficient.

[tpl]

I think BMW still have two gas 6 cyls. The older one and the Valvetronic. Plus 1 or  2 6 cyl diesels.

[Dante]

My point is that GM, like most manufacturers including Toyota, has few engines they use across their line-up.
The difference I see between GM and Toyota in regards to the larger I4 engine utilization is that Toyota decided to put I4s in their larger SUV/CUVs (Venza, Highlander, 4Runner) therefore they had to up the displacement. If GM ever decides to put an I4 in the Traverse or Acadia, which I highly doubt but you never know, I'm sure they will use a larger displacement I4 as well, or turbo or DI or something else. For a compact and now mid-size SUV, a 2.4L-2.5L I4 is the industry norm. Isn't there a 2.4L I4 Santa Fe and Sorento or a 2.5L I4 CX-7 now? It's an industry trend not a GM thing.
Personally, I wouldn't buy a SUV over 3500-3600 lbs with an I4, but most of the people would, so GM and others are after them.

[ArticSteve]

The 4-cylinder has such poor fuel consumption with the weight of this vehicle I wonder why anyone would opt for it rather than the V6 that is not much more?

Because the average Terrain buyer doesn't know jack about cars and believes all the BS ads they see on TV including the outrageous mileage claims.  If the TV says it long enough, it must be true.

GM, being a second tier manufacturer, only manufactures one 4 banger; the 2.4.  GM has always done the one size fits all thingy, regardless of application (famous GM parts bin).  It would be like Toyota putting their Camry/Rave 2.5 into a Venza. 

The positive about this vehicle is it's assembled in Ontario.

Toyota does put a 4 banger in the Venza.  My neighbour has one.  And from most other reviews I've read on the Equinox, they've all had postive things to say about the 4 cylinder.

Toyota does put a 4 banger in the Venza.  My neighbour has one.  And from most other reviews I've read on the Equinox, they've all had postive things to say about the 4 cylinder.

The above statement enforces the position perfectly that the average buyer goes into a new car transaction not understanding jack sh*t about the motor size or the "powertrain".  Women buyers are universally in the dark about this and men are about 50/50.  To them a 4 cylinder is a motor with 4 thingies in it and they must be all the same since they only have 4 thingies. 

[ArticSteve]

My point is that GM, like most manufacturers including Toyota, has few engines they use across their line-up.
The difference I see between GM and Toyota in regards to the larger I4 engine utilization is that Toyota decided to put I4s in their larger SUV/CUVs (Venza, Highlander, 4Runner) therefore they had to up the displacement. If GM ever decides to put an I4 in the Traverse or Acadia, which I highly doubt but you never know, I'm sure they will use a larger displacement I4 as well, or turbo or DI or something else. For a compact and now mid-size SUV, a 2.4L-2.5L I4 is the industry norm. Isn't there a 2.4L I4 Santa Fe and Sorento or a 2.5L I4 CX-7 now? It's an industry trend not a GM thing.
Personally, I wouldn't buy a SUV over 3500-3600 lbs with an I4, but most of the people would, so GM and others are after them.

My point is that GM, like most manufacturers including Toyota, has few engines they use across their line-up.

Why start a reply hurling insults right off the bat. 

Toyota decided to put I4s in their larger SUV/CUVs (Venza, Highlander, 4Runner) therefore they had to up the displacement

Corrected for Accuracy:

Toyota decided to put a LARGE displacement I4 into the Venza, Highlander, 4 Runner, Sienna, Tacoma (depending on model and trim) instead of their Camry motor; the 2.5, because that is what is required to move these heavier vehicles in an efficent manner.

GM, never bothering with the finer details of powertrain engineering, reach into the Malibu parts bin and pull out their 2.4.   Great motor for a Malibu, horribly mismatched for the Equo/Terrain.

So ppl buy these, get them home, fill the tank full, load in the kids and stuff, and then discover that the gas mileage sucks, the power sucks.  HELLO, it's still GM, what were you expecting 

[Dante]

My point is that GM, like most manufacturers including Toyota, has few engines they use across their line-up.

Why start a reply hurling insults right off the bat. 

You cannot possibly take my statement that puts GM and Toyota (along with the rest of manufacturers) on the same level from this stand point as an insult, do you?! 

Toyota decided to put I4s in their larger SUV/CUVs (Venza, Highlander, 4Runner) therefore they had to up the displacement

Corrected for Accuracy:

Toyota decided to put a LARGE displacement I4 into the Venza, Highlander, 4 Runner, Sienna, Tacoma (depending on model and trim) instead of their Camry motor; the 2.5, because that is what is required to move these heavier vehicles in an efficent manner.

GM, never bothering with the finer details of powertrain engineering, reach into the Malibu parts bin and pull out their 2.4. Great motor for a Malibu, horribly mismatched for the Equo/Terrain.

So ppl buy these, get them home, fill the tank full, load in the kids and stuff, and then discover that the gas mileage sucks, the power sucks.   HELLO, it's still GM, what were you expecting 

I believe, as I said before, that Toyota decided FIRST to put an I4 in those large SUV/CUV and THEN decided that the 2.4L I4 will not do it therefore they came up with a larger displacement I4 engine. As far as I know, GM does not use I4 engines in their large vehicles. Although the Equinox/Terrain are more of mid-size SUV than compact, GM I think still markets them as compact.

I agree that the 2.4L I4 is a wrong engine for the Equinox/Terrain, just the same as it is for the Santa Fe, Sorento and even CX-7 (2.5L I4). In order to move those rather heavy vehicles with any sort of authority and not work out the I4 engine to the point where it is as efficient as a V6 you need a decently powered V6.
However, you chose to ignore that Toyota does the same thing with the 4Runner for example.

I checked out the EPA numbers and they confirm my point.

2010 4Runner 2.7L I4 2WD 4A/T: 18/23/20 (city/hwy/combined)
2010 4Runner 4.0L V6 4WD 5 A/T: 17/22/19 (city/hwy/combined)

Source: toyota.com

More so, the reviews I read about these Toyota SUVs with the "large" I4 engine note that they are slow as anyone would guess.

On the side note, what's up with the 4A/T in a brand new 2010 model from Toyota?
Speak about ancient technology....

[johngenx]

Anything that can't be reasonably pushed along by a <200hp four cylinder engine is too heavy for me.  The newest Forester is more than large enough inside and is fine with it's four cylinder.  Sure, the turbo model is fun, but the base engine provides plenty of motivation.

The secret is in keeping the curb weight down.

[ArticSteve]

I agree that the 2.4L I4 is a wrong engine for the Equinox/Terrain, just the same as it is for the Santa Fe, Sorento and even CX-7 (2.5L I4). In order to move those rather heavy vehicles with any sort of authority and not work out the I4 engine to the point where it is as efficient as a V6 you need a decently powered V6.
However, you chose to ignore that Toyota does the same thing with the 4Runner for example.

I checked out the EPA numbers and they confirm my point.

2010 4Runner 2.7L I4 2WD 4A/T: 18/23/20 (city/hwy/combined)
2010 4Runner 4.0L V6 4WD 5 A/T: 17/22/19 (city/hwy/combined)

Notice to ALL!     Ignore EPA numbers; meaningless

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.

Although the Equinox/Terrain are more of mid-size SUV than compact, GM I think still markets them as compact.

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.

[Leviathan]

Don't let AS's braying get to you - he has a rather limited view of the world....

[inco]

From a which is better looking than the other point of view here, I'd love to take the Terrain grille and graft it onto the Eqiunox - that would be a nicer looking vehicle. I do not like the rear end cut off look and much prefer Chevy's profile.

For those folks who do not wish to have AWD and like the 'idea' of having a vehicle that uses less fuel, the 4 banger is fine. For me I would like to have AWD and so that means an engine upgrade to handle the weight and as noted the penalty to do that isn't great. On the highway when passing the difference is getting there versus hoping to get there.

Can't fault the companies though for wanting to reach more buyers. Having two choices is always better than having none, in my mind.

[kard00d]

The 4-cylinder has such poor fuel consumption with the weight of this vehicle I wonder why anyone would opt for it rather than the V6 that is not much more?

Because the average Terrain buyer doesn't know jack about cars and believes all the BS ads they see on TV including the outrageous mileage claims.  If the TV says it long enough, it must be true.

GM, being a second tier manufacturer, only manufactures one 4 banger; the 2.4.  GM has always done the one size fits all thingy, regardless of application (famous GM parts bin).  It would be like Toyota putting their Camry/Rave 2.5 into a Venza. 

The positive about this vehicle is it's assembled in Ontario.

Toyota does put a 4 banger in the Venza.  My neighbour has one.  And from most other reviews I've read on the Equinox, they've all had postive things to say about the 4 cylinder.

Toyota does put a 4 banger in the Venza.  My neighbour has one.  And from most other reviews I've read on the Equinox, they've all had postive things to say about the 4 cylinder.

The above statement enforces the position perfectly that the average buyer goes into a new car transaction not understanding jack sh*t about the motor size or the "powertrain".  Women buyers are universally in the dark about this and men are about 50/50.  To them a 4 cylinder is a motor with 4 thingies in it and they must be all the same since they only have 4 thingies. 

People are also in the dark about if they have AWD or not...   I've had 2 co-workers say how great and stable their Escapes are in snow...  that might be the case but there was empty space where the rear diff should be!   The don't know/care since all they know is that they want a CUV... they're happy nonetheless..

[Dante]

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. 

[CatsEye68]

Don't let AS's braying get to you - he has a rather limited view of the world....

That is the wrong picture... it should be the business end of that donkey showing if you're describing Mr. Artic.

[safristi]

..rescue this thread.......................

[Mozeby]

The 4-cylinder has such poor fuel consumption with the weight of this vehicle I wonder why anyone would opt for it rather than the V6 that is not much more?

Because the average Terrain buyer doesn't know jack about cars and believes all the BS ads they see on TV including the outrageous mileage claims.  If the TV says it long enough, it must be true.

GM, being a second tier manufacturer, only manufactures one 4 banger; the 2.4.  GM has always done the one size fits all thingy, regardless of application (famous GM parts bin).  It would be like Toyota putting their Camry/Rave 2.5 into a Venza. 

The positive about this vehicle is it's assembled in Ontario.

Toyota does put a 4 banger in the Venza.  My neighbour has one.  And from most other reviews I've read on the Equinox, they've all had postive things to say about the 4 cylinder.

And, the Venza uses a 2.7-litre engine, not the 2.5 used in Camry/RAV4. It's not actually that much more powerful on paper than the 2.5, but the bigger motor moves the Venza pretty well.

But that 2.7 puts out roughly the same power as the GM 2.4 because of direct injection. Then add the fact that the 2.4 is backed by a 6 speed and any power difference is a wash.  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.