Autoweek video review : 2010 GMC Terrain

[samy1691]

When I say ugly, I mean their facia is tall and boxy instead of wide and curvy........just my opinion though!!!!

[91fairladyZ]

Looks a lot better in person, that's for sure. The lines on it look good in traffic.

[Plague]

Before seeing the red gauges and buttons and thinking Pontiac, one should take a look at the Acadia.

[igotzzoom]

Originally Posted by 1487

The Toyota has a 3.5L engine. Obviously GM felt mileage would be better with the 3L V6. if the 3.6L was used the torque output would be about the same. Considering 80% of Rav4s are likely I-4s the V6's torque isn't really relevant. The RAV4 V6 weighs about 3500lbs which explains why it has a 3.5L engine and still gets 19/26 with FWD.

All the more reason GM needs to lighten them up. I know I may come across as a Toyota shill here, but it's kind of embarrassing when you have less power AND worse fuel-economy. Do you think most consumers know or care the reason is a 500-lb weight difference?

As has been noted here in other threads, the 3.0 has not shown a demonstrable improvement in fuel economy over the 3.6 liter version. Sometimes a larger engine can actually deliver better fuel economy than a smaller one, because it's less stressed than a smaller engine. I think the only reason GM is offering the 3.0 as the upgrade engine rather than the 3.6 is marketing differentiation.

Don't get me wrong, in a lot of areas, I think the Equinox/Terrain has it all over the RAV and most other competitors in the segment. But when it comes to power and fuel economy for the V6 models, Toyota has the edge here.

[goatgary]

Originally Posted by igotzzoom

All the more reason GM needs to lighten them up. I know I may come across as a Toyota shill here, but it's kind of embarrassing when you have less power AND worse fuel-economy. Do you think most consumers know or care the reason is a 500-lb weight difference?

All things considered, I would rather have the 500 lbs in weight for safety reasons.
To shave that much weight would mean you settle for parts less robust, or a smaller vehicle, or less equipment ....or all of the above.....for the sake of saving maybe $250.00 a year in fuel.

[igotzzoom]

Originally Posted by goatgary

All things considered, I would rather have the 500 lbs in weight for safety reasons.
To shave that much weight would mean you settle for parts less robust, or a smaller vehicle, or less equipment ....or all of the above.....for the sake of saving maybe $250.00 a year in fuel.

Valid point. I went to the NHTSA site, and the Equinox/Terrain has a 5-star rating in all categories (Frontal Driver, Frontal Passenger, Side Driver, Side Rear Passenger Rating) whereas the RAV got 4/5 stars for front passenger (5/5 in the other categories). EQ/TR hasn't been tested for rollover yet. I'm sure it'll do well.

[2Lambdas]

Holy Crap.....that 3.0L V6 sounds awesome in this video....almost like GM put a "cat-back" exhaust in this baby! This is the first positive praise I have heard about this engine. Maybe it was born for these small crossovers. My only complaints are that it doesn't have LED tail lights (and the entire rear design screams "boring") and available HID headlamps. If the Terrain is supposed to be "upscale" of the Equinox, these should have been standard. And if GM could've found a way to cram a 3rd row in these simiar to what the RAV4 has, I would've traded my Acadia in for one of these in a heartbeat due to the instrument panel and more upscale interior which blows away the Acadia.