If I wanted a 4cyl small ute I'd seriously consider the GMC if it wasn't so ugly, I'd more seriously consider the Equinox. If I wanted a V6 for more accleration and towing capacity for handling slightly bigger loads (up to 3500lbs) I certainly wouldn't want the GM cuv's due to the poor 3.0L. The Toyota tied the Honda CRV for best or nearly best mileage during the testing and was one of the fastest too with the great V6 it has. They also said it drives more like a car than the rest. Hard to argue. I think the 4-cyl model might have done better, at least it gets competitive gas mileage.

 

The Toyota tied the Honda CRV for best or nearly best mileage during the testing and was one of the fastest too with the great V6 it has.

I never get this... some vehicles manage to be more powerful AND more efficient than others... one or the other I could understand, but both?

 

Toyota in 1st place...who woulda thought...

 

You confuse Car and Driver with Consumer Reports. CD does not rank Toyotas first very often. They rank Hondas first more often. Toyotas, in general, are clinical. Hondas strike a better balance of entertaining driving dynamics and all-around ease of use. CD generally favors sportier cars. The fact that the Rav4 won here is a testament to how Toyota managed to outdo Honda in creating a useful compact ute. The Toyota also had a 6.4 second 0-60 time, versus the CR-V's 8.7 seconds.

 

I'm convinced of two things:
1. GM needs to lose a little focus on fuel economy and favor throttle response on the uplevel engines.
2. The 3.0L V6 should be abandoned in favor of the 3.6L and/or the Turbo 2.8L.

 

Agree. The 2.4 is great for the efficiency it gets, but the V6 version has to be much stronger.

I've said it before, but I'll say it again, we were strongly considering a new Equinox, but we decided to keep out 60,000+ miles 2008 Vue with the 3.6 instead because of how weak the 3.0 felt.

As others have stated, we would never get the Terrain though, simply becasue of how awful it looks to both of us. I hope there are enough people who actually like the styling, however, for it to be a sales compliment to the Equinox.

 

Mother in law just bought a new Terrain with the 3.0 and while its a good engine the low end power just isnt there. Once you get it up around 3500-4000 RPM its really an awesome performer.

However, with that said, I honestly feel that it is one of the best driving SUVs on the road. I test drove an CRV and although good it still felt like a huge mushy vehicle. Same with the RAV4.

They knocked the seats as well. The premium cloth seats are AMAZING. If this Terrain had the leather I can see why they knocked it.

 

Car and Driver?

Seriously, who gives a ****?

 

Got my issue a week ago, and was not surprised. The Nox/Terrain are big and heavy for this class - C&D prefers a sporty, nimble driving vehicle no matter what the class. My mom has a Nox with the 3.0, and it is neither sporty or nimble, and the 3.0 is a little sluggish around town.
The real question is how the market continues to react to the vehicle, which is still, overall, a nice, premium feeling piece....
Remember, the Lambdas have finished back of the pack both times C&D tested them, yet their size and capability have made them successful in the marketplace, which is what really matters...

 

Numb Steering
Lethargic Transmission
Wight
Too Long to be a Small Ute
Poor seat support causing slouching
The manumatic button on the shifter

Weight has been a major concerned with the 2nd gen thetas and equiping them with a less inspiring engine only adds more fuel to the fire. I think the direct injected 3.6 shouldv'e been an option. Also as someone pointed out the Terrain (and Equinox) are too long and neither one offers a third row seat which should be doable considering the Rav4 and Outlander. I understand these utes have to perform double and triple duty for the out going nox', Trailblazer, and Envoy but I think a compact suv should look and feel like a compact suv. Here are the competitor dimensions for comparison.


GMC Terrain 3955lbs 185in. 72in.
Rav4 3699lbs 181in. 73in.
VW Tiguan 3432lbs 174in. 71in.
Honda CR-V 3503lbs 179in. 71in.
Suzuki Vitara 3875lbs 175in. 71in.
Mercury Mariner 3492lbs 175in. 71in.
Mitsubishi Outlander 3406lbs 183in. 70in.
Subaru Forester 3300lbs 179in. 70in.

 

Weight has been a major concerned with the 2nd gen thetas and equiping them with a less inspiring engine only adds more fuel to the fire. I think the direct injected 3.6 shouldv'e been an option.

I really don't get the point of the 3.0, given that it gets no better mileage than the 3.6 and delivers less power. But, despite that, its spreading through the GM line-up like the flu.

 

Yet, none of those offer the space that the twins offer. Its a big trade off but GM figured that if you want a CUV you can either be small and offer bad interior feel/room or be a bigger and dwarf the competition in everything.

 

Perhaps you should recheck your figures the twins only are bigger on the outside, on the inside they have less space than the RAV4 or the CRV. The old GM at work, very poor interior packaging. I seriously looked at the Nox, really liked its looks (still do) inside and out, but not enough interior room. I think they would have been better off making a shortened Traverse. Maybe next time....

 

2 rows? Get a Nox/Terrain?
3 rows? Get a traverse/acadia?

am I breathing air right now? No 3rd row in Escape/Mariner or Tiguan

 

I just can't past how ugly the Terrain is. Thank God for the 'nox.

 

I have to agree- saw a Terrain this morning and woof - it is a mess

The Nox is sweet, how could GM botch the GMC version so badly?

 

For those that haven't driven many of the cute utes, I'd recomend driving and getting in an out of several different ones before commenting too much. They have very different personalities. The Equinox is very large compared to many of the others. This can be good since you have more room, but can also be bad since the nox drives much larger as well. The Escape (and most of the others), don't have the room of the Nox, but park much easier and feel very nimble in comparison. If I were buying, I'd love the room of th Nox, but my wife would pick the Escape every time due to how easy it is to zip in and out of parking spots at the mall. This doesn't mean that either is wrong in execution, just different and I think many are comparing on paper and without test driving this doesn't show. You can tell the differences in market by the equipment as well (Escape offering some unusual "Tech" features for the entry CUV category, such as auto parking, reverse Camera, dual zone climate control)

 

Then wait for Buick's CUV. It's going to be smaller and lighter than Terrain or Equinox,about the size of the Nissan Rouge.

 

I personally like the GMC "truck" version better. It steps away from the ordinary. If only you can have the Terrain rear with the Nox front and the Terrain REAR doors it would look much better.

 

IMO i don't think the Terrain is that ugly... i saw a Terrain SLT the other day with that chrome honey-comb grille and i thought it was pretty sweet.. but thats just me

 

I thnk GM was smart to do the GMC with such bold styling. The Equinox is the bread and butter, the Terrain is for those who want something unique and unlike every other small CUV out there. But I suppose I biased since I actually prefer the hard lines and massive grille of the Terrain.

 

I agree with this, im glad they made the Terrain uniquely different...It had pretty good sales last month, over 5,000 units, hopefully it can keep it up in 2010...

I wish I knew the EXACT numbers for Nox's sold vs Terrain because I know at my dealer, we sell more Terrain's than Chevy's...and beleive it or not, its mostly the WOMEN who prefer the look of the Terrain. While the look of both can be very polarizing, I give credit to GM for making the two thetas uniquely different. The GMC give that 'truck look' that people comming out of the old Torrents/Equinox seem to adore, while the Equinox gives that 'European/Import'-round look that competes with Rav and CRV.
Just my two cents.

couldn't agree more

 

I wish I knew the EXACT numbers for Nox's sold vs Terrain because I know at my dealer, we sell more Terrain's than Chevy's...and beleive it or not, its mostly the WOMEN who prefer the look of the Terrain. While the look of both can be very polarizing, I give credit to GM for making the two thetas uniquely different. The GMC give that 'truck look' that people comming out of the old Torrents/Equinox seem to adore, while the Equinox gives that 'European/Import'-round look that competes with Rav and CRV.
Just my two cents.

 

I wish I knew the EXACT numbers for Nox's sold vs Terrain because I know at my dealer, we sell more Terrain's than Chevy's...and beleive it or not, its mostly the WOMEN who prefer the look of the Terrain. While the look of both can be very polarizing, I give credit to GM for making the two thetas uniquely different. The GMC give that 'truck look' that people coming out of the old Torrents/Equinox seem to adore, while the Equinox gives that 'European/Import'-round look that competes with Rav and CRV.
Just my two cents.

US Sales for November and December:

Equinox = November: 9,600, December: 12,700
Terrain = November: 3,700, December: 5,500

 

If the Equinox/Terrain lost about 200 lbs. and gained the 3.6, it would be class-leading.

 

If the GM brass reads this site, which I believe they do, expect the 3.6 to be avalible before the end of the year. Weight loss may have to wait for the next generation.

By the way, GM has a site that gives you access to the GM LAB where you can give your opinion of GM vehicles and make suggestions for improvement.
Want the 3.6? Flood the LAB site with your requests!

fastlane.gmblogs.com

 

The manumatic button on the shifter (I totally agree with this)

The manumatic is not a manumatic in the sense of sporty driving style. Other GM products like the Malibu, Vette, Camaro, Cadillacs have true manumatics.

The Equinox version is meant to be used as an overdrive cut-off. Rather than sequencing through the gears as you drive, driver selects the maximum gear they want the tranny to shift to. Tranny then behaves like a normal automatic but will not shift past the gear indicated in the DIC. This can also be used for grade-braking purposes but should not be used as a manual-mode for normal, day-to-day driving.

These are the instructions I received from GM engineers when I was trained to sell the new Equinox ans are how I instruct all of my customers. Of course, 100% of my customers' eyes glaze over as they ask me to move on because NONE of them have any intention of ever using a manual feature.

 

dont know about the mitsu being better?

 

With an aging Envoy in my garage I'm definately a potential customer. The Terrain does nothing for me and my wife hates the styling and she will drive the vehicle half the time. After I showed her the Terrain last week we looked at the Equinox and we were both more comfortable with the Nox's styling.

What I can't get past is the weakness of the 3.0L. The Nox is so close to world class that I just don't understand why GM put a weak six cylinder engine in a vehicle that they know hits the scales on the heavy side. As others have noted, a little more horsepower would offset the extra weight. Put the Nox on a minor diet and the CUV moves to world class.

For my needs the Travese is just too large. 95% of my driving is with one person, the other 5% with two. I don't need 7 or 8 seaters. I thought the Nox would be the answer and I need a six due to my 2,000lb towing requirement but the 3.0L just isn't quite there. The good news is that I'm not likely to make a move until next year so here's hoping for a Nox horsepower injection.

 

I was reading it on the plane the other day.

The ratings were highly subjective and they really dinged the Terrain in a lot of the subjective categories.

They gave the CR-v 8 points each for interior and exterior styling. The Terrain got 6 and 7 for those two qualities.

I've spent my share of time in the CR-V, Terrain, and Equinox. And I know which one I would pick... it's not the CR-v.

In C&D's defense, the Terrain is a little underpowered for its heavy chassis and that's another area where points were lost.

 

The Terrain looks pretty slab sided and blocky in dark colors, but looks pretty good in the lighter ones. My Chevy dealer had one Equinox on the lot, but the GMC dealer across the street had five Terrains to compare and the lighter colors looked good as the blocky look seemed less pronounced in a non-Darth Vader color.

The CD website has a quick drive impression of the Terrain that was quite favorable and they really liked the differentiation from the Equinox.

I'm surprised the Subaru placed so low given it won many similar comparos in the other enthusiast mags. The RAV4 is a competent vehicle if you can live with the lack of sound deadening, mushy suspension even on the Sport models, and hard plastic (but nicely textured) interior. I think CD picked some very different versions to compare as V6 RAV4's are a small percentage of the mix sold. Picking the nicely optioned 4 cylinder versions of each model would have been more of a market correct view of what the consumer buys.

 

I know what you were talking about. It seems that the floor is higher making it easier to get cargo in and out of the car.

I was saying how often does someone actually fill up the space in their CUV? How often does it get used fully?

 

I know what you were talking about. It seems that the floor is higher making it easier to get cargo in and out of the car.

Well, you don't have to lean down as far, but a higher load floor could also means more effort to lift cargo up higher to get it in.

I was saying how often does someone actually fill up the space in their CUV? How often does it get used fully?

It all depends on the need of the buyer, people have different needs and uses. If we go by that, how often do people use all 5-seats? or something like that...most people probably won't ever know a difference, but that doesn't mean GM couldn't manage the space better. Chevy sold over 12k Equinoxes in December '09, I'm sure at least a couple will regularly use all the cargo space. Other CUVs offer tricks too, like the seats flip/fold rather than just fold, or the CR-V offering an adjustable cargo shelf like the Equinox used to offer (wherever it went...).

 

I totally agree with you.

However, the majority of people will use it for groceries and the like not to move everyday.

Regardless, reviews that have so much subjective things in them can only be taken as that.

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again: the V6 is NOT THAT BAD, certainly not as weak as most armchair reviewers here make it out to be. You just have to rev it a bit to get the power out of it.

I didn't even consider any of these SUVs with the spare tire attached to the back (I hate that) but I can tell you that the Venza with the 3.5L, in my opinion, isn't anything to write home about compared to the 3.0L in the Terrain. I think the Terrain has loads more personality inside and out, than the Venza.

Of course, I am a bit biased.

 

I think the frustration is mostly that it's a bit down on acceleration to all of it's V6 competitors (partially due to weight) and is tuned for fuel efficiency....so it doesn't feel as powerful as the numbers would suggest, yet still doesn't produce the fuel economy that GM is obviously aiming for.

The 3.6L is about as fuel efficient but much more responsive.

In time, the 3.0L will probably be upgraded....but it's not very impressive as it is today.

 

Not trying to be mean here but the Terrain is BUTT UGLY. I have seen a few around town and it's not visually appealing in any way. Not surprised it placed 6th. GMC should have gone and not Pontiac.