2010 GMC Terrain: Introduction

The GMC Terrain caught my eye while I was at the Seattle Auto Show last November. In Silver & Black it's a stunning vehicle.

I'm not sold on the 4 cylinder engine because of the 3,847 lb curb weight, so if I was in the market for a crossover/suv the V6 Terrain would be among the top 3 on my list.

I would have slightly preferred an Equinox for a few reasons:

1. Lower price would have been more segment competitive
2. Maybe it would encourage GM to knock it off with the needless badge engineering.

Still, this should be an interesting test. Looking forward to this next year.

Obligatory 17 posts commenting on the styling of this atrocious vehicle...

I thought it was finally agreed that building multiple vehicles off the same platform wasn't really to be considered "badge engineering." The Equinox, SRX, and Terrain look nothing alike (and I actually like the Terrain the best) and the only body panel they share is the roof, which is rarely seen. You can ask why GMC needs to exist, but the Terrain looks more like it belongs in the GMC lineup than the Acadia.

I saw one in person the other day and it looked quite handsome.

The wheel arches or squares are far too pronounced.

Even if they don't look the same, they really are the same. The MKX having a nose job wasn't enough so why is it enough now.

You folks are going to get terrible gas mileage. A 4-cylinder in a heavy vehicle works great for someone with a light foot, but Edmunds drivers are in such a hurry all the time that this engine will be working hard nonstop.

meh.... I would have rather seen the Equinox too. On a side note, what are the chances we could see an S4 in the future? I need that supercharger in my life!

I'm much more a fan of the Equinox's styling - almost tries to go for a mini-Mercedes ML look, esp. with the rear. I think the proportions of the Terrain are more awkward, considering the long schnoz and the cropped rear end with a short-looking overhang. The terrain is not a terrible looking vehicle IMO, but I think it's siblings do a better job.

And speaking of "badge engineering" (or the apparent lack thereof), now we can look forward to a Saab version of this vehicle in the guise of the 9-4x. Obviously not with the 4-cyl. engine, but you get the idea.

@td1105 Hopefully the saab version will be lighter though.

I do actually like the Terrain/Equinox though, but they would be much better with less weight and a transmission that is knows there are gears other than 6th.

I wouldn't buy it, but I think it's a great choice for the fleet.

I really want to see the real world gas mileage, I suspect it won't even approach the EPA figures. I don't understand how people can like the styling of this, it looks like a Nitro was crossbred with an H3. This truly is Aztek fugly. There is a black one in my neighborhood and I shudder every time I see it.

"And speaking of "badge engineering" (or the apparent lack thereof), now we can look forward to a Saab version of this vehicle in the guise of the 9-4x. Obviously not with the 4-cyl. engine, but you get the idea."

Contrary to IL's misinformation the SRX/9-4x are NOT on the same platform. I've corrected them on this before but apparently they are hell bent on rewriting history. The SRX shares NO dimensions with the theta twins or VUE. Its heavier than the Terrain, has a different high tech AWD system and lacks the space or sliding rear seat of the Terrain. The 9-4x is likely have almost identical dimensions and weight relative to the SRX because its on the exact same platform.

The GMC obviously exists because a) GMC dealers sell Pontiac and the Torrent is gone b)not everyong likes the cute ute look of the competition.

Thus far its selling well so people must like the butch styling. Is it uglier than the RAV4 or CR-V? No. People talk about the styling of this thing as if the top sellers look like Maseratis. HAve you all seen the revised 2010 CR-V with its design by committe front end?

"You can ask why GMC needs to exist, but the Terrain looks more like it belongs in the GMC lineup than the Acadia."

The fact that the TErrain hasn't hampered the success of the Equinox proves that there is room for both. SOME would argue that every TErrain buyer would buy an Equinox anyway but I have my doubts. They look very different.

"But this truck is no sissy. It has a 2.4-liter inline-4 engine capable of 182 horsepower. "

I'm sorry, but what?

A 3800 pound truck with a 2.4 liter inline 4 is, yes, a sissy truck. It's a fine cute-ute though, but an underpowered car nonetheless.

Considering that's about the same specs as a base model honda accord, except 400-500 pounds heavier and with alot more aerodynamic drag...well, the base model Accord is not sprinter :)

Darn fine looking vehicle. Always liked GMC. I "got it" in terms of taking Chevy products and making them more luxurious while maintaining heavy duty character...it's a very niche brand in the overall market.

Joe

+1 technetium99, I could not agree more. The styling of this thing is atrocious. Why are so many of GM "trucks" so ugly, they always go for the chunky bold look, and you know this will not age well. I find the equinox's styling much better, if not a little bland. On the EPA figures, I somehow doubt 32 MPG highway, and am so sick of those commercials...

I have to admit that it looks like a battling ram and I can respect that, even if it is a severely underpowered FWD battling ram.

Good choice--it'll be interesting to see how this stacks up to both the Flex (bigger, more practical, much beloved by the readers) and the XC60 (more stylish, quicker, better handling but a lot of money for not a lot of utility). I prefer the styling of the Equinox, but functionally it's identical.

Any chance of adding a Tucson (less expensive, potentially more entertaining) to the fleet while you're at it?

"A 3800 pound truck with a 2.4 liter inline 4 is, yes, a sissy truck. It's a fine cute-ute though, but an underpowered car nonetheless.

Considering that's about the same specs as a base model honda accord, except 400-500 pounds heavier and with alot more aerodynamic drag...well, the base model Accord is not sprinter :)"

People keep making these statements and SHOCKINGLY no reference points are offered. 0-60 for the Terrain FWD is about 8.7 secs. That is on par with the Malibu, Accord LX and Mazda6. Edmunds tested an Accord LX and 0-60 was 9.1 secs. Yes, the Accord is lighter but it lacks DI or a 6 speed automatic so its weight advantage is negated.

The point is MOST family sedans sold have four cylinder engines that enable those cars to hit 60 in 8.5-9secs. In that context the Terrain is NOT underpowered at all. Compact crossovers with I4s are similarly slow and the CR-V is even slower in spite of weighing over 200lbs less than the Terrain. Light weight can only get you so far if you are using date powertrain technology.

Stephen987, the Terrain really doesn't play in the Flex's sandbox. It's main competition at Ford would be the Escape or Edge. Maybe this will get them to pull the Edge from witness protection for a comparison.

"On the EPA figures, I somehow doubt 32 MPG highway, and am so sick of those commercials... "

I bet Toyota and Honda hate them even more.

You can acheive EPA highway figures if you drive 60-65mph. Most testing since they new methodology was established for 2008 MY has shown the new figures are pretty accurate. Of course if you drive this Terrain with a full load and cruise at 70-75 you aint getting 32mpg. People act like manufacturers fabricate EPA ratings- they all follow a very strict set of procedures to get the EPA figures. Under ideal conditions you should be able to hit the hwy figure for this or any other vehicle.

1. Ugly
2. Overpriced
3. Underpowered

and did I mention how ugly it is?

Thanks but no thanks GM.

1487 - My comments were not clear and I misled on them. I meant for something referenced as a "truck" that the car was underpowered.

I feel the same way about the base model rav-4, CR-V, toyota tacoma 4-cyl, and many others. It's my opinion.

Have you driven one of these yet?

I had a 4-cyl AWD RAV4 as a rental this past summer and I was amazed at how strong the engine felt (I had to double check that it was the 4 and not the 6).

I had it for a 360 mile round trip from Chicago to Dubuque, IA. While Illinois is generally flat as a pancake, Rt20 from Rockford to Iowa actually has some steep (9-10% grade) hills. It handled them far better than my similarly powered Forester does, and I averaged 26 mpg (mostly hwy miles at 70-75 mph).

1487: "0-60 for the Terrain FWD is about 8.7 secs."

That's pretty damn good and one of the reasons I'm interested in this vehicle (Equinox actually). Acceptable acceleration and good mpg from an SUV-like vehicle.

What a letdown. A 3800 lb truck with that much bling on the grill and huge fender flares only has a 2.4L 180hp engine tied to a FWD drivetrain. At least with the other cute-utes, you can tell by looking at them that they're not serious trucks. This one sort of looks the part without having any real substance beneath it.

@bankerdanny - One of the best drives in Illinois, Rockford to Iowa on Rt. 20, that is about as pretty as my state gets, you have to go south of I-64 to find anything else to look at.

I will be sending this long term update to my Father who is really considering the Equinox, I am curious about the mpg from this CUV. I just don't see it turing 32 in on the highway. However, you can mark me down in the "like the looks" catagory.

joe:

I still dont get your point. The average large truck or SUV needs 8 or more secs to hit 60. A Tahoe has 320hp but needs 8.5 secs to hit 60 because it weighs 5800lbs. Underpowered is a relative term based on vehicle mass. 320hp is impressive in a 4000lb vehicle- but just adequate in a heavy BOF SUV.

I drove the SRX V6- never one of these but I plan to this year. I'm not crazy about the idea of 8.7 to 60 when my current car can do it in about 6 secs but its par for the course in this class.

I for one am glad you people picked up this turd styled "truck" from the "truck" brand. Prove me wrong on the quality GM! Let it run for IL with no problems. I'm betting this thing sucks. But....hey, I'll follow the updates. Maybe I'll be proven wrong. We shall see.

I have serious doubts about the mileage ratings too.

When CanadianDriver tested one they couldn't even match the city rating while they driving on the hwy. In a week of largely hwy driving they averaged 10 L/100km against an offical rating of 6.1 L/100km (and a city rating of 9.2L/100 km).

On the plus side, most tests I've read do not call it underpowered (which is what everyone expects going in).

Is there any specific reason inside line picked the ugly sister?

Thanks IL!
This is the car I KNEW Gubmint Motors could build.
My dream SUV has arrived...

AM Talker. Agreed. The first time I drove it a few years back I nearly drove off the road. I came around a bend and saw the valley below all spread out. It was beautiful. The closest thing we have to mountains in Illinois.

"When CanadianDriver tested one they couldn't even match the city rating while they driving on the hwy. In a week of largely hwy driving they averaged 10 L/100km against an offical rating of 6.1 L/100km (and a city rating of 9.2L/100 km)."

that is extremely hard to believe unless they were driving 90mph.

"Is there any specific reason inside line picked the ugly sister?"

My guess is it was availability of features they wanted or just availability period. These vehicles aren't easy to find right now. Styling is subjective and it has no bearing on how this performs vs the Chevy. Who cares which one they picked?

People, give this thing a chance before you bash. I sat in one at the NAIAS a few weeks back it feels lightyears better than any small GM ute before it. I personally prefer the styling of the Terrain over the Equinoxs curvier looks.

And as written above, people do not buy these vehicles with 0-60 times in mind. As long as the 2.4l has decent power, and 0-60 in 8.7 sec is more than decent, then what's the problem.

I agree that most people will never see 30mpg ever in this thing, but even mid 20's are good in a vehicle of the Terrain's weight and size.

I like it. The styling is growing on me, I do prefer it to the Equinox, I think. And at least one review I read (in an actual newspaper!) indicated that the GMC did have better interior materials.

As for why GMC exists, the answer is it's not a "niche market" at all. The darn things sell pretty well. We may all agree that badge engineering several crappy variants of the same crappy platform is a bad idea. But the new GM vehicles are mostly very good platforms, and the differentiation between kissin' cousin models is more distinct than in years past. Since when is more consumer choice a bad thing? Buy the one you like, don't buy the one you don't.

As another commented (oh no, I have to agree with the troll) some say that every GMC buyer would simply choose the equivalent Chevy if the GMC brand folded. But that is pure speculation. If you were the king of GM and produced the 3rd best-selling pickup in the country, would you dump it? Toyota, Nissan, and Dodge would love to be 3rd place behind F-series and Silverado. I'm sure it aggravates GM that Ford can claim the "best selling pickup" for decades, when Silverado and Sierra combined outsell the F-series (which is actually two very different vehicles, F-150 vs super duties). But who in their right mind would take that gamble? Bottom line, you sell what the people are buying. It doesn't have to make sense to auto journalists or random internet commenters.

Two points:

#1 - It has nothing to do with acceleration or 0-60 times (which are about the worst measure of acceleration invented by man). A TRUCK (notice I kept saying that) needs to be able to HAUL. For example, 4-5 total people in the car (800-1000 pounds) plus several hundred pounds of gear in the cargo area. And it should do it without showing alot of strain. 2.4 liter 4-cylinders attached to 3800 pounds can't do that, so I consider them to be sissy trucks. The opposite of what Donna said. For a car, it's perfectly mediocre.

#2 - 0-60 times are complete B.S. and fairly useless. Basing any perception of acceleration off of them is magazine racing at it's finest. To wit: I fooled myself into being willing to buy a 2005 Subaru WRX (actually a Saab 9-2x Aero) because it had a 0-60 time of 5.8 seconds and when I abused it it felt good.

But actual daily ownership taught me that it was really a much slower car than that....

Perception of acceleration, speed, etc. are what matter to me, not test results. At this in this area.

Nothing wrong with this engine in this vehicle. I just consider it to be sissy when applied to "truck".

Joe

P.s. I had a rental, brand new rav4 4-cylinder (4wd version). Complete POS. The seats were terrible, the steering wheel was abyssmal, the engine sounded bad and had very little power....etc....Ugh. And I LIKE (modestly) the 6-cyl version with the upgraded materials.

"that is extremely hard to believe unless they were driving 90mph. "

I'm not surprised you would. However a little math to show my point. Edmunds average (19.7mpg)works out to 12L/ 100 km and their best (22.1mpg) works out to 10.6 l/100km. Even worse then the number I quoted.

I would not be surprised it averages less then 20 mpg over the duration of the test. It's a large boxy, heavy vehicle. 4 cyl or not it will take a lot of energy to move it around and push it through the wind.

Edmunds normally has little trouble meeting the new pessimistic EPA numbers but I'll be impressed if they do here.

Not interested.

All SUVs (foreign and domestic) seem to make for boring long term posts.

"What do you think? Like it?"
no

I'm not sure if I like it or not, but I do think it looks much better in silver. Looking forward to reading about this new addition though, unlike the irrelevant 8-year old Corvette that was recently added, for some mysterious reason...

Should have bought an Equinox.

Joe, I know there are people out there that use their SUV's exactly as you describe. And all 12 of them bought something bigger with a V6 or V8.

OK, so I'm sure the real # is in the thousands, but as a percentage of total buyers they represent such a small number that it makes zero sense to cater to them.

The power of this engine combined with the modern 6-speed is likely perfectly adequate for the way 99% will be used: to haul one person to work or a parent plus a kid or two to school or sports practice.

@roadburner,

"Thanks IL!
This is the car I KNEW Gubmint Motors could build.
My dream SUV has arrived..."

Wait- your dream SUV is a FWD buzz-box with lousy steering, a lame AT and styling for idiots? I think I have to take you off the Christmas card list.

firstwagon:

when did IL say this model only averages 19.7mpg on the highway? I must have missed that. IL staffer just said he got 28mpg on first tank. You are NOT going to average 20mpg on the highway in any vehicle rated at 32mpg- thats not even close to logical.

"Wait- your dream SUV is a FWD buzz-box with lousy steering, a lame AT and styling for idiots? I think I have to take you off the Christmas card list."

Yeah because steering feel is #1 on the list of priorities of buyers in this class bimmerjay. That must explain why the Terrain is such a poor seller.

joefrompa:

do you realize this isnt a truck? I'm a little confused because you keep talking like this thing is meant to tow trailers and go off road. Its engine is weak for a truck because its not a truck. Do you think the RAV4 is a truck? In addition, you told me 0-60 is a pointless reference point because you don't consider it meaningful. Not sure how YOU would prefer we compare the acceleration of vehicles but I mentioned 0-60 to illustrate this vehicle isn't slow compared to the average family sedan. I'm sure you know weighing down ANY vehicle (even a sedan) is going to have an adverse affect on acceleration. If you load down an Accord I4 and drive up a mountain it will struggle. Same will happen with this Terrain.

"All SUVs (foreign and domestic) seem to make for boring long term posts."

well there just may be people out there who arent in the market for an M3 or S5 that may find such posts interesting. Hard to believe, I know.

1487

They didn't say they averaged 19.7 on the hwy and neither did I. I just repeated the number they gave on their test for the average and for the best. I skipped the lowest figure as I wasn't talking about worst case mileage. If a staffer did get 28 mpg on a tank then he didn't include it in the offical total as the best number is 22.1 mpg.

Still we will just have to wait and see. The numbers will likely improve over time. I will be curious to see how it does against the Fit in "best" mileage. As they are only 1 mpg apart on the hwy the results should be very simular. Last time I checked the Fit had a best mileage of 39 mpg.

If everyone is equally honest then the Terrain should have no trouble getting up around 37 or 38 in idea conditions.

Should be interesting.

I'm actually a fan of the general's latest CUVs in general. Saw one of these in a parking lot the other day though and it didn't work for me, styling-wise, at all...

Still, looking foward to hearing how it drives.

Oh sweet mother of god how many times do I have to reference it....

Donna said, in her post, "But this truck is no sissy. It has a 2.4-liter inline-4 engine capable of 182 horsepower."

To which I responded that any "truck" or "truck like vehicle" or "vehicle stating it can do duties of a truck"....well, I consider them to be a sissy truck if they have a 2.4 liter inline 4 engine, based upon my experiences in many such vehicles with similar sized engines.

I'm not the one who brought up the truck reference. I was responding, and even quoting directly, Donna.

1487 - You said, "Not sure how YOU would prefer we compare the acceleration of vehicles"

to which I had already said, above, "Perception of acceleration, speed, etc. are what matter to me, not test results."

So let me recap:

My statement was a response to Donna about this "truck" is a heavy (relatively) high-drag vehicle quoted with a smallish engine and is, in my opinion, a "sissy truck".

You responded with quotes of acceleration times based upon one acceleration statistic (0-60).

To which I responded that my experience with 0-60 had taught me it was fairly meaningless indicator of actual vehicle acceleration (i.e. a car can change by 2 seconds based upon launch, abusiveness, and gearing). And that I prefered actual perception rather than tests (similarly, many fast cars feel slower because of their smoothness which can be a negative).

To which you responded, "Not sure how YOU would prefer we compare the acceleration of vehicles "

....

Do you perhaps see how there is a disconnect every time?

Joe

"Wait- your dream SUV is a FWD buzz-box with lousy steering, a lame AT and styling for idiots? I think I have to take you off the Christmas card list."

Come on; my sarcasm wasn't THAT hard to detect, was it?
;)
On my list of cars/trucks that I want to drive before I die the Terrain is somewhere between numbers 1,000,001 and 2,000,000.

@1487,
It's still boring.

It's not boring. The exterior sheetmetal is 20x more daring than anything the Japanese produce, and, as we've all just witnessed right here in this very thread, the design has a polarizing effect on people. That's a good thing. GM's brass aren't getting in the way of engineers and designers making their vehicles stand out from the pack.

I like the Chevy version better as I have said...but the GMC is Nitro ugly and that is pretty ugly. The new Kia Sorrento is far better looking on the outside than either. As for other factors, I am not sure but in looks there is no comparison. As I stated in another thread, these big boomy four bangers are just terrible.....why not a nice small V6 that does not have 250 horsepower?? I would take a 2.8 V6 over the same sized four any day. I will be very surprised if the GMC really gets 32 on the hwy but I hope it does for how buzzy it is.

1487 your reaction to every comment on GM cars is "well they sell a lot so they must be good" and to some extent it is true.....but some of the worst cars have been HUGE sellers in the first few months and years, so dont get too excited yet. Ford is outselling Chevy easily now so does that mean every Ford is better??? Of course not.

Its growing on me too. Like a bad case of leprosy. There's no other way to say it...This thing is just hideous looking. I think "fugly" is the word I'm looking for. There's just not a decent line on any surface anywhere on the vehicle. One can only guess that the Aztek design team was reconstituted for this effort. It shows.

It's a rebadged Chevy Equinox...or is it the other way around?...anyway. So, just what is the reason for the Terrain's existence? Oh, I forgot....to cannibalize sales from the Equinox. And vice versa.

The more things change at the General, the more they stay the same....

In defence of brand engineering (can't believe I'm saying that) it's not cannibalizing sales.

Does the Civic coupe cannibalize sales from the 4 door?
Does the Mustang convertible cannibalize sales from the hardtop?
Does the Legacy cannibalize sales from the Outback?

If the sales go to the same company then they are complimenting sales, not canniblizing. Remember despite the illusion many people have had for years that GM, Chevy, Buick etc are somehow separate companies, they are not.

Eveyone wants something different and if for a minor investment in new sheetmetal GM can sell some more cars then it's a good thing.

The Equinox is kinda a bland looking design. That will appeal to some people but not others. To stop the "others" from going over to Dodge and buying a Nitro GM twisted around the sheetmetal and came up with the Terrain.

It's only a bad idea if they don't sell enough to cover the cost of the facelift. I have a hunch they will.

Sure it's lazy engineering but it makes good business sense.

GM vehicle
+ Negative reviews
+ 1487 defensive attorney
= 55 plus comments.
Gotta love the mix bro.

+1 cr_driver

If Edmunds advertising revenue is based on the number of hits they get then they should send some free stuff to 1487. He can always be counted on to get a conversation going. :)

In regards to the styling I actually like the front end and the greenhouse but hate the overly boxy wheel wells and the Buick Rendevous rear end treatment.

My main interest with this vehicle is if it can live up to its promise of the EPA estimates GM brags about so much.

bodyblue (and 1487),

"1487 your reaction to every comment on GM cars is "well they sell a lot so they must be good" and to some extent it is true"

yeah, 1487 and i got into an argument a few weeks ago about how he said the mustang's live axle sucked and i said the camaro's daily livibility sucked and he resorted to his sales argument...

edmunds's soon reported the mustang outsold the camaro for 2009.

http://www.insideline.com/ford/mustang/ford-mustang-wins-pony-car-sales-race.html

the more i read his arguments the more i see how disengenous they are...

disingenuous, sorry.

1487,

"Contrary to IL's misinformation the SRX/9-4x are NOT on the same platform."

Actually, they are. It's called the Theta-Premium platform. Itself based off the Theta platform.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_Theta_platform

General Motors has created a premium version of Theta for luxury applications. Reports differ, but the general consensus is that it is a combination of the current Theta and elements of the new Epsilon 2 architecture, with some Lambda components as well. Thus this platform is sometimes also referred to as Theta-Epsilon. Theta Premium supports larger models than the standard platform.

Vehicles using Theta Premium:

2010 Cadillac SRX

Future vehicles to use Theta Premium:

Saab 9-4X

1487,

"Contrary to IL's misinformation the SRX/9-4x are NOT on the same platform."

same paragraph:

"The 9-4x is likely have almost identical dimensions and weight relative to the SRX because its on the exact same platform."

ok... i am a little confused. i think you got your models mixed up. i think you would agree that the SRX and 9-4x ARE on the same platform, the Theta-Premium, but you think it is incorrect to say that they are Theta.

and that, i would argue, verges on semantics. Theta-Premium is a version of Theta. i think IL is fine for saying what it says, though they could be more precise.

s197gt:

Your attempts to correct and police me are impressive but you are still dead wrong. Theta-Premium or Theta-Epsilon or whatever the hell its called is NOT Theta. It may share some components with Theta but thats like saying the 5 series is based on the 3 series because they share an engine. There are common components throughout various GM platforms- that doesn't mean they are all the same damn platform. When two vehicles have totally different dimensions and weights its hard to say they are on the same platform. Are there common components in the SRX and Equinox? Yes. Guess what- the CTS also shares an engine with the Equinox so we might as well say the CTS is on Theta as well. The point is the SRX is on an evolved theta platform that is substantially changed from the Equinox and there is no evidence to the contrary.

And I never said the Mustang "sucked" due to a live axle. I said that was one reason some people may have chosen the Camaro instead.

"There's just not a decent line on any surface anywhere on the vehicle. One can only guess that the Aztek design team was reconstituted for this effort. It shows."

Yes if only it had the sexy good looks of the Rogue or CR-V. This class is full of drop dead gorgeous vehicles. How can the GMC ever compete against those compelling designs from Asia?

Joe:

I finally got it now- you are mad because she called it a truck. OK, its not so time to move on. Its a unibody crossover- basically a tall station wagon. Amongst its peers its not a "sissy truck" which was probably her point. If you want to compare it to a V8 powered SUV that has far more hp (and yet isnt much faster) than it would come across as a "sissy truck" I suppose.

I do like how you danced around my comments about power to weight ratios by saying 0-60 times have little correlation to acceleration. If you say so- the bottom line is a much heavier "real truck" with a big engine isn't going to feel much faster than this sissy truck. See if you can connect to that logic. SUVs in general aren't really known for being fast or feeling fast.

"GM's brass aren't getting in the way of engineers and designers making their vehicles stand out from the pack."

The same people complaining about the styling would be complaining if GMC had come out with some dull Honda look alike design so you can't win with some people. Some follks are just so conditioned by years of acceptance of lackluster import designs that anything distinctive scares them off. These are the same people who probably think the CTS is "gaudy" because it doesn't look like a melted jelly bean with a Lexus badge on the grille.

"1487 your reaction to every comment on GM cars is "well they sell a lot so they must be good" and to some extent it is true.....but some of the worst cars have been HUGE sellers in the first few months and years, so dont get too excited yet. Ford is outselling Chevy easily now so does that mean every Ford is better??? Of course not."

I will try and make this as simple as possible. Sales figures give you an indication of whether or not the styling and pricing and value of a vehicle is resonating with the public. Tons of people are posting here claiming this is one of the ugliest vehicles they have ever seen and its another Aztek from GM. I am saying that the sales figures indicate that MANY people like the styling. Conversely, the TL which has rightly been criticized for its looks has not been a sales success (compared to last gen) which indicates many potential buyers DO NOT like its styling. Its hard to say GM did the wrong thing from a styling perspective if the first 6-7 months of sales have been impressive.

Chevy outsold Ford last month. Sales races are dynamic so you have to keep up.

I'd also like to know a few examples of recent GM products that have debuted to hot sales that fizzled within months aside from the niche market Solstice. I'm not "excited" about the Terrain, I'm just telling you that the sales figures show that there are ample numbers of people out there who like the look of this vehicle regardless of the sentiment here. I would say hot sales for a few years is something GM would like to see- most car models see sales declines after they have been on the market for a while.

Hmm.. I remember hearing that the GM triplet's we're so many lightyears ahead of anything GM's put out and it turns out that they're unreliable turds...

Based on what evidence?

IL really needs to send 1487 a cut of the profits. Guy is a lightning rod.

"Yeah because steering feel is #1 on the list of priorities of buyers in this class bimmerjay. That must explain why the Terrain is such a poor seller."

Steering feel and accuracy is perhaps MORE important in a vehicle like this. You need to know what the tires are doing. Alas, avoiding collisions and otherwise escaping dangerous situations with a margin of safety is apparently not a high priority for buyers of these vehicles.

Driving on the 880 today a paper shredding truck lost two large containers in front of me that proceeded to flip and tumble down the freeway. I was able to brake and dart out of the way whereas the moron in the Highlander behind me just plowed right into one. I guess he couldn't be bothered to avoid the collision.

"Come on; my sarcasm wasn't THAT hard to detect, was it?"

Ok ok I suppose it wasn't... I was about to use a classic 1487 line: "You can't be serious."

Sorry bimmerjay, but I'm going to have to disagree with you. In a vehicle like this, steering feel may or may not be important, but it's not what people want. They want a cruiser.

bimmerjay, you are actually dead wrong. People looking for something to carry groceries and ankle biters in are going to think feedback in their steering wheel means there's something wrong with the car. 99% of car buyers don't give a damn what the tires are doing. They want the car to go in the direction it's pointed with the least amount of drama possible.

Guys, re-read what I wrote... it IS apparent people don't want it because this and several other competitors in this segment offer poor control feedback. GM obviously doesn't make it a priority to calibrate the EPS to feel natural and particularly responsive. That doesn't make it ok though.

Seems to me there is more passion debating about the Terrain then any of the owners will ever have for the actual trucks.

"Based on what evidence?"

He has none. As usual.

"Guys, re-read what I wrote... it IS apparent people don't want it because this and several other competitors in this segment offer poor control feedback. GM obviously doesn't make it a priority to calibrate the EPS to feel natural and particularly responsive. That doesn't make it ok though."

the point is no one cares. How many regular people do you know who talk about steering feel? Most folks dont even have a clue what that means so its hard to say GM should be scolded for not offering BMW like steering feel in a family hauler. I guarantee you 99% of small SUV owners wouldnt know steering feel or feedback if it smacked them in the face. These are enthusiast fanboy issues, not real world issues for people who think of cars as nothing more than transportation appliances. If the stuff internet posters talked about meant anything to the public Toyota wouldnt be the #2 automaker in the US because they sure as hell have never cared about steering feel or handling or brake modulation or clutch engagement or on center feel. GM is aiming this vehicle at people who want this type of transportation and I'm sure they actually like the steering feel.

"Steering feel and accuracy is perhaps MORE important in a vehicle like this. You need to know what the tires are doing. Alas, avoiding collisions and otherwise escaping dangerous situations with a margin of safety is apparently not a high priority for buyers of these vehicles."

You are really reaching now. REALLY reaching. I've heard many things about steering feel but never that it was a matter of safety. BTW, if you read some normal consumer oriented reviews of the Equinox/Terrain you wont hear bitching about steering feel. Thats an enthusiast issue and enthusiasts generally dont buy FWD crossovers.

"Based on what evidence?"

He has none. As usual.

-----------------------------

Consumerreports, TrueDelta.

'07 Acadia has 80 trips to the shop
'08 Acadia has 70 trips to the shop
'09 Acadia has 40 trips to the shop

Sample size is smaller for each later year.

What are they complaining about you ask?

------------------------------------------------------------
Jan 2010 0 STEERING WHEEL MAKE A RUBBING/SQUEAKING SOUND

Sep 2009 18000 0 TSB for Engine Control, May 2009 SW update, for early 2009 build vehicles experiencing problems on acceleration and right turns

Apr 2009 4000 0 Noise in steering, pump replaced twice. Noise continues.
May 2009 5000 0 Noise in steering
Jun 2009 6000 0 Noise in steering

Apr 2009 7000 0 Apparent problem with transmission control system software that caused revving, bucking, or unresponsiveness

Nov 2008 7000 0 There was a defect in the manufacturing of the front windshield by PPG and is being replaced under the factory GM warranty

^^^ ALL '09's.

'08's are worse

Mar 2008 5000 0 Popping sound in steering column during low speed turns. Dealer found mismachined bearing in steering column. Ordered part. Squeak from brake pedal, especially when cold. Dealer identified TSB which indicates problem with brake fluid. GM supposedly is developing a revised brake fluid to correct the problem, but not available yet. Rattle in driver's side - likely window frame or headliner.
Apr 2008 6000 0 Parts came in and dealer replaced steering column to eliminate popping noise. Dealer says revised brake fluid still not available from GM to fix the problem.
Jul 2008 8000 0 Squeak coming from master brake cylinder when applying brakes. Dealer located TSB and replaced brake fluid with revised fluid per TSB. Blemish in the clear coat on the hood. Dealer says caused by bird poop damaging the finish before it cured (likely while in transit from factory). Dealer was able to buff the blemish out of the clear coat. Still experiencing hesitation in shifting despite previous flash.

--------------

So stuff it.

"I will try and make this as simple as possible. Sales figures give you an indication of whether or not the styling and pricing and value of a vehicle is resonating with the public. Tons of people are posting here claiming this is one of the ugliest vehicles they have ever seen and its another Aztek from GM. I am saying that the sales figures indicate that MANY people like the styling."

Using the sales argument is anything but simple because sales are driven by much more than styling and pricing. Let's look at the case of the Toyota Corolla. It's been pretty well established that the current Corolla is not a standout in the segment, and yet it was the number 4 best selling car in America last year...Why?

http://blogs.edmunds.com/strategies/2009/02/why-you-should-think-thrice-about-buying-a-corolla.html

Well, there are a lot of reasons, none of which have to do with styling or pricing. There are cheaper options like the Elantra and there are better looking options (though that is highly subjective). My theory is that the Corolla sells because of Toyota's reputation of reliability, and though the actual data is starting to shift, many people are simply only going off of their own experience or the experiences of friends and family members. How often have you heard the argument, "Everyone I know has a X and we've never had any problems!" What else? Well, the Corolla nameplate has been around for a while, and I just don't think people do their homework when looking for a new car. If they did, they would probably have ended up with one of the cars listed in Josh's article. Other reasons for purchasing a class-trailer? Some folks go for incentives, others like to stick with a particular salesman that they feel comfortable with, and others may not have a very large selection of dealers in their immediate area.

I've seen it argued a number of times that criticisms of a car that sells well are invalid. If people are buying it, then those issues must not have mattered, right? Not always. I think the Corolla shows us that cars sell on more than simply their own merits.

Butt ugly! Right up there with the new Toyota 4Runner.

cx7lover > 1487!!

IL, I'm interested to read about this vehicle. Thanks for picking it up. Though I'm not an SUV/CUV buyer, its nice to read about new releases and how they do in a real world experience.

As for getting the MPG, maybe I'll drive 60-65 and see if my gas guzzler guzzles less gas...

Keep us posted IL!

Kevin

technetium99 wrote : "This is truly Aztek fugly" Now sir, I don't like the looks of it much and wouldn't buy one either, but you've gone over the edge with that comment. NOTHING in Aztek fugly.

Cx7:

Typical response. How does copying and pasting a few complaints from TrueDelta prove that lambdas are "unreliable turds"? It doesn't. Are you proposing that the Acadia is the only crossover with Truedelta complaints? Are telling us its more problematic than average? Since you provided no context for your copy/paste job you actually haven't proven anything except your immaturity. Isn't the Enclave recommended by CR? Even if its not anyone who understands the basics of CR's data knows that less than average reliability according to their survey hardly means "unreliable". Furthermore, you didnt tell how many Acadia owners produced those service visits. And TSBs for reprogramming software issues hardly counts towards "unreliability". Think about it.

"My theory is that the Corolla sells because of Toyota's reputation of reliability, and though the actual data is starting to shift, many people are simply only going off of their own experience or the experiences of friends and family members. "

I'm well aware of why the Corolla (or any Toyota) sells and none of that has anything to do with Terrain. The Terrain is a new namplate with no history and no legacy of quality or reliability. Anyone buying this vehicle is doing so based on price and/or looks and/or features and/or efficiency. Period. To sit here and suggest that the vehicle is a dud in spite sales when it has NO previous reputation to build on is beyond ridiculous. The Camaro haters can at least say that car is "only" selling based on the strength of the nameplate. Terrain doesn't have that luxury which means the vehicle attributes are what is driving sales so far. Considering the stale designs offered by the competition it amazes me that so many "design experts" here can't seem to accept that some folks were looking for a more aggressive, masculine crossover design. The TErrain stands out in a sea of soccer mom mobiles and that seems to be working. You can dispute it and keep making excuses but the reality is some people like the way it looks and I'm not surprised. Jeep took a similar (but less successful) approach with their small crossovers as did Toyota with the FJ Cruiser.

"I've seen it argued a number of times that criticisms of a car that sells well are invalid. If people are buying it, then those issues must not have mattered, right?"

Except that styling is hardly an objective criticism. Some people (like those who buy one) think the TL is attractive. You are correct, a criticism of styling for a vehicle that seems to be finding plenty of buyers is invalid. GMC should be concerned if these things were sitting on lots for weeks with thousands of incentives needed to generate interest. Since that is not happening GMC would have to think the styling is appealing to a large number of people. It is illogical to argue that any car company should place the more value on the opinions of people who wouldnt even consider this type of vehicle than the actual sales numbers when it comes time to evaluate the success of the styling. I think the Crosstour is ugly but if is turns out to be a huge success I will have to accept that Honda was right that many thousands of buyers per year would be attracted to its odd shape.

"But this truck is no sissy"

....its not a truck, at least not in my mind. A truck has a bed.

Regarding the looks, I didn't care for it at first but I actually think its grown on me - especially in the chocolate color. If this is to be considered an alternative to the Rav4 and CRV, its a welcome change - both those vehicles are hideous.

Still, I hope I never have to purchase a vehicle like this.......boooooooooring.

"The Terrain is a new namplate with no history and no legacy of quality or reliability. Anyone buying this vehicle is doing so based on price and/or looks and/or features and/or efficiency."

I wasn't really referring to the Terrain in my last post. Obviously it's a new car, so there's no chance of anyone having experience with it. My point with the Corolla is that sales aren't always a great barometer of how good a car actually is. My other point was that criticisms leveled against a strong seller are still valid. They may not have been a deal breaker for the thousands of people who did buy that particular car, but who knows how many people walked away from that car? Almost every car can be improved, so why ignore the criticisms?

"You are correct, a criticism of styling for a vehicle that seems to be finding plenty of buyers is invalid."

That's not really what I was saying. Also, define "plenty" of buyers. With less polarizing styling, maybe they could be getting more?

sabastian:

I dont think you get it. The styling of this vehicle (or any) is intentional. You say every vehicle needs improvement but we can't say that the styling of this vehicle needs improving. The reason I am talking about styling is because its been the #1 complaint since IL announced they were adding this to their fleet. In the case of styling sales do prove something. If the Terrain proves successful a logical person would have to presume the macho styling is very appealing to many and GMC made the right move. As doug just said, the alternatives in this class aren't exactly strong design statements.

"That's not really what I was saying. Also, define "plenty" of buyers. With less polarizing styling, maybe they could be getting more?"

Considering Terrain sales were up 162% vs Pontiac Torrent and this is the replacement for the Torrent I would say the styling is working. GMC products never outsell Chevy products so the Equinox was bound to outsell the Terrain regardless of looks.

If you arent talking about styling then what criticism of the Terrain are you referring to? Other than weight and styling there haven't been many criticisms of this vehicle.

"Still, I hope I never have to purchase a vehicle like this.......boooooooooring."

Yep, the Terrain definitely has a spot on my Automotive Purgatory list...

@anthonylam66,

"technetium99 wrote : "This is truly Aztek fugly" Now sir, I don't like the looks of it much and wouldn't buy one either, but you've gone over the edge with that comment. NOTHING in Aztek fugly."

Agreed. This thing may have pretty dumpy styling, but few vehicles will ever really approach the entirety of awfulness of the Aztek.

The Aztec re-wrote the book on Ugly. It set a standard that will be nearly impossible to surpass....

"Considering Terrain sales were up 162% vs Pontiac Torrent and this is the replacement for the Torrent I would say the styling is working."

It can't necessarily be said that the styling is working because the Terrain is outselling the Torrent. (Also, Torrent sales from when? Its first month?) Have you taken a survey of Terrain buyers? The only thing you can say about Terrain buyers from the sales numbers is that those who bought a Terrain did not consider the styling a deal breaker.