2010 GMC Terrain: Track Tested

That acceleration isn't as dangerously bad as I was being led to believe. I rented a Mazda5 which does the same 0-60 sprint in almost a second slower wasn't so frustrating that I wanted to scream or anything... just not lighting my world on fire.

Perfectly acceptable performance for a family vehicle or rental car that could be driven by anyone from teenagers to nursing home seniors in Florida.
I don't really know why car manufacturers are building some family vehicles these days with sub seven second 0-60. That to me is pointless. Building a comfortable 5 seat family vehicle with 30+mpg for under 25k is what I consider to the worthwhile goal.

Perfectly acceptable performance for a family vehicle or rental car that could be driven by anyone from teenagers to nursing home seniors in Florida.
I don't really know why car manufacturers are building some family vehicles these days with sub seven second 0-60. That to me is pointless. Building a comfortable 5 seat family vehicle with 30+mpg for under 25k is what I consider to the worthwhile goal.

I was trembling with excitement as I clicked the jump, and I was not disappointed! This thing's a beast.

I actually thought this thing was a six speed

Very, very impressive!

First of all, this is NOT slow. This was "sporty car" territory 10 years ago.

Check out that stopping distance. Wow! We are talking slipper all-season tires, people. Very, very good braking performance.

Edmunds, and other "magazines", make errors in their text. As long as they are obvious ones, it is not important. If the mistake is in their test data, then it is more troubling.

Having said this, I prefer Edmunds' decision to give us readers the info as soon as possible, occasional errors be damned.

I have been a Car and Driver subscriber for almost half a century, and every month, until recently, the arrival of my C&D in the mailbox was the highlight of the day. But now-- not so much. Insideline gives me most all the info day by day. C&D has its own car tests, and sometimes informative commentary, and some humor, that make the magazine relevant. So, I will continue to be a subsciber, but I don't have the same love and anticipation I used to have.

@vvk: This was "sporty" in the year 2000?!? Maybe you meant 20-30 years ago. Make no mistake, this thing is slow. Perfectly acceptable for its class, but slow nonetheless.

The terrain is a 6 speed automatic (6t40e)

I have no problem with the 0 to 60 time. For the base engine its fine. My concern is how much power there is when you are not running it to the redline.

If you need 4000 rpm to do what a bigger engine will do at 2000 rpm then I just do not see an advantage here.

I don't think that the acceleration times are bad for the type of vehicle it is. My 1975 2002 mit der slushbox is probably no faster and I have no trouble keeping up with traffic. More horsepower usually will increase the fun quotient, but it isn't a necessity,

It is a six-speed. I just corrected the text above. -- Donna

Pretty competent everywhere except the powertrain.

What a 180 for GM.

I wish inside line would update it's articles on the weekends.

It's weird that this site is static every weekend.

it is slow compared to a 911 or a Mustang? yeah, it is. 0-60 in 9.4 seconds is plenty of people for the majority of people in this country. no one NEEDS to get to 60 in 6.5 seconds like everyone on enthusiast blogs seem to think. as long as we aren't getting to 60 in over 10 seconds, the car is fine in terms of power. if people were to accept more 0-60 times of around 8-10 seconds instead of the 6 seconds like in a V6 Camry, cars would get much better fuel economy and there would be WAY more engine choices for each model like in every other country on the planet.

all that said though, this car still needs a diet. 3800 lbs is way too much for a small SUV. If GM really wants to be competitive, they need to get their small SUV's to have a weight of more around 3500-3600 lbs, which would not only improve acceleration but fuel economy. they also need to program their transmissions to work for what the engine needs, not for the best fuel economy. recent GM transmissions upshift way to early.

Not bad for a 4 cyl, but not something I would buy. However, what doesn't make sense is that the 1000 lb heavier Traverse handles so much better. Come on gm, you could do better with this little cuv. For $32k in something this little I would expect no less than auto adjusting shocks

"Pretty competent everywhere except the powertrain."

Competent compared to what? Edmunds tested an Accord with the I4 and auto and got 9.1 secs. That is for a car that weighs over 400lbs less than this CUV. Considering it's mass the acceleration is acceptable. The CR-V is considerably lighter and yet is no faster.

"all that said though, this car still needs a diet. 3800 lbs is way too much for a small SUV. If GM really wants to be competitive, they need to get their small SUV's to have a weight of more around 3500-3600 lbs, which would not only improve acceleration but fuel economy."

the newer the vehicle and platform, the heavier the vehicle. That's the way it goes as they work to make these vehicles perform better in crash testing. I'm pretty sure the lighter competition does not match the Terrain/Equinox in crash testing. The RAV4 and CR-V are lighter because they are older and lack the crashworthiness, sound deadening and features on the Terrain. The new Sorento weighs about 3700bs with the I4. HAven't heard anyone complain about that yet. The RDX is smaller and weighs around 3700lbs. The X3 weighs about 4000lbs.

"However, what doesn't make sense is that the 1000 lb heavier Traverse handles so much better. Come on gm, you could do better with this little cuv. For $32k in something this little I would expect no less than auto adjusting shocks"

What makes you think the Traverse handles better? The Terrain went through the cones 4mph faster than the heavy Traverse. It also stopped shorter.

@1487: Kramer stopped short too and look where that got him.

Good thing it does not have a lot of power as GM and transmissions dont seem to work well together lately. It is plenty fast enough for 90% of people and time.....it is just too big....I think that is why the ancient Escape is beating and or keeping up with it in sales. GM just cant build something small it seems. It is still into advertising that you can get something bigger for the same money as a smaller Honda, Toyota etc. The Cruze will be bigger than its competition as well. The Fiesta is a good example of a car that is very small and very fun and wants to be sold as such. If Chevy thinks the new Aveo will compare well with that they are kinda crazy.

"@1487: Kramer stopped short too and look where that got him."

Um- OK. Still dont understand how anyone can say the Traverse handles "better". 4mph slower through the slalom isn't "better" last time I checked.

bodyblue:

Esacape is selling on reputation, fleet sales and discounts. I guarantee you the next gen escape will be heavier. The Escape has been around for 10 years and is likely much less rigid than the Terrain or Sorento which is why its lighter. Its also the smallest of the small CUVS which explains its weight. COnsumers do not shop based on weight. 99% of vehicle owners (including the spouses or girlfriends of people who post here) have no clue how much their vehicles weigh. Only internet reading car lovers and journalists have any idea about vehicle mass.

The Cruze will be bigger but also more efficient than the competition. That is what you call a good competitive combination. Size is only bad if it costs you efficiency. In the real world a car that is larger than its competitors but more efficient is known as an example of clever engineering. Think about it for a minute.

> 337: This was "sporty" in the year 2000?!? Maybe you meant 20-30 years ago. Make no mistake, this thing is slow. Perfectly acceptable for its class, but slow nonetheless.

337, Subaru Impreza 2.5RS, which was the sportiest Subaru in 2000, did about the same with automatic transmission.

I bet Terrain would do about the same 8.6 sec 0-60 as a manual transmission Impreza 2.5RS if equipped with a proper manual gearbox. Amazing, because it is about 1000 lbs heavier.

Interesting post.

This vehicle is growing on me...like a pimple...which is not a good thing.

Honda can't even get their cars to brake this well.

I was not talking about weight.....I was talking about SIZE....the Ford is smaller like the CR-V......GM is still thinking old school which works with some folks I guess. The reputation for the Escape is indeed pretty good and a sale is a sale. It drives nice, gets good MPGs and has decent power from both the 4 and 6 engines. If the Chevy/GMC twins were a lot better instead of a lot BIGGER I think it would sell even better than the Escape, but it is just huge in comparison to the Ford and Honda and since women are a target for this class, smaller is better.

1/4 mile in 17 seconds is what I would consider adequate. I find anything with a 1/4 mile time of 15 seconds or better is "fast", 15-17 would be "ample" and 17 and slower would range from "adequate - sloooooow", depending on how slow that time was.

Either way, it's got more than enough power for daily needs, and consumes far less fuel than the old 3.4L V6. I'm quite impressed with the 121 ft 60-0 though.