2010 GMC Terrain: Only One Real Problem

It looks like a Transformer with buck teeth.....or a robotic Bugs Bunny

Cadillac DTS
Cadillac SRX in base form. ( Too much black plastic on front end )
Large Buick sedan( not LaCrosse )

Depends on the color. Silver doesn't do much for it. I think it looks pretty good in black. Overall the design has grown on me. And I like that it's not afraid to look like a truck.

Before hitting the jump I was planning on commenting:
One real problem? It's ugly.

Overdone. Someone just couldn't stop adding and adding and adding. Now its just a small bloated mess.

i like the way it looks, though it does tend to look much better in black. most cars do though.

i think the biggest problem is the weight though. this, the Equinox, the SRX, and the 9-4X are just way too heavy for what you get. if this car were to lose 200 lbs, it would fix alot of the complaints about handling, braking, fuel economy, and acceleration.

The problem is you guys paid $34,000 out the door for it which would have been $35,000 without the fool-me-twice bonus.

Pretty much every post on the Terrain has it coming off as inoffensively decent. Underpowered but like 1487 always says the CR-V and most Rav4s have weak 4s too. And then you remember those are low $20s cars.

It's like the $50,000 CTS that was a pretty nice car until you realize what the G35 and Genesis in the fleet at the same time cost. And $26,000 Cruz, until you notice what the Sonata cost.

I guess folks are confused about what "optional" means. The Terrain starts at $24k- this is a fairly loaded top trim model at $34k. Since its direct competitors offer far less equipment its hard to really compare them but a loaded RAV4 is over 30 grand and a loaded CR-V is about $30k. The CX-7 and Escape go well north of $30k with all options.

I'm not sure I understand the logic behind saying its nice at $24k but not at $35k when that model has leather, memory, moonroof, nav, premium sound, etc.

I dont think its ugly at all, especially with the 19" wheels. I dont like the tail lights at all but that's the worst aspect. The sales suggest it has plenty of admirers.

Aveo is clearly GM's ugliest model and unsurprisingly it was designed in Korea.

Styling need not be a requisite for a vehicle's utililty or value (it only means something if the intent is to impress others.)

If the exterior is the only thing that needs to be improved upon, then GM did mostly everything right.

Yeah it's kinda ugly but I've gotten used to it. I followed one on the road yesterday (a rare sight in NorCal) and thought it was a Buick Rendezvous at first. I sat in one a few weeks ago and liked the interior though.

I think the worst part is the fuel economy failing to hit the EPA estimates, despite IL's multiple attempts. The Terrain is clearly an outlier here.

"Underpowered but like 1487 always says the CR-V and most Rav4s have weak 4s too."

They're peppier.

"Only one real problem"

1) You have to have the engine basically red-lined to ge the most power out of it
2) Steering is numb.
3) It's ugly

Now I'm not a math major, but I count more than one. And if you're saying that only one prblem really stands out, I think the looks should be last of the three. I don't hate it, but it reminds me of my son in his Superman halloween costume. A little guy with fake muscles trying to look bad ass.

mrryte -
I think that's a little overboard. So you're telling me that your number one vehicle is the Aztec? It serves a lot of intended purposes, more than most. But hey, if you're not trying to impress anybody...
I personally want to smile everytime I go outside and see my car there. The purposes, function, interior, etc. are all important, but looks do and should count a little when you lay down that much money for something you use on a daily basis.

I wonder why the dodge journey gets crapped on for its 4 cylinder when the terrain's is 'adequate' They have about the same amount of power in about the same size vehicle.

"I wonder why the dodge journey gets crapped on for its 4 cylinder when the terrain's is 'adequate' They have about the same amount of power in about the same size vehicle."

Because it's about way more than just numbers. NVH, transmission programming/driveability, gearing, powertrain refinement, throttle response. The numbers tell only a fraction of the story. And obviously different writers will have varying opinions on what constitutes "adequate".

"I think the worst part is the fuel economy failing to hit the EPA estimates, despite IL's multiple attempts. The Terrain is clearly an outlier here."

There is ample evidence that plenty of cars arent hitting EPA combined mileage. Stop beating the dead horse and acting like the Terrain is alone. MT just tested for V6 "pony cars" and the Mustang averaged 18.3mpgs vs EPA numbers of 19/31. C&D tested the Optima and averaged about 22mpg. IL just tested Sonata and Optima over 1000+miles and got 21-22mpg. C&D tested Elantra and got 26mpg during their test. That's 3mpg LOWER than the city figure. A trend is developing and you cannot compare the Terrain to the entire fleet since many of the vehicles with optimistic ratings are less than 2 years old. I have yet to see any sources aside from IL that have gotten close to EPA avearge mileage on a recent model with what I consider overly optimistic ratings.

"They're peppier. "

The RAV4 is very light and is faster. CR-V is not. Thats a fact- you can look it up.

"1) You have to have the engine basically red-lined to ge the most power out of it
2) Steering is numb.
3) It's ugly"

I think he is comparing it to other crossovers, not a 335i. Numb steering? Compared to what? No one cares in this class and if you poll 10 different people about steering feel you will get 10 opinions. Don't act like its an objective measurement. Looks are subjective and I dont think its ugly. Compared to its competitive set- it has few flaws.

The Terrain is like big Legos they make for toddlers.

"I wonder why the dodge journey gets crapped on for its 4 cylinder when the terrain's is 'adequate' They have about the same amount of power in about the same size vehicle."

1. No Chrysler is going to get a fair shake. The engine used by Chrysler is shared with Mitsu and Hyundai yet no one complains about their four bangers.
2. The Journey has a 4 speed auto which makes it less efficient and likely slower than the Terrain.

"It serves a lot of intended purposes, more than most. But hey, if you're not trying to impress anybody...
I personally want to smile everytime I go outside and see my car there. The purposes, function, interior, etc. are all important, but looks do and should count a little when you lay down that much money for something you use on a daily basis."

Here is groupthink land where we are all supposed to agree on the "party line" and anyone who doesn't is attacked its not shocking that 90% of folks think the Terrain is horribly ugly. Shockingly almost as many people here hate crossovers and family sedans and automatics. Shockingly nearly the same number of people worship BMWs. In another crazy coincidence nearly the same % of folks bash Chrysler for anyting and demand that every new car added to the LT fleet be a sporty sedan or coupe with a manual transmission. Point is- if you get exposure to the outside world you will find that folks do not always agree with the popular sentiment here. The Terrain has been popular since it debuted which indicates folks who are actually interested in this type of vehicle (as opposed to folks who pop in just to bash it because its a crossover) are drawn to its styling. There was near universal agreement that the Aztek was ugly and it was a sales flop. The Terrain is polarizing, but many like it and it has been a sales success. You can keep bringing up Aztek, but this aint no Aztek.

1487 - for $25k, the pep is acceptable, especially since that version is lighter by virtue of fewer features. But the CR-V & RAV are smaller & lighter than the Terrain (which, reminder, save for being 4 inches narrower, is closer to the Highlander in size than the RAV).

And anyway, the Terrain's a little pricier than the RAV & CR-V on average, and regardless of CRV, RAV, or this thing, by the time you hit $34k, the power's unacceptable. I see why GM made the 4-banger available on all trimlines, but I think an equal argument could've been made for a Highlander-like scheme in which the 4-banger was restricted to lower trim levels. It would've avoided exactly the kind of criticism that's been leveled at this thing: too expensive to be this slow.

There seems to be some disagreement among the staff regarding the um, adequacy, of the engine.

Mr. Niebuhr says "Adequate on a good day, going downhill, the 2.4 liter Ecotec is no match for the weight and barn door aerodynamics of the Terrain."

Ms. DeRosa says " . . . never thought they were particularly large hills until I tried to climb them in the GMC Terrain. It behaved like a reluctant child being dragged to the store.

Wheeze, wheeze, whine, ask for candy."

"No Chrysler is going to get a fair shake. The engine used by Chrysler is shared with Mitsu and Hyundai yet no one complains about their four bangers. "

Again you really dont have a clue. Your "fair shake" comment is BS as always. The "world" 2.4/2.0 engine family has been panned since it has been out as a rough and noisey unit and even thought it has good power, it hates to rev and sounds like crap when it does. Many reviews over the years have complained about them..ever been in a rental Avenger? Rough and noisey as hell.

"Here is groupthink land where we are all supposed to agree on the "party line" and anyone who doesn't is attacked its not shocking that 90% of folks think the Terrain is horribly ugly"

Where do you get this stuff? You are really certifiable. In your damaged mind anybody who does not agree with you is stupid and biased. I think the Terrain is ugly..you like it.....who cares? Why do you care?

"In another crazy coincidence nearly the same % of folks bash Chrysler for anyting and demand that every new car added to the LT fleet be a sporty sedan or coupe with a manual transmission. "

Prove your BS statement.....guess what...you can't. Nobody is bashing Chrysler on this thead.

"1487 - for $25k, the pep is acceptable, especially since that version is lighter by virtue of fewer features. But the CR-V & RAV are smaller & lighter than the Terrain (which, reminder, save for being 4 inches narrower, is closer to the Highlander in size than the RAV)."

CR-V is lighter, but its slower. That's my point. Recently auto media and readers have been obsessed with curb weight. Discussing and comparing curb weights in a vacuum is pointless. the Terrain is heavy- but that doesnt make it slower than its key competitors. In fact, the Sante Fe, Tuscon and Sportage are slower in spite of weighing less. If you get a $30k FWD crossover its going to be slow- period. The price has nothing to do with it. Yes, you can get an Edge or Murano with far more power but you will lose features to gain acceleration. Nothing that is comparably equipped and comparable in mileage is notably faster in the low $30k range. The best argument one could make is that a RAV4 V6 could be had for the same money- its much faster and not much less efficient. Of course you then would lose features, quietness and interior quality to get all that hp.

GM recently began offering loaded models with I4s because Honda and Toyota do the same thing. When GM used to limit upper trims to V6 engines people were complaining that those who favored fuel economy couldnt get all the options. Now they are doing the opposite and folks are still complaining. The Highlander is about 4200+ lbs and starts at $27k so it makes sense for the I4 to be on lower trims only.

I'm not sure that consumers have said its too expensive to be this slow- thats what Terrain haters are saying. BTW, the new Durango needs about 9 secs to hit 60 with the V6. Same for JGC. Same for GMs own lamdbas if they have AWD.

I find it impossible to believe the engine produces enough power to make the drive livable. My 3100 lbs car is woefully underpowered with a 2.5 that makes 167 HP.

"I find it impossible to believe the engine produces enough power to make the drive livable. My 3100 lbs car is woefully underpowered with a 2.5 that makes 167 HP. "

Your Mazda I assume? My car has the same size engine (but is a V6) and weighs about the same and never feels underpowered. I guess it is just what you are used too. My last car was my 05 Mustang GT but still I dont think my current car is underpowered at all. You just have to learn to use what you got.

14 "Crack-smoking GM Troll" 87:

"There is ample evidence that plenty of cars arent hitting EPA combined mileage. Stop beating the dead horse and acting like the Terrain is alone. MT just tested for V6 "pony cars" and the Mustang averaged 18.3mpgs vs EPA numbers of 19/31. C&D tested the Optima and averaged about 22mpg. IL just tested Sonata and Optima over 1000+miles and got 21-22mpg. C&D tested Elantra and got 26mpg during their test. That's 3mpg LOWER than the city figure."

This website has tried repeatedly to get 32mpg with the Terrain on long highway trips, including a specific fuel economy test with other cars, and failed.

The numbers you cite are averages from short-term tests, which = journalist abuse, aka the kind of driving that gets your skirt in a twist.

But you knew this didn't you, Troll.

-Rod

"Aveo is clearly GM's ugliest model and unsurprisingly it was designed in Korea."

The Aveo is not ugly, it's bland. Big difference.

No one put any effort into style on the Aveo and it shows. It's just a transportation box, nothing more.

A lot of effort was put into styling the Terrain and the best they could do was an awkward boxy wagon with some cheesy macho off road-like add ons.

Doesn't matter that they sell a lot (they sold huge numbers of Cobalts too) it's still ugly.

I think it's the best looking vehicle in GMC's, and maybe GM's, lineup. But that is, as they say, "damning with faint praise." I notice that the rather similar-looking Toyota 4runner doesn't collect nearly as many complaints. Whether that is because Toyota sells so few of them now and they're never seen, or because the look is more acceptable for a body-on-frame offroader, isn't clear.

I see complaints about the Terrain (and Equinox) 2.4 not matching its EPA estimates. But the V6 AWD is rated 16/22--which is about the same as the larger Ford Flex AWD and worse than the Ford Edge AWD (even with FWD GMC/Chevy gets poorer fuel economy than the Edge AWD), the latter of which isn't that much more expensive when comparably equipped. It may be a problem for GM not currently having a genuinely compact crossover and straddling several universes of competitors with one vehicle.

I'd take it over the Equinox, primarily because every single Equinox I see is brought to you by Hertz, Enterprise, or Alamo.

Out of the GM Lineup, I find the:
CTS Coupe
STS Sedan
HHR Panel

As kind of ugly cars, but the award goes to the:
Aveo 5-Door in yellow

"IL just tested Sonata and Optima over 1000+miles and got 21-22mpg. C&D tested Elantra and got 26mpg during their test. That's 3mpg LOWER than the city figure."

But you fail to say that the Camaro came in butt-ass LAST..even the Challenger beat it !! LOL

Of course the Mustang won the comparison but how about some quotes from the Camaros test?
"Interior functionality was likewise "sacrificed to the altar of style," noted assistant Web producer Scott Evans. A cumbersome steering wheel offers nonsensical button placement and functions (the dial that adjusts audio tracks also changes the audio source), and the pale green illumination could double for a "Space Invaders" high score screen."

one more

"
The Camaro compromises the most important components of a daily driver for the sake of looking cool.

Commuters spend much of their drive playing with infotainment systems and winding through grocery store parking lots. If the Camaro can't do either of these tasks well, there's no reason it should take anything above last place."

"Where do you get this stuff? You are really certifiable. In your damaged mind anybody who does not agree with you is stupid and biased. I think the Terrain is ugly..you like it.....who cares? Why do you care?"

What I dont care about is anything you post.

bc1960:

4Runner is horribly ugly and you may not hear about it because its not in the LT fleet here. Most negative comments Ive heard about the Terrain are from this site where most GM products are panned by the locals. I really havent heard folks in the real world comment about it, but I have seen plenty on the road so that tells me many folks dig the styling. Its one of the few small crossovers that a guy can drive and not lose his dignity. Not many guys REALLY want to be seen in a RAV4 or CR-V if we're honest here.

As for GM's "problem"- they dont have one with this vehicle Now that production issues have been worked out they sold about 20k Terrains/Equinoxes last month- best so far and more sales than Cr-V or Escape. Just because 5 people who frequen these forums say a vehicle is a failure or a poor effort doesn't make it so. Thats why we have to consult the real world and sales charts every now and then. Contrast this vehicle with the Crosstour which IL has been defending quite a bit over the months here. Its a nice vehicle to live with every day but its seriously flawed in terms of price, cargo capacity and styling and the sales figures back that up.

this thing is painful to look at. It may have enough power for you at sea level. But get this bad boy loaded with 4 other people and some camping equipment and try and cross the Tioga Pass. You're gonna get lapped by RV's.

Yeah, the Terrain is ugly. Butt ugly, especially from the side. Those squared-of wheel wells are just weird looking. That's why we bought an Equinox.

Rode in a co-workers (latest gen) RAV-4 with a V6 yesterday. It definitely has more git-up-n-go than my wife's Equinox, no question. Lots more oomph under foot; wish our 'Nox had it. It also looks cheap inside, ride wasn't all that nice and it was loud inside along with what felt like a somewhat flabby chassis compared to the vault-like feel in my wife's Nox. Did I say it looks cheap inside? Plus I hope I don't encounter the numerous problems my co-worker has had with his vehicle (namely lots of brake issues).

I'll take the crappy IL-observed gas mileage (which meets EPA estimates in our case but of course who cares except my wife and me) and less power for the nicer, quieter ride, a vastly superior interior, vault-like feel and overall more pleasing design. For a family vehicle the theta twins are good products; no wonder they sell quite well. Rel in our first year of ownership has been quite good too.

"this thing is painful to look at. It may have enough power for you at sea level. But get this bad boy loaded with 4 other people and some camping equipment and try and cross the Tioga Pass. You're gonna get lapped by RV's."

same goes for the competition, if thats an issue get a V6.

BB:

What is the relevance of your comments? MT has hated the Camaro for a while now. I was talking about real world vs EPA mileage.

"The Aveo is not ugly, it's bland. Big difference.

No one put any effort into style on the Aveo and it shows. It's just a transportation box, nothing more.

A lot of effort was put into styling the Terrain and the best they could do was an awkward boxy wagon with some cheesy macho off road-like add ons.

Doesn't matter that they sell a lot (they sold huge numbers of Cobalts too) it's still ugly."

1. Cobalt sold heavily on discounts and fleet sales. Not so with the Terrain so your inference that sales dont indicate people like the vehicle is absurd and fails to hold water.
2. You say its ugly as if there is universal agreement- there is not. GM haters think its one of the ugliest vehicles on the road- no shock there. Show me what regular people think. GMC's job is to sell crossovers. If we look at their track record with this vehicle it indicates they made the right styling choices. I know it pains you but you cant get around that fact.
3. I know what bland means. The Aveo is ugly.

You people crack me up- you hate a vehicle so you decide that there is no way that others actually like it. I cite the success of the vehicle and you say that doesnt mean anything and folks who brought it were too stupid or desperate to buy something else. Anything but the possibility that some people think its good looking.

"The numbers you cite are averages from short-term tests, which = journalist abuse, aka the kind of driving that gets your skirt in a twist."

IL drove the OPtima for over 1000m and got 22mpg. If you think that all of that driving was on a test track or conducted while drag racing you're even more dense than I thought before- and that's saying something. If you cannot get a realistic average mileaeg rating over 1000 mixed miles than there is no point in even trying. Stop with the excuses. The facts speak for themselves. MT drove a Sonata for over 2000m on a road trip and averaged 30mpg overall. Case closed.

" MT has hated the Camaro for a while now"

ROFLMAO....ohhh OK the "hate" the Camaro now....funnyn not what they said in the article...let me prove you wrong once again..

"While its last-place finish may reek of a vast anti-GM conspiracy to our ever-vigilant, tinfoil hat-wearing letter writers, this Camaro -- the one with 11,000 miles of rental car duties on its odometer -- fared rather well"

"When the road opened up, the powertrain impressed us as well. The Camaro matched its archnemesis Mustang in acceleration, not to mention braking and handling metrics."

Yep, sounds like they hated it all right! It must be "hate" if it lost a comparo! It could not be that other car companies make a better car.

1487 -

I'm not bashing the Terrain. You're continued attempt to put words in peoples mouth takes away from your 'objectiveness'. I think its a very solid American product. I just don't like what they did with the body. That is, my opinion. It has a lot of features available and many options not available on competitors.

I put three things down because the article is titled "Only one real problem". That's why I put it in quotes, and then put down the three things they mentioned. Saying that the looks should be the least of the three. Also that three is more than one.

I'm also not comparing the Terrain to the Aztec. I'm saying that if looks don't matter to mrryte, then the Aztec is a winner for intended purpose.

And for the love of all that is holy, could you please inform me as to why every time, and I mean every time, someone has a comment that is not flattering to a GM product, that you must say something to the effect of, "You don't say the same thing about (insert foreign brand here)". When the topic is a specific product, i.e. Terrain, it is not anyones job to compare it to a foreign product. I don't have to say that I don't love the Terrains sheet metal, however, compared with the CR-V, it's good or bad. I'm giving my opinion on the Terrain, and the Terrain alone.
I know you feel everyone is out to get you and destroy GM, but I'm pretty sure that's not the case. The Terrains sales speak for themself.

I'm pretty sure every single contributor for this site have said bad things about foreign autos in the reviews. Yet, for some reason, I don't see you defending them, and saying they should be saying the same thing about GM... If you don't agree, please give me a link to any single full review that not only says that the foriegn car in question is perfect in every facet, but knocks on it's American competition, and I will eat my words.

@1487

I'm typically a GM fan but I think the Terrain is ugly. My wife does too. And I agree the Aveo is ugly too. It also has some peculiar proportions to boot.

Now the shocker (to me) was my mother, who drives a Toyota Solara and previously drove a Honda Prelude, is now bugging my dad to get her a Terrain. Mom is 71 yrs. old. She said she really liked the exterior design. To say I was shocked is an understatement. Apparently the vehicles does appeal to buyers, ones you'd never expect.

I read the review BB. I'm always 5 steps ahead of you- I read it when it was first posted. I said MT has hated the Camaro for a while now and they have. when they first tested it they loved it and totally contradicted what they've said in the last few tests. They cannot accept the fact that the car is about style as much as performance so they evaluate it on practicality and visibility which is pure stupidity- in fact the kind of backward thinking you would embrace. Ever notice they dont touch on the sales figures? There's a reason for that- discussin the success of the car would expose the fallacy in their thinking and prove that they have no idea what people shopping for that type of car want. The Genesis has finished 1st and 2nd in consecutive comparos there but the car doesnt sell. Why? The styling is forgettable, no V8, bland interior. Does it handle well on a track or twisty road? Yes. Do people buy sport coupes ONLY for handling limits? No. The sales figures reflect that.

"This website has tried repeatedly to get 32mpg with the Terrain on long highway trips, including a specific fuel economy test with other cars, and failed.

The numbers you cite are averages from short-term tests, which = journalist abuse, aka the kind of driving that gets your skirt in a twist.

But you knew this didn't you, Troll."

Of course he knows that none of those tests were likely mileage-focused, but he couldn't admit an (obvious) flaw in a GM vehicle if his life depended on it. Clearly IL has deliberately tried unsuccessfully multiple times to attain the highway figure, and the combined figure over 20,000 miles is well-short. So logically a valid counter-argument would be to state that [insert completely random vehicle here] got [insert unremarkable mpg figure here] in another publication in another test under completely unknown test conditions. Why concede the point when an apples-to-refrigerators comparison can be thrown out there?

Why the Terrain is so far off is anyone's guess, but when you make such a big deal about best-in-class fuel economy but then the real-world performance can't back it up, that's a problem.

Troll:

"You say its ugly as if there is universal agreement- there is not."

But when you say "The 4Runner is horribly ugly" as if there is universal agreement, I take it there is?

Oh, and you must not have understood my point about short term tests. That 1,000 miles must include a lot of hard driving because a car almost NEVER hits the combined EPA figure in a short-term test. The journalists are probably flooring it a lot, testing the manual mode, often keeping the engine up near redline to see how it performs and feels. It would be news if a car DID hit the EPA figure under these conditions!!

But Inside Line has repeatedly tried to hit the Terrain's 32mpg to no avail, including a fuel economy test where every other car performed well and the Terrain fell on its face.

You were trying to say that short-term testing results are comparable to this.

Glad we cleared that up.

-Rod

If you disagree with any point 1487 makes, you will be labeled a "GM Hater."

Personally, I find the Terrain shamefully ugly. Shameful in that I'd be ashamed to be seen driving one.

I happen to find the Equinox VERY good looking though; perhaps best-in-segment good. Does this make me a hater?

I read the review BB, I know what they said. They have said the same thing in the last 3 reviews/comparos of the car. No visibility, small trunk, etc. Stuff that isnt high on the wish list of sports coupe buyers. They dont talk about the sales- for obvious reasons. They review the car as if they are a bunch of old men who can't even bend down to fit in a sporty car.

I really don't think its as ugly as everyone is suggesting. The square wheel wells are awful, but they look better on this vehicle then on the Sierras. I'd take this over the Equinox without a doubt. The Equinox is too...bubbly and round...for my liking.

1487:

"IL drove the OPtima for over 1000m and got 22mpg. If you think that all of that driving was on a test track or conducted while drag racing you're even more dense than I thought before- and that's saying something. If you cannot get a realistic average mileaeg rating over 1000 mixed miles than there is no point in even trying. Stop with the excuses. The facts speak for themselves. MT drove a Sonata for over 2000m on a road trip and averaged 30mpg overall. Case closed."

I am sure a lot of those 1000 miles involve stuff that the EPA would never do, like running the engine near redline to see how smooth it is, testing passing responses and so on. That must be why those short-term mpg numbers almost NEVER hit the EPA combined figure. It's news when they do!! You may not be an enthusiast, but you read a lot of car reviews. You shold know this.

Oh and about that closed case. Motor Trend averaged 30.2 overall in a Sonata including a 9.5-hour drive where they AVERAGED 77 mph...and got 30.2mpg for that leg of the trip too! Do you know how fast you need to be going to AVERAGE 77? That means they were regularly in the 80s for 9.5 hours, and still got 30.2mpg. That is pretty amazing actually.

The Terrain in Inside Line's Fuel Sipper test averaged 28.7mpg on the "country highway" drive which included speeds from 50-65mph, and 24.9mpg on the windy Interstate drive.

Case closed! LOL. At least you are good for a laugh.

-Rod

And POOF he is gone for the day...I guess the car wash closed.

What a heated thread.

I haven't seen many Terrains in the NY tri-state area personally, but my aunt just bought a CR-V after considering the Terrain only because the Honda was cheaper. Period.

"The RAV4 is very light and is faster. CR-V is not. Thats a fact- you can look it up."

I did, before posting.

AWD 4-cylinder 0-60 times (as I can't find anyone who's tested all three FWDs) from two sources:

Consumer Reports:
Equinox: 10.7s
RAV4: 10.0s
CR-V: 9.1s

Car and Driver:
Equinox: 9.6s
RAV4: 8.8s
CR-V: 8.7s

Remember that the 2010 CR-V got an engine upgrade.

This 1487 guys takes this stuff way too seriously.

Argue about cars with each other all you want, but please stop with the name-calling. -- Donna

I agree with tmathes:

I personally find the Terrain ugly, but like the Equinox.

I can state that having owned GM products for the last 24 years, I am pretty much pro-GM.

I don't give much credit to IL trying to get good mileage with the Terrain, I don't think they know how to drive to get good mileage.

As stated before, all you critics who take as gospel the fact that the Terrain has never got near the EPA number with IL, you forget that tmathes has gotten it with his Equinox. Again, that just makes me sure the IL drivers don't know how to drive to get good mileage.

I know for a fact that driving style matters, as does location. Previously, my work had for our use Chevy Impalas, all with the 3.5 and 4 speed autos. All identical with the same options. Some people averaged 20mpg, others 24 mpg. Why driving location and style.

We all worked in and around San Diego County, and had many trips to the Imperial Valley. Those that averaged 20 mpg also got worse mileage on the highway than did those who averaged 24 mpg. Why, driving style!!!

aurakr, it turns out we actually do know how to drive for good fuel economy. Arguably better than any other media outlet, if this is any indication:
http://blogs.edmunds.com/strategies/2008/10/audi-mileage-marathon-day-3-better-diesel-fuel-economy-through-route-planning.html

In a nutshell, during a 3-day 950-mile fuel economy smackdown, we beat out every other competitor on both fuel economy and average speed, on each day and overall.

Back to your regularly scheduled bickering.

-J Kavanagh, Engineering Editor

"Ever notice they dont touch on the sales figures? There's a reason for that- discussin the success of the car would expose the fallacy in their thinking and prove that they have no idea what people shopping for that type of car want."

Why would they talk about sales? What does that have to do with how a car tests? You are a mile away from making any sense at all.

"Not so with the Terrain so your inference that sales dont indicate people like the vehicle is absurd and fails to hold water."

I'd like to know where it is selling well. I see very few on the road, probably 5 times as many Souls as Terrains and the Soul is a small player sold by a small car maker.

Perhaps they are being bought in areas when people just buy GM automatically because their daddy did and his daddy before him. Can't see many buying one on it's limited virtues and awkward appearance.

Just too much competition that is better.

@bodyblue - I'm glad you find that much HP sufficient. Living with a 8-9 second 0-60 car may be fine for most people. To each his own. Anything over 7 and I feel like the car is excessively slow.

if i were in the market for this type of vehicle i would go straight for the rav4 sport v6 with awd. That vehicle can be had for 27k and is faster than all competition and has gas mileage almost as good as 4 cylinder models. I had an 07 4 cylinder of the same model and wished i went for the v6. I know the terrain has all those extra features but they are fluff.

It is hard to keep a thread going when you have 3 or 4 people bashing each other.

Glad I was late to this post.

The Terrain looks fine. All cars look fine to me. Some look better than others.

"I know for a fact that driving style matters, as does location."

Of course location and driving style matter. So why do almost all the other long term cars hit within 1-2 MPG of their combined EPA averages except the Terrain? Same editors driving all the other cars too. Some 20+ of them have now driven the Terrain over 20,000 miles all over the western United States. Several have driven it deliberately to achieve maximum fuel efficiency on highway trips and posted their results, plus the Terrain was the ONLY outlier in the Fuel Sipper Smackdown tests. It substantially failed to achieve its highway number whereas every other car Edmunds has ever tested in this loop as actually exceeded their EPA number.

On the whole fuel economy thing...I think manufacturers have just figured out how to beat the new methodology. It's not just GM, but also Ford's Ecoboost motors, and Hyundais, too, which don't quite hit the mark. Toyotas and Hondas seem more reliable about hitting their advertised mileage.

Edmunds, can we get a little help here? Maybe a test across brands? Just sayin'. Sounds like a great feature to me.

"GM haters think its one of the ugliest vehicles on the road- no shock there. Show me what regular people think."

I'm not a GM hater. And I might be regular. I don't like the way the Terrain looks. It looks like a toy. Like a station wagon pretending to be an SUV. Like someone cut off a real SUV at the knees. And the reason why the overwrought boxy design of the 4runner works a little bit better than here is that it actually has some clearance between it and the ground.

The Terrain is a fine vehicle. But as far as exterior styling goes, I'd rather be seen in a RAV4.

Or an Equinox. Or an Escape. Or a Tucson. Or a Sportage. Or a Tiguan. Or a Rogue. Or a Patriot.

jkavanagh:

Then I guess you aren't as good as tmathes :)

I guess you will have to learn from him or her :)

I read your attachment: Works great with a diesel engine, but have you tried different approaches with the Terrain? Higher initial speeds at bottom of hills, cruise to top of hill? It is really hard for most drivers to not downshift pulling the hill. Your speed may range from 75 or higher to 55-60 at the top. Having a 6 speed auto for nearly 4 years now, I know that at the beginning of a trip, the tranny is usually stubborn about downshifting, then becomes much more agreeable. Use that to your advantage, and stay in top gear even if you lose 10 mph on the hill.

Bimmerjay:

I can only state that other Terrrain and Equinox owners have hit the EPA averages. I don't know why this particular one does not. Has any of the editors contacted the owners like tmathes to find out why IL is not? I doubt it, but tmathes has pretty much explained in detail under what circumstances he or she has hit the average.

Again remember, I still think the Terrain is seriously ugly. I would go with the Equinox.

I finally got to ride in a RAV4 the other day. It was a 4 cylinder. Seemed peppy, but loud. I was surprised at how cheap it seemed on the inside.

Its kinda funny how this vehicle elicits so much opinion and conversation good and bad. Another win for GM? Sales numbers say so. As for the looks, I feel it looks better in person than in photos. Highly subjective category for certain, but since this is one of GM's sales bright spots, most must think it looks ok.

Just a comment: Its not hard to see why the MPG numbers aren't being met by IL. Every editor that drives it talks about how they rev the crap out of it to get more power. I'm no rocket scientist, but aren't 4 cylinders primary mission fuel economy and not drag racing? If you wanted the "powerful" version you should have gotten the V6. If they would drive it as a 4 cylinder SUV is intended to be driven, I'm sure the MPG number could be hit. Instead, each individual editor hops in, floors it, and repeats the same mantra about not reaching the EPA numbers.

As a previous Saab owner (just like GM), I would like to see them use more turbo 4 cylinders to balance out the performance/fuel economy equation. That 2.0 liter turbo they have in the stable could be a welcome addition to the line up. It wouldn't be a track star, but it would provide a little more "GO" for the fuel misers out there.

aurakr,

Why would you assume that tmathes' numbers (for an Equinox) are more valid than Edmunds'? Edmunds is a professional organization with specific fueling, measuring and recording protocols to arrive at their numbers. tmathes (no offense intended) is an anonymous poster on a website. Why would his/her information be any more valid?

Bimmerjay:

Having read IL for quite some time, you can tend to see who are the trolls, and who are being honest when they respond. He or she has been very even handed in their responses.

Persons like that, and you have been that way too, I tend to believe when they talk about their vehicles.

Edmunds is an organization. They do have specific fueling, measuring and recording protocols.

However, they admit how they drive. One can extrapolate from their blogs that although they do their fueling and data in the same manner, the driving styles are a different story.

When one says I tried to drive it for fuel economy, they must provide much better in depth explanation as to where, what time, speed, elevation, temperature, traffic, etc.

Has the editor spent enough time in the vehicle to actually learn when it gets its best mileage?

Has the editor driven the vehicle in the city, suburb, highway, and interstate? It usually takes quite a while driving one vehicle to really know it, both good and bad. That way you know when something isn't quite right.

Driving as many vehicles as IL does, I would say that they do not.

@aurakr & jkavanagh:

I'll be the first to admit the 32mpg for freeway in my wife's 'Nox isn't that easy to achieve. The vehicle seems really twitchy to the cruise speed and whether you do/don't use the ECO mode. Drive it much over 67mph and the fuel mileage does go down, fast. Typically on a freeway trip I set it at 70-75mph, never could get better than 27-29mpg. I tried it recently with the c/c set to 65-ish (not above 67mph), put the vehicle in ECO mode, I've got 32mpg. That was on a 260 mile trip. Not the computer's calculation (that stupid thing is always 1-3mpg too happy), but by via the trip odo/fuel used. I've not had a car that is so twitchy to mpg rolloff at high speeds. And I cannot best the highway mpg unlike other cars I've owned, but I've also never owned an SUV/crossover before. To date it's been sedans or wagons.

In normal daily, round-town driving, my wife routinely gets 22-24mpg. During the summer with AC on most of the time it's 22mpg. With the recent cold spell here in North Carolina it's more like 21-22mpg. Then again my Mazda3, which normally get 26mpg in daily driving dropped to 23mpg with the cold. Considering the weight of the Equinox (and my wife's rather conservative driving style), we're getting pretty decent fuel mileage. I'll also be the first to admit it could loose a few lbs. but I guess that girth also makes the car feel solid and it's darned quiet. Sure wish I could steal some of that quiet and quell the excessive racket in my Mazda3.

And for the record, considering the Nox is my wife's vehicle and I'm named Tom that makes me a guy. :-)

tmathes:

Tom, thanks for the info. I was pretty sure you were a guy, but I wanted to be safe.

I think that with the Equinox, GM has gone as far as you can go with a small engine in a large vehicle. I wonder as well with the Cruze. I would love to see the 2.0 turbo(Cobalt) in the Cruze.

My wife drives our 07 Aura XR most of the time. I get stuck with the 2000 Venture LT, because I have a work vehicle. We have thought about the Equinox as a replacement for the van, but with our daughter on her own, and just our teenage son in the house, we are not sure. I just know that if we don't replace the van with something that can haul and only have sedans, something will break and we will need the utility of the van. On the other hand, the Venture is starting to show its age. It is developing character, as my dad would say.

As before, I think the Terrain is ugly. I do like the looks of the Equinox. I am not sold on the V6, just because I prefer the 3.6 over the 3.0. I really like the 3.6. It is not the most fuel efficient, especially with the wife driving :), but I have managed to get over 30 mpg on some tankfuls in the Aura. I am interested in seeing how IL does when and if they get the Regal Turbo. I have an idea as to how that will go, but I am curious :)

GMI has one. I love the looks of the Regal, after all it was to be Aura's replacement. I am curious to see if the 2.0 Turbo(225 hp) does well. So far it appears mixed from what I have heard.

I agree recent GM offerings seem to be heavy, but they do well on the new crash ratings.

My long winded opinion!

I am priveledged to own both a 2007 Camry SE V6 (wife's) and a 2007 Saturn Aura XR V6 (mine), and I can say, without a doubt that in most driving situations her car will get 2-3 mpg better than mine. How much sleep have I lost over this? None, O, ZIP! Both cars have 18' wheels (she has optional TRD wheels), and are fully loaded with power accessories and sunroofs. Now, If I drive my car in the 65-70 mph range (which sucks!) I can equal/better the 27 mpg highway figure (90% highway). I've done that 2x's. When I up my progress to a more real world 75-80 mph, my mileage drops to 23-24 mpg. The same driving in my wife's car usually nets 26-28 mpg @ 75-80 mph. I travel routinely between Sacramento and the Bay Area (at least one trip a week), approx 75 miles each way. I occassionaly switch between the two cars, but the Saturn is my regular buggy, and I always drive the same way; brisk but with respect for fellow drivers. I often wonder what type of MPG all these Prius owners clogging up the left lane at 70 mph are getting, and why in the helll won't they get to the right? But I digress (& why do they want to race when I pull over to pass them on the right? Insane).

The area where the Camry is much, is in city driving. Around town the Saturn can dive down to as low as 15-16 mpg, but I have never gotten less than 18-19 mpg in her car. I believe this is a result of pulling an extra 200lbs away from a stop light over and over again until it gets up to speed. Big whoop. The Saturn is tighter, quieter and rattles less which I enjoy way more.

SO, I continue to believe that IL isn't driving for MPG. They are perhaps driving in the same vain as I do, and probably with fewer highway trips than I have. It is obvious to me that they are often foot to floor, which is an attempt to squeeez lower acceleration times out of a car designed to be driven unaggressively (is that a word?), with 0-60 times not being the primary factor. You may not all be believers, but it is possible.

Whew!

itbeatswalkin:

Hello fellow 07 Aura XR owner. I managed to get over 30 mpg on a trip back to my high school reunion. I left San Diego to Yuma, to Phoenix, to Globe to Pinetop, Arizona. I got that mileage in 110 degree weather, why, the camera lights on the highway. Made damn sure with California plates I was doing the speed limit. I set the temperature in the car to 73 and just enjoyed XM radio. I also got over 30 mpg in the mountains, but since I knew the route, I knew where to hit it and where to behave.

On most trips from San Diego to Las Vegas and back, we have averaged 27-28 mpg. I usually run in the 75-80 range, but don't push it. If traffic allows, 80+, but if not, I will cruise contentedly at 70. As stated, the 3.6 is not the most fuel efficient, but it is not bad.

I enjoy exercising the 3.6 when I get the chance, as in the car needs gas, can you fill it up? Off to Costco I go :)

I have not driven a Camry, but I hear it does get really good mileage with the V6.

As to the IL drivers, I have yet to ever have to floor any of my cars when pulling the hills. The Aura XR obviously doesn't require it and neither does the Venture. I have driven to Las Vegas in our 86 Chevy Nova with a 5 speed and our 93 Saturn SL2. No flooring in either one, but you did have to drop the Nova into 4th on the big hills. Still pulled it at 60-65, but no foot to the floor. With the SL2, the best way was to get a running start, around 80 mph, then normally it would pull the hill without downshifting. Rpm was the big thing, anything over 2800 rpm, usually ok. If you dropped below that, then downshifting would occur. But again no foot to the floor stuff.

I have a friend who has an 08 or 09 Honda Pilot. Going home to San Diego from Los Angeles, he was turning 4000- 5000 rpm at 80 mph on some hills on the 73. I could not believe how hard he worked that engine. He must want to be an IL driver :)

From the photos, I didn't like the terrain, but in person I honestly think it looks better than the equinox. I suppose I am a jeep guy though, so straight edges and a visible suspension are both fine by me.

I think we should all agree that calling the Equinox the 'Nox is just terrible. Its almost as bad, or maybe equally as bad, as those people who were pushing to call the Malibu the 'Bu back in 2008 when it was new.

"Of course he knows that none of those tests were likely mileage-focused, but he couldn't admit an (obvious) flaw in a GM vehicle if his life depended on it. Clearly IL has deliberately tried unsuccessfully multiple times to attain the highway figure, and the combined figure over 20,000 miles is well-short. So logically a valid counter-argument would be to state that [insert completely random vehicle here] got [insert unremarkable mpg figure here] in another publication in another test under completely unknown test conditions. Why concede the point when an apples-to-refrigerators comparison can be thrown out there?"

Bimmerjay:

I have told you numerous times that I keep it objective. I prove you wrong repeatedly and then you come back with some nonsense about me not wanting to acknowledge a flaw in a GM vehicle. I have asked you REPEATEDLY to explain how GM alone was able to game the EPA test. You dont respond. I've asked you explain why the other models I mention have fallen far off their EPA combined numbers- you respond by saying no testing counts aside from IL's LT fleet testing. I pointed out that numerous models have wildly optimistic ratings under the EPA current system and you respond by saying every other vehicle is close, just not the Terrain. I pointed out that owners have noted getting 32mpg under ideal conditions and you respond by saying we can't trust owners to tell the truth about their own vehicles. I already stated that MT said they drove over 2000 highway miles in a Sonata and got 30mpg which is about 12% off the EPA highway rating. Have you explained that? You have not.

You are on a mission to prove that the Terrain is fake EPA ratings and that GM has somehow figured out a way to sneak in a phony rating and all of your assertions are based on ONE source- the IL fleet. I have pointed out numerous times that we have no idea how ANY of these vehicles are driven. IL doesn't provide info on city vs highway miles and its ridiculous to presume that every single car in the fleet is driven in the exact same way with the exact same balance of city/suburban/hwy driving. All we get is data on best, worst and average mileage on a monthly basis. To my knowledge you have never driven a Terrrain, nor do you know anyone who owns one but you keep posting with certainty that it is impossible to get 32mpg in this vehicle- because IL told you so. My repudiation of your statements has nothing to do with not admitting the Terrain is flawed, it has evertyhing to do with your refusal to accept that SOME people have gotten 32mpg. I have said from the beginning that I dont think its possible unless you are going at a modest pace on flat highway- I've never claimed the AVERAGE person would achieve 32mpg nor do I think the EPA test is as accurate as it could be considering the way people drive in 2010.

"I am sure a lot of those 1000 miles involve stuff that the EPA would never do, like running the engine near redline to see how smooth it is, testing passing responses and so on. That must be why those short-term mpg numbers almost NEVER hit the EPA combined figure. It's news when they do!! You may not be an enthusiast, but you read a lot of car reviews. You shold know this."

READ THE COMPARISON TEST. IL said they were very surprised at the mileage considering they drove over 1000m. You cannot seriously be arguing that over the course of 1000m they were flooring the accelerator. Stop with the excuses. C&D only got 23mpg from the Optima during testing- this is the same group that got 25-26mpg from an Accord and Sonata in a comparo last year.

How are you going to contradict what IL said when they did the driving? They didnt say anything about testing the car, racing the car, speeding in the car- they said they were surprised that their mixed driving yielded such low numbers- PERIOD. Testing would only add a few miles to the ODO. I'm sure they filled up at least three times during the testing period. If you accumulate 1000m in a week or so that means you were doing a LOT of distance driving.

"If you disagree with any point 1487 makes, you will be labeled a "GM Hater."

No, the GM haters are the people who have a problem with every GM product at all times. There are a few here. If the shoe doesn't fit I wasn't talking to you. Why respond to something that doesn't apply to you? Unless it does apply of course.

"Why the Terrain is so far off is anyone's guess, but when you make such a big deal about best-in-class fuel economy but then the real-world performance can't back it up, that's a problem."

I'll ask you a simple question- doubt you will answer. Are Tmathes and other owners who have seen 32mpg on the highway liars or not? Simple question that even you should be able to answer. I asked your best friend the same question and he didn't really answer- he just said you can't believe anything owners say on the internet because they are likely exaggerating to defend their personal vehicle.

"In a nutshell, during a 3-day 950-mile fuel economy smackdown, we beat out every other competitor on both fuel economy and average speed, on each day and overall.

Back to your regularly scheduled bickering."

That has no relevance to his point and you know it. YOu people are so thin skinned. He is talking about day to day driving. Bottom line is you all do not drive in a way that would ever yield a chance of getting close to EPA numbers in the Terrain- period. I have yet to have on IL staffer or Terrain hater explain how ANYONE anywhere has EVER gotten 32mpg in a Terrain or Equinox if you all are saying its impossible. The supposed proof that its impossible is the mileage smack down which involved a lot of things but didnt involve driving on a flat highway at 60-65mph for 20miles or so and reporting a mileage reading. Thats what I want to see- if the Terrain cant get 32mpg under those conditions than perhaps Bimmerjay and the TErrain lynch mob will be on to something.

"I'd like to know where it is selling well. I see very few on the road, probably 5 times as many Souls as Terrains and the Soul is a small player sold by a small car maker.

Perhaps they are being bought in areas when people just buy GM automatically because their daddy did and his daddy before him. Can't see many buying one on it's limited virtues and awkward appearance."

More ignorance. Nothing wrong with not knowing, but dont try to correct others or speak authoritatively if you don't know anything. Terrain and Equinox have been capacity constrained from the start. They made changes at CAMI plant and added capacity at Oshawa to build more product. Once They could build more Equinox's at Oshawa they increased Terrain production- both models had their best month ever. GMC is selling 5k a month which is more than CX-7, Tiguan and Tuscon. There have been virtually no incentives on the Terrain for 18 months and I see them all the time in Philly which is hardly a midwestern town with Big 3 loyalties. All the popular import CUVs are well represented here but I still see Terrains. Again, YOU dont like it but its ludicrous to suggest that no other intelligent, savvy buyer would like the vehicle. Do you realize how ridiculous you sound? Now you are saying because you dont see them (and I have no idea where you live) they dont sell. If I lived on a ranch in Wyoming I could probably say I dont see many Terrains (or anything else) but that wouldn't prove they arent selling.

" So why do almost all the other long term cars hit within 1-2 MPG of their combined EPA averages except the Terrain? Same editors driving all the other cars too. Some 20+ of them have now driven the Terrain over 20,000 miles all over the western United States. Several have driven it deliberately to achieve maximum fuel efficiency on highway trips and posted their results, plus the Terrain was the ONLY outlier in the Fuel Sipper Smackdown tests. It substantially failed to achieve its highway number whereas every other car Edmunds has ever tested in this loop as actually exceeded their EPA number."

When will you wake up? We do not know how the LT vehicles are driven. Stop saying "all the other vehicles came close to EPA mileage and they are driven the same way". You dont know that. We don't know where or how ANY of the vehicles are driven. My guess would be the models that have been on the highway more are closer to EPA combined mileage while the models that have spent a lot of time in the city/burbs are farther from EPA combined. And stop talking about the fuel sipper smackdown. The question here is whether or not the TErrain can EVERY hit 32mpg- you are saying no. The fact that under certain conditions some other models (several hybrids) exceeded EPA mileage under certain conditions but the Terrain did not is irrelevant here. We dont know how the test loop they chose benefitted hybrids or diesels vs a gas only vehicle and since no normal owner would ever drive in that manner the results are meaningless in the real world. All that matters is can the Terrain hit 32mpg under ideal conditions. Owners seem to say yes, non owners and those who believe IL drivers perfectly model the average fuel efficiency minded driver say no.

"Has any of the editors contacted the owners like tmathes to find out why IL is not? I doubt it, but tmathes has pretty much explained in detail under what circumstances he or she has hit the average."

Thank you. At no point in time has IL actually mimmicked the driving style and conditions mentioned to hit 32mpg. The closest they came was on trip where they averaged about 30 by going about 65mph for part of the trip.

" If you wanted the "powerful" version you should have gotten the V6. If they would drive it as a 4 cylinder SUV is intended to be driven, I'm sure the MPG number could be hit. Instead, each individual editor hops in, floors it, and repeats the same mantra about not reaching the EPA numbers."

Thank you! That's what I've been saying. They floor it, they shift manually and do all sort of things to make it "feel" fast and then complain that mileage sucks. Its a slow CUV- always has been.

"Why would you assume that tmathes' numbers (for an Equinox) are more valid than Edmunds'? Edmunds is a professional organization with specific fueling, measuring and recording protocols to arrive at their numbers. tmathes (no offense intended) is an anonymous poster on a website. Why would his/her information be any more valid?"

That is the dumbest thing I've read on here today. Are you saying an average owner cannot put fuel in a do a basic calculation to arrive at an mpg figure? IL editors are THAT much smarter than tmathes? Seriously dude? What specific measuring protocol does IL use that we cannot repeat at home? Pumping in gas and then dividing mileage accumulated by gas put into the tank is a highly technical operation in your book? Wow, I knew you were off base man, but its worse than I thought. You really do treat everything IL says as gospel. Tmathes was VERY detailed about the mileage he has observed in his vehicle and he made it clear that you have to be DELIBERATE and conservative to get 30mpg or more in the Nox. Do you honestly believe that IL drives like that in the Terrain? He said if you arent careful you will fall below EPA hwy figures quite easily- if IL is driving like a normal owner who isnt concerned about FE but more concerned about keeping up with traffic and passing slow moving vehicles it should be no shock that they cant get 32mpg. Why is this hard for you to understand?

I'm gonna stick my neck out there and say... I'm afraid to express my totally biased and personal opinion on GM vehicles because I'm going to be told I'm wrong to not like said GM vehicle because of wheel size, airbags, sales numbers, other tests, hard drives, etc.

It's really getting out of hand. People can't say something as simple as "I think the Terrain is ugly" because "some people" will go on the defense (or offense?) with "well it sells great and competitor vehicle Y is uglier".

aurakr/beatswalkin:

You guys are making me nostalgiac for the Aura. I do miss that 3.6L at times, but mileage wasnt the car's strong suit. As proof that conditions and driving style matter I submit that I routinely got 13-14mpg in the Aura in the city. Why? Conditions, lots of intersections and constant stopping. Its rated at 17 city but you have to be in the burbs to even get close to that. On the hwy 26 wasnt easy to achieve if you had traffic to deal with or wanted to cruise at 75 or so. The best hwy mileage I ever got was about 28-29 and that was going 60-65 with no AC compressor running. IN real world highway driving I would get about 25mpg.

Anyone who drives ANY of these LT vehicles in my conditions would be getting LESS than the EPA city number on average. To see that data and then conclude "its impossible to get EPA ratings" would be craziness. Driving style and environment are key. By the same token if you drive on I-95 between Philly and DC you arent likely to get EPA highway figures due to traffic volume and poor traffic flow plus the two traffic jams you will encounter along the way. That's not a vehicle problem, its a conditions problem.

"It's really getting out of hand. People can't say something as simple as "I think the Terrain is ugly" because "some people" will go on the defense (or offense?) with "well it sells great and competitor vehicle Y is uglier"."

Um no. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. The real problem is that numerous people attacked me for saying the following "crazy" statement: Based on sales results I think there are many folks who like the styling of the Terrain. That's ALL that I said and I got jumped on by folks who told me that there is 100% universal agreement that this is the ugliest GM vehicle since Aztek and no sane person would find it attractive.

Get the facts straight. People who arent exposed to different opinions get irate when they hear that there are people out there who dont agree with their assessment of things- such as styling. Here on IL 90% of folks seem to think the TErrain is ugly and they break out the pitchforks if you say otherwise. If you spent as much time catching up on what was written as you did trying to be a smart aleck you would note that the folks on the attack are the ones who insist that only a biased pro GM fanboy could say the Terrain isnt ugly because the Peanut Gallery has said that we all agree it is ugly. I mentioned sales because I wanted to point out that thousands of folks take one of these home every month so COMMON SENSE would suggest there are people drawn to the styling.

wow. just wow. rare form today.

"Based on sales results I think there are many folks who like the styling of the Terrain."

And your right. There are people who like the styling of the Terrain, and have spent the money to get behind the wheel of one as well.

There were people who actually liked the Aztek as well and brought them home.

Personally I do don't like the Terrain, so I won't be buying one. To me it appears that they're trying too hard to push a "Macho" image across on a vehicle that will never see anything other than a ding from the grocery store parking lot. Almost seems like GMC is trying to establish a "look" (IE: the Jeep "look") which really just looks awkward.

As far as the Sonata is concerned, I had one for 3 weeks as my company car and put on over 2900 miles. I averaged 30 MPG with an average speed of 69 MPH, with the car in "ECO" mode.

"There were people who actually liked the Aztek as well and brought them home."

aztek was a sales flop and lasted about 3 years. Terrain has exceeded sales goals and outsold its semi-predecessor the Torrent by a nice margin. Big difference. There was nearly universal agreement that the Aztek wasnt attractive and I am one of those people in agreement on that.

your Sonata results line up with MT's results.

Is the EPA rating for the Theta twins fake? No, not in my experience. Is it optimistic? Absolutely. City ratings aren't that optimistic, you can achieve them with a modicum of reasonableness (aka, don't floor on the throttle all the time). The vehicle is not peppy at all, so if you get the 4 cyl. get used to it and drive it appropriately. If you want snappy acceleration you better be prepared to flog the engine. And expect MPG to plunge.

Freeway driving though won't net you 32mpg if you're used to putting the vehicle in cruise at 70-75mph. Set it to 65 and activate the ECO button and you should get 32mpg, at least it has in my experience. I don't consider that 'cheating' but it's not a slam dunk to match/best the EPA ratings. Some may see that as "gaming" based on previous experience. I was disappointed at first I could not match the EPA ratings until some experimentation revealed that speed does matter with this vehicle.

Getting 30+mpg on the freeway with such a porky CUV is still pretty impressive in my book. GM initially claimed the Equinox would get 30mpg on the freeway when it was announced in their unveiling to the public. As I understand it even the GM engineers were (pleasantly) surprised at the EPA rating when it was finally certified. So, anything over 30 is gravy to me.

I have to wonder if the EPA did use the ECO mode during tests; that does seem to matter in my experience even on the freeway. Many cars have similar settings and I never have seen on the EPA web site if they do use that setting while doing mpg tests. In freeway driving the ECO mode is pretty much imperceptible. City mode, that's another matter. It is annoying, especially when idling. It's never used in the city with us.

tmathes:

Thank you, that was my point. The IL drivers do not drive any car long enough to learn its good and bad points, in the same way some owners will.

It is amazing how much torque improves the driveability of a car. The Equinox/Terrain are much quicker than our 2000 Venture. But I would venture(HAHA) to say, the Venture probably feels quicker off the line.

itbeatswalkin/1487:

My wife just went to Vegas from San Diego with her sister. She got about 25 mpg on her trip.
She called me from the car phone, while gassing up and asked if it would hurt the car to have been going about 30 over the speed limit. She explained she didn't realize how fast she was going until she looked at the speedometer. I told her, no she didn't hurt the car, but to be careful. I just love the gearing, 2100 rpm at 80.

yes, in the Aura you can cruise at 80+ without even knowing it. The car was very quiet, even at 80mph so it was hard to gauge speed. Before I got rid of it my brother got up to 100 on I95 since it was the next to last day of ownership.

tmathes:

I dont think the current EPA highway figures are necessarily "easy" to exceed or even meet on any car if you drive like most Americans do. If most of us have open highway we are going to do 75mph+ all day. The main reason I dont drive that fast if I'm on the highway in the NE part of the country is because you cant due to congestion. My guess is that with most cars today you need to be in the 65-70mph range to achieve EPA hwy figures.

"Um no. Everyone is entitled to an opinion"

BS...as long as they agree with you, you mean. WOW you really had the guts to say that?

"Here on IL 90% of folks seem to think the TErrain is ugly and they break out the pitchforks if you say otherwise"

A complete and total lie. They just react that way to YOU! You are such a nasty human being that folks cant help but get angry when posting with you.

"I have told you numerous times that I keep it objective"

You actually wrote that with a straight face? This is classic YOU. "I keep it objective....I have decided that my conclusions about cars are the only ones and since I am so objective, you on the other hand must be stupid and un reasonable to dis agree with me."

You really blow me away! I bow before the gigantic ego!

"I have asked you REPEATEDLY to explain how GM alone was able to game the EPA test. You dont respond."

I have, you just choose to ignore it. I'm not going to respond to all of your crazy rants and accusations, it's not worth it. No one else is reading them so why would I bother?

"wow. just wow. rare form today."

He's having a temper tantrum today since the Regal CXL road test posted and it was largely negative.

"I'm gonna stick my neck out there and say... I'm afraid to express my totally biased and personal opinion on GM vehicles because I'm going to be told I'm wrong to not like said GM vehicle because of wheel size, airbags, sales numbers, other tests, hard drives, etc."

You shouldn't be. Everyone should be free to express their opinion and just ignore 1487, who cares what he says. Everybody here is well-aware of his MO.

1487 says:
"I dont think the current EPA highway figures are necessarily "easy" to exceed or even meet on any car if you drive like most Americans do. If most of us have open highway we are going to do 75mph+ all day. The main reason I dont drive that fast if I'm on the highway in the NE part of the country is because you cant due to congestion. My guess is that with most cars today you need to be in the 65-70mph range to achieve EPA hwy figures."

I think the EPA highway thing is skewered. When the EPA says "highway figures" what EXACTLY are referring to? Do they mean an average speed over a certain distance or time? Do they mean over the life of the vehicle? Do they mean at a certain speed (and if they are referring to a certain speed which speed exactly-it BETTER not be 55 MPH....)

@1487

I'm not trying to engaged in some manufacturer vs. manufacturer battle. I'm just expressing my experiences being as I own 2 vehicles that are the same age with the same basic mission. I could sit here and nit pick the pluses and minuses of each car, but thats fruitless. Suffice it to say, the GM products may take more concious effort to achieve the EPA numbers than some other vehicles. To many out there, that is a major shortcoming. But they are overlooking the overall goodness of the products presented. Hey, IL didn't do the Aura too many favors, but if you look back on their posts, they just wanted to talk about what the car isn't, not what it is.

@aurakr
I too share your fond appreciation of the GM 3.6 in this vehicle. Its responsive, relatively efficient and an awesome performing engine. I basically have a front wheel drive CTS. The 3.0 offered in the Terrrain/Equinox twins is a slightly smaller version of this engine based on the same architecture. I would have no qualms with getting any vehicle with this engine. If Buick would add it to the Regal GS as opposed to an uprated version of the 2.0 liter turbo I'd be at their door today!
For the record, Toyota's 3.5 liter V6 is a GEM of a motor also. It is honestly the one area where I think the Camry has a small advantage over my Aura. It is a 10/10 where I would grant the Aura a 9/10. It is a bit smoother, quieter, and efficient, but the car as a whole isn't as enjoyable to drive. Toyota is also a great engine producer! Perhaps overlooked because their products are a little bland.

I've believe we are living in a golden age of very, very good car manufacturing. You can't put out crappy product anymore. Comfort, performance, handling, and reliability have to be at least within eyesight of your competition or you're done for. That is why I can no longer justify buying European vehicles. The value quotient isn't there any more. At one time their materials to craftmanship quotient was way ahead of domestic/Japanese cars. Now, I don't feel they justify the expense of ownership/purchase.

"I have, you just choose to ignore it. I'm not going to respond to all of your crazy rants and accusations, it's not worth it. No one else is reading them so why would I bother?"

Typical cop out from you. Same story every time. You keep talking about this conspiracy but cannot explain how GM alone is able to game the test. You also have an excuse for every other model I've pointed out that has failed to live up to EPA combined numbers. Nothing crazy here, no ranting, no wild accusations. You wont respond because you have no palatable response. You are on a crusade against ONE vehicle and you have chosen to ignore any evidence that there is a growing trend at work here. Everytime you are exposed you get on this high road nonsense and talk about how you chose not to respond or how you dont read my posts. Actually ,you read all my posts- its evident in the # of times you respond.

"He's having a temper tantrum today since the Regal CXL road test posted and it was largely negative."

Regal review is irrelevant to the fact that your Terrain conspiracy theories don't hold water. And you know it. Your attempts to be patronizing don't do anything to answer the questions I've posed to you. Bottom line is that you believe IL's testing of the Terrain is absolute proof that it cannot meet EPA figures and testing done by owners or other publications of this vehicle (or others) doesn't count for anything. You also claimed that individual owners aren't savvy enough to report their mileage in a reliable and accurate fasion so we should only listen to what IL reports. Nonsense.

"You shouldn't be. Everyone should be free to express their opinion and just ignore 1487, who cares what he says. Everybody here is well-aware of his MO."

Another cop out. Just answer the questions posed. When you have proven yourself incapable of proving your points repeatedly it would make sense to scream "ignore him!" over and over. I would be saying the same thing if I were you. Yes, ignore me because otherwise someone might just discover that Bimmerjay is off target almost every time he posts.

"I think the EPA highway thing is skewered. When the EPA says "highway figures" what EXACTLY are referring to? Do they mean an average speed over a certain distance or time? Do they mean over the life of the vehicle? Do they mean at a certain speed (and if they are referring to a certain speed which speed exactly-it BETTER not be 55 MPH....)"

Check out the link below, it shows the test protocol the cars are run through to arrive at the ratings. The highway test is pretty dynamic, involving speeds up to 80 mph and several decel/accel runs. When Mike Magrath locked the cruise at 65 mph, A/C off (EPA test includes A/C use) on a trip down I-5, he should have actually exceeded the EPA highway rating but he couldn't.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fe_test_schedules.shtml