GM to Introduce 2010 GMC Terrain at New York Show
05 April 2009
GM will introduce its new 2010 GMC Terrain at the New York International Auto Show (NYIAS) this week. The five-passenger crossover SUV, which shares the Theta chassis with the Chevrolet Equinox, offers estimated highway fuel economy of 30 mpg (7.8 L/100km) from its 2.4L, four-cylinder Ecotec direct injection engine.
City fuel economy is estimated to be 21 mpg US (11.2 L/100km). Maximum fuel economy is achieved in part with an “ECO” mode activated via a console-mounted button. When engaged, it lowers the torque converter lockup speed to 1,125 rpm to help save fuel on models equipped with the 182 hp (136 kW) 2.4L engine. The four-cylinder models are also equipped with a rack-mounted electric power steering system to further enhance fuel efficiency.
Also available will be a 3.0L DOHC direct injected V-6 engine delivering an estimated 264 horsepower (197 kW). Both engines are mated to six-speed automatic transmissions.
GMC will also introduce a two-mode hybrid version of the Yukon Denali, joining the Yukon and Sierra two-mode hybrids in the GMC lineup.
Six speed transmission with optional early lockup is nice.
Since they claim only 25 MPG Hwy for the V6, I assume/hope 30 mpg for the 182 hp, 2.4L, 4-cyl D inj. engine is valid. If so - that's good.
Is a "rack-mounted electric power steering system" creative writing or did they mean rack-and-pinion?
Posted by: ToppaTom | 05 April 2009 at 08:42 AM
I assume they meant that the motor is on the steering and not running a hydraulic pump. Most power steering may become like this. If makes sense to get the belt off the engine.
Posted by: SJC | 05 April 2009 at 09:14 AM
Ah yes.
All electric (rack mounted) vs. electro-hydraulic vs. belt driven hydraulic.
Posted by: ToppaTom | 05 April 2009 at 12:18 PM
I just got back from Vancouver International auto show. It was pathetic. The most sophisticated vehicle was Caddy Escalade with two-mode hybrid drivetrain and cylinder deactivation V8. Small cars were universally technically outdated junk (drum brakes rear, no multilink suspension rear, freaky 4-speed automatic, steel wheels, etc.). No wonder Americans prefer big vehicles.
Posted by: Andrey Levin | 06 April 2009 at 02:15 AM
Andrey,
If front discs/rear drums provide sufficient stopping power, why does a small car suffer technological junk status in your eyes by not having rear discs? What is a "freaky" automatic? Just curious,
Posted by: Roy Davis | 06 April 2009 at 05:36 AM
GM keeps releasing more gashog SUVs and crossovers, still stuck in the mindset that they can make minor adjustments as they go along, until they are slammed yet again by high oil prices and whine that everybody should be buying a $40k Volt. In 1996, I bought a Saturn station wagon that averaged 33 mpg overall; why are crossovers even considered anymore?
Posted by: Will S | 06 April 2009 at 09:36 AM
SUVs with fuel economy nearly equivalent to mid-size sedans...I am impressed, or perhaps I should be disappointed in the mid-size sedans?
What fuel economy does this drivetrain offer if put into a Malibu?
182hp in a naturally aspirated 2.4L 4 cylinder - just 10 years ago the 3.0L V-6 powered vehicles from nearly every manufacturer were struggling to reach 200hp (1999 Camry V-6 offered 194hp in fed emissions spec).
Posted by: Patrick | 06 April 2009 at 09:42 AM
The Ford Fusion hybrid is a mid-size sedan, and it achieves 40mpg combined. If other mid-size sedans compare poorly, then they should be brought up to the same standard. The struggle for more horsepower is an addiction; I don't see any reason to praise the further enablement of an addiction.
Posted by: Will S | 06 April 2009 at 11:27 AM
Roy Davis,
The fact is that some of best selling car models in US and Canada, namely Honda Civic and Toyota Corolla (in last 5+ years) come with rear drums except for some high end versions (like on Civic).
But those same models sold in Europe and Australia (and likely Japan too) come only with all discs (front and rear).
Civic and Corolla are not small cars, unless compared with trucks.
What do you think is the reason?
Perhaps in North America it's the size that matters the most.
If discs weren't generally considered better, then expensive cars would all be with drums, like in 50s ans 60s.
I personally don't trust ABS systems with rear drums, and would like to see a comparative ABS braking test of the same car model (say Civic) with rear drums and rear discs.
Posted by: MG | 06 April 2009 at 03:38 PM
Roy:
Drum and disk brakes have vastly different heat rejecting/generation properties, drum brakes loose stopping power significantly when drum surfaces worn, and drum brake loose braking power dramatically when mad/grease – even water - makes its way inside. After some time wear and tear lead to misbalance of front/rear braking force distribution (4way ABS helps at emergency braking, but not eliminate these problems). Disk brakes front/rear wear uniformly, are self-cleaning when contaminated, and maintain exactly same braking force curve when are heated from cold (that’s why it is important to have front/rear pads of same material from same company). Additional benefit: it is way easier to modulate precise braking power on disk/disk brakes. All sport and luxury cars, no – every decent car has disks both front and back.
Four speed automatic is simply outdated. Six speed automatic offers better performance and lower fuel consumption simultaneously, and quite dramatically.
For a reference, take a look at Mini Cooper: discs front/rear, 6 speed automatic, etc. It is the only technically sophisticated SMALL car sold in NA.
MG:
From manual of my Nissan NX: stopping distance, full load, fully operational brakes:
Frond disk/rear drum, no ABS – 182 feet
Front disk/rear drum, with ABS – 168 feet
Front/rear disk, with/without ABS – 136-140 feet.
These are ideal numbers. After some wear, disk/disk retain their braking properties, disk/drum worsen, sometime dramatically.
Posted by: Andrey Levin | 06 April 2009 at 11:12 PM
If they could make this an IMA type hybrid, get 30 miles per gallon city and highway, all for around $30k, they might have a winner.
Posted by: SJC | 09 April 2009 at 09:57 AM