First was the station wagon, a versatile hauler that drove like a car. Next came the SUV, a more image-conscious version of the station wagon with an extra helping of utility. When the cost of oil swelled, a new breed of SUV emerged, the crossover utility vehicle (CUV).
An SUV on a smaller scale, the CUV promises utility, drivability and maybe a little bit better efficiency. The 2010 GMC Terrain is pretty typical of the breed. It's smaller than a Tahoe or Acadia and features a standard four-cylinder engine that promises more than 30 mpg on the highway. What's not to like?
Why We Bought It
For 2010 the GMC Terrain was all-new and shared its underpinnings with the Chevrolet Equinox. GM had a lot resting on the success of this CUV foundation. Crossovers are the vehicles of the future. Our test of the Terrain would offer a glimpse into GM's approach for coming generations.
Fuel economy was the game here, so we stuck with the standard 2.4-liter, 182-horsepower four-cylinder engine. We ordered a front-wheel-drive Terrain to minimize weight in hopes of getting the 32 mpg on the highway promised by the EPA. The Terrain also featured a well-designed cabin and a vast array of interior amenities, so we were hardly roughing it.
There was another consideration. Back in late 2009 before we introduced the Terrain, it was among Edmunds' most researched vehicles on the site. When the readers spoke, we listened with checkbooks in hand. Our long-term test was under way.
Durability
We expected some weakness in the acceleration department and the 2010 GMC Terrain delivered. Editor in Chief Scott Oldham spoke for many of us when addressing the underpowered inline-4 with, "In the real world this means the Terrain's gas pedal is lying on the carpet much of the time. It also means real-world obstacles like hills and slowpokes in the left lane force you to wring the Ecotec's neck in order to make the climb or the pass. See that hole in traffic? Forget it. By the time you wind this thing up it is closed. For some, the Terrain's little four-banger might be enough, but those folks are members of the A-to-B Club. If you like to drive, trust me, you'll wish you got the V6."
Inside the cabin we found some escape from the engine. Here the compliments racked up. "The ride is very comfortable.... Fold-flat seats made Sunday flea market finds easy to pack up.... The easy-to-use navigation system found a business faster than my phone did.... When the warning light for the gas tank came on, the navigation system offered to list the nearest gas stations." Despite our attempts to destroy it, the interior retained very little evidence of our abuse. Some found the rear seats a bit small. And overly reflective chrome accents seared a retina or two. But overall the Terrain conjured more praise than malaise for its interior presentation.
We took more of a DIY approach to maintaining the 2010 GMC Terrain than other testers. Its first oil and filter change was performed by a dealer. From there we did things ourselves. We sent an oil sample to Blackstone Labs around the 15,000-mile mark for analysis because it was something we hadn't tried before. The results suggested a premature oil change to remove excess, but not dangerous levels of metal deposits. That gave us an excuse to use the Moeller vacuum pump oil extractor conveniently boxed up in the corner of our office. It offered the value of a topside oil change and kept our shirts clean. Call us old fashioned but we're still partial to pulling the drain plug from beneath the car. DIY service saved us cash and dealer trips, though they weren't avoidable altogether. Martin GMC eventually located the correct part and replaced the leaky rear hatch strut, which was completed under warranty. The Terrain remained mechanically intact aside from this minor hiccup.
To accept the 2.4-liter Terrain was to embrace its petroleum frugality. We understood its purpose even if we disagreed in principle. But a pleasant interior and mechanical durability didn't distract us from the 32-mpg elephant under the hood. Next step was to verify the claimed and seemingly unattainable milestone.
Total Body Repair Costs: None
Total Routine Maintenance Costs (over 20 months): $62.91
Additional Maintenance Costs: None
Warranty Repairs: Rear hatch strut replaced
Non-Warranty Repairs: None
Scheduled Dealer Visits: 1 dealer visit and 2 DIY oil changes
Unscheduled Dealer Visits: 1 for rear hatch strut replacement
Days Out of Service: None
Breakdowns Stranding Driver: None
Performance and Fuel Economy
We track tested the 2010 GMC Terrain when new and were unimpressed. The GMC felt particularly labored. Senior Editor Josh Jacquot commented following acceleration tests, "Uneventful acceleration with barely enough power to spin the tires. Technique is almost irrelevant. Best run was with traction control off and very, very little wheelspin."
A second test of the Terrain at test end showed improvement. Acceleration from zero to 60 mph improved three-tenths, to 8.8 seconds (with 1 foot of rollout), as did the quarter-mile of 16.8 seconds at 81.4 mph. The distance required to reach a stop from 60 mph shortened to 119 feet. We also measured more lateral force, 0.78g, around the skid pad during its final test. Slalom speed was the only area that didn't change for the better. Our quickest pass remained 63.4 mph.
But fuel economy was a major factor when ordering our Terrain. Associate Editor Mike Magrath challenged, "32 mpg highway. That's what the EPA says you can mange with the 2010 GMC Terrain. We've never gotten close. Not in our normal tours of duty. Not in the Fuel Sipper Smackdown. Not ever.
"I had to drive to San Francisco anyway. I knew of a gas station less than 500 feet from the highway. I'd fill up, get on the highway as gently as possible, turn off the A/C (it was only 93 degrees), set the cruise to 65 (the speed limit was 75 mph) and do that for as long as I could stand and a distance that would net a reasonable reading.
"I made it 236.9 miles before I decided I was too hot and too tired to keep going 10 mph under the limit. The trip computer read 33 mpg. Average speed was 65.5 mph (I wasn't going to waste any momentum going downhill keeping it at only 65 if gravity was doing the work). Over three and a half hours of my life. No air-conditioning. I must've hit 32 mpg, right? Nope! 29.265. Would I be disappointed in 29 if that was the claim? Absolutely not; that's pretty darn good. But with the EPA saying 32 and the onboard computer reading 33, 29 is a huge disappointment." We never did better, averaging just 21 mpg over 21,000 miles with the GMC.
Best Fuel Economy: 29.3 mpg
Worst Fuel Economy: 15.2 mpg
Average Fuel Economy: 21.3 mpg
Retained Value
We purchased our 2010 GMC Terrain SLT-2 for $31,133 just over a year and a half ago. When it was time to say good-bye, the Terrain had 21,458 miles and some minor wear and tear. At the time, Edmunds' TMV® Calculator estimated its private-party value to be $25,408. This value reflected a remarkably strong 20 percent depreciation.
Before advertising the car we visited Carmax for a price quote. Carmax offered us $25,000 for the Terrain, a value we didn't anticipate. The offer was so good that we sold the car to them on the spot. A couple of weeks afterward we found our Terrain for sale on the Carmax Web site for $27,998. We don't know if it ever resold at that price.
True Market Value at service end: $25,408
What it sold for: $25,000
Depreciation: $6,133 or 20% of original paid price
Final Odometer Reading: 21,458
Summing Up
We bought a four-cylinder, front-wheel-drive 2010 GMC Terrain for two reasons. One, it was a road test of GM's new crossover platform. And two, we were excited to test the CUV that ranked with the EPA among the most fuel-conscious in its class.
After an extended 21,000-mile long-term test the GMC satisfied our utility needs. It did so with a commendable level of comfort and convenience, a good sign of things to come from the brand. Maintenance was simple and with the exception of a warranty hatch-strut replacement, problem-free. Our hang-up with the Terrain was its estimated versus actual fuel economy.
Times are tough and consumers are prioritizing household needs just to keep gasoline in their tanks. The ever-increasing cost of oil weighs on consumers heavily. In times like these, 3 miles per gallon matters. If a CUV promises 32 mpg and delivers 29 mpg, it is especially disappointing. People want more. Would we still recommend the Terrain to family and friends? Yes. We would also advise them not to get caught up in the numbers game. Test-drive before buying and always do your homework.
Edmunds purchased this vehicle for the purposes of evaluation.

Add A Comment »
rsenner96 says:
07:57 AM, 10/25/2011
Here's what's going on with my Terrain. The following is a letter I sent to GMC regarding my highway fuel economy of 22 MPG. GM blamed it on me running the air conditioning. In two weeks I will take it to an independent service center to have them try to determine why the fuel mileage on the highway is so terrible. My attorney will not look at the case unless I do this because the 32 MPG is estimated. It is 33% off, that's a pretty lousy estimate. I will let you know the results in a couple weeks.
To whom it may concern:
During the summer of 2010, my wife and I were in the market to purchase a new vehicle.
We live in a suburb of Denver, Colorado and wanted a vehicle solely for cross country driving not to be used for mountainous driving.
My wife and I did extensive research into both US and foreign made mini SUV's. After completing our research, we decided to purchase an American made 2011 GMC Terrain with the 2.4 liter engine rear wheel drive. Our family has always purchased General Motors products and has always had complete satisfaction.
We purchased the GMC Terrain based upon the advertized 32 highway miles per gallon. On a recent trip to Dallas, Texas we averaged 22.5 highway miles per gallon using the cruise control. This was calculated by both the automobile computer and my own calculations.
After the trip to Texas I contacted the dealer, GO BUICK GMC Park Meadows, Lone Tree, Colorado and expressed my dissatisfaction with the gas mileage. The representative I spoke to in the service department at the dealership blamed the poor gas mileage on everything from altitude, fuel, atmospheric conditions and driving habits. He also informed me that if the check engine light does not come on the engine is running properly. I feel none of these conditions should have affected the gas mileage 10 miles per gallon.
On a more recent trip to Wisconsin, I again received 22.5 miles per gallon on average using cruise control. The atmospheric conditions during this recent trip were excellent, no altitude, mid-grade fuel and no rain or wind. Upon returning to Colorado I took the vehicle to the dealer for an inspection. The service department advised that the vehicle was running properly at 22.5 miles per gallon.
I have communicated with other GMC Terrain owners in Colorado, Texas and Wisconsin who are receiving 28 to 31 miles per gallon. I am not satisfied with the reply to the questions I had regarding the low gas mileage. I feel the engine is not running properly and I should be receiving gas mileage closer to the advertized 32 miles per gallon.
I am looking forward to a reply from you or my dealership on your behalf.
Sincerely,
Richard A, Senner
4656 South Eldridge Street
Morrison, Colorado 80465
rsenner96@comcast.net
(303)908-0356
smilez says:
03:14 PM, 05/11/2011
mk40 -
Late to the discussion here, but I don't know where to begin in saying that your logic is out of left field.
You could not be more of an apologist for the gas mileage and have come up with some very creative if not delusional ways to say that it's 'spot-on' for it's mileage.
mk40 says:
03:56 AM, 05/01/2011
Actually 29.265 means the EPA rating is accurate... here's why:
Multiply that by 1.06 since you loose 6% doing 65 vs. 60mph and you get 31.0209. Add in some hills that are typical in California and you get that number instead of 32 mpg.
In florida where it's flat you would get a little more than 32 mpg at 60mph even w the AC on, which is a fine speed for trip under 3 hours... typical. You would only loose 15 min... 7 min for 1.5 hr trip.. and save 24 cents a gal. on gas or $1.35 over 3 hours. For most people I doubt that's worth it, but at the same time, the 32 mpg is not false advertising. You cannot expect peak hwy mpg at speeds over 60mph, especially in a blockish SUV profile vehicle where wind resistance plays and even larger role. For somewhere in between (in terms of hilliness) you would probably get 32mpg at 60mph. Around a typical beltway with traffic flowing and multiple lanes of traffic pushing the air I'm sure 32 mpg would be acheiveable even at 65 mph, but certainly at 60... besides most trips in a metro area are under 1 hour in length so you're not really saving any time by doing 65 vs 60. Chances are you will be waiting at the red light when you get off the freeway, anyways.
emajor says:
09:17 PM, 04/29/2011
wikiwiki,
As others have brought up here before, it wouldn't be surprising if some vehicles were being deliberately engineered to perform well for the EPA tests. The fuel economy ratings are a definite selling point for people, so as you mentioned they have all the motivation in the world to do it.
If Consumer Reports can't get the advertised mileage out of a car, that would be a red flag to me. From what I remember seeing, many vehicles get well over the EPA highway estimate in Consumer Report mileage tests.
agentorange says:
05:20 PM, 04/29/2011
Are the comments at Edminds now being moderated into oblivion? I made a comment on EPA mileage with respect to this truck and it was up here at about 1PM PDT. Now it is gone. I see others are complaining about disappearing comments on other pages. What's going on?
noobnox says:
02:49 PM, 04/29/2011
This may have already been mentioned (didn't read all the replies) but the Terrain/Equinox share a platform (Theta) while the SRX rides on a premium Theta chassis. I have a 2010 Equinox with the 2.4L and FWD and was able to get nearly 33mpg on a short trip without even trying. Of course this is with 17k on the engine...before it was broken in the best I could do (on the same trip) was 28mpg. I'll take 28-33mpg anyday over the barely 20mpg that my friends get with a 2009 Tahoe..
redgeminipa1 says:
11:39 AM, 04/29/2011
Why is this showing up again 2 months later? Nothing else worthwhile to post?
rlyon says:
11:21 AM, 04/29/2011
So ugly. I can't stand those wheel arches, er, squares..
wikiwiki says:
10:20 AM, 04/29/2011
emajor,
That's an interesting point. All these auto manufacturers (especially GM, Ford, Chrysler) are probably just creating vehicles to get good rating on how the EPA tests them instead of how people will actually drive them. This way they can market a V6 Mustang or Camaro with 300+ HP that gets 30+MPG highway when we ALL know that is a pipe dream and never going to happen in the real world. Consumer Reports I think showed their test numbers in the low to mid 20s for the new V6 muscle cars. I guess it's all about advertising and what you can get away with. That's capitalism for ya.
smilez says:
07:41 AM, 04/29/2011
gmsalesmanager -
I hope for GM's sake you don't really work for them.
But based on your "P.S.", I would say you just troll for them...free of charge.