Drew Dowdell

Na, the 3.0's torque is great down low.

The point of the GMC is for guys who wanted an H3 but couldn't justify the gasmilage to their wives. It's for guys that drive a 4-Runner, but realize they don't need a BOF 4x4 SUV for their 30 mile each way commute to work, still want an SUV but would never be caught dead in a RAV-4 or CRV. There is no other crossover in this segment that fits that profile other than the Terrain.

Jesus. Off in so many ways. I don't have time to pick it apart right now.

I'm going to move this into the C&G Drives forum

I'm probably good for the 23rd.

I live in PA also. I did test drive a 4-cylinder AWD Equinox prior to getting the 2010 Equinox LTZ V6 tester around Thanksgiving. It was marginally slower than this GMC Terrain 4-cylinder. For my own purposes, AWD is almost a necessity. My driveway is so steep it can double as a ski jump. That said, I really didn't have any difficulty with the Terrain in the snow. It was no better or worse than any other FWD vehicle. So my recommendation is... it depends on your needs.

Welcome back!

Turbo 3.6 that we saw in the SEMA Camaro.

</censored for being too political of a comment>

Buffalo, NY

I'm really in Toronto. I'm staying on Yonge Street in downtown. They are RWD. AWD is optional. This is a RWD model.

They are stock tires with 1,000 miles on it.

coming to the hotel after the 7 hour slog through the slush and then having a beer, I read this question and kept thinking... "Henry Ford, Henry Leland......Henry..... EARL! That's gotta be who Balthazar is talking about! Henry Earl!" Google image the name to make it even funnier.

Just a guess, but I'm thinking the CTS-V coupe will easily outgun an M6 since the sedan can spend all day shaking it's ass in an M5's face.

I just got the power graphs from GM they're in PDF, so I'll have to convert them somehow. No wonder the Terrain feels spry off the line. It gives you 90% of max torque around 1,700rpm and never falls below that for the rest of the rpm range.

Well, I'm comparing it to a Lacrosse sedan. But again, I didn't have any full throttle moments.

It did fine. Use the manual mode to shift it into 2 for take off and you're fine.

Just got back to my hotel where the literature is. It is, in fact, the 3.6. I might have just been being to gentle with it.

And why do they have deep pockets? Because the E-class that is sold here for $50k is sold in the EU with a 2 litre diesel and industrial cloth seats to the cab industry.

Hah! I didn't even bother to look at which engine. I am going to guess that it has the 3.0 because it just doesn't have the urge to run like the Lacrosse 3.6 I just drove had. Then again, I drove the whole way in the snow, so I wasn't in the position to goose it. I got 24mpg on the way up here, but it might not be the best measure since the driving conditions weren't that good.

Visibility is surprisingly good. Better in fact than the Lacrosse I just had. The mirrors are slightly parabolic so you get a wide view that way. Really, it felt a lot like my 2004 CTS in that regard.

If that's all SMK can find to gripe about, Cadillac did a pretty good job.

Two adults, two kids old enough to not need strollers, no problem. Four adults for that long, pushing it but doable if people are careful with their packing. Skiing = no, beach trip = yes.

K, I'll time my trip from Toronto to coincide

When do you get into Detroit?