2010 GMC Terrain at 2009 New York Auto Show

• Competes with: Ford Edge, Dodge Journey, Chevy Equinox
• Looks like: GMC’s smallest SUV has truck envy
• Drivetrain: 182-hp, 2.4-liter four-cylinder or 264-hp, 3.0-liter V-6 both with six-speed automatic; front or all-wheel drive
• Hits dealerships: Late summer 2009

For years car fans have lamented a practice called “rebadging.” A large automaker like GM would take a car from one brand, change a few minor details and sell it with a different name under another brand. Thus, replacing the badge or emblem.

GM has sworn to stop rebadging, yet here is the Terrain, GMC’s version of the recently announced 2010 Chevy Equinox SUV. We wouldn’t call this just a rebadging; it seems GM has changed every piece of sheet metal on the Terrain to make it stand out. And stand out it does.

Most noticeably, the boxy fender flares announce to the world that this is a truck-buyer’s SUV, with 30 mpg on the highway. In case you didn’t notice, it also has a manly grille with lots of chrome.

While we admire the company for changing so much, we’d actually have preferred an identical SUV to the Equinox with a “GMC” logo instead of the Chevy Bowtie.
Both carry the same engine choices, a base four-cylinder and a more powerful V-6.

However, the Terrain does increase cargo volume by 0.2 cubic feet and passenger volume by 0.1 cubic feet. Standard on the Terrain is a rearview camera, 17-inch wheels and an eco-driving mode for the four-cylinder engine to return better mileage.

We’ll find out more about the Terrain and get an up close look at the New York auto show later this week. For now, check out a few more pictures below. 

Comments

the rear end reminds me of the toyota sienna...but other than that, it look good.

I like the Equinox better. I actually like GM and am all for the government aid, until this. The first thing I thought was "AGAIN?"

I thought the new Equinox kind of looked like the current Vue, but since Saturn is going away from GM I let it pass. Now this?

Didn't they get enough Equinox cloning from the Pontiac Torrent?!!

@MSS

This actually is the replacement for the Torrent. Shame.

there is NO REASON for gmc to exist at all. there's not a single brand-specific vehicle in the lineup. if gmc died, people would just buy more chevys...wonder what that would do to the silverado sales numbers when compared to the f150.

on the positive side, at least this vehicle doesn't look nearly identical to its chevy counterpart as opposed to the rest of the gmc lineup.

I fully agree with cody, if they got rid of gmc they would probably gain money becuase they wouldnt have to pay more people and people would buy other CARS and crossovers. GMC is just a silverado with a GMC badge and their work truck same and their suvs same thing just the styling is different on some modles.

Same 'ol same 'ol. Looks like GM is on track to repeat history. This is further proof that they don't listen to the customer. Who wants a re-badged vehicle?

I really thought GM was heading down the track of recovery. Now, I feel as if they are having a relapse.

Roger,
That is the first thing that came into my mind about the rear looking like a Sienna. Overall the car looks pretty decent. Doesn't look like the redesigned Equinox. The interior look okay.

But on the serious side. GMC's services are no longer required. Neither does Saab which filed for Chapter 11, and Hummer's life is at stake if they do not get a buyer in time. Then again, Hummer is not needed either. Then again most of GM should cut.

I like it....2 thumbs up!

Troy S., I agree with you, that rebadging is dumb. I disagree that it is the reason why GM is in the position it is is (Partially). You would think the no one wants a vehicle like this, but that is not true, and the sales support that. The consumer part of this is not GM's problem, it is supporting all the extra dealers and required for these rebaged vehicles that causes GM issues right now (kinda). They really can't afford to just close these brands (dealers, plants, Lawsuits, etc), so they have to sell something there.

I wouldn't buy this, but it looks a totally different from the Equinox so I don't see a problem with it- most people buy on looks anyway.

Every car maker does badge engineering. A VW Passat is the Audi A6. The VW rabbit is the Audi A3. The Toyota Camry is the Lexus ES350. Lincolns are built from Fords. Fords are built from Mazdas and Volvos. Only Mercedes Benz doesn't build its cars from cheaper brands. This is a sharp looking SUV, and I don't really care what engines it shares.

Red, here are some things you should know.

1. Badge engineering is when a manufacturer takes a vehicle and sells it across different brands with little or no changes to it besides the styling and badge it wears.

2. Going from a "regular" car brand to a "luxury" car brand is not badge engineering. Going from a VW Passat to an Audi A6 is not an example of badge engineering in the least. the VW Passat is based upon a stretched version of the Jetta's platform, while the A6 is based on the previous generation A4. Both the Jetta and A4 had independent underpinnings. Both the A6 and Passat use totally different engines as well. The A6 uses a 3.2 L V6, a turbo-super-charged 3.0L V6, a 4.2L V8, and a 5.2L V10. The Passat uses a turbocharged 2.0L I4 and previously to the 2009 model year, a 3.6L V6.

3. The VW Rabbit and A3 are based upon the same platform, but both use totally different drivetrains. The Rabbit uses a 2.5L I5, while the A3 uses the 2.0T engine and a 3.2L V6. the A3 is also available with AWD, unlike the Rabbit.

4. The ES350 is based on the Camry, but only based. The ES350 is wider, longer, and has a slightly more powerful engine that runs on premium.

5. Actually, Mercedes Benz does build cars that are badge engineered, but you wont see them here. The only example that is in production in the US right now is the Dodge Sprinter cargo van.

This is an ugly vehicle. It is like GMC tried to do boxy but failed. I would say the design theme should be called "rounded edge." The vehicle looks like it tries too hard to take on elements of the bigger vehicles, I guess in order to be the "truck buyers" SUV, only it is a CUV? I think it just looks bad, badge engineering or not.

This looks great!!! At least, it's not bland and one of those me-too type of vehicles.

If you guys want bland cars, stick with the Japanese .. otherwise, do us a favor and stop criticizing GM ... you will always have things to say no matter what cars they make, whether they are high quality and great-looking.

"GMC is Professional Grade" ??? This is about as professional grade as the Pontiac G5 and G3 are "Excitement" bringers. Snore!

General Motors - please convince those of us taxpayers that you mean business. Stop putting plastic on top of sheet metal and calling it a different vehicle. You're fooling no one and never have. The only difference is that us taxpayers are impatient and invested and demand a harder try. Build some trust with us by putting an end to useless brands like GMC. Buick rocks in China and has exceptional build quality these days (surpassing Lexus for the first time). Bring the CTS coupe to us faster. You can't tell me that chopping the back end off a CTS and creating a new back-side takes this much time. The coupe will be a high profit machine AND one that people will buy. Hurry! The Malibu I drove for a week is a great car, but I can't get my suitcase in the back of it because the trunk opening is as small as my microwave's. I'm ranting because GM keeps asking for money and then announcing crap like this (i.e. where is the promising Cruze??). I'm tired of paying taxes for this. Last point - I'm a GM guy through-and-through. I want, as much as the next guy, the success of GM. Please back up your requests for my money with real products, not the same in different clothes.

When I saw Toyota give the Sequia a Spoiler on the back of their massive SUV I thought it was the dumbest thing I would ever see. But GMC is really pressing the limits with this thing being as its ground clearance is that of like a porsche thanks to that stupid chin spoiler. Why are these American companies doing this to themselves? Has anyone seen the new VW Scirocco? Cuz Detroit better start making cars like that.

Unsurprisingly people want to start bringing up taxpayer dollars whenever they don't like a particular vehicle. GM's job is to make PROFITABLE vehicles so they can survive and pay back the loans. This is likely to be such a vehicle. From a taxpayer perspective I could really care less if this shares its platform with the Equninox or if people here don't like the styling. That is irrelevant. This vehicle is more efficient than the Envoy it replaces and will make money and that is ALL that matters.

BTW, Gm has NEVER said it would stop rebadges. GMCs have been Chevys with different styling for decades and that isn't going to change. Most of Gm's rebadges are Chevy trucks and GMC models. Aside from the Cobalt coupe/G5 you wont find much rebadging in GM's lineup.

me:

What in the world does the TErrain have to do with the VW Sirocco? Where do people like yourself get off assuming Americans don't want crossovers? GM should stop investing in crossovers as soon as NIssan, Honda and Toyota do the same. This vehicle is designed to match up with the CR-V, RAv4, CX-7, etc. You don't combat small SUVs with small cars.

david:

GMC is one of the four brands GM plans to concentrate on. You need to remember that Pontiac/Buick/GMC is essentially one brand sold under the same dealerships. GMC makes the trucks and SUVs for that brand. Some people like the styling of GMC products and it's GM's 2nd best selling division. TO kill GMC even though its profitable (or close to it) just because you personally don't like SUVs or trucks is silly. You SHOULD want GM to invest in whatever vehicles have the best chance to generate profits.

Personally I like the rugged looks of the new Terrain. If GM’s mpg claims are correct this vehicle will be class leading in fuel efficiency. A plus in this day and age of raising fuel costs. I am noticing a good trend here on GM’s part lately. If GM would ever sway me away from my loyalty to Toyota, which started in the mid 80’s after bad experiences with my first car which was a 86 Pontiac 6000 LE (essentially a bebadged Buick Century, Chevrolet Celebrity, Oldsmobile Cutlass Ciera) then, good fuel economy and reliability better continue to be GM’s new mission. Lately I've been taking notice.

I do however agree with the rants made about GM's obsession with rebadging their vehicles. In ever quite understood why GM did this. I think especially in this economic climate coupled with the fact GM is bleeding so much red ink they had to send executives (first time foolishly via company jet) down to Washington to beg for money, now is the time to cut the proverbial FAT.

Not sure what the answer is on how to do this. Thankfully not my call. We know whatever Brand(s) are cut, those who loved the brands will lament but, hey! Let’s face it GM obviously can no longer afford all these brands and now neither can the public afford to fund these.

Sheth:

You've pegged me wrong. I actually prefer the styling of GMC Trucks over Chevy's and have since the 90's. But I'll tell you this - there's nothing unique *enough* about GMC to keep it around. If you want a 4-door large SUV to tow your boat or tote your family, get a Tahoe. Want it with techno-goodies and leather, get an upgraded Tahoe (not a Yukon). It's an easy sell. I realize GM has never said "no more rebadging", but should they? Creating multiple vehicles off the same platform is plain smart. Using similar components like door handles, hood struts, wiper assemblies, radio/HVAC controls, switches, and the like is just plain smart. I had a company car that was an ES 330 and it had the same hood release latch as the Corolla I often rent. Smart! Forcing a Pontiac badge on a Chevy Aveo and playing stupid with the American people is dumb!

That being said - the rebadging of the Opel --> Saturn - Smart! There's no other car like an Astra.. Smart! Rebadging the Daewoo and Chevy Cruze - smart! The Commodore and G8... smart! GM knows how to do this the right way. Don't sell the same coffee in a different mug and expect us to "believe" in the major transformation that needs to happen. Use a different mug, with different coffee beans, but use the same caramel and base water and whipped cream - that's smart. It's a completely different base product.

The rebadging between Ford & Lincoln (read: Mark LT) and Ford & Mercury is dumb, too. Mercury, like GMC, should be gone. Chrysler did the same stupid thing with the Caliber and Compass/Patriot. There's NOTHING Trail-Rated about the "Jeep" Compass. Even Jeep admitted it when they released the new Liberty called it the "New All Jeep Liberty" instead of the "All New Jeep Liberty".

American auto manufacturers have been doing these dumb things for years and now are paying the price. Unfortunately, us consumers didn't make them pay for it and it's us citizens who, unfortunately, are going to pay for it.

Al:

This is not a rebadge. This is a vehicle that shares it platform with a similar GM vehicle. Toyota does it. Ford does it too. Do you see any common sheetmetal between this and the Equinox? As for the Vue, you can't even tell this comes from the same manufacturer as the Vue. Aside from CHevy/GMC there is virtually no rebadging at GM. The G5/Cobalt is one exception. How is GM "obsessed" with rebadging? They are obsessed with platform sharing as are most automakers these days.

DAve:

You say this is "dumb" but don't provide any justification. GMC's success would suggest its not dumb. What would be dumb would be to axd GMC when its GM's 2nd most popular brand and its vehicles represent potential profits. Its been known for some time that GM has had trouble generating profits on cars, especially small, affordable models. GMC has no cars which means its likely not part of the profitability problem. Mercury and GMC have nothing in common aside from using vehicles with styling changes. GMC is successful, Mercury has been struggling for years. Your point seems to be based on the idea that GM shouldn't have two brands that sell SUVs/pikcups. Problem is the market does not support what you are saying. I can't tell you WHY people buy GMCs, but the facts show that they are popular.

Wheel arches are really ugly, front and rear styling don't connect.

Original Sheth:
Ok! Keeping the word re-badge out it. Even though you admit that GM still does some rebadging. Let’s talk about the platform sharing.
True, Toyota Ford and others are sharing platforms and there in itself nothing wrong with it (in fact for manufactures I’m sure it saves them in production cost and makes it easier to get out new vehicles Also it makes sense that if you have a good platform that works why not use it on other vehicles). In fact for example we all know that Toyota Camry and Lexus ES are based on the same platform. But I know that if I get the Lexus over the Camry I’m getting a ton more luxury accoutrements, more safety and slightly stronger engine. While the two are similar in platform there is enough that makes them different. They are even in two different classes Camry being a Mid-size family car and the ES being in the entry Luxury Car.
However I don’t see such a different between platforms used by GM esp. in the truck and SUV lines. Given the rebagding from the early years GM it creates this image the all GM does is rebadge. That will be a hard one for GM to shed as long as they make so many similar vehicles in the same class. I think that is the rub. GM tries justifies this by saying one is the GMC’s are “Professional Grade” is not enough to me. GM does better to have fewer vehicles even if they share underpinnings.

Al:

Like so many you have blinders on when it comes to talking about imports. You conveniently forgot to mention the Avalon when talking about the Camry. What is the purpose of the Avalon? its slightly larger than the Camry and is built on the same platform with the same powertrain. It also overlaps the Camrly XLE in pricing. Platform sharing is good for EVERYONE. Your assertion that it makes sense for Toyota but is a waste of resources for GM is illogical. Some people like the macho styling of the Terrain while others like the subdued import like styling of the Equinox. GM is not losing money by having both vehicles.

GM is moving towards having fewer vehicles but for the 2nd or 3rd time you ignore the fact that people BUY GMC models. You have not offered any rebuttal to my point about GMC's being popular. GM is not going to kill the brand as long as hundreds of thousands of buyers show up each year. Dont be mad at GM, be mad at the customers who support GMC. GM is not going to go under because it offers to excellent compact crossovers. Remember, the Vue will disappear within the next 2-3 years so the Equinox and Terrain will be all that is left. GMC has always had slightly modified Chevy trucks. Its been working for them so there is no reason to change it. If you look across the rest of GM's lineup you wont find rebadges. Even if you did I think its a stretch to say GM's financial problems were caused by sharing platforms.

original sheth,

i like domestics, but i can't see the logic in the redundancy that is gmc. i personally think those buyers would just buy a chevy, making cnevy more profitable and gm would save the money it put into running gmc. oh, and remember there's going to be a caddy version of this too. from a redundancy of products perspective, saturn has more to justify its existence than gmc...but that doesn't speak to profitability, just product diversity.

We can all agree that GMCs products are largely the same as Chevys. The problem is GMC is doing well and GM would be stupid to axe the division. When GM killed Olds they did not capture all Olds owners. It would be the same if GM cut GMC. In fact, the government criticized GM's report because they felt GM didn't account for all the sales volume they will lose permanently if they cut Saturn and Hummer.

What most of you are not processing is that GMC has strength as a brand so why eliminate it? Minimal product development costs and high volumes mean GMC as a brand is highly profitable. And to assume that someone in the market for a GMC will automatically purchase the Chevrolet equivalent is wrong. The Oldsmobile phase out showed that. Sales that were supposedly going to transfer to other GM brands never happened resulting in GM permanently forfeiting a couple hundred thousand units annually.

Original Sheth:
Again, I have no problem with the whole platform sharing thing. I clearly know (no blinders on) Camry, Avalon, Highlander and Lexus ES use the same platform. However all of said vehicles are in different classes. Camry is Midsized Car, Avalon is classified as a large car on a stretched Camry Platform (with more features than Camry), and Highlander is a Mid Sized SUV.
My whole point is that GM seems to have too many vehicles in the same class and it needs to cut down across the board.
Does GMC need to die? Not! If it as strong as you say it is. You might remember I actually liked the Terrain. But GM will have to do something and quick.
In terms of sales I can admit that GM trucks and SUV’s are popular. But you and I know given where this economy is headed folks aren’t showing up to the dealerships as much as they once where. All reports show sales are down. (To be fair at the Toyota dealerships also) If we go back to $4.00/gal gas prices, “Forget it!” SUV’s and Trucks are going to loose more favor. Times are changing as so must GM.

Al:

Simple question: How will cutting GMC increase GM's marketshare and profitability? Pontiac/Buick/GMC dealers would have a fit if GM cut GM. Your assertion that the Camry and Avalon are in different classes is a stretch. The Avalon is slightly larger but the cars share many features, are sold at the same dealerships and have about $6k in price overlap. GM needs to INCREASE sales and profits. How would cutting GMC make that happen? If you dont remember the "experts" thought cutting Olds was a no brainer. It never panned out that way and GM spent $1b paying off Olds dealers and watched their marketshare fall. BTW, I never said GMC should focus on gas guzzlers. The Terrain is not a guzzler and neither is the Acadia. In case you missed in GMC also has two hybrid models. The GMT900 SUvs are likely to go way within the next 5-6 years but pickups aren't going anywhere. They will have to get more efficient for CAFE reasons but they are not going anywhere. You seem to be implying that SUVs are in danger of disappearing due to future gas prices but I believe they will just evolve. If Toyota, Nissan and Ford plan to keep selling SUVs and CUVs than so should GMC.

Sheth:

Please don't mistake me. I like SUV's. I drive an inherited-through-marriage '96 Cherokee and love it. It gets horrible gas mileage (4.0L), but is so extremely useful and also fun off-road from time-to-time. I don't have any problem with GM making SUV's and am actually a huge promoter of their Hybrid Tahoe that gets the same real-world mileage as my Lexus ES I drove a year ago. There's *no* alternative for a truck this good.

What I am tired of, however, is GM's lack of discipline in building vehicles that stay true to their brand's purpose. If Pontiac is the "Excitement" division, don't rebadge an Aveo and call it a G3. Yeah, CAFE standards and the like make it seem necessary, but please be more creative in solving the problem. If GMC is the brand bringing "Professional Grade" machinery to the masses, don't rebadge a Equinox and call it the Terrain. Professional Grade has the connotation that it's built better than the average CUV. A skid plate and leather doesn't cut it. Don't tell me that the Saab 9-7x was "Born From Jets". It's a rebadged TrailBlazer and nothing more. Sure, the styling is cooler and the ignition key is in the console, but it's no different.

GM had the TrailBlazer, Envoy, Bravada, Rainier, 9-7x, and Ascender going nearly simultaneously (aside from the Bravada/Rainier switch). Was that necessary to be profitable? How about the Enclave, Acadia, Outlook, Traverse and soon to be Caddy version? The rebadging in this case is easier on the eye, but I still feel they're spending too much time to create a product to satisfy dealers and not consumers.

Give us the Enclave and Traverse and leave the rest out. They are drastically different looking (aside from the rear hatch window) and appeal to separate demographics. Don't clutter up the scale with extraneous products.

I hear you on your fact that GMC sells vehicles, regardless of having no unique products. I think, given the limited options of buying an American truck, most consumers will choose a Chevrolet. When Olds collapsed, their products were lackluster to begin with. The last Aurora didn't have the appeal like the original. The Achieva - c'mon. The Bravada - spoken for. The 88 - most buyers of the 88's probably didn't want to buck up for the extra cost for the La Sabre. I speak from experience because my father was in that boat and decided on the 88 - a vehicle that has been relatively problematic from the 20,000 mile mark. The Cutlass - a Malibu clone for which both were inferior products in their class. The Silhouette - it was hard to spell and its clones, the Venture/Lumina APV and Transport/Montana were all trailing FAR behind the Chrysler duo and the surge of great Japanese minivans.

Now, the Yukon & Sierra - both are exceptional vehicles. The GMT900 platform is incredible and very hard to beat. Since it's a desirable product, it's likely to think people will want a comparable alternative. No one wanted a comparable alternative to an Oldsmobile. They wanted something better. Sadly, GM only had comparable alternatives so folks moved on to other non-GM brands. It wasn't an execution problem - it was a product problem.

Rebadging can be done right. The Enclave is made with QuietSteel while the Traverse likely isn't. Your first thought when you look at the two vehicles isn't "They look the same." You don't mistake them when they pass you on the street like the old Malibu and Cutlass used to. I'll get more personal. I've driven a Caprice and Roadmaster in my life and they had different seats and dashboards. But they were the same. The Caprice, Custom Cruiser, Roadmaster and Fleetwood all were very similar. So similar you can take the front door from any of them and interchange them. The entire door (less the interior trim).

Today's vehicles have less of that. But I look at the Terrain - the vehicle that started this discussion - and all I see is the old Pontiac treatment of plastic body cladding. The rear looks like the old Buick Rendezvous. It's not an appealing vehicle which has lead us all to ask the question, "Why would GM invest the time and energy and retooling to create this?"

I believe I have the answer and it really doesn't make me smile. GM wants customers who visit a Buick/Pontiac/GMC dealership to have an option to buy a small CUV. They used to have the Torrent as an option. The Torrent is gone - so they've gotta have *something*.

Good is the enemy of great. Stop making good products and stick to making great products. Tahoes are great products. Enclaves and Traverses are great products. The Escalade is a great product. The Impala, Invicta, G8, Camaro, Corvette, CTS, Equinox, Sky, and Astra are great vehicles. GM makes some really competitive and quality vehicles. Just focus on making them better, easier to build, and promote them.

Taking care of the dealer isn't profitable just as all the legacy union costs aren't profitable. The new GM CEO confirmed, on Meet The Press, that GM has to sell 900,000 vehicles simply to pay for the retired union workers. That's wild! And it's steadily constricting the airway for which GM should be breathing new life into (what should be) their core business. Selling vehicles to consumers - not to dealers. They've signed all these contracts and didn't want to take the unions on. The bed is made and all of us taxpayers are forced to cuddle up.

I'm simply frustrated that GM continues on the path that didn't make them money in the 90's and only made them money in the 2000's cause *everyone* was buying things they didn't need. We're all paying for this lack of discipline.

How cow is that one ugly car! And here I thought GM fired the Aztec designers years ago.

Dave:

You are dealing with a whole host of issues that have little to do with the Terrain. GM was actually making money in the 90s and the first half of the 2000s. I'm not sure why you are saying they would be silly to go back to strategies that made money. GM is cutting divisions and vehicles which seems to be what you want. They are NOT cutting GMC which makes financial sense even if you personally don't care for the division.

Again, if you cant even grasp that the Terrain isn't a rebadge than this discussion is pointless. Two vehicles that share zero exterior panels are not rebadges. If the Terrain is a rebadge than so is the ES350. I don't get into marketing messages and other such matters. Your interpretation of a marketing message is subjective. To say GM should cut a division because you don't like their slogan is pretty silly. I really don't care about "professional grade" or any other tagline that GMC might chose. The product sells so many Americans must like what GMC is offering.

Please spare me all the righteous indignation about the taxpayers cleaning up GM's mess. Taxpayers, the government and banks worked collectively to build up the housing bubble and share responsibility for the financial meltdown that led GM to ask for loans. You are being very simplistic when you pretend that GM appeared in Congress asking for a loan just because they wanted taxpayers to bail them out after making bad decisions. Gm's loan request had nothing to do with brands or badge engineering. It had everything to do with a market that had dropped by 30% in a matter of months and a lack of available private capital. BTW, the automakers have been given loans. I don't know if you are aware but lenders make money when loans are paid back. If the auto market recovers GM will pay the money back with interest. When the government loaned Chrysler money they made money so I'm not sure I understand all this hand wringing over GM getting taxpayer money. Do you think you will get a refund if GM didn't ask for a loan? The money they got was initially earmarked for failing banks which got us into this mess. SO if I understand you correctly you are upset that GM got some taxpayer money that was intended for banks. I don't share your view. The banks got enough of our money. If they hadn't virtually collapsed GM wouldn't have been in DC asking for a loan.

"How cow is that one ugly car! And here I thought GM fired the Aztec designers years ago."

Yes, its so much less attractive than the Pilot or Sante Fe or CX-7. Why couldn't GM copy any of those lookers when designing the Terrain?

OS,

"Yes, its so much less attractive than the Pilot or Sante Fe or CX-7."

Pilot - yes. I was first to call it ugly and still consider it that way.

But the Santa Fe and CX-7 have attractive exteriors. May be not as rich as BMWs but attractive and the ones that flow from fron to back.

The pictured car above is a mix of 3 different things. I don't know which things but in front it is one thing, on the side is another and in the back it is third thing. None is connected with each other and generally, on the scale from 1 to 5 thi design can't be more then 2.

Sheth:

I'll acquiesce and say that the Terrain isn't a rebadge like the early 2000's Malibu and Cutlass were. Certainly, the sheet metal is different and the headlights and taillights aren't interchangeable. Kudos.

However, you cannot tell me that the Pontiac Torrent was a good seller. GM rid themselves of the Torrent because it didn't fit the Pontiac profile of performance-oriented cars only.

Their solution was, instead of cutting their losses and investing time/money/energy/creativeness towards other vehicles people want (Chevy Cruze and the like), they waste the money to make something for the dealerships, so they don't get left out.

I won't be blind and say that if I owned a dealership I wouldn't want a small SUV to sell. I will say, however, that GM's pandering to its dealerships has forced them to come up with vehicles in identical classes that for-the-most-part compete with each other and do create them the most inexpensive way. Earlier on - the route was rebadging. When GM decided to make minivans again - "We all get one!! Yeah!" says the dealerships. Saturn got the Relay, Buick got the Terrazza, Chevy got the Venture, Pontiac got the Montana. I've driven the Venture - there was no need to make four versions of that thing. It was so inferior for it's competition (outside of GM, of course). The third seat didn't even fold away.

I guess my beef with GM is simply that they aren't adaptable enough to change with the economic climate. In the 90's, they rebadged and made money. I'm living proof of buying at least two new vehicles from GM in the 90's that were part of a rebadged crew.

GM did what we all do. Think about it. You got company coming over to watch the big game. Murphy's Law hits your TV and you go buy a TV doing nearly no research and relatively no price shopping. You pay through the teeth. We've all done it in a handful of different arenas. In the 90's, they needed similar cars for all their brands. They took the easy route and placed new badges on each one. They also were short-sighted in their union agreements and weren't willing to have their plants shut down while everyone else was out there making money. Makes sense - would you choose to sit on the bench during the championship game? The unions had them by the short and curlies and there was nothing they could do. Instead of fight it then, they gave in. Instead of forcing the dealerships to make it with less, they gave everyone a piece of the pie.

Well, pie-eating time is over. GM needs to batten down the hatches and ride this storm out. They do need to reduce their fleet as one way to cut costs. GM's already said that publicly. If cutting nameplates is part of the game plan for riding this storm, investing in the creation of a "Professional Grade" vehicle is not consistent with what needs to happen. It's pandering and I think it's foolish.

About slogans... They're not intended to be useless. They're intended to set an expectation of their products that speak to the quality of the brand. Slogan's are one of those things tell you if a company is true to themselves or not. In my business, we tote Honesty and Integrity in our dealings. If a customer is unhappy, they look to that and expect to be dealt with in an honest fashion and with the utmost integrity. When I buy a mountain bike, I should be able to ride it on some dirt trails. I'm not going to auto-cross a Pontiac G3 or even try to change lanes too fast for fear that thing may not be able to handle it. It's not a performance-oriented vehicle. GM set the expectation and has missed it several times. Art & Science of the Caddy's - dead on. They're good looking and technologically advanced enough. GM knows how to do things right. I believe that through-and-through. The addition of the GMC Terrain is something that would have been smart back in 2002, but this is 2009 - a whole new ball game. You say GMC sells well. I have serious doubts about this one.

Tony:

I do not like the CX-7 styling at all. Sante Fe is OK but nothing notable. As for the design being connected I really have no clue where you are coming from. It's a crossver that looks like an SUV. I don't see anything disjointed about the styling effort. If you give this a 2 the Pilot must be a -3. I would give this a 3 or 4. It has to be compared to what's on the market and it looks better or at least more purposeful than its Asian counterparts.

david:

I never said the Torrent was succesful. There is no argument there. Pontiac is becoming a car only division which makes sense. What is your problem with that strategy? If you can run a car company without heeding your dealers more power to you. Dealers are very important and GM has to balance their demands with available resources. BPG dealers will be happy with the Terrain and it fits in with GM's overall strategy much better than the Torrent. Even though you disagree some would argue dealers do have some idea about what consumers want since they are on the front lines. If I had a dollar for every internet analysis I have seen of what GM did in the 80s and 90s I could buy a new car. I really don't want to recap every mistake made over the last 30 years (in fact, I'm too young to recall most of them) so I will just say that many of the issues you are raising have little to do with GM asking for loans. I get it- you are mad about GM's decisions of the past. That is fine but I am talking about the product offered today. Sorry, but I don't ignore competent product because I want to send a message about my dislike for policies of 15 years ago. Hyundai, VW, Audi and many others have greatly improved their product over the last 10 years. I wouldn't not buy an Audi because their models were a joke in the 80s. I would commend Audi for making rapid progress and equalling their key competitors.

"Well, pie-eating time is over. GM needs to batten down the hatches and ride this storm out. They do need to reduce their fleet as one way to cut costs. GM's already said that publicly. If cutting nameplates is part of the game plan for riding this storm, investing in the creation of a "Professional Grade" vehicle is not consistent with what needs to happen. It's pandering and I think it's foolish."

I will say again: It would be foolish to cancel a best selling brand. You seem to ignore this point repeatedly. GM is cutting models and brands but just not the ones you want. The reason they chose Saab and Saturn is because those divisions are not profitable. GMC obviously is profitable and will not be cancelled. This is basic business and I'm not sure why you can't accept the concept of preserving a profitable brand. GM's plan to the government never said platform sharing would end, what they are saying is that brands that aren't performing will be cut. GMC does not meet that definition. When a company is talking about shutting factories and cutting 47k workers around the world I'm not sure what they would need to do to show you they are serious. HAve you read either of their submissions to the government? Are you aware of the cuts being proposed?

"It's a crossver that looks like an SUV."

To me it looks like a crocodile.

I can't see anyone lining up to by this Turkey. YuK!

Is it bothering anybody else that the front and back interior door handles are in different spots on the door?

The profit margin on a GMC (any GMC) is far greater than that of a Chevy, or Saturn. Sierra's profit margin is greater than a Silverado. Terrain's will be greater than that of a Traverse. Some will like the design, some won't, but at the end of the day, GMC can contribute more to the bottom line than Chevy.

Sheth:

O, Sheth - Lookie what I found. A great example of rebadging! Though not successful. Pontiac currently has a 617-day supply of Pontiac Aveos.. I mean, G3's. Seems (1) folks didn't want the car that the BPG dealers were begging for and (2) folks are going to opt for the cheaper, same technology, longer name brand Chevy Aveo. The Aveo's at least been around for a few years and has proven itself. G3? What's that? Isn't it the same as the Aveo? Same could be said of the Terrain... Terrain? Isn't this the same as the Equinox?

Only time will tell if the Terrain goes way of the G3. I suspect it will, but there are tons of you all out there that disagree. And I could be flat wrong, about the Terrain that is.

Dave:

You are insulting your intelligence and my own by pretending the G3 and Torrent are the same thing. I never claimed the G3 was a good idea not did I claim it wasn't a rebadge. Pontiac apparently needed a more efficient model and they got one. It's not anything I would buy and it's clearly an Aveo with a different grille. The Terrain shares no exterior panels with the Equinox and the two are CLEARLY distinguishable. I will repeat ONCE AGAIN that GMC is the 2nd best selling GM division and dealers have been successful at moving GMC product. I would not bank on the Terrain suffering the same fate as the ill conceived G3. BTW, I don't think the Aveo is exactly tearing up the sales charts.