2013 GMC Terrain Denali: First Look
For the first time since its introduction in 2010, the GMC Terrain will be offered in a Denali trim level. The 2013 model year also brings a new engine to the Terrain: A 301-horsepower, 3.6-liter V-6 mated to a six-speed automatic transmission replaces the 3.0-liter V-6 as the optional engine. A four-cylinder remains standard. Fuel economy for the new V-6 is pegged at 17/24 mpg city/highway, exactly the same as the outgoing power plant.
The Denali trim is known for its luxury features — such as a chrome honeycomb grille and large chrome wheels — that are on other GMC vehicles.
Like all Terrains, the Terrain Denali comes standard with a color touch-screen and backup camera. The forward collision alert and lane departure warning system, optional on SLT-2 Terrains, are standard on the Denali. A power liftgate is also standard.
The Terrain Denal is available both with the V-6 powertrain and a standard 182-hp four-cylinder engine with a six-speed automatic transmission. All-wheel drive is available with either engine.
Pricing for the 2013 Terrain Denali and Terrains equipped with a 3.6-liter V-6 will be announced later this year. The new Terrain is expected to go on sale this summer.
Previous
Subscribe to our feed
Email us your tips!
New and Even Uglier!
The Denali Valdez??
It's like GM looked at the jeep Liberty and thought " you know, we can make an SUV that looks more crap than that".
Kudos to GM to rising to the challenge.
The serious amongst us can appreciate the new engine. Should make this heavy vehicle perform much better and now there really will be a notable difference between the I4 and teh V6. Many skip the V6 now because its not much faster than the I4 but you suffer a significant mileage penalty.
I test drove the old six and was unimpressed. I'm curious as to the bump in torque--will it be low enough in the rpm range to be noticed?
As for the looks, I'd need to see "satin chrome" in person, but the grill always has been a bit much.
The press release talks about weight savings for improved efficiency, yet te Denali loads up the weight with un-needed options like the power liftgate?
And people say the Aztek was ugly?? I see Equinox all day long and they are pretty good looking but rarely see this and every time I do I just shake my head. Who cares about the drivetrain if you can't stand looking at it.
there is a chevy version of this vehicle. Obviously people who prefer the equinox will get that instead. Terrain is popular so apparently someone likes the styling. And there shouldnt be any question as whether or not this is a noticeable upgrade- this is a major power and torque upgrade.
I actually like the styling, and this is coming from someone who only drives imports.
Instead of fixing the wrong axle ratio with the 3.0 V6, or possibly replacing the 3.0 V6 with the 2.0T-urbo I4 (coupled to the 6T45/50), GM does the dumbest thing, uses a bigger engine.
The current turbo 4 isnt known for being efficient. check out mileage on the regal turbo- its not impressive. And the turbo takes premium. Many people wonder why a car like Regal has the turbo instead of this engine. There's nothing dumb about putting a powerful V6 in a heavy crossover like this. Nissan and ford and dodge have V6s in their midsize crossovers.
This 'crossover' is not particularly heavy for its exterior volume.
GM recommends premium, and could easily make a 260hp 258ft-lbs 2.0 I4 operate with 87AKI at sea level.
What is dumb is not fixing the flaws in due time. Taking years to fix something that should be done in months...
Now the product 'ideal' has changed, performance & mileage. Basically GM should install the new Malibu's 2.5 & 2.0 under the hood.
Im not sure why you think a 2L would be much more efficient than this V6 in such a heavy crossover. While the Terrain isnt heavy compared to the Edge (which is VERY heavy), it is heavy compared to the RAV4 V6 or the Sportage turbo or the CR-V. A 2L wouldnt make for a huge mileage improvement in this application. Besides, the V6 is offering 40 more hp than the 2L you are proposing.
The easiest part of the mileage gain would be from using the smaller transmission.
Next using a small boosted direct injection engine with fewer cylinders provides a lower BSFC than lugging a large engine.
The axle ratios for this turbo 2.0 would be the same as the current 2.4: 3.23/3.53
Most people don't use maximum power, and the 3.6 would only make more power from 4500rpm+
I think this machine looks sweet.
Can someone delete Cody's comments, this is not facebook for immaturity to be posted on here. You are here to talk about cars not act like a 12 year, oh wait you are so it figured you would be talking like that. Start growing up dude.
Most people that are talking negative can't afford one anyway. I will be getting this sweeet ride.