| 1 | 0 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 |
2014 BMW X5 and 2017 GMC Terrain Specifications
| Model Year | 2014 | 2017 | |
| Model | BMW X5 | GMC Terrain | |
| Engine | turbocharged 4.4L V8 DOHC-4v 445 hp@5500 480 lb-ft@2000 |
3.6L V6 DOHC-4v 301 hp@6500 272 lb-ft@4800 |
|
| Transmission | 8-speed shiftable automatic | 6-speed shiftable automatic | |
| Drivetrain | AWD | AWD | |
| Body | 4dr SUV | 4dr SUV | |
| Difference | |||
| Wheelbase | 115.5 in | 112.5 in | 3 in |
| Length | 193.2 in | 185.5 in | 7.7 in |
| Width | 76.3 in | 72.8 in | 3.5 in |
| Height | 69.4 in | 66.3 in | 3.1 in |
| Curb Weight | 5150 lb. | 4151 lb. | 999 lb. |
| Fuel Capacity | 22.4 gal. | 18.8 gal. | 3.6 gal. |
| Headroom, Row 1 | 40.5 in | 39.8 in | 0.7 in |
| Shoulder Room, Row 1 | 60.5 in | 55.7 in | 4.8 in |
| Hip Room, Row 1 | 0.0 in | 55.1 in | -55.1 in |
| Legroom, Row 1 | 40.4 in | 41.2 in | -0.8 in |
| Headroom, Row 2 | 38.8 in | 39.2 in | -0.4 in |
| Shoulder Room, Row 2 | 58.3 in | 55.3 in | 3 in |
| Hip Room, Row 2 | 0.0 in | 51.3 in | -51.3 in |
| Legroom, Row 2 | 36.6 in | 39.9 in | -3.3 in |
| Total Legroom | 77 in (over 2 rows) | 81.1 in (over 2 rows) | -4.1 in |
| Cargo Volume, Minimum | 22.9 ft3 | 31.6 ft3 | -8.7 ft3 |
| Cargo Volume, Maximum | 66.0 ft3 | 63.9 ft3 | 2.1 ft3 |
TrueDelta Reviews the Seat Room and Comfort of the 2014 BMW X5
| 2014 BMW X5 Seat Room and Comfort: Pros | ||
| Year | Comment | |
| 2014 | BMW's multicontour seats, a $1,300 option on six-cylinder X5s and standard with the V8, deliver a rarely matched combination of support in turns and comfort on long drives. In a reversal of traditional tendencies, the buckets in the Range Rover Sport feel firmer and less comfortable. Though you'll find a commanding view forward in either driver seat, the Range Rover Sport maintains an edge in this area. Unusually large windows are one thing that makes a Land Rover a Land Rover. see full BMW X5 review | |
| 2014 BMW X5 Seat Room and Comfort: Cons | ||
| Year | Comment | |
| Audi and Mercedes both offer much longer SUVs. At least until BMW fields an X7, the X5 is available with an optional third-row seat. Especially considering the size and price of the X5, said third row is absurdly tight, thinly upholstered, and difficult to access. The door openings are small, and the entire second row seat pivots forward and upward off the floor in an only partially successful attempt to compensate. To provide even minimal legroom for those using it, the second row must slide forward a few inches, to the point that its occupants find their own legroom severely compromised. Both rows are too low to the floor for adult comfort. The third-row seat optional in the Range Rover Sport probably isn't much better, and deletes the spare tire (not available on the BMW regardless). This might explain why it wasn't on the tested vehicle. If you want a usable third row, Land Rover offers the less stylish, but also much less expensive and roomier LR4. Shift focus to the second-row seat, and I found that in the smaller X3 at least as comfortable, and easier to get into and out of thanks to the more compact vehicle's lower ride height. That in the Range Rover Sport, though also not the roomiest or the most comfortable, is better than the X5's. see full BMW X5 review | ||
What Our Members Are Saying about the Seat Room and Comfort of the 2014 BMW X5
None of our members have yet commented on the seat room and comfort of the 2014 BMW X5.
TrueDelta Reviews the Seat Room and Comfort of the 2017 GMC Terrain
| 2017 GMC Terrain Seat Room and Comfort: Pros | ||
| Year | Comment | |
| 2018 | The first-generation GMC Terrain took advantage of a long, 112.5-inch wheelbase to offer exceptional rear legroom--nearly 40 inches of it. On paper, the 2018 Terrain has only a half-inch less combined legroom despite a wheelbase shrink of 5.2 inches (to better align the vehicle with competitors and open up space for the downsized Acadia). In reality, rear legroom seems ample but no longer outstanding. The rear seats in the Honda CR-V and Toyota RAV4 are similarly roomy. But the Terrain does pull ahead when evaluating rear seat comfort. Its high-mounted rear seat cushion provides better leg support than others. The Compass's rear seat is lower and firmer. The Terrain's rear seat can even recline a little. Based on their specs, the Jeep is nearly as roomy inside as the GMC. Headroom, shoulder room, and combined legroom specs all differ by less than an inch. In reality, the Jeep's interior feels significantly narrower. And the Jeep Cherokee? All of its interior specs are also within an inch of the Terrain's, though often in the other direction. Why does Jeep offer two crossovers so close in size? This isn't clear. In terms of specs, they differ most in combined legroom and cargo volume. The Cherokee has 1.3 inches more of the former--good to have, but hardly justification for an additional model--and about ten percent LESS of the latter. How can the larger Jeep have less cargo volume? I suspect that the Compass was measured more creatively, and cannot actually hold as much cargo. Based on their specs--and I always take cargo volume specs with more than a little salt--the new Terrain can swallow a few more cubic feet of cargo than the Compass (63.3 vs. 59.8) but falls well short of the RAV4 (70.6 in hybrid form, 73.4 otherwise). A Honda CR-V can fit a couple more cubes than the RAV4. The GMC Terrain and the Jeeps compensate for not having the most spacious cargo areas with front passenger seats that fold forward. If your cargo is long but not wide, one of these is the way to go. Though closely related to the GMC, the Chevrolet Equinox does not offer this feature. see full GMC Terrain review | |
What Our Members Are Saying about the Seat Room and Comfort of the 2017 GMC Terrain
None of our members have yet commented on the seat room and comfort of the 2017 GMC Terrain.
See TrueDelta's information for all SUVs
See TrueDelta's information for all BMW models.
