| 1 | 0 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 |
2011 Ford Focus and 2017 GMC Terrain Specifications
| Model Year | 2011 | 2017 | |
| Model | Ford Focus | GMC Terrain | |
| Engine | |||
| Transmission | |||
| Drivetrain | |||
| Body | 4dr Sedan | 4dr SUV | |
| Difference | |||
| Wheelbase | 102.9 in | 112.5 in | -9.6 in |
| Length | 175.0 in | 185.5 in | -10.5 in |
| Width | 66.7 in | 72.8 in | -6.1 in |
| Height | 58.6 in | 66.3 in | -7.7 in |
| Curb Weight | 2623 lb. | 3792 lb. | -1169 lb. |
| Fuel Capacity | 13.5 gal. | 18.8 gal. | -5.3 gal. |
| Headroom, Row 1 | 39.2 in | 39.8 in | -0.6 in |
| Shoulder Room, Row 1 | 53.5 in | 55.7 in | -2.2 in |
| Hip Room, Row 1 | 50.4 in | 55.1 in | -4.7 in |
| Legroom, Row 1 | 41.7 in | 41.2 in | 0.5 in |
| Headroom, Row 2 | 38.3 in | 39.2 in | -0.9 in |
| Shoulder Room, Row 2 | 53.7 in | 55.3 in | -1.6 in |
| Hip Room, Row 2 | 50.9 in | 51.3 in | -0.4 in |
| Legroom, Row 2 | 36.1 in | 39.9 in | -3.8 in |
| Total Legroom | 77.8 in (over 2 rows) | 81.1 in (over 2 rows) | -3.3 in |
| Cargo Volume, Minimum | 13.8 ft3 | 31.6 ft3 | -17.8 ft3 |
| Cargo Volume, Maximum | 13.8 ft3 | 63.9 ft3 | -50.1 ft3 |
TrueDelta Reviews the Seat Room and Comfort of the 2011 Ford Focus
| 2011 Ford Focus Seat Room and Comfort: Cons | ||
| Year | Comment | |
| 2010 | The rear seat is fairly comfortable--if you fit. Many compacts have roomier back seats. see full Ford Focus review | |
What Our Members Are Saying about the Seat Room and Comfort of the 2011 Ford Focus
| 2011 Ford Focus Seat Room and Comfort: Pros | ||
| Year | Body/Powertrain | Comment |
| 2010 | 4dr Sedan 140-horsepower 2.0L I4 4-speed automatic FWD |
I am ranking the driver's seat high in comfort even though 10 minutes is not enough to be sure. The seat has a lot of adjustability, including height. It feels like sitting on a platform rather than a hammock. The seat felt supportive without being hard. I can imagine it would allow for long distance travel in comfort. see full Ford Focus review |
| 2010 | 4dr Sedan 140-horsepower 2.0L I4 5-speed manual FWD |
Head room was great and the seat adjusted vertically with an easy to use lever. see full Ford Focus review |
| 2011 Ford Focus Seat Room and Comfort: Cons | ||
| Year | Body/Powertrain | Comment |
| 2012 | 4dr Hatch 160-horsepower 2.0L I4 6-speed automated manual FWD |
Driver seat cushion very uncomfortable after 30 minutes; feels like no cushion in seat see full Ford Focus review |
| 2010 | 4dr Sedan 140-horsepower 2.0L I4 4-speed automatic FWD |
It's tight in the back. Entry and egress are a bit cumbersome in particular for the feet. My shoe size is 9.5. see full Ford Focus review |
| 2010 | 4dr Sedan 140-horsepower 2.0L I4 5-speed manual FWD |
Like sitting on concrete. One minor positive was that the lumbar support was decent, but overall lacking in comfort. see full Ford Focus review |
| 2010 | 4dr Sedan 140-horsepower 2.0L I4 4-speed automatic FWD |
Air conditioner doesn't cool car. see full Ford Focus review |
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 Ford models.
