| 1 | 0 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 |
2017 GMC Terrain and 2013 Mercedes-Benz GL Specifications
| Model Year | 2017 | 2013 | |
| Model | GMC Terrain | Mercedes-Benz GL | |
| Engine | |||
| Transmission | |||
| Drivetrain | |||
| Body | 4dr SUV | 4dr SUV | |
| Difference | |||
| Wheelbase | 112.5 in | 121.0 in | -8.5 in |
| Length | 185.5 in | 201.6 in | -16.1 in |
| Width | 72.8 in | 76.4 in | -3.6 in |
| Height | 66.3 in | 72.8 in | -6.5 in |
| Curb Weight | 3792 lb. | 5401 lb. | -1609 lb. |
| Fuel Capacity | 18.8 gal. | 26.4 gal. | -7.6 gal. |
| Headroom, Row 1 | 39.8 in | 41.2 in | -1.4 in |
| Shoulder Room, Row 1 | 55.7 in | 58.5 in | -2.8 in |
| Hip Room, Row 1 | 55.1 in | 0.0 in | 55.1 in |
| Legroom, Row 1 | 41.2 in | 40.3 in | 0.9 in |
| Headroom, Row 2 | 39.2 in | 40.0 in | -0.8 in |
| Shoulder Room, Row 2 | 55.3 in | 58.3 in | -3 in |
| Hip Room, Row 2 | 51.3 in | 0.0 in | 51.3 in |
| Legroom, Row 2 | 39.9 in | 38.5 in | 1.4 in |
| Headroom, Row 3 | 0.0 in | 38.9 in | -38.9 in |
| Shoulder Room, Row 3 | 0.0 in | 50.5 in | -50.5 in |
| Legroom, Row 3 | 0.0 in | 35.0 in | -35 in |
| Total Legroom | 81.1 in (over 2 rows) | 113.8 in (over 3 rows) | -32.7 in |
| Cargo Volume, Minimum | 31.6 ft3 | 16.0 ft3 | 15.6 ft3 |
| Cargo Volume, Behind R2 | 31.6 | 49.4 ft3 | -17.8 |
| Cargo Volume, Maximum | 63.9 ft3 | 93.8 ft3 | -29.9 ft3 |
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.
TrueDelta Reviews the Seat Room and Comfort of the 2013 Mercedes-Benz GL
| 2013 Mercedes-Benz GL Seat Room and Comfort: Pros | ||
| Year | Comment | |
| 2013 | The Mercedes-Benz GL-Class is just a little longer than the Audi Q7 (201.6 vs. 200.3 inches), and isn't as wide (76.4 vs. 78.1 inches). But the Mercedes is considerably taller (72.8 vs. 68.4 inches) and not nearly as curvy. Which might explain how it is far roomier than the much sleeker Audi. Combined legroom for all three rows is 107.6 inches in the Q7 vs. 113.8 inches in the GL-Class, a large difference. The Q7's space deficit grows the farther back you sit. For adults to even fit in the Audi's third row without extreme discomfort, those in the second row must slide their seats forward to the point that they are themselves short on knee room. While the new GL350's third row sits too low to provide thigh support, it's not nearly as cramped. Further evidence that Audi didn't intend the Q7's third row for frequent use: the second-row seat doesn't do a good job of getting out of the way, making the path in and out of the way-back perhaps the tightest I've experienced. The second-row seat in the GL-Class tips forward to open up a much wider path. If manually tipping the seat is too much of a chore (perhaps because you'e a five-year-old and haven't yet learned to read this), $400 buys a power assist. But even with this option the seat must be manually returned to its upright position, so the point eludes me. see full Mercedes-Benz GL review | |
What Our Members Are Saying about the Seat Room and Comfort of the 2013 Mercedes-Benz GL
None of our members have yet commented on the seat room and comfort of the 2013 Mercedes-Benz GL.
See TrueDelta's information for all SUVs
See TrueDelta's information for all GMC models.
