| 1 | 0 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 |
2014 Nissan Versa and 2017 GMC Terrain Specifications
| Model Year | 2014 | 2017 | |
| Model | Nissan Versa | GMC Terrain | |
| Engine | |||
| Transmission | |||
| Drivetrain | |||
| Body | 4dr Sedan | 4dr SUV | |
| Difference | |||
| Wheelbase | 2,601 mm | 2,858 mm | 0 mm |
| Length | 4,455 mm | 4,712 mm | 0 mm |
| Width | 1,694 mm | 1,849 mm | 0 mm |
| Height | 1,514 mm | 1,684 mm | 0 mm |
| Curb Weight | 1,068 kg | 1,720 kg | 0 kg |
| Fuel Capacity | 41 L | 71 L | -30 L |
| Headroom, Row 1 | 1,011 mm | 1,011 mm | 0 mm |
| Shoulder Room, Row 1 | 1,313 mm | 1,415 mm | 0 mm |
| Hip Room, Row 1 | 1,222 mm | 1,400 mm | 0 mm |
| Legroom, Row 1 | 1,062 mm | 1,046 mm | 0 mm |
| Headroom, Row 2 | 940 mm | 996 mm | -56 mm |
| Shoulder Room, Row 2 | 1,318 mm | 1,405 mm | 0 mm |
| Hip Room, Row 2 | 1,173 mm | 1,303 mm | 0 mm |
| Legroom, Row 2 | 940 mm | 1,013 mm | 939 mm |
| Total Legroom | 2,002 mm (over 2 rows) | 2,060 mm (over 2 rows) | 0 mm |
| Cargo Volume, Minimum | 419 L | 895 L | -476 L |
| Cargo Volume, Maximum | 14.8 | 1,809 L | 13.8 |
What Our Members Are Saying about the Seat Room and Comfort of the 2014 Nissan Versa
| 2014 Nissan Versa Seat Room and Comfort: Pros | ||
| Year | Body/Powertrain | Comment |
| 2014 | 0 | I was expecting zero room in the back, but I sat in the backseat even with the drivers seat adjusted far back (I'm 5'11" but long legs and tend to adjust seats to the back end of their travel), I had reasonable legroom for a very compact car. The seat covering material was pleasant as well. see full Nissan Versa review |
| 2013 | 4dr Sedan 109-horsepower 1.6L I4 5-speed manual FWD |
Even with the front seats slid all the way back, this car still has more room than almost any other car -- almost as much room as a BMW 780IL. see full Nissan Versa review |
| 2014 Nissan Versa Seat Room and Comfort: Cons | ||
| Year | Body/Powertrain | Comment |
| 2013 | 4dr Sedan 109-horsepower 1.6L I4 5-speed manual FWD |
When I bought the car, I laid the seat down all the way to make sure it would be comfortable enough to nap on. It is, but it's slightly more comfortable if the car is parked on an incline because the seat doesn't quite go down completely flat... although come to think of it I haven't tried raising the seat height with the lever then setting the seat back. Anyway, the passenger side doesn't have a seat height adjustment lever and it doesn't quite make a 180% flat angle either. see full Nissan Versa 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 Hatchbacks and Sedans.
See TrueDelta's information for all Nissan models.
