Model Year | 2006 | 2017 | |
Model | Subaru Impreza / WRX / Outback Sport | GMC Terrain | |
Engine | turbocharged 2.5L H4 DOHC-4v 230 hp@5600 235 lb-ft@3600 |
3.6L V6 DOHC-4v 301 hp@6500 272 lb-ft@4800 |
|
Transmission | 5-speed manual | 6-speed shiftable automatic | |
Drivetrain | AWD | AWD | |
Body | 4dr Wagon | 4dr SUV | |
Difference | |||
Wheelbase | 99.4 in | 112.5 in | -13.1 in |
Length | 175.4 in | 185.5 in | -10.1 in |
Width | 66.7 in | 72.8 in | -6.1 in |
Height | 58.5 in | 66.3 in | -7.8 in |
Curb Weight | 3247 lb. | 4151 lb. | -904 lb. |
Fuel Capacity | 15.9 gal. | 18.8 gal. | -2.9 gal. |
Headroom, Row 1 | 39.7 in | 39.8 in | -0.1 in |
Shoulder Room, Row 1 | 52.7 in | 55.7 in | -3 in |
Hip Room, Row 1 | 53.3 in | 55.1 in | -1.8 in |
Legroom, Row 1 | 42.9 in | 41.2 in | 1.7 in |
Headroom, Row 2 | 37.3 in | 39.2 in | -1.9 in |
Shoulder Room, Row 2 | 52.9 in | 55.3 in | -2.4 in |
Hip Room, Row 2 | 51.7 in | 51.3 in | 0.4 in |
Legroom, Row 2 | 33.7 in | 39.9 in | -6.2 in |
Total Legroom | 76.6 in (over 2 rows) | 81.1 in (over 2 rows) | -4.5 in |
Cargo Volume, Minimum | 27.9 ft3 | 31.6 ft3 | -3.7 ft3 |
Cargo Volume, Maximum | 61.6 ft3 | 63.9 ft3 | -2.3 ft3 |
2006 Subaru Impreza / WRX / Outback Sport Seat Room and Comfort: Pros | ||
Year | Body/Powertrain | Comment |
2006 | 4dr Wagon 173-horsepower 2.5L H4 5-speed manual AWD |
Body hugging front seats see full Subaru Impreza / WRX / Outback Sport review |
2006 Subaru Impreza / WRX / Outback Sport Seat Room and Comfort: Cons | ||
Year | Body/Powertrain | Comment |
2007 | 4dr Sedan 173-horsepower 2.5L H4 5-speed manual AWD |
I know it is a smaller sedan, but even with the front seats shoved up to that your knees are in the dashboard, that leaves just enough room for an average human in back. Under normal front seat conditions, crushed knees in back. see full Subaru Impreza / WRX / Outback Sport review |
2006 | 4dr Sedan turbocharged 230hp 2.5L H4 5-speed manual AWD |
Seats are very large and not built for comfort for a thinner person. see full Subaru Impreza / WRX / Outback Sport review |
2006 | 4dr Wagon turbocharged 230hp 2.5L H4 5-speed manual AWD |
The rear seat leg room is too small for American sized adults. A little more room would have made this car a lot more livable when family comes to town. This may be THE reason why I upgrade to a midsize car once this car dies. see full Subaru Impreza / WRX / Outback Sport review |
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 |
None of our members have yet commented on the seat room and comfort of the 2017 GMC Terrain.