Model Year | 2007 | 2017 | |
Model | Subaru Outback | GMC Terrain | |
Engine | turbocharged 2.5L H4 DOHC-4v 181 kW@6000 327 Nm@3600 |
3.6L V6 DOHC-4v 224 kW@6500 369 Nm@4800 |
|
Transmission | 5-speed shiftable automatic | 6-speed shiftable automatic | |
Drivetrain | AWD | AWD | |
Body | 4dr Wagon | 4dr SUV | |
Difference | |||
Wheelbase | 2,670 mm | 2,858 mm | 0 mm |
Length | 4,793 mm | 4,712 mm | 0 mm |
Width | 1,770 mm | 1,849 mm | 0 mm |
Height | 1,605 mm | 1,684 mm | 0 mm |
Curb Weight | 1,635 kg | 1,883 kg | 0 kg |
Fuel Capacity | 64 L | 71 L | -7 L |
Headroom, Row 1 | 1,029 mm | 1,011 mm | 0 mm |
Shoulder Room, Row 1 | 1,382 mm | 1,415 mm | 0 mm |
Hip Room, Row 1 | 1,295 mm | 1,400 mm | 0 mm |
Legroom, Row 1 | 1,120 mm | 1,046 mm | 0 mm |
Headroom, Row 2 | 993 mm | 996 mm | -3 mm |
Shoulder Room, Row 2 | 1,364 mm | 1,405 mm | 0 mm |
Hip Room, Row 2 | 1,336 mm | 1,303 mm | 0 mm |
Legroom, Row 2 | 861 mm | 1,013 mm | 860 mm |
Total Legroom | 1,981 mm (over 2 rows) | 2,060 mm (over 2 rows) | -1 mm |
Cargo Volume, Minimum | 949 L | 895 L | 54 L |
Cargo Volume, Maximum | 1,875 L | 1,809 L | 0 L |
2007 Subaru Outback Seat Room and Comfort: Cons | ||
Year | Body/Powertrain | Comment |
2008 | 4dr Wagon 170-horsepower 2.5L H4 4-speed shiftable automatic AWD |
Footroom too short. see full Subaru Outback review |
2008 | 4dr Wagon 170-horsepower 2.5L H4 4-speed shiftable automatic AWD |
A little tight in the left portion of the footwell; small dead pedal. see full Subaru Outback review |
2008 | 4dr Wagon 170-horsepower 2.5L H4 4-speed shiftable automatic AWD |
not long enough for a 6 foot 2 inch frame but I manage see full Subaru Outback review |
2007 | 4dr Wagon 175-horsepower 2.5L H4 4-speed shiftable automatic AWD |
I was amazed at how small the back seat is in this car. Really no bigger than a compact sedan, eg Civic or Corolla. I can't fit my 3 kids (in car seats) back there, and feel bad when co-workers pile in to go to lunch. Surprisingly small for a vehicle this size, and marketed as a "family car." If you plan to put adults or 3 kids back there regularly, look at the '10 or newer (or at something else -- the rear seat in my co-worker's Accord is far bigger and more comfortable). see full Subaru Outback review |
2007 | 4dr Sedan 245-horsepower 3.0L H6 5-speed shiftable automatic AWD |
Leg and head room lacking for over 6 footers. see full Subaru Outback review |
2007 | 4dr Sedan 245-horsepower 3.0L H6 5-speed shiftable automatic AWD |
Seat back a bit low for 6 footers. see full Subaru Outback review |
2006 | 4dr Wagon 175-horsepower 2.5L H4 5-speed manual AWD |
Too small for kids see full Subaru Outback review |
2006 | 4dr Wagon 175-horsepower 2.5L H4 4-speed shiftable automatic AWD |
Too short! I am 6ft tall and the front passenger seat leaves me feeling very cramped. Drivers position is better. Seats also too narrow. Maybe plenty of room for skinny folks, but not for us folks that are large boned :-) see full Subaru Outback 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.