Based on their marketing, I interpret GMC as having one job in this world: to give Chevrolet truck buyers an attainable aspirational upgrade without leaving the family. Invest a little more in your GM truck purchase and enjoy the dividends of a slightly more prestigious emblem on the grill and the Denali halo effect even if you didn’t order that trim. It’s a stealth wealth maneuver for those who cannot or will not move up to Cadillac. You don’t drive a Chevy, you drive a GMC, and that means something.
Even if it’s a rebadged Astro van.
I don’t understand how this division survived so long doing so little, but the marketing worked even on me because I’d much rather say I drive a Sierra than a Silverado and I can’t actually explain why. It is the utility vans and anonymous unibody crossovers where this hazy formula unravels, and that’s a good time to introduce this rental GMC Terrain. Meet the Professional Grade premium/economy, 4×4/soft-roader, compact/2-ton, affordable/$38K rugged station wagon. Yes, this vehicle is many contradictions welded into one unibody, including this one: it’s a dilution of a brand and possibly a very good vehicle at the same time.
When I see GMC I think trucks, but this is a transverse-engined FWD compact car platform shared with the Equinox and Cruze. I’m not sure what Professional Grade tasks this mighty workhorse was engineered to tackle, but I’m using it to hunt down roadside pineapple stands and local cacao roasters near Kona and that seems to fall right in the meat of its capabilities. This is a vacation shuttlepod handed over by the rental counter after I booked a “RAV4 or similar”. I was kind of hoping for the genuine article but knew an off-brand was more likely and indeed my only two options were this Terrain or a low-spec Santa Fe with stomach-turning fabric seats stained by sunscreen, sweat and salt water. The Terrain had impermeable leather that didn’t show residue from countless sunburned thighs, so I hopped behind the wheel of my first GMC in 15 years.
I was initially unsure of my choice. The prior renter had jacked both front seats into confounding positions that no humanoid should have been capable of occupying, and I think I nearly burned out the seat motors getting it back into an acceptable configuration. More importantly, the Terrain’s styling makes it appear small and cramped, so I was nervous that it would be too tight for the four of us and our luggage. I headed to the terminal to pick up the family and our small hill of baggage, hoping to the heavens that I didn’t just condemn them to 12 days in a cramped penalty box.
My concerns were unfounded and the Terrain quickly began redeeming itself. Alien seating position now rectified, I found I had plenty of space up front and in the backseat. The hill of luggage all fit neatly below headrest level. This included a large roller duffel, four carry-on suitcases, and four small daypacks. The power tailgate shut with a tidy click. The Terrain is larger than it looks and is packaged reasonably well.
The interior is a pretty nice place if you consider the segment this is competing in. The dashboard architecture is dignified and understated. This midrange SLT had leather seating that looked and felt like a genuine upgrade even after 33,000 rental miles, real aluminum trim, a steering wheel appropriate for a vehicle considerably more pricey, dash buttons and window switches that felt expensive (even if the dials and stalks did not), competitive dashboard and door padding, and none of the overwrought design and trendy digital chintz of so many modern cars. There are a few cheap aspects, namely the high-gloss gritty hard plastic which GM inexplicably refuses to stop using. It’s on the side of the center console and encroaches too high upon the doors where it clashes badly with the nicely padded panels.
The Terrain has surprisingly good road manners, with only a few caveats. It’s probably not worth getting very granular on the dynamics of a crossover, but the steering and handling are responsive and stable, road noise is reasonable, the structure feels solid, and braking response is excellent. The ride gets a bit stiff-legged on choppy pavement but the chassis otherwise feels well suited to a wide range of road conditions.
I came to like driving it. It was a fuss-free, comfortable, convenient, and spacious way to move a family of four. It felt like a quality vehicle in most ways anyone would interact with it. It averaged 29 miles per gallon and I doubt our Camry would have done much better than that. I understand and accept why this class of car is so popular.
“Nay, heretic,” I can hear you say, “aren’t you rooting around for a sports sedan back home and getting all high-and-mighty about driver engagement? How darest thou promote this homogenized slice of normcore when a nice sedan could do all that this Terrain did while ripping its face off on both straightaway and twisting two lanes? Must we burn thee at the stake?”
Perhaps. Perhaps I must burn. Perhaps a midsize sedan would have swallowed that cargo (a big perhaps) and provided 10% less fuel use. But here is the clincher that has sunk the midsize sedan segment for the majority of consumers: this vehicle made it all easy while imposing no compromise that anyone cares about. The seating height was perfect for frequently exiting and entering the vehicle. It’s shorter than a midsize sedan and fits more places. There was no strain of hauling heavy suitcases in and out of a low trunk well and Tetris-ing everything around trunk hinges. The additional few inches of ground clearance and AWD enabled us to get down a rough dirt road to a quiet beach without leaving the undercarriage gouges of rental Altimas forced beyond their design envelope and Hertz contracts. The only trade-offs are a bit less go, a bit less agility, and a fuel economy hit that means nothing to a country which commutes in F-150s and Silverados.
I understand this review is a bit overtly fawning, and that is likely due to vacation afterglow rather than the GMC itself, so I’ll bring up the problems. The big one is the powertrain. The only engine is a 1.5 liter turbo four. It is just one of many variants of GM’s itty-bitty 1.0-1.5 liter direct-injected all-aluminum engine family debuting about a decade ago in European Opels and then moving into US market Cruzes, Buick Encores, and the Equinox/Terrain. The version in our rental is the big block monster of the family, containing a whopping 4 cylinders rather than 3, and rated at 175 horsepower and 203 lb-ft of torque.
The Terrain weighs about 3600 pounds, so if you think this power output results in some underwhelming performance, you’d be correct. It provides a pleasant kick low in the rev range where most drivers will be using it. That’s the plump 203 lb-ft talking. However, there isn’t much beyond that initial torquey promise so the freeway merge and pass are quite disappointing. That’s the modest 175 horsepower talking. Since it is a small turbo, it was difficult to predict whether you’d receive that nice responsive tug or seconds of bog-and-lag in any given situation. It’s fine if your expectations are low and you’re shopping in a vacuum. Or getting handed the keys at a rental counter. If you’re cross-shopping, you’ll find better engines out there.
The 9-speed transmission is smooth and refined, producing slick but laggardly shifts. Drive conservatively and it all melds together quietly in the background. Push it, and you activate the busy little hive of bees behind the firewall, who aren’t very loud but who do vibrate the gas pedal. It all works well enough on the low-speed island roads (what doesn’t?), but back in my land of perennially pissed off and posturing suburbanites roaring between lights, this Professional Grade micromotor is outmatched. You’re going to hear a lot of vrrm-shift, vrrm-shift, vrrm-shift! as the engine busily works through the eternal progression of close transmission ratios just to keep up with traffic. There is no engine upgrade available, even in top Denali trim. That’s a big mistake.
The lateral transmission button array controlling this is also a mixed bag. The PRND buttons have a quality feel and their operation is fairly intuitive. No problem there. However, the manual gear toggle requires a long reach to the right and a concentrated look away from the road. You must stab at two small +/- buttons after first pressing the L button between them to activate manual control. There are no paddle shifters to circumvent this, which is idiotic. The island has a lot of long steep grades and I ended up needing manual control for engine braking quite frequently. I hated using these each and every time. An amused passenger asked me “So how do you like push-button driving?” That’s a question the GM engineers apparently never thought to ask.
A few other things annoyed me. The dead pedal is an inch too tall and therefore out of plane with the gas pedal, which is a fundamental ergonomic no-no. I could flex the center of the door cards in and out a full inch using only the power of my pinkie finger, which kind of hurts the upscale vibe they’re going for. The rear side windows are pillbox slits for no other reason than style. And shutting the vehicle down is a surprising pain: first, turn your head to the right and look for the Park button. Press it. Then, turn your head to the left and squint to find the small parking brake button buried nearly out of sight low on the dash. Press it. No, not a normal press, that won’t work. Keep your foot on the brakes and hold the button for a full one-one-thousand or it won’t engage. Listen for the mechanical whine of the motor setting the brake or you won’t know if it actually happened. Next, turn your head back to the right and give the ignition button a good deliberate press. It’s far more tedious than in my Toyotas with manual parking brakes and ignitions. Those can be shut down with your eyes closed in half the time and there’s no reason that shouldn’t be the case in any vehicle.
The current list price for this midrange SLT is $37,500, a sum I would categorically refuse to spend. Granted, I’m 42 now and old enough to regale the young ‘uns with tales of inflation so I still see thirty-eight grand as nearly luxury car money. It isn’t anymore, but it’s still too much for a buzz box 1.5-liter crossover. A thousand dollars more will buy a top-trim RAV4 Limited with torque-vectoring AWD or a hybrid XSE, both of which have equally nice interiors as this GMC, even better interior packaging, a non-idiotic transmission interface, and better drivetrains. It’s the best-seller for a reason. Or consider the CX-5 if you want another richly appointed interior. Or the CR-V and Forester if you want a proven all-rounder. Try the Sportage, Tucson, or Rogue if you want another way to roll dice on powertrain longevity. Even Mitsubishi still sells in this class.
This leads us to perhaps the biggest problem of all: standing out in a very crowded segment. The Terrain is quite competent and doesn’t embarrass the brand as a rental, which is a risk automakers should consider when selling to fleets. But what sets the Terrain apart from the other competent offerings, beyond brand preference and a few subjectives like personal affinity for the interior? Nothing. And maybe there doesn’t need to be. A vehicle can still be excellent at fulfilling a mission without being a class leader. For lessees and short-term owners, the Terrain may have already achieved excellence: they want a GM product, this is a fairly nice one, and if it doesn’t break they’re not missing out on much by eschewing a CR-V. The Terrain is executed well enough that all it needs to be an excellent vehicle is to run inexpensively and reliably to high mileage. The jury’s out on that one.
But we may still have the brand dilution problem. A decent compact crossover isn’t a very prestigious commodity even if done expertly. To live up to the GMC slogans and the badge worn by $80,000 Yukon Denalis, I’d need to see quite a bit more Professional Grade in the engine room. By that measure, the Terrain isn’t a very good GMC. Or maybe it is a decent GMC because as the cheapest thing on the menu, it still isn’t an embarrassment like, say, the Lexus UX. Or maybe it’s a perfect GMC because they’ve long been a muddled brand with no firm identity and nothing exemplifies this more than the ancient Savana passenger van with industrial plastic interior and burlap tweed seats fresh out of 2003 which they are still selling at a $45K minimum alongside their Denalis. Hell, I don’t know what the conclusion is here.
What I do know is that the pineapples, bananas, and mangoes sold in the continental US are underripe flavorless pulp while those on the island are truly Professional Grade and our GMC Terrain helped us discover this Like a Pro. So go buy one! Or don’t!
As I have noted in prior posts and comments, getting into a rental, at night, in the rain, in a strange city, and to be confronted with absolutely unique vehicle control components, was one of the many unpleasant aspects of traveling on business.
The transmission interface on this GMC is a solution looking for a problem. In the mid 1960s it appeared vehicle controls were moving to a standardization of sorts. But that soon unraveled and we now have stuff like this GMC, or the Jeep (link included below) to annoy, confuse, or kill, drivers.
https://money.cnn.com/2016/06/20/autos/jeep-recall-anton-yelchin/index.html
Good review.
The only other aspect I would add to your list of detriments of business travel is having to drive out of the parking garage and directly into traffic while your GPS unit seeks for a satellite to provide driving direction guidance. Only to then find you took the wrong road or highway, a few miles (or kms) down the road.
Excellent review, I have a rental review I need write up about a Rav4.
As a very frequent Uber user, the one nit that I have to pick with GM vehicles of the last 20 years or so is the inevitable degradation of all the switchgear on the dash, leaving it looking like the attached. It’s been happening forever. The fact that there are multiple aftermarket repair kits hasn’t spurred GM to do better in all this time? It’s lazy, and it annoys me. But then, I’m not in the market to purchase their products, so why should they care?
That’s pretty bad. The buttons on this Terrain had a different surface texture than the type in that decal advert, hopefully they hold up better. Check the used car listings over the next few years and find out!
MTN, to be fair, it is the users that cause the button chipping. Women poking at them with their nails – what do you expect to happen over time? I had a Z71 Suburban with that style of climate controls, and because I am intelligent enough to use the pad of my finger to push stuff like this, they looked like new at 170k miles. My current Tahoe Z71…… same deal. You wouldn’t think classes on BUTTON USE were needed but apparently they are.
As stated in previous comments, I am a lover of upscale traditional American luxury sedans. When I first saw the first generation Terrain, I actually liked the somewhat retro look. At one point, my Lincoln was in for some repairs. Only rental available was an EQUINOX. I might as well been in a truck! Awkward, uncomfortable and harsh riding. This Terrain ( like most every other vehicle ) looks like it has already been in a wreck. Alfred Sloanes strategic hierarchy worked for years. But do not believe most of today’s buyers will shell out BIG bucks (and long-term payments) for something like this!
Whoever originated GMC’s “We Are Professional Grade” tagline deserves a place in the Automotive Marketing Hall of Fame. As far as I know, GMC’s used that line since at least the late 1970s, and many people still reflexively think of GMC’s as more heavy-duty than Chevys. Just recently, my wife and I were talking about how both of us prefer GMC Sierras over Chevy Silverados. No reason given, or needed.
I miss renting cars – haven’t done so in well over a decade, but it’s interesting to test out the latest average car on the market. The Terrain and the seems like our current decade’s version of the Grand Am – easy to live with during a short rental period, and no major complaints, but not something I’d consider buying. I agree that $38k is unfathomably expensive for this vehicle, and every time I read a new car review, I dread the process of buying a new car even more. I’m glad we bought our most recent new vehicle in pre-inflation 2018, and hopefully it’ll be good for a few more years.
Oh, and I love the term “perennially pissed off and posturing suburbanites” – summarizes my area very well.
Thanks for the review!
“Oh, and I love the term “perennially pissed off and posturing suburbanites” – summarizes my area very well.”
This literally came to me on the drive back from the airport. My fellow drivers were in fine form and putting on quite the show.
I think a curbside Classic article addressed this at some point… If I remember right, the existence of GMC is the fault of America’s dealership franchise structure. Rural dealerships (which of course used to be a bigger population, before America urbanized so much) of Buick, Oldsmobile, and Pontiac didn’t have a vehicle to offer a big segment of their local clientele — trucks. They couldn’t sell Chevys, because that product line with cannibalize everything else in BOP. So GMC made sense for them as a truck-only brand that could piggyback on existing BOP locations. It might be different today, but it used to be that GMC was usually paired with one of those three – never Chevy.
Ironically, the modern GMC now exists to give the remnants of the old BOP dealers a product to sell. It’s 80 percent of their volume, with a handful of Buicks.
The Denali gives prospects a Cadillac level SUV without the conspicuous exhibitionism of modern Cadillacs. It’s the Buick Electra of SUVs.
We rented this car’s alter ego, a Chevy Equinox, crucially with the 2.0T a couple (three?) years ago in Minnesota for a few days. While really a size too small for the five people we had in it on that occasion, it impressed. Quiet, plenty powerful for the task at hand (driving around the greater Minneapolis area), solid, and comfortable, I came to quite like it while also noting the same beyond cheap pebbled solid plastic surfaces in some areas as this author did, a finish that has been used since I believe the Cobalt including in some Cadillacs and is now distinctly past its sell-by date. As the author rightly states (or at least implies), this car’s mission isn’t to corner carve or drag race. When driven “sensibly”, or how most would consider 99% of their realistic daily driving tasks to unfold, these impress as quite good.
The shifter in our Equinox was a conventional affair, not pushbutton from what I recall and all the better for it, especially as this one here looks like more of an add-on device than carefully integrated into the design. Note that more than likely in a user-controlled settings menu is almost certainly a setting to automatically engage the electric parking brake upon shifting into Park (and releasing it upon shifting back to D or R), likely rendering that particular criticism moot. I don’t recall it being an issue in ours and am fastidious about using said brake.
In any case, I recall musing about the pricing and coming to the conclusion that while on paper the RAV or CRV may only be a wee bit more, in reality on the lot that’s unlikely. Good luck finding a Hybrid RAV4 or perhaps even a normal one at sticker price in inventory nowadays, while the sticker on this (and the Equinox) really traditionally served to only be a jumping off point for discount negotiations that have been upended these last couple of years. Head to head, sure, no way would (or should) someone choose an Equinox or Terrain if they were at all concerned about medium term resale value. But in more normal times, considering a 3-year old, 40k miler of one of these vs an equivalent age RAV or CRV? That would be a compelling alternative at the likely $10k or so resale price delta. Or I suppose if GMAC were offering a 1.9% finance rate vs Toyota’s 7% or whatever the current norm is…
In short, yeah, this car (or at least its fraternal twin) was quite good at its intended mission. Good review.
Toyota and Honda seem to be recovering from the industrywide self-inflicted chip shortage more slowly than all other manufacturers. That being said, Jeep is starting to have actual oversupply and still won’t cut back on “trimflation” or put cash on the hood.
It’s easy to get $$$ off a Jeep or RAM around here. 10% off MSRP and low rate APR is a recent offer on RAM….
Jeep and Ram are both struggling with oversupply. But not Toyota and Honda, especially Honda.
With the 2.0T this would be a pretty compelling vehicle within the class, fuel use notwithstanding. For me, with the 1.5T I’d need a substantial price delta vs. the Toyota, Mazda, or Honda, and doubly so with several years worth of miles on it. I could trust those others with 40K on the clock. The GMC I’m not sure about.
Availability, wait lists, markups, high APRs, new car shopping is complicated. Glad I’m not in the market for a new family appliance.
I guess the branding (or more likely styling) worked on me as well, because this strikes me as alright while I wouldn’t be caught dead in an Equinox. We have a RAV4 Hybrid AWD XSE (plenty of letters!) and for the life of me I cannot fathom why anyone would willingly drive an Equinox. They even LOOK as if they’ve just kinda given up on life.
As for shutting it down, did you try simply pushing the kill button? In both my Prius and my Yukon killing the power puts it in Park at the same time. Could not be easier.
I far prefer the styling on the Terrain as well, and it’s a rare case of GMC doing more than changing the badge and interior trimmings from the Chevy.
Didn’t the ignition only; honestly didn’t even think of that. My little Ford has a push button ignition, but paired to a manual transmission and handbrake lever. The one time I was in a hurry and only hit the kill switch in that car, it started rolling away…
I remember as a kid in the 1970’s, my Granddad explaining to me that a GMC was basically “A Pontiac truck”. Granddad actually had a preference for GMCs over the years. Most of them were before my time, but I think he had a ’57, and at least one or two in the 1960’s. His last GMC was a 3/4 ton 1976 crew cab, that we used on a lot of camping trips.
He bought a new ’85 C-10 Silverado in the summer of ’85. It wasn’t strong enough to hold their slide-in camper, so he kept the GMC another year, and then finally sold it and that was the end of camping trips for us.
Once upon a time, before multi-brand dealerships became more common, and trucks weren’t a prestige thing, having GMC around probably did make sense. For instance, having a Buick, Olds, or even Pontiac truck would have dragged their image, but marketing it as a GMC gave Pontiac dealers a truck to sell, without actually calling it “Pontiac.”
That makes me wonder though…back in the day, did Oldsmobile and Buick dealers sell GMC trucks as well, or was it mostly just a Pontiac thing?
At one time, a GMC truck actually seemed upscale from a Chevy. For instance, the ’57 GMC almost makes me think of a Cadillac up front. And in some years, GMCs had four headlights, where the Chevies only had two, and that made them feel like a step up. But, by the time Granddad bought his ’76, I never had any delusions about it being upscale from a Chevy. I do prefer the grille of the GMC, though. I don’t know that I’d call it “upscale” from the Chevy, but just “different”.
These days, I don’t know how necessary GMC really is, but I guess General Motors does have their rationale for keeping it around.
“These days, I don’t know how necessary GMC really is, but I guess General Motors does have their rationale for keeping it around.”
I’m guessing it is inexpensive to do so. Badge swap and a few cosmetic changes on the same vehicle, unlock access to a higher end trim (Denali), and perhaps earn some sales that would have gone elsewhere. The Sierra seems to account for about 30% of the combined Sierra/Silverado sales, perhaps some of them would have bought something other than the Silverado if GMC didn’t exist. The Terrain’s an oddball, with entirely different sheetmetal and interior from the Equinox on the same platform. It’s curious that they expended such effort and supposed cost for a fairly low-volume crossover.
GMC shared cabs but had different mechanicals until 1967. From 1967 til 1970, GMC and Chevrolet pickups became more alike, until finally the differences were just cosmetic.
The whole “branding” thing is mostly a giant nothing-burger. “Brands” today (and in recent decades) cover a huge spectrum. Chevy sells everything from the Trax to $100+k loaded Suburbans (and of course the Corvette).
GMC is simply a “companion brand” to Buick dealers, to provide a truck/trucky alternative for them to sell, otherwise they’d have gone extinct a long time ago. How many stand-alone Buick dealers are left in the US? And clearly it does have a slightly higher brand image than comparable Chevy versions of the same basic vehicles they sell.
The transmission controls on this are a bad joke. As is the shut down procedure. But yes, GM has known how to make cars that are competitive generally, but just don’t really threaten the retail position Toyota and Honda have carved out for themselves. And realistically, never will.
The only success with smaller cars has been the Bolt, and the dolts at GM were about to kill it, until they realized that it was the one lower-end GM car that actually brought in customers that would never ever buy anything else from GM. Even if they were losing money on each one, it was a brand and image builder. They finally tumbled to that and have changed their mind: there will be a gen2 Bolt. Good call, although when the coming low-end Tesla arrives, it may very well impact the Bolt’s modest success.
I’d never make it in advertising. Branding strategy eludes me and I’ve always been a bit confused as to how so many GM brands remained viable for so long despite selling similar things.
Inertia.
It didn’t cost much to make different versions of the same cars, and as long as they volumes were enough to justify the support/parts/marketing/advertising costs, it was worth doing to maintain the self-image GM had cultivated over so many decades (“We’re #1!”). But once it started to crumble, then of course there were way too many brands to support.
Their structure since their bankruptcy is pretty logical, even though Buick/GMC is mostly redundant. The volumes are high enough, and the costs are insignificant, so it works well enough.
I bought my wife one of these 3 years ago. She wanted a small CUV and liked the way the Terrain looked, and I was able to get a new one at a very reasonable pre-Covid shortage price. So far the vehicle has been great, no issues but a pending recall for the rear baby seat teather hoods that may have too much epoxy paint on them which could under certain circumstances render latching of said baby seat teathers difficult. We have a baby seat in the car now for my niece’s kid so it can’t be much of an issue, but I will get it inspected on the next free oil change at the dealer. Basically, the Terrain is a different-looking Equinox with higher trim levels, though there is a base model that appears to be primarily marketed to fleets and rentals, I defy you to find one at a dealer. The Terrain, Equinox, and Buick version (Envision?) are currently based on the GM D2XX platform, not related to the old Cruze.
GMC was a complete truck line company. Your truck fleet right down to the parts runner could all be driving a GMC. Chevy was the poor step-child in the heavy truck business. GMC actually had a substantial portion of the heavy truck market. 1986 brought the demise of all heavy trucks at GMC. The Great Recession, GM bankruptcy and 2010 Diesel Emission regulations killed off the Medium duty GMC/Chevy trucks. The only reason GMC survived was to sell trucks in the none Chevy dealers and ironically that herd had been thinned out too. I’d hazard a guess if the truck/SUV market wasn’t so dominant GMC would have been axed along with Pontiac, Saturn and Hummer.
Lastly, I had many customers, friends and acquaintance’s over the years tell me they bought a GMC because they wanted a better built, more heavy duty, etc, etc truck then a Chevy. I was happy to hear this as GMC was writing my paycheck.
Maybe back in the fifties/sixties GMC would have gotten you a larger engine, but in the last 50 years they have been Chevy clones. The advertising campaigns worked however, the naive customer thinking they were a superior product for their price premium. A friend insisted his 1985 GMC pickup was built with “heavier sheet metal” than a Chevy. I furnished him with documentation that it was built on the same assembly line as Chevys, with the exact same body parts. Of course he refused to believe the truth. He was part of the GMC tribe and don’t tell him anything contrary to his ill informed beliefs.
I can’t believe how inefficient interior packaging has become on modern cars. This is a relatively chunky car and it seems less spacious than a 1989 Camry. Yes, safety, tech and styling are an issue but can they tighten it up a bit? Maybe it’s just the dark tint and smashed greenhouse.
The handling of GMC dealers (in Canada) was yet another of The General’s stupid, misguided moves. Before 1976, ALL GMC dealers were standalone agents that only sold TRUCKS, and nothing but TRUCKS! And the majority of them were all located in the industrial areas not far from International, Kenworth, Mack, Peterbilt, etc. They had a great range of medium and heavy duty, and Class 8 vehicles besides the light truck line and car-based cross-overs as being discussed here. The ONLY GMC cars were the El Camino-derived Sprint from 1971, and the General taxicab in the 1930’s that used an extended Chevrolet body with Pontiac running gear. Starting in 1976, GM shot themselves in the foot with pairing GMC with Pontiac-Buick dealers, who were mostly unprepared to deal with medium and heavy duty trucks, and may also be responsible for GMC’s exit from the Class 8 market as well as the Bus & Coach market.
While the author doesn’t really disparage the vehicle, this line is gold from my experiences,
“and doesn’t embarrass the brand as a rental, which is a risk automakers should consider when selling to fleets.”
I’ve rented cars over the years that I had high hopes for, but by the time I was done I could barely refrain from lighter fluid and a match. Part of it may be how they’re spec’d, but part of it may be the very vehicle it is, meaning something I’d never consider if I had a week or two into it, but initially looked good on paper or got good reviews. Of course that asks the question of would they sell any if it weren’t for fleet sales?
In fairness, there have been pleasant surprises too.
This car is an object lesson in why I don’t like SUV’s. Most people don’t need the space and extra heft of an SUV and true truck buyers aren’t going to like this either. Instead of building a station wagon truck, just build a wagon AND a truck.
Looks like an over inflated Chevy Bolt. I Love my Chevy Bolt, but doesn’t GMC stand for Got a Mechanic Coming? Can’t call it a Jimmy. Right?