First Glance at the All-New 2010 GMC Terrain
Wednesday, at the 2009 New York International Auto Show, General Motors will unveil GMC’s all-new 2010 Terrain. Designers Ron Aselton, Steve McCabe and Jason Diehl and Global Vehicle Chief Engineer, Bob Reuter, give us a first glance at a five-passenger crossover SUV that blends bold styling with fuel efficiency and premium features. Enjoy!
On Wednesday, April 8 we will have Yvonne Zisler, Lead Development Engineer and Hugh Milne, Marketing Manager for an in-depth online discussion on the GMC Terrain. Stay tuned.
19 Comments
Leave a Reply
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)
Another view on How to save GM (http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/03/another-view-how-to-save-general-motors/#more-46671):
“…and we suggested that a more drastic solution, based upon the Penn Central reorganization of the early 1970s, should be considered.
Under that model, and assuming the public policy of the United States mandates the preservation of an automobile manufacturing capacity, a new statute would — through a new subchapter of Chapter 11 bankruptcy, akin to or based upon the National Railroad Passenger Corporation Act of 1970 and the follow-up Regional Rail Reorganization Act of 1973 — transfer the fundamental operating assets and valuable contracts of a filing automaker to a new government-sponsored entity, for a price to be determined by the court and with creditors left behind to share pro-rata in the nonessential assets in the order of their legal priorities.
We anticipated that events would require tough solutions and, unfortunately, we have not been disappointed. The Obama administration has determined that Chrysler is not viable without a business combination with Fiat, and unless that transaction is consummated by the end of April, there will be no further government loans. The Ford Motor Company, at least for the moment, has not sought federal loans.
And that leaves General Motors, a huge enterprise with an admitted $100 billion negative net worth, losing market share and hemorrhaging cash, and its manufacturing operations produces negative cash flow before any debt service. In the last week, the federal government forced a management change and made it clear that unless G.M. and its unions, creditors and suppliers made very significant concessions, so that there could be a clear path to viability that is visible by the end of May, there would be no further government support for the automaker.
Sixty days to come up with a battle plan to restructure G.M.? How? Is there a streamlined process that could possibly preserve a a slimmed down GM? We suggest the answer is yes! And, again, our model is the Penn Central reorganization that we described in our previous DealBook posting.
Here is one way that it would work:
1. G.M. would be divided into two components: G.M. Core and Noncore G.M. G.M. Core would be composed of those operating assets that, in a reasonable period of time, have a good chance of becoming a viable automobile manufacturer. (For these purposes, our definition of viability differs slightly from the Treasury Department’s definition, which is that the business “must be able — after accounting for spending on research and development and capital expenditures necessary to maintain and enhance the company’s competitive position — to generate positive cash flow and earn an adequate return on capital over the course of a normal business cycle.” To us, a simpler, more useful measure of viability is simply being able to generate positive cash flow before debt service.)
2. G.M. Core, shed of legacy costs and debt, would be valued as a going concern. No value would be placed on Noncore G.M.
3. Old G.M. and affiliates (except maybe its viable foreign subsidiaries) would file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings and, at the same time, file two significant motions: First, a motion to approve debtor in possession financing (the D.I.P. motion) provided or guaranteed by the United States, and, second, a motion under section 363 of the Federal Bankruptcy Code (the section 363 motion) to sell G.M. Core to a government-sponsored entity, or G.S.E., that would be created by a new federal statute.
The sales agreement between G.M. Core and the G.S.E. would include the price and terms of purchase, and the sale would be free and clear of all liens and encumbrances other than those expressly assumed. All contractual arrangements, as modified (if necessary), essential or valuable to the operation of G.M. Core would transfer with the assets. The period between the filing of the section 363 motion and the hearing on approval would be as short as due process would permit. Any viable purchaser could overbid. Although extraordinary, the complexities of G.M. require a bold solution to eliminate the endless negotiation and litigation that surround many of our larger bankruptcy proceedings. Trans World Airlines’ sale of its assets to American Airlines within roughly 30 days of T.W.A.’s filing for Chapter 11 protection in 2001 is ample precedent.
4. The new statute authorizing the creation of the G.S.E. would provide additional remedies. (See our DealBook postings of March 23 and Nov. 26 for several possibilities.) What would be clear is that now G.M. Core, upon purchase by the G.S.E., would not be burdened by contractual and other obligations that otherwise prevent the business from becoming viable.
5. The new G.M. Core would be financed by the government and would be operated and governed by executives recruited from the private sector. The G.S.E. would continue to own and finance the new G.M. Core until it became viable, at which time it would be sold to public investors (the Conrail example). If new G.M. Core did not become viable, then the government could decide in the future whether to keep it operating to preserve the jobs and manufacturing capacity (as in Amtrak) or liquidate.
6. Old G.M. would remain in its Chapter 11 proceeding. It would have as its assets the proceeds of the sale to the G.S.E. and the proceeds from the liquidation of the Noncore G.M. assets. When those assets are liquidated, the proceeds would be distributed to creditors, including the government, in order of their legal priority.
Why bankruptcy? The current public debate is misplaced over whether or not bankruptcy is the solution to G.M.’s problems. There is a public misconception about what bankruptcy means for a business enterprise. Bankruptcy can mean liquidation, or it can be a means of renewal, taking a financially distressed business and creating a viable company by restructuring or eliminating burdensome contracts, reducing debt, and securing new financing. Chapter 11 is such a process; it is flexible; and it can, and must for G.M., be quick.
The paramount goal of the G.M. bailout should be the expedient creation of a viable G.M. Core. A sale to a G.S.E. as part of a Chapter 11 proceeding seems to us to be exactly the process to achieve that goal.
J. Ronald Trost is counsel at the law firm of Vinson & Elkins in New York. Mr. Trost was one of the chief architects of the modern United States Bankruptcy Code in 1978. He served as chairman of the National Bankruptcy Conference from 1996 until 2004.
Josiah M. Daniel III is a partner at the law firm of Vinson & Elkins in Dallas. His practice includes representation of lenders, asset purchasers, debtors, creditors’ committees, trustees and unsecured creditors in Chapter 11 bankruptcy restructurings. “
GMC and Chevrolet vehicles are the very same. Why not just put the marketing effort and expense toward one brand, Chevrolet?
I realize that an awful lot of work goes into designing cars so I don’t want to knock hard work and effort. But I’m not thrilled with the way this crossover looks from several specific things. For one, the grille is too complicated. The 3 bars are fine. The mesh is distracting because from far away, it almost looks like something you’d see on a screen door. Secondly, I really don’t like the wheel well flares. They are too boxy and the fact that they are totally square clashes with the more aggressively styled front end. I would have considered making the flares sweep back in the front to make the forward stance of the rest of the design look more cohesive. As they are now, they kind of look stuck on. Lastly, the wheels are too small for the vehicle. I understand that they are small to increase fuel economy, but the tiny wheels makes the vehicle look almost like a skateboard. The boxy flares above them amplifies that as well.
So… again I hate to sound nasty, but this is not a well-executed design as far as what I like to see. Then again, that’s just my opinion.
“GMC and Chevrolet vehicles are the very same. Why not just put the marketing effort and expense toward one brand, Chevrolet?”
A question for the ages David, “Why does GM sell both Chevy and GMC trucks?”
I asked my Dad that about 40 years and the answer he gave me then is probably still the same: If a Pontiac, Buick, or Caddie dealership wants to sell trucks, they can’t be branded as Chevys, so GM came up with the GMC badge.
The GMC badge gives GM dealers, who don’t sell Chevrolets, a truck brand to sell. But it is inefficient, and the need to change that is long overdue.
“crossover SUV that blends bold styling”
For sure, wouldn’t want a crossover SUV without some of that “bold styling.”
Sorry but that is one butt Ugly CUV.
Luckily the 2010 Equinox is great looking.
What happened to the look that was pioneered by the GMC DENALI XT concept?
That concept had a great balance of refinement and strength that I think suits GMC.. this car is possibly overly heavy looking and not as refined-looking as it should be.
um…..the styling department laid an egg…..a BIG one…..
I own a GMC Acadia and love the looks of the Acadia, Yukon/XL/Denali lineup, and the GMC Sierra. This vehicle doesn’t look good from any angle and doesn’t seem to follow the styling cues of the rest of the GMC lineup. That leaves me with 2 questions:
1. Is this what we can expect from GMC in the future? If so, kill the brand now and put it out of Chevy’s misery.
2. Did anybody show this to Bob Lutz? If so, had he been drinking heavily at the time?
Surely this is some sort of mistimed April Fools joke. No one could intentionally design and put in to production a vehicle that looks like the Terrain…or is this part of an ingenious plan by GM to hasten the spiral to bankruptcy by trying to sell SUVs so ugly they can’t be sold?
That 2.4 DI belongs in a Cobalt so it can spank Honda Insight’s at the Pump and Civic SI’s at the stoplight. A 14.0 second 1/4 mile 40odd mpg highway Cobalt/G5 would be one hell of a swansong, for the currant delta.
This vehicle was obviously severly beaten with the ugly stick throughout it’s product development cycle. Why can’t anyone at GM come out with a truly rugged looking and fully functioning CUV. In the video it is stated that this vehicle is “very rugged & modern”. Obviously, one person’s definition of rugged does not match my definition. What is rugged about this vehicle? Construction wise it is exactly like every other car produced. The front and rear bumpers are not real bumpers capable of being able to take an occassional bump or touch and still remain intact. Rather they are nothing more that painted plastic fascias, incapable of taking an occassional bump when pulling into or backing into parking spaces without experiencing significant scuffs to the painted surface. This vehicle is not rugged, rather it is like an eggshell on wheels, just waiting to be cracked.
On the subject of “muscular fender forms”, another sound bite that is totally lost on me. They look like they were taken directly from the HHR and plastered onto the sides of this vehicle. The squared off shape doesn’t follow the shape of the tires and the downward extension of the front edge of the front flares makes the whole front end look like a “cow catcher” and the downward extension of the rear edge of the rear flare makes the back end look like it is dragging on the ground.
The rake of the vehicle is classic GM. The front end is too low and is not level with the rear end. In a SUV/CUV vehicle I expect to be able to pull up to ANY sidewalk or parking curb of a 10″ minimum height with a fully loaded vehicle and be able to touch the tires to the curb without having to worry about the front air dam striking anything, and this vehicle doesn’t seem to meet this requirement.
Moving onto and into the interior, I don’t find the center stack to be all that impressive. Buttons look too small. I reserve my opinion on whether the seats are “designed to be comfortable” until I actually have a chance to drive one, but if this is anything like any of the other GM CUV vehicles, I fully expect the seats will be uncomfortable, with not enough bottom cushion length and inadequate lumbar support. The interior is also a confusing mix of finishes, with brushed aluminum trim here and chrome trim there, certainly not a consistent theme IMO.
Then on to one of my personal pet peeves in interiors, the rear cargo area. What is so difficult to understand about a “flat load floor”? This vehicle has the traditional upward sloping surface of the backs of the rear seats when folded down, because they can’t figure out how to get the seats to fold down completely flat. A flat load floor is supposed to be flat, horizontal and all on the same plane. GM seems to be able to execute this definition on some products but not on all. Not sure why?
Lets move to the rear lift gate. At first glance, it looks like a Buick lift gate with the chrome bar below the liftglass between the tail lights. Certainly not what I expect from a GMC.
In summary, I don’t see this vehicle as a styling hit. Not sure who your target audience is but I’m certain that you will not be capturing any of the typical GMC fullsize SUV owners to move into this vehicle.
I think I get it. To enhance the “green” image and save paper, they’ve decided to recycle rejected Aztek concept drawings…?
While I would have much preferred an overall appearance closer to that of a downsized Envoy Denali, my only real concern is with the boxy look of the fender flares (which should have been a bit more rounded). Having said that, I still remain highly interested in this vehicle with the following items addressed. It should have as options either the two-mode, or BAS-Plus, hybrid systems available from the beginning of production (or at the very least let us know when one or both will become available). I would desire the V6 engine combined with the two mode hybrid system (and AWD) to achieve a minimum “combined” economy rating of approximately 24 – 26+ mpg overall. The BAS-Plus hybrid system should be offered with either the 4cyl or 6cyl engines to improve their combined mpg ratings as well.
Why all that chrome? I am not a flip flop rapp crapper and i do not think the average “Joe” would feel comfortable in this “pimp”mobile!
IRT: Terrain/Acadia Denali
All Acadia’s & Terrain’s should have a factory installed thermostatically-controlled engine oil cooler – optional – now!
Would like to see most advanced BAS-plus system optional (equivalent to BAS-2.0 to 2.5). Two-mode later as feasible.
Take the existing LLT engine out to its full 4.0L design capacity for about 320 hp (Acadia). Make 3.6L LLT optional for Terrain.
Any chance of an (updated) 4.3L “XV8″ optional for Acadia? (DI, 4 cyl idle & cruise, E85 capabilities, etc.)
Most of us here would “gladly pay” for any or all of these items…….
This thing is UGLY…….. Unbelieveable – you would think Detroit would’ve learned at least SOMETHING from the Aztek debacle…… but no – they go and put this nasty looking thing up for sale. Why not kill of GMC – they are just rebadged chevy’s anyway – so I don’t get it. At some point – they have to streamline and stop worrying about this or that – everyone knows it is one company now…… And get rid of this ugly thing…….
The GMC Terrain is so ugly it would be laughable…except that this is one of the vehicles that is supposed to save GM! Let’s see..how does it stack up? Extrerior looks like a brick, with a George Foreman Grill nailed to the front end; interior is pretty much the same as the Equinox…not a bad thing, except that the Terrain costs more. Both engines are geared for max fuel economy…which means that they are dogs performance-wise. Also, even with the most expensive Terrain (over $37K!!!), you can’t get a power passenger seat, a universal hone remote, or dual mode A/C. Nice going GM! Have fun going down the rest of the slide to oblivion!
But George, don’t forget the GMC Terrain is ‘professional grade.’ The Equinox apparently isn’t for professionals, that’s why you have to pay more.
I thought GM fired the designer who penned Pontiac’s pathetic Aztec? Judging by the Terrain’s tremendously displeasurable appearance, it’s a slightly less offensive approach to reinventing the Aztec.