• Can the 2018 GMC Terrain Denali Take on the World’s Toughest Towing Test? (Video)

    2018 gmc terrain denali awd
    2018 GMC Terrain Denali

    We usually take on the Ike Gauntlet™ in trucks and full-size SUVs. The 2018 GMC Terrain is the first compact crossover to tackle the world’s toughest towing test at near maximum load.

    This Terrain Denali AWD is fully-loaded model with a 2.0L turbocharged I4 that is rated at 252 hp @ 5,500 rpm and 260 lb-ft of torque @ 2,500 rpm. The engine is mated to a 9-speed automatic transmission. The Terrain has a 3,500 lbs towing rating, a towing mode, a 2-inch hitch receiver, a 7-pin trailer wiring connector, and relatively large side mirrors. It does not have an integrated brake controller, but it’s not something that is expected in this class of vehicle and weight rating.

    This time we are towing a CM Trailers 14-foot Stocker trailer that is weighted to just over 2,700 lbs. The trailer is pushing on the Terrain with about 300 lbs of tongue weight. When you combine this with Nathan and Andre and the camera gear, we are pushing close to 923 lbs maximum payload rating of this Terrain.

    The Ike Gauntlet is an 8-mile run of I-70 up and down a 7% grade to a maximum elevation of 11,158 feet above sea level. This is a very difficult test for any vehicle. If the Terrain can shine on this test, it will tow your small trailer with confidence.

    Our test trailer has electrically actuated brakes, and we use an Intelli-Hitch that uses a surge-motion to activate the trailer brakes. When the tow vehicles slows down, the shaft inside the hitch moves and sends the signal to actuate the trailer brakes.

    How did the Terrain do on the Ike Gauntlet™? How did it perform on the way down? What time and fuel economy did it show on the way up? Check out the video for all of the details.

    Andre Smirnov
    Andre Smirnov
    Andre Smirnov is an Automotive Enthusiast, Producer, Reviewer, Videographer, Writer, Software Engineer, Husband, Father, and Friend.

    Similar Articles

    77 thoughts on “Can the 2018 GMC Terrain Denali Take on the World’s Toughest Towing Test? (Video)

    1. An AC motor produces near constant maximum torque from 0 RPM to redline, a much better choice for towing. And regenerative braking energy comes from the inertia of the mass. When towing something, the GVWR increases. Therefore the regen should be more as the mass goes up.

      1. Enough of your turning every comment section into an electric vehicle thread.

        Electric vehicles are not pollution free, the power to recharge them comes from power plants, the batteries cause pollution when they are made and create pollution when they are disposed of.

        Stop your constituent electric this electric that bull crap in every comment section.

      2. For gods sake, Rambro, give it a rest. You are the fart in the room that drove everyone off this forum on to other sites.

      3. World oil consumption in 2016 was 96 million barrels per day…2017 was 99 million bpd. It is estimated that if the worlds increase of electric vehicle jumps by 30% per year, that by 2023 it will reduce oil demand by a whopping 2 million barrels per day…. and some people would have you believe the age of oil is over..

    2. I’ve towed trailers with surge activated brakes built into the tongue before but I’ve never seen a hitch that does this. I assume you have to plug the trailer into the intellihitch then the hitch to the 7 Pin on the vehicle? For towing fairly light like this it obviously worked well & probably looks much nicer than putting in an aftermarket controller in your Denali interior.
      Don’t have a need for this type of vehicle personally but I’ll take an Ike video whenever I can.

    3. Hyundai has a 2.0 turbo gas in the Santa Fe making 260ft-lbs of torque at 1450rpm to 3500rpm. This Terrain is at 260 torque but at 2000-4000rpm. Not as good as the Hyundai for low rpm torque. But both would be sitting at full torque at 3000rpm as shown here. I think someone is going to do a 3.0L version of this as they make more low end torque than a diesel and obviously are getting good mpg based on this pull with all that torque holding low rpm with the turbo. A 3.0L would be making 260/2×3 = 390Ft-Lbs. And Audi makes a 2.9L with 442Ft-Lbs which is more than any diesel Litre for Litre that I know of in the USA. Too bad we didnt have these motors 20 years ago. Ford paved the way on this one but Ford should be doing better. Their Turbo gas motors can make more torque at low end I think if they backed the HP off.

      1. Funny thing is I was a Lowe’s last night and thier was a guy with a Sonata and a trailer that loaded 2,000 lbs of hardwood flooring into the trailer. I thought the car was going to sag to the ground but it didn’t lol, the trailer must have been well balanced.

      1. From what I see the gas is better than a diesel as it is holding torque in much higher rpms. The current diesels make a peak torque very briefly and drop very quickly as rpm goes up. Beyond 2500rpm the diesel suffers a big loss in torque. The gas motors hang on to the torque for much longer.

          1. The problem with diesel is they dont sell well in the US. Diesel is a burden and frowned on by a majority of US buyers. When they had more power they stunk to high heaven and people hated them on a majority basis. In Europe they are being banned from city limits in many cities as they are causing too much pollution. Even the clean diesels are modified. Independant studies in Europe brought to the government showed that only 1/3 newer clean diesel vehicles after 5 years were meeting emmissions. People failed to maintain them and or modified them so the government is trying desperately to subsidize electric cars as people develop lung and organ cancers and babies are being born with birth defects due to poor air quality. Regardless what you belive or choose to ignore, the USA does not sell more than 3% of diesel vehicles. People would be much happier with this 2.0 gas turbo or a 3.0 gas turbo. Fords 2.7EB is the top engine choice for a reason.

            1. Except new direct injection gas engines burn finer than diesels and are worse to breathe than diesel particulates. Additionally, diesel emits at least 20 percent less particulates than gas.

            2. Only true because you are talking within safe parameters if given a clean diesel with a particulate filter. Without that particulate filter diesel pollutes 100 times worse than a turbo gas motor. People fail to maintain the filters and remove them to gain mpg and power, then you have an epidemic, same as in Europe. The motors also add extra weight which is bad for off roading and give the vehicle worse handling characteristics and are proving to be more expensive to own with added time lost on maintenance issues.

            3. Modern DI engines product 10 to 100 times more particulate than modern diesel engines, especially turbocharged DI engines. But this is in direct conflict with the garbage Rambro tries to pass off as fact, so good luck winning that “debate”.

            4. A new study by a German car specialist, Ferdinand Dudenhöffer, says levels of pollution from diesel cars are still too high in 10 German cities, so the vehicles are likely to be banned from the pollution hotspots unless engines are upgraded.

              According to his research, vehicle software upgrades would not be enough to address the problem. Munich, Stuttgart, Hamburg, Düsseldorf and Cologne are among the cities with serious pollution hotspots.

            5. That study does not comprehend the new direct injection gas motors, and the fact that they are more harmful to humans than diesel engines even before diesel engines’ filters and exhaust treatment.

        1. You missed the point. Diesels make their torque at low rpms due to higher compression and turbo charging. They do this so that they don’t have to rev so high. This is one of the keys to their longevity.

          1. Turbo gas engines are proving to make more torque at lower rpm. Kia has a turbo 2.0L making 260Ft-Lbs at 1300Rpm. No diesel litre for litre can match that at those low rpms. So how is it that diesel makes lower rpm torque. Gas turbos can do even better I am if they were made sooner and implemented with modern tech rather than sitting on coatails and dragging your arse on the carpet.

            1. Except that modern gasoline engines can’t operate under the conditions that diesel engines can. Turbo gas engines are EXTREMELY susceptible to LSPI aka low speed pre-ignition. Furthermore, modern transmissions are programmed to downshift at WOT. Combine this with the fact that the only time an engine makes its advertised power numbers is at WOT, and you end up with turbo gas engines that can be advertised to make a million lb-ft of torque at 2000 RPM, it’s still going to be worthless since the computer will never allow it to make that the torque at that RPM.

            2. That Kia is basically a car isn’t it? Car engines are tuned much differently than truck engines in that a truck engine is expected to work much harder (pull at least twice its own weight).

        1. Tractor trailers do high mileage unlike the typical 1/2 ton or SUV buyers cars etc. Diesel makes sense for high milers pulling a load. Many commercial vehicles especially city trucks are switching to electric power as well, so it wont be long before electric replaces diesel in this application. The largest trucking companies have bought into the Tesla semi trucks. If successful like Workhorse has been doing for over a decade now then expect electric to take over diesel in that segment as well. But diesel will never amount to anything in the residential consumer market. Its just a desperate move to meet Cafe standards. Turbo gas is all thats needed. Diesel is a big step backwards. Ford just admitted it with 11 billion going to electric by 2020. Even Toyota the largest vehicle company admits diesel is a waste of time and that Tesla got it right.

          1. No, before you use the filters, the diesels are more healthy to breathe. The gas direct injection engines burn more finely, like I said. Making more unhealthy emissions. And more of it. the idea that diesels make more unhealthy emissions, is an urban myth. It was only true before gas started getting direct injection by 2010 and on about. This is all before any consideration of filters or any after treatment. Its about the way direct injection burns gas vs. diesel. Gas burns more finely.

            1. Like I said you are talking about safe levels. Thats called fake news propaganda. Diesels are cleaner with the particulate filter which is needed because they filthy. If safe levels were 100 particles per vehicle and diesel emits 4 particles and a turbo gas burns 20 times worse as you put before, than gas emits 80 particles which is still safe. Remove the particulate filter which most people do or fail to maintain as proven in Europe than diesel emits 100 times more particulates than gas engines. Thats 100×80=8000 particulates. Are you getting it now? You want truth but you spread propaganda. Babies are being born with birth defects in Europe, people are suffering from all kinds of organ failures proven to be from diesel emissions. Once in you lungs it never comes out, this is a proven fact. Your body cannot expel it from your lungs, it permanent. And it causes lung cancer.

            2. The particulates that direct injection gasoline engines emit are finer and more harmful to the body than the larger diesel particulates.

            3. Rambro
              Just wondering how you know that “most” people remove the emissions equipment on diesels? Or fail to maintain them? Pretty sure there’s lots of gas engines out there running around with the CEL on for an emission control problem that goes unfixed.

            4. Paul, I say people fail to maintain them and modify them because of a study done in the UK. People were stopped and tested randomly by independant sources that bring information to the government and it was found that 2/3 clean diesels did not meet emissions standards despite leaving the lot as a clean diesel. This was due to failed maintenance and modifications.

              Garages want to sell modifications to diesels because they make money on the sale and tell the customer that they will gain power and gain on mpg so the customers naturally say ok or people do it themselves. When you modify a gas engine you worsen your mpgs so the desire for it is lessoned. Also when a gas engine is modified it does pollute but a modified diesel as I said is 100 times worse.

            5. Rambro,
              Failed maintenance is a problem with the owner, not the engine. I’m unaware of emissions regulations in the UK; but where we live & in many states as those in the US can attest to, there are regular emission tests that require your engine & emission controls to be in good working order in order to pass inspection. There are shops that delete and tune diesels but these are far from your everyday mechanic shops, they are performance shops. You’re not going to get your average joe going in to get their diesel Cruze in for maintenance and have a guy suggest that they void their warranty and delete emissions equipment because they’ll get better mileage.

            6. Sorry Paul H, but if the owner cannot be expected to maintain the vehicle to meet the emission requires in a reasonable way then that IS a problem with the engine and technology. Why should they have a car they cannot maintain properly at the cost of everyone else’s health?

            7. It doesn’t take much maintenance to keep a modern diesel compliant-no more than a gasoline engine, apart from the DEF, which the computer “forces” you to top off. If you can pump your own gas you can certainly handle adding DEF every 5-6000 miles.
              There are definitely a lot of modified, heavy polluting diesels out there. I don’t think it is anywhere near “most” however. There are more and more proposed laws aimed a correcting that however. A few irresponsible individuals ruining the fun for the rest of us.

            8. Real J
              I’m not sure I understand what you mean here… What I’m saying is that it is the responsibility of every car and truck owner regardless of what kind of engine is under the hood to make sure its in good working order as far as emissions go. The same goes for safety as far as mechanical goes. You will always have those people who do not take care of their vehicles and they will inevitably cause excess pollution. But saying diesel design is terrible because people might not keep it running tip top is like saying brake design is bad because some people might not get new brake pads when the old ones get worn down and that will cause accidents. Let’s start holding the people responsible here. I know there are those guys out there that like to roll coal, I’m not in favor of that at all & I think it’s stuff like that which gives diesel a bad name. I remember not that long ago when the technology was relatively new, guys were cutting off their catalytic converters & screwing with the egr on gas engines. Now that the tech is reliable, who would do that anymore? I think the same will be true when the reliability of diesel aftertreatment comes up to par. DEF, DPF,SCR are still relatively new when compared to the systems in place on gas vehicles and from what I’ve seen are proving to be very reliable on new diesels.

          2. No Rambro, semis will not go pure EV, they will go diesel electric, as announced by Cummins with their diesel electric.

            Pure EV semis will be a smaller percentage of the trucking community for many decades.

            1. The vast majority will be diesel powered for many years to come.
              We will see an increasing number of pure electrics working the ports and local delivery.
              There will be very few diesel electric-they just don’t make any sense. Unless you are talking hybrids.
              Cummins announced an electric driven truck-with the possibility of added a range extender diesel if desired.
              What would you do with the likes of Nikola and Tesla announcing electrically driven trucks? Soon there will undoubtedly be legislation requiring them in some instances.

        2. Jay,
          It’s not the Diesel that’s making the low rpm torque, it’s the turbo and higher compression.

          Sure Diesel has more energy content than gasoline, but with today’s modern technology and electronics they are easily able to achieve the same low end torque out of Turbocharged gasoline!

          They are building the gasoline turbo’s engines with all of the same ingredients as the Diesels- high compression, turbo or turbo’s, forged crankshafts, forged connecting rods, CGI blocks, oil cooled pistons, water cooled and oil cooled turbo’s and etc.

          Take the turbo away from the Diesel and it’s worthless!

          Fact is test for test the EPA deems the Diesel pollutants more harmful- the rest is speculation and political maneuvering!

          1. The EPA is a sow moving government agency that is not well connected to the science.
            The sciences has proved that th direct injection gasoline engines emit more unhealthy particles than the diesel eit.
            The EPA is behind the curve, like they always are.
            And understandably so, since direct injection gas motors have only been widespread for a few years.
            Mark my words, you all are wrong ad not educated on this point. Do your research.
            Once the EPA catches on that the gasoline gasoline engines are emitting worse particulates than diesel(which they are already already apprised of this and doing more investigation), then they will be forced to put emissions filters and treatment on all direct injection gasoline motors to an even further extent than the diesel motors.
            Mark my words, and the words of the scientists who have know this for a while now.

            1. Oh, and gas will never have the energy that gasoline will have. It will always yield more power and be more efficient and clean as well. It is chemically impossible for gasoline to yield more power than diesel.

            2. Epa is well aware of the science and so is Europe who already have many major cities banning diesel cars from entering their inner cores altogether. These are government experts. Beware some on this site have vested interests in diesels or are just to ignorant to learn about big oil propaganda. Many minions in the oil industry want you to believe diesel is safe because it lowers auto manufacturers CAFE emmisions by obtaining higher mpgs. This allows the industry to keep building combustion cars, thus burn oil. Dont fall for it.

            3. “government experts”????????

              That’s an oxymoron.

              Governments are remarkabley stupid. They rely on private research an science to persuade and educate them.

              Since direct injection gas motors are so new, governments are not up to speed yet on the fact they pollute more unhealthy particles than diesel motors(even before diesels’ filters and treatment).

            4. Ian, the diesel fuel itself may have more energy content than gasoline on a chemical level, but there a massive assortment of other variables that go into the power produced. Diesel does not explode as quickly so the useful work gained from it is limited in a piston engine. I believe that once sparkless gasoline engines become available, and throttle bodies are eliminated, we will see that gasoline is just as efficient as diesel as a total system.

            5. That the flame propagation speed of diesel is slower than that of gasoline does not limit a piston engines ability to extract power from it. It does however limit the effective speed that the engine can turn (efficiency drops of quickly the faster the engine spins).

          2. Why would you take away the turbo from a diesel? And simply adding a turbo to a gas engine and building the engine with better parts will never make it as efficient as a turbo diesel.
            Because diesel has 13-15% more energy by volume.
            Also, you can run 20 to 1 + compression and higher boost levels.
            Try that with a gas engine.
            Your argument is flawed no matter how much you prefer gasoline.
            While we are at it, fully electric vehicles will never take over from fossil fuels unless Nikola Teslas research allows us to wirelessly receive electricity.
            A diesel/electric hybrid will be the most reliable and cost effective next step for the masses.

            1. Jay M a clean diesel does not have 13-15% more energy. The motor is heavier which reduces mpg, the filtering system also robs energy and if you buy biodiesel it only has 3% more energy. Other factors to consider, more weight means worse handling and longer stopping distances and more wear and tear on a vehicle. Also diesels are proving to be more expensive to maintain and they have the added expense and maintenace for def fluid and ridiculous regen cycles.

            2. Skyactiv X has very high compression for compression ignition.
              Let’s see,if Mazda can make it work properly in any conditions.

            3. Like I say, the new gas direct injection will have all the same filtering and exhaust treatment, because the science shows the new direct injection engines burn more unhealthy particulates. So that will not be a factor soon enough. In fact, they will have to to do more treatment than the diesel engines.
              And even you are in favor of the new gas engines that are higher compression and heavier blocks etc. to handle that. So the weight problem is all becoming the same. And yet, you will still get 20 percent more power out of diesel chemically.

            4. Oh, and presenting the fact that new direct injection gas motors are unhealthy just like diesel, does not help the cause of big oil, as you say. Think about it!
              Very strange you would say so.

            5. Well, when gasoline is 20% cheaper than diesel, all that efficiency goes out the window. I know you diesel fans get all giddy about the big MPG number on your dash but you’re wallet isnt any heavier after you go by the pump and pay the diesel prices.

              Some of us like to look at the whole picture.

            6. There is no inherent reason diesel is 20 percent more. If politicians were to let us build more diesel refineries, diesel would be cheaper than gas.

              And if I pulled my load with a gas motor, I would have to pay a lot more than 20 percent for the same pull, and I would have to buy a new gas motor every year, because it would fall apart.

              And the direct injection engine pollutes more harmful particles than diesel.

            7. Diesel fuel has more energy than gasoline regardless of the weight of the engine. That the engines are heavier and regeneration of the current emissions systems does reduce FE but diesels are still king when it comes to FE.

              It is reasonable to expect that future emission system will improve over time-just as they did for gasoline. Some off-road equipment is already dropping EGR-which also should reduce the amount of DPF regeneration required. SCR has made a significant difference in FE and emissions.

              Diesel costs less to refine than gasoline-it is the market that drives up the cost. Where I live diesel is usually about the same cost of regular. It seems to go up in the winter-I assume due to its competition with heating oil.

          3. Diesels have a higher compression and a higher energy content-both of which help them to make more torque. They also tend to have a greater stroke to bore ratio than a gas engine-which also makes more torque.
            NA diesels make more torque than gasoline engines-at least back when NA diesels existed.
            You add enough boost to a gas engine and it will make more torque. You could do the same to a diesel engine as well.
            There is a reason you don’t see turbo charged gas engines replacing diesel engines in semi, trains and other heavy equipment.

            1. From Wikipedia:(and other places)

              “In 2013, research by TÜV NORD found that although gasoline direct injection engines dramatically reduce carbon dioxide emissions, they release about 1,000 times more particles classified by the World Health Organization as harmful than traditional petrol engines and 10 times more than new diesel engines. The release happens because direct injection results in uneven burning of fuel due to uneven mixing of fuel and air (stratification) and because direct-injection engines operate with a higher pressure in their cylinders than older indirect-injection engines.

              This pollution can be prevented with a relatively inexpensive particulate filter that can significantly reduce the emissions of particles. However, fitting such a filter is not mandatory yet.[77] As of September 2017, Euro 6 emission regulations limit particle numbers at a maximum of 6×1011 per kilometre over the New European Driving Cycle. Some gasoline direct injection engines might require gasoline particulate filters (GPFs) to meet that standard.[78]”

              See, “10 times ” that of new diesel engines.


              “Empa researchers Norbert Heeb and Maria Munoz discovered large quantities of benzo(a)pyrene (red bar)—a combustion product responsible for cutting short the lives of cigarette smokers—in the exhaust gas emitted by GDI engines. Dibenzo(ah)anthracene (pink) is also carcinogenic. The carcinogenic potential in one cubic meter of exhaust gas from gasoline direct injectors is up to 1,700 times higher than the EU limit for clean air. By contrast, diesel cars with particle filters exceeded the limit only 45-fold. Click to enlarge.”

              So, 1700 for gas engines, and only 45 times for diesel engines.

              Diesels are cleaner.


              Modern gasoline engines are worse than diesel engines.

              “The results were sobering: every tested gasoline car emitted ten to 100 times more fine soot particles than the diesel Peugeot. Under the microscope, the particles from the gasoline engines were similar in size to the soot particles that had given diesel a bad name: primary particles measuring ten to 20 nanometers in size, which congregate into particle agglomerates measuring 80 to 100 nanometers before leaving the exhaust.

              Once inhaled, these particles remain in the body forever.

              —Norbert Heeb
              The evidence shows that they can penetrate the membrane of human alveoli in the lungs and thus get into the bloodstream. However, the particles are not the only problem. Heeb notes that liquid or solid chemical toxins from the combustion process, including polycyclic aromatic compounds, accumulate on the surface of the particles, which can then smuggle these substances into the bloodstream like a Trojan horse.

              Maria Munoz, a colleague of Heeb’s from Empa’s Advanced Analytical Technologies lab, took a closer look at the exhaust emissions from the vehicles tested in the GasOMeP project and discovered the combustion product benzo(a)pyrene, a known carcinogenic substance also found in cigarette smoke.

              The World Health Organization (WHO) considers even the tiniest dose of benzo(a)pyrene harmful. The EU settled on an air limit of one nanogram per cubic meter. Levels in exhaust emissions were found to be as much as 1,700 times above this limit. Or to put it another way, one cubic meter of exhaust gas transforms up to 1,700 cubic meters of clean air into a mixture deemed carcinogenic according to the EU standard.

              Once again, the diesel vehicle with particle filter fared much better: in the test, the Peugeot emitted only 45 nanograms of carcinogenic substances—6 times less than the best one of the analyzed gasoline cars.”

              That is evidence.

              so if you wan to claim anything else, then present your evidence.

              Otherwise you are the one blowing smoke!

    4. The Terrain and Hynudia may make good horse power, yet the engines are not reliable. I have owned both models and at the 60,000 mile mark, they both started consuming oil every 650 miles, GMC nor Hyundai will not stand behind their products. I got rid of both vehicles. Went back to Toyota.

      1. The neighbor’s 2010 Corolla burns over a quart every 1000 miles and only has 86k miles on it… many manufacturers had oil consumption problems back around 2008-2012, including Toyota, Honda, GM, Mazda, Hyundai/Kia, etc.

    5. Leo, you don’t take care of your cars.

      Large number of Kia’s in my extended family. Kia and Hyundai use the same equipment.

      Not one of us has been able to take advantage of the 10 year 100,000 mile warranty. Zero problems.

      I have 130,000 miles on my 2004.5 Kia spectra. I have never added oil in between oil changes.

      This car has seen many trips this side of the Missouri/ Mississippi.

      Plus many city miles.

      The interior looks great. The paint shines like new and there are no rattles or squeaks.

      1. Hyundai and Kia have had HUGE problems with their engines. Thrown rods, fuel diluted oil, spun crank bearings, etc. Just have to good this crap. I owned a Kia Optima in college and that thing was bad enough to make me wish I still had my Chevy Celebrity, and that thing was a POS.

        1. Yep Hyundai/Kia has had major issues with engine failures. Most were due to metal debris clogging the oil passages and taking out crank bearings.

    6. Kia and Hyundai solved their problems since new products in 2004.5

      There was only one engine problem. After crankshaft was ground. Not all of the shavings were properly removed.

      Hyundai and Kia replaced all of these engine under warranty.

      I know of one person who had their engine replaced at 77,000 miles. And their warranty was extended to 125,000 miles. They were very happy with the wau the problem was resolved.

      They were offered a rental car. And the repair work was completed in short time.

      I would suppose having a factory/dealer replaced engine would be a great selling point.

      As I said before I have 130,000 miles on my 2004.5 spectra and have never had any problems.

      Of course I have replaced battery and brake pads. Having a new timing belt and all the other belts put in cost me $275.
      Clutch replacement cost me $450.

      I paid $12,100 for the new car. I bought it 13.5 years ago. Thats $896 a year plus $725 dollars in maintenance cost,(about $53/year). I change the oil and filter myself. So just a guess but that’s less than $50 a year.

      $1750 per year plus gas costs is a pretty great return on my investment.

      Less than 11 cents per mile plus gas and insurance costs. A bit for the car wash.
      Since 2004, Kia and Hyundai have worked very hard to build a great reliability record

      No complaints from me.

      1. “Kia and Hyundai solved their problems since new products in 2004.5

        There was only one engine problem. After crankshaft was ground. Not all of the shavings were properly removed.

        Hyundai and Kia replaced all of these engine under warranty.

        I know of one person who had their engine replaced at 77,000 miles. And their warranty was extended to 125,000 miles. They were very happy with the wau the problem was resolved.”








    7. Force induction rules the day at the Ike. Looking at this video I believe it will not be long we will see turbo v-6 in gm half tons. This vehicle went up the MTN with out any drama.

      Oh the dsl is not strong enough to get the the heavier weight classification. Gm didn’t wanna say that , but you can read in between the lines.

    Leave a Reply