GMC Terrain vs Mazda CX-5: Specs Compared

Running cost over five years: at the EPA's 15,000-mile-a-year assumption the Mazda CX-5 burns about $2,100 of fuel annually against $2,200 for the GMC Terrain. That $100 yearly gap compounds to roughly $500 over five years and $800 over eight — often more than the price difference between two trims of the same vehicle, and the single largest running-cost line item separating these two.

City versus highway split: the Mazda CX-5 is the stronger commuter at 28 mpg city, while the GMC Terrain pulls ahead on the interstate at 39 mpg highway. If most of your driving is stop-and-go traffic the city figure is the one to weigh; for long-distance highway mileage the reverse is true, and the two vehicles effectively swap places depending on how you drive.

Powertrain choice: the GMC Terrain is recorded with 3 distinct engine configurations (SIDI, 1.6, SIDI; FFV), the Mazda CX-5 with 3 (SIDI, SIDI; with cylinder deactivation, 2.2). Across 47 recorded GMC Terrain configurations and 38 for the Mazda CX-5, the wider the engine spread the more the real-world fuel efficiency depends on which version you actually buy, so check the specific model year and drivetrain rather than the headline number.

Drivetrain and class: the GMC Terrain is offered with All-Wheel Drive, Front-Wheel Drive, the Mazda CX-5 with 4-Wheel Drive, Front-Wheel Drive. All-wheel drive typically costs one to two mpg combined against the same vehicle in front- or rear-wheel drive, which is worth remembering when the gap between these two is small. The EPA classes them as Small Sport Utility Vehicle 2WD and Small Sport Utility Vehicle 4WD respectively — the class drives the interior volume, cargo space and passenger space each one is measured against.

Tailpipe emissions: at their cleanest configurations the Mazda CX-5 emits 306 g/mile of CO2 versus 316 g/mile for the GMC Terrain. Emissions track fuel consumption almost exactly, so the cleaner vehicle here is also the cheaper one to fuel.