Topic: 2010 Chevrolet Equinox; Day 1

[rrocket]

Zoo
Auto Obsessed
 
Vehicle: 2006 Chevy HHR, 1969 Chevelle, 2007 Yaris Hatchback
Gender:
Location: Guelph, Ontario
Posts: 962

Um, 69 Chevelle and 07 Yaris ??!

Does this multiple personality thing affect your day to day life much ?

I don't see the big deal.  I had a 640HP Supra at the same time I had a 105HP Echo.  Like me, I sure Zoo needed a "beater" car for the winter, since driving a Chevelle in the winter is criminal...

[Spec5]

45km/h

I find that incredibly remarkable considering the size/weight of an SUV vs. my little Sentra. I don't know how they're doing it but good on them. I won't be as pessimistic regarding their claimed fuel mileage numbers in the future.

[SJP]

The Equinox is a good looking vehicle in it's segment, and is/will be a hit for GM. So much so that I really wonder why the Terrain exists? Now, instead, if they could lower and lighten  the Equinox into a wagon, with a manual transmission, GM would gain a new customer, but alas, I know a front drive wagon will sell more if it is "jacked up" to look like an SUV

[fredhead166]

Have had a V6 AWD 2010 Equinox for two months and 15 fillups. Here is the real fuel economy numbers. Go to fuelly.com and look for fredhead166

I am averaging 13.3 l/100 km. Best highway result is 9.4 l/100km.

5000 km in, and disappointed that I am not getting close to Transport Canada numbers (V6, AWD. Advertised City/Hwy/Combined: 12.3 / 8.4 / 10.5)

....a proper/accurate (as much as possible) fuel economy test.....

I'm curious as to what this would be?

I'm thinking something like this:

Pre-conditions
1. Tire pressure set cold to the manufacturer spec (use a digital instrument to measure)
2. Car free of any cargo and passengers
3. The highway testing route (loop) is as flat as possible.
4. The testing loop has a Service Station in between the end points.
5. The total loop is at least 100 km.
6. Perform the test during off-peek hours, calm day (no strong winds), with temp between 10-15 Celsius (?)

Test
1. Drive to the Service Station
2. Fill up the tank to the very top. Take a note of the pump you used.
3. Reset the trip odo.
4. Drive away and get on the highway.
5. Slowly accelerate to 100 km/hr.
6. Set the cruise control to 100 km/hr
7. Drive the test loop.
8. Arrive back at the Service Station
9. Fill up the tank from the same gas pump to the very top.
10. Record how many liters you put in the tank.
11. Record the trip odo.
12. Calculate the fuel consumption.


Post the result here.

[wing]

I bet most didn't know that for AWD vehicles the transport canada numbers are done on a 2-wheel dyno with one set of wheel disengaged.  Seems misleading to me...  I suppose they probably compensate with some math, but not enough obviously.

[Neromanceres]

45km/h

I find that incredibly remarkable considering the size/weight of an SUV vs. my little Sentra. I don't know how they're doing it but good on them. I won't be as pessimistic regarding their claimed fuel mileage numbers in the future.

The Equinox uses a new Direct Injected I4 engine with a new 6 speed automatic.  This engine is oustanding and made Wards top 10 best engines this year.

The 3.0 V6 however has not faired well in this vehicle.  It has little low end torque and the engine needs to be reved to get some performance out of it.  I did hear that the V6 engine should turbo charge well in the future .

[Zoo]

Yaris is my wife's ride. 

That being said it is a fun little car to fling around. I happen to like small hatches and also old school rear wheel drive cars as well.

Zoo
Auto Obsessed
 
Vehicle: 2006 Chevy HHR, 1969 Chevelle, 2007 Yaris Hatchback
Gender:
Location: Guelph, Ontario
Posts: 962

Um, 69 Chevelle and 07 Yaris ??!

Does this multiple personality thing affect your day to day life much ?

[Zoo]

The Equinox is a good looking vehicle in it's segment, and is/will be a hit for GM. So much so that I really wonder why the Terrain exists? Now, instead, if they could lower and lighten  the Equinox into a wagon, with a manual transmission, GM would gain a new customer, but alas, I know a front drive wagon will sell more if it is "jacked up" to look like an SUV

If you do this you might end up with my daily driver. An HHR.

[SJP]

ZOO,
 I love the concept of the HHR, and give GM credit for building it, it's just the retro look is not my cup of tea. I assume you have been happy with yours? It IS the type of vehicle I am looking for though, but competent small wagons are hard to come by. If they could create a wagon with similar specs to the HHR, with simple modern styling, I would really be interested.

[Zoo]

I have been very happy with the HHR. Very good fuel economy and it holds all the products I need to take with my on my sales runs. It is also a great highway tourer and I can drive 600kms or more in a single stretch without feeling fatigue. The HHR is also pretty quiet at speed; much quieter than my Civic was which makes for a much more relazing commute.

The major ergonomic faux pas is the power window switches which are located low on the centre stack. Apparently they have rectified that on the 2010 and they are now on the doors.

I would buy another HHR or would consider the Equinox if I want a bit more room.

ZOO,
 I love the concept of the HHR, and give GM credit for building it, it's just the retro look is not my cup of tea. I assume you have been happy with yours? It IS the type of vehicle I am looking for though, but competent small wagons are hard to come by. If they could create a wagon with similar specs to the HHR, with simple modern styling, I would really be interested.

[Ex-airbalancer]

power window switches which are located low on the centre stack.

Our 323 has switches there, I have no problem with them located there

[SJP]

ZOO,
  Glad to hear you are happy with the HHR, too many people end up living with vehicles that don't live up their expectations. It is exactly the type of vehicle that would work for most families, utility, with good fuel economy, and not as top heavy as an SUV. I MUCH prefer the styling of the HHR to the PT Cruiser, not so dainty, but again, retro is just not my thing. I have seem some with pretty cool paint jobs though, and they do get attention.

[drederick]

Supply the RAV link and I'll give it a read. 

articsteve - maybe you should actually spend sometime on this website called 'www.canadiandriver.com' and read up on some of the 'Toyotas' you claim to know so much about. The review in question is here:
http://www.canadiandriver.com/2009/02/03/test-drive-2009-toyota-rav4-sport-four-cylinder.htm

Sounds to me like the torque curve in the toyota 2.5 is a bit, ummmmm, crappier(?) than the 2.4 GM engine now doesn't it LOL

[ArticSteve]

Supply the RAV link and I'll give it a read. 

articsteve - maybe you should actually spend sometime on this website called 'www.canadiandriver.com' and read up on some of the 'Toyotas' you claim to know so much about. The review in question is here:
http://www.canadiandriver.com/2009/02/03/test-drive-2009-toyota-rav4-sport-four-cylinder.htm

Sounds to me like the torque curve in the toyota 2.5 is a bit, ummmmm, crappier(?) than the 2.4 GM engine now doesn't it LOL

Sounds to me like the torque curve in the toyota 2.5 is a bit, ummmmm, crappier(?) than the 2.4 GM engine now doesn't it LOL

This is what Mr. Chase said in 2009:  While the 2009 model retains the right-now throttle response that can make the car feel jumpy in city driving, the upgraded four-cylinder is otherwise just right. The new engine has no trouble keeping up with city traffic, and if it lacks the highway passing prowess of the six-cylinder engine, this four-cylinder pulls nicely at high revs and rarely feels breathless

Sounds pretty good to me.

THis is Mr. Chase on the Equinox 2.4 in 2010:  My only complaint power-wise is that it makes its power high in the rev range, which is fine until you pack four adults inside, at which point you immediately notice how much harder the engine has to work to get the Equinox up to speed. As it is, this four-cylinder doesn’t seem to mind reaching for high revs, and it sounds decent when pressed, but the amount of engine noise that makes it inside reminds you that this is no luxury vehicle.

Sounds not to good to me.

Thank you for the RAV link.  Very informative. 

[drederick]

UMMMM AS lets look at the two reviews:

Rav4 - this comment was made about the Rav4 2.5 WITHOUT any mention of having 4 adults in the vehicle:
"The only similarity to the old four-banger is a lack of torque off idle; after all, torque is up just six pound-feet (compared to the 13-horsepower upgrade), and it still peaks at a relatively high 4,000 rpm."


Equinox - this comment was made about the Equinox with 4 adults in the vehicle:
" at which point you immediately notice how much harder the engine has to work to get the Equinox up to speed"

lets see - one has lack of torque with only the driver = good
one has to work harder when there is 4 adults in the vehicle, but otherwise no comments on lack of torque = bad

Only an artic could follow that logic

[ArticSteve]

You'll have to take it up with Mr. Chase regarding his not so flattering comments about the Equinox's lack of power and the engine noise.

I think for potential shoppers reading this review the lesson is to consider the V6 in this vehicle.  The 2.4 might be fine for the Malibu and the Cobalt, but like so many times in the past, eventually the GM parts bin runs dry, and this Equinox needs a new gen 4 cylinder which you will probably see soon.   

[drederick]

You'll have to take it up with Mr. Chase regarding his not so flattering comments about the Equinox's lack of power and the engine noise.

I think for potential shoppers reading this review the lesson is to consider the V6 in this vehicle.  The 2.4 might be fine for the Malibu and the Cobalt, but like so many times in the past, eventually the GM parts bin runs dry, and this Equinox needs a new gen 4 cylinder which you will probably see soon.   

So I am correct then? Your position is incorrect? thanks articsteve for coming out.

I think for the potential shoppers reading both of these reviews is to buy the Equinox if you want a great 4cylinder with great FE compared to the 2.5 Rav4.

You do understand that the 2.4 in the equinox is newer and vastly different than the ones in the Malibu and Cobalt.... don't you?

[CatsEye68]

You do understand that the 2.4 in the equinox is newer and vastly different than the ones in the Malibu and Cobalt.... don't you?

Good lord... don't give him bait and incite him to post more nonsense...

[ArticSteve]

You do understand that the 2.4 in the equinox is newer and vastly different than the ones in the Malibu and Cobalt.... don't you?

It's the same engine, except to make it work, although inadquate to the task as pointed out in the review, GM BAFFED it with more air and a ECM change.

The Malibu, which drives fine with the 2.4 carrys within it 169 HP @ 6200 rpm & 158 ft/lbs @ 4700.  ( 700 rpm too much to be rated a good motor)

The Equinox, same motor, produces 182 HP @ 6700 rpm and 172 ft/lbs. @ 4900 rpm

Which one is gonna wear out first    Plus it weighs more and is likely to carry more weight.

For these reasons, and in particular the weak motor, I would advise ppl to stay away from the Equinox 4 cylinder.  Go for the V6 and enjoy the ride. 

[drederick]

You do understand that the 2.4 in the equinox is newer and vastly different than the ones in the Malibu and Cobalt.... don't you?

It's the same engine, except to make it work, although inadquate to the task as pointed out in the review, GM BAFFED it with more air and a ECM change.

The Malibu, which drives fine with the 2.4 carrys within it 169 HP @ 6200 rpm & 158 ft/lbs @ 4700.  ( 700 rpm too much to be rated a good motor)

The Equinox, same motor, produces 182 HP @ 6700 rpm and 172 ft/lbs. @ 4900 rpm

Which one is gonna wear out first    Plus it weighs more and is likely to carry more weight.

For these reasons, and in particular the weak motor, I would advise ppl to stay away from the Equinox 4 cylinder.  Go for the V6 and enjoy the ride. 

your kidding right? you didn't learn a thing from the last time you played the whole "Dude, if the displacment is EXACT, it's not "all new" " argument about the Toyota Matrix 1.8. Back then you showed you didn't have a clue about Toyota engines (SHOCK!) but why do bother to come across knowing about GM engines?

sad sad sad articsteve just plain sad.

Equinox 2.4 information:
http://archives.media.gm.com/us/powertrain/en/product_services/2010/gmna/Stories/Ecotec/10_LAF_n.doc

Malibu 2.4 information:
http://archives.media.gm.com/us/powertrain/en/product_services/2010/gmna/Stories/Ecotec/10_LE5_n.doc

Stop and read these two links before you continue your ignorant ranting.

Wear out first? My vote would be the 2.5 Rav4 engine because of the aforementioned torques issues without even a full load of people.........

For these reasons, and in particular the weak motor, I would advise ppl to stay away from theRav4 4 cylinder.  Go for the V6 and enjoy the ride.