Topic: Test Drive: 2010 Chevrolet Equinox LT FWD

[ArticSteve]

The 2.4 in the Equinox is sub standard for the class.  172 ft/lbs torque @4900 rpm is not up to the task. 

Yes, you'd be better off spending many thousands of dollars more for a Highlander with a rousing 180 ft-lbs of torque.

Well Greg, (previously banned member)  , the devil is always in the details.

Since you brought it up, the 2.7 in the Highlander is 186 ft/lbs at 4100 rpm.  That is an example of the technical superiority that exists between the two.  Although, the Equinox is not nearly in the same league as a Highlander.  Incorrect comparison.

Greg, (previously banned member)  , since you always insist on comparing GM to Toyota, I would think the Equinox would be better compared to the RAV 4 Sport 2WD with the 2.5 L.  That motor makes 172 ft/lbs @4000. The prices are comparible.

[diceman]

The 2.4 in the Equinox is sub standard for the class.  172 ft/lbs torque @4900 rpm is not up to the task. 

Yes, you'd be better off spending many thousands of dollars more for a Highlander with a rousing 180 ft-lbs of torque.

Well Greg, (previously banned member)  , the devil is always in the details.

Since you brought it up, the 2.7 in the Highlander is 186 ft/lbs at 4100 rpm.  That is an example of the technical superiority that exists between the two.  Although, the Equinox is not nearly in the same league as a Highlander.  Incorrect comparison.

Greg, (previously banned member)  , since you always insist on comparing GM to Toyota, I would think the Equinox would be better compared to the RAV 4 Sport 2WD with the 2.5 L.  That motor makes 172 ft/lbs @4000. The prices are comparible.

How much h.p does the Rav make??? Go away.

[diceman]

The 2.4 in the Equinox is sub standard for the class.  172 ft/lbs torque @4900 rpm is not up to the task. 

Yes, you'd be better off spending many thousands of dollars more for a Highlander with a rousing 180 ft-lbs of torque.

Sure, but look at the differences in weight:
Equinox: 3761 pounds
Highlander: 3845 pounds

So the Highlander has a bigger engine (2.7L) with more torque at lower and only weighs an extra 80 pounds over the Equinox. I'd bet the Highlander probably feels more responsive than the Equinox does.

Also, just for fun, look at the weight of the CR-V: 3415 pounds. So for very similar engine specs, the CR-V has 350 fewer pounds to haul around. The Equinox just shouldn't be this heavy. There's no excuse for it.

No it shouldn't weigh as much as it does, but look at the vehicles. The Equinox looks solid whereas the Honda and Toyota look cheap and plasticky.

[CatsEye68]

I would think the Equinox would be better compared to the RAV 4 Sport 2WD with the 2.5 L.  That motor makes 172 ft/lbs @4000. The prices are comparible.

Well, Mr. Artic, the Equinox is so much more of a vehicle it really should not be compared to the RAV. Fairness and all that.

[drederick]

The 2.4 in the Equinox is sub standard for the class.  172 ft/lbs torque @4900 rpm is not up to the task. 

Yes, you'd be better off spending many thousands of dollars more for a Highlander with a rousing 180 ft-lbs of torque.

Well Greg, (previously banned member)  , the devil is always in the details.

Since you brought it up, the 2.7 in the Highlander is 186 ft/lbs at 4100 rpm.  That is an example of the technical superiority that exists between the two.  Although, the Equinox is not nearly in the same league as a Highlander.  Incorrect comparison.

Greg, (previously banned member)  , since you always insist on comparing GM to Toyota, I would think the Equinox would be better compared to the RAV 4 Sport 2WD with the 2.5 L.  That motor makes 172 ft/lbs @4000. The prices are comparible.

A bigger engine making more torque is 'technical superiority'? What will you think of next! how about telling everyone how the Equinox engine, even though it makes more HP and the same peak torque as the 'Rav4' 2.5, gets better fuel economy in a heavier vehicle? oh and it is a smaller engine......

That is 'technical superiority' now isn't it? shame!

I haven't a clue if Toyota offers this level of detail for their engines but gm offers the sae dyno plots for its engines and the torque curve for the 2.4 equinox engine looks pretty darn good:

http://archives.media.gm.com/us/powertrain/en/product_services/2010/gmna/HPT%20Library/Ecotec/2010%20Ecotec%2024L%20LAF%20Equinox%20SAE.pdf

[Ice]

The Equinox is a odd one because it's not REALLY a compact CUV.  It's on the bigger end of the compact market but after thinking about it for a while I think the closest comparison is to the Santa Fe.  They are largely similar in size... they weigh roughly the same  (1706kg for the Equinox and 1672kg for the Santa Fe) and they have similar engines (now).  The Equinox I4 makes 182hp at 6700hp and the Santa Fe I4 makes 175hp at 6000rpm but the Equinox also gets better gas mileage.

The CR-V is somewhat smaller than both of these.

What GM doesn't have is something that is sized like a Tucson.

[Shnak]

I can't wait for Hyundai to put their 2.4L DI engine into the Santa Fe/Sorento and the Tucson/Sportage... that'll instantly make many competitors in those segments look pretty bad!

Even though the Equinox doesn't get anywhere near its marketed fuel economy numbers, it's still very very good at it, especially in FWD trim, looks pretty good (especially compared to the GMC version) and seems to offer a decent amount of value for the money. My only real dislike for it is it's weight, it should lose quite a few pounds IMO. Oh, and Chevrolet should stop kidding itself (and all of us) and market this as a mid-size CUV, not a compact CUV. It really is a mid-size CUV at a compact CUV pricepoint; they should focus on that in their ads. Anyone that is looking at a Santa Fe-type vehicle would then think about looking at the Equinox. I'm sure many people aren't looking at the Equinox simply because it's labelled as a compact CUV, which many people probably think is too small for them. For once GM has a decent product, they should market it well!!

[johngenx]

What a piece of crap.  GM fudges the fuel economy numbers to sell people a bloated GM pig-mobile.  FWD?  For less dough, the Forester is lighter and has AWD.  Even if you spend more for the GM AWD, the Forester has the superior AWD system.  Typical GM product, built for fat people.

[drederick]

What a piece of crap.  GM fudges the fuel economy numbers to sell people a bloated GM pig-mobile.  FWD?  For less dough, the Forester is lighter and has AWD.  Even if you spend more for the GM AWD, the Forester has the superior AWD system.  Typical GM product, built for fat people.

Didn't one get tested here, on this site, getting 8.5L/100kms over the course of a week? That, if you look at other tests of 'suvs built for non-fat people', kicked every other vehicles arse.

Heck the 'Yaris' avergaed 7.9 over a week.

Why again are the numbers fudged? and why is it a piece of crap compared to ANY of the other suvs it competes with?

Does the 'conspiracy' now include the testers on this site?

Typical artic post for sure

[johngenx]

GM's TV ads go on about 6.1L/100km.  Sure.  In their dreams. 

My Subaru gets in the 9's in all-city heavy commuter traffic, and it's 10 years old and has none of the wonder-GM technology like DI.  Old fashioned 2.5L boxer with ancient four speed AT.  High 8's in combined driving is not wondrous, though I suppose it is given the portly gut this thing has.

GM's appeal to fat people cause their products are oversized and overweight, just like them.  Stupid, fat, ugly people.

[Shnak]

GM's TV ads go on about 6.1L/100km.  Sure.  In their dreams. 

My Subaru gets in the 9's in all-city heavy commuter traffic, and it's 10 years old and has none of the wonder-GM technology like DI.  Old fashioned 2.5L boxer with ancient four speed AT.  High 8's in combined driving is not wondrous, though I suppose it is given the portly gut this thing has.

GM's appeal to fat people cause their products are oversized and overweight, just like them.  Stupid, fat, ugly people.

Only midgets fit in previous generation of anything based on the Imperza. Just sayin'...

EDIT: My point being that a vehicle that barely fits 2 adults and 2 young kids shouldn't really be compared to a mid-size CUV that probably fits 5 adults comfortably in terms of fuel econonmy.

[John Doe]

GM's TV ads go on about 6.1L/100km.  Sure.  In their dreams. 

My Subaru gets in the 9's in all-city heavy commuter traffic, and it's 10 years old and has none of the wonder-GM technology like DI.  Old fashioned 2.5L boxer with ancient four speed AT.  High 8's in combined driving is not wondrous, though I suppose it is given the portly gut this thing has.

GM's appeal to fat people cause their products are oversized and overweight, just like them.  Stupid, fat, ugly people.

I have to agree, GM not only made one, it cloned it two more times, with the Terrain and CTX.  GM markets these three as crossovers, but they built three overweight SUV heavy weights with anemic 4 cylinders and dismal MPG. 

[Dante]

GM markets these three as crossovers, but they built three overweight SUV heavy weights with anemic 4 cylinders and dismal MPG. 

I agree, but singling out GM for this is not quite accurate. After all so does Hyundai (SantaFe), Kia (Sorento), Toyota (Highlander, 4Runner).

[drederick]

GM's TV ads go on about 6.1L/100km.  Sure.  In their dreams. 

My Subaru gets in the 9's in all-city heavy commuter traffic, and it's 10 years old and has none of the wonder-GM technology like DI.  Old fashioned 2.5L boxer with ancient four speed AT.  High 8's in combined driving is not wondrous, though I suppose it is given the portly gut this thing has.

GM's appeal to fat people cause their products are oversized and overweight, just like them.  Stupid, fat, ugly people.

GM TV ads go on about 6.1l/100kms........... because that is what it did during the FE testing, unless of course you know otherwise? if this is a lie contact the GOV agency responsible for this testing and share this knowledge - I for one would love to see their response to you LOL probably something like:

Thanks for coming out, please don't send us this crap again, thanks.

Is 8.5 really 'high 8's'? not in my universe LOL

Even if it were to be the 'highest 8' say 8.9 it would still best the 2010 Matrix XR AWD(yes it is awd but it is a Toyota and so it could have 16 wheel drive AND get better FE than a car with 2 wheel drive, right?) tested on this site at 10.6 l/100kms (and that included a lot of highway driving at around 90km/h)

So what is to be said about the lighter, less powerful matrix? it is the best of course! In artic math lighter, less powerful and worse FE is BETTER than heavier, more powerful and better FE... so long as it is a GM of course!

I for one am not the least surprised you wrote this because you are an artic, sad as it may be:
"GM's appeal to fat people cause their products are oversized and overweight, just like them.  Stupid, fat, ugly people."

What I am surprised is that you found the time to write so much nonsense given the steering, braking, stalling, gas pedal sticking issues associated with 'rollas... unless you got one of the 'special' ones

[ArticSteve]

even though it makes more HP and the same peak torque as the 'Rav4' 2.5,

This where you GM slappies always falter, purposely so I'm beginning to think.  

Both RAV and Equinox are rated at 172 ft/lbs.

However, and I know this is upsetting to some  , but the Toyota motor does it at 4000 rpm.  The GM unit @ 4900 rpm.  

Like I have said previously, the good news is that Equinox is assembled in Ontario.  The not so good news is that in 6 years/144k km the Equinox will be a worn out near valueless trade in.  On the other hand, the RAV will be half way thru it life cycle and be a trade that a dealer can move quickly.

[chrischasescars]

Like I have said previously, the good news is that Equinox is assembled in Ontario.

So's the RAV4, since last year.

[johngenx]

No one comes close to the 6.1 in real world testing.  GM optimized the engine/gearing for the TC FE cycle.

But, yeah, the economy is good for such a bloated POS, and I suppose even fatties might want to save a couple bucks on fuel.  Gm knows their customers can't fit in a Forester, so why even bother build it the same size?  No one would buy one!  Dad squeezes himself into his Silverado P/U and Mom, in her moo-moo, on the way to Wal-Mart to buy bulk boxes of frozen corn-dogs, can fit herself and her cubic brood into an Equinox.

They 'esplain that they "bought 'Mercian" instead of them furren brands, not knowing, of course, that many of the CUV's are made in Canada.

Midgets only fit in a Forester?  I guess if "midget" has been redefined as "healthy BMI."

[ArticSteve]

Like I have said previously, the good news is that Equinox is assembled in Ontario.

So's the RAV4, since last year.

Was aware of that  .  The only point of the GM Canadian bailout was JOBS.  So those jobs better be in Canada.  So far, I think the Americans have paid more than Canadians for the jobs sustained.  The 13 Billion dumped into GMAC all came from the Americans.

Good thing the Equinox and the other unit just happen to be made in Ontario or we, as Canadians/Ontarians, would have got a rawer deal.  

[drederick]

even though it makes more HP and the same peak torque as the 'Rav4' 2.5,

This where you GM slappies always falter, purposely so I'm beginning to think.  

Both RAV and Equinox are rated at 172 ft/lbs.

However, and I know this is upsetting to some  , but the Toyota motor does it at 4000 rpm.  The GM unit @ 4900 rpm.  

Like I have said previously, the good news is that Equinox is assembled in Ontario.  The not so good news is that in 6 years/144k km the Equinox will be a worn out near valueless trade in.  On the other hand, the RAV will be half way thru it life cycle and be a trade that a dealer can move quickly.

You did look at the sae dyno graph, right? while the torque peak is at 4900 rpm it is pretty much flat from 2-5k. Without 'seeing' a similar graph for the 'Toyota motor' you can't say it is really better now can you?

The 2.4 in the Equinox is a ward's 10 best engine because...... it is crappy? why didn't the 'technical superiority' of the Toyota engine not just put it on Wards best engine list, but actually be listed 10 times and be the ONLY engine listed?

[ArticSteve]

No one comes close to the 6.1 in real world testing.  GM optimized the engine/gearing for the TC FE cycle.

This is the first disappointment that customers experience after buying a new GM; the mileage.  In real world urban driving those GM numbers are pure fantasy.

Ask any Trailblazer owner what one thing they disliked about the vehicle and to a person it will be the gas mileage.  Unbelievably poor.  Probably 30% less than GM stated.