SC400slide

iTrader: (11)

+1. I've driven countless 4 cylinder equinox's where I work and the are all underpowered, unrefined, and very noisy. I also have seen two transmissions go out before 100k, and a motor around 100k. The 3.7 Liter 6 cylinder equinox is a significant improvement.

Fizzboy7

A vast improvement over the last, but the last was pretty dated. I agree, the interior is still the weakest point. It's close to just about all other Chevy designs and even close to some Cadillacs. There's nothing special or interesting going on there. And GM has got to get it across to stop outlining every interior trim pieces with chrome. On the outside, the c-pillar is a bit too sharp with it's leading cut, the tailpipes are simple squares which look blocky, and the heavy black trim on the lower body looks cheap. Reliability will also be a shaky question mark. Overall I think this unit will serve it's purpose, but it will be another model that falls between the cracks three to four years from now as other models are refreshed.

mmarshall

Why stop? Some buyers like it.

Perhaps. Chevy products, in general, have recently shown a lot of improvement in that area, though they still markedly trail Buick, which ranks as the best domestic nameplate in reliability.

Fizzboy7

I'd wager to say few like it in this segment. Just look at the Equinox's competition. Maybe in softer-riding luxury cars, but not in an activity vehicle. Sport, modern, efficiency, and tech is the direction here.

Toys4RJill

I have to agree with mmarshall. Some buyers like their Chevrolet products. Nothing wrong with that.

Infra

iTrader: (1)

??? What an unproductive comment.

Aron9000

Didn't know you could get the last model with the 3.7 V6 with 300hp, I'm sure that was pretty fast if GM didn't zap all the power with stupid transmission programming. If you do the math, that's about the same power to weight ratio as a Mazda Miata and better than a Subaru BRZ.

As for the new model, no surprise they got rid of the 300hp V6, as it wasn't very good on fuel economy and probably isn't what people in this segment want anyways.

mmarshall

You have to consider, though, that transmission programming, like many other things in vehicle design, is a compromise. Adding more gears to modern transmissions, of course has increased their flexibility over a wider range of driving conditions, but how you program the transmission is still dependent on how you intend the vehicle to be driven. The majority of buyers in this segment probably don't want quick, firm-shifting gearboxes that are responsive to the throttle but lack smoothness. They want smoothness and comfort in the drivetrain....and, like Lexus, GM is known for smooth, silky shifts in their automatics. But to get that smoothness, that means allowing some internal slip in the gearboxes themselves, which cuts into (even if only a small amount) fuel-efficiency and acceleration...and an excessive amount of slip can also cut down on transmission life. That's one reason (among several) why Buicks, in particular, don't do very well in EPA mileage figures or acceleration....their Cream-of-Wheat transmission shifting and programming. The sport-oriented Regal GS (?) may be one exception...but I haven't sampled one lately.

Aron9000

^ I was mainly talking about how a lot of these newer gearboxes constantly upshift in light throttle applications and keep the engine revs out of the power band, making the car feel sluggish. Or they start in 2nd gear, or they limit/cut engine power(called torque management) because they aren't built strong enough and its easier/cheaper just to retard the engine timing that spending more money on beefier/better components.

mmarshall

Most (but not all) automatics today have an automanual shift mode where, if one is not satisfied with the factory-programming, can manually shift, either by bumping the lever fore/aft in a separate notch, or by using the shift-paddles. Even boring CVTs, today, often have simulated "gears" (actually specific belt-drive ratios) that the driver can manually choose if desired. For blockheads that don't know what they are doing, the engine/transmission ECU will prevent a shift into a gear that would overspeed the engine and damage it.

Hoovey689

iTrader: (16)

You can't, it doesn't exist. GM has used a 3.6L V6 from 2013-present. Before that the 2010-2012 Equinox utilized a 3.0L V6. The 2.4 has been around since 2010 but was improved in 2012-present.

Skylar978

iTrader: (1)

I wonder if they have any plans to make an SS version of the new equinox. I would like to see an ACTUAL "SS". Maybe with the same drivetrain from the Impala SS

mmarshall

Who would actually buy an Equinox SS? The average FWD/AWD CUV-buyer doesn't get one to go canyon-carving or drag-racing in.

And, FYI, the current Chevy SS is not an Impala, which is a FWD product. The current SS is a RWD high-performance sedan based on an Australian-Holden design. Holden designs, BTW, also formed the basis for the former RWD 2004-2007 Pontiac GTO and later G8....the current Chevy SS is basically what the next-generation of those cars would have become had they stayed in production and/or Pontiac not gone out of business.

Hoovey689

iTrader: (16)

Sounds like you've forgotten about the Trailblazer and it's LS2 6.0L V8, which is what he was likely hinting at. Not the RWD SS/Caprice/G8/Commodore/VXR8 sedans. SS is sometimes used as a trim moniker on GM cars. Cobalt, Monte Carlo, Impala, Camaro, Silverado to name just a few have all had SS badges in the past.

Dodge btw is preparing a Durango SRT8.

mmarshall

I understand what you are saying, Hoovey, but, as I see it, you can't really compare a Durango to an Equinox.....it is a different class of SUV. So is the Trailblazer, for that matter. What works for them, I just don't see working with an Equinox. Yes, it's true that those other vehicles all had SS badges (and, while you're at it, don't forget the old Nova and El Camino SS) ...but, again, that was long ago, they weren't SUVs, and it was in a different market for Chevy, where SUVs and CUVs didn't have the huge share of buyers they do today.

GM, if you remember, also tried the high-performance Typhoon, based on the Jimmy SUV, and Syclone, based on the S-10 pickup......both were sales-flops, even at a time when SUV sales were starting to pick up.