How Much do I hate My Equinox

[Robert Hall]

Chevy needs to keep the Equinox the size it is as a midsize CUV and add subcompact (Trax) and compact CUVs below it, to line up better w/ Toyota, Hyundai, Honda, etc.

[Drew Dowdell]

Physically smaller on the outside doesn't have to translate to physically smaller on the inside. Whether or not you like its looks, the Encore is a perfect example of this. It is way smaller on the outside than the Tiguan or Escape, but in terms of passenger space, it feels within spitting distance of those two. The next 'Nox will take this same tactic: shrink a lot on the outside while keeping interior room as close to the present vehicle as possible and shedding weight in the process. DO NOT expect the V6 to return, part of the weight saving and packaging saving process accounts for only have 4-cylinder engines. besides.. it is going to be on a variant of the Delta platform... no V6es in sight there.

[riviera74]

But will a 4cyl be enough? I have sat in an Encore it is surprisingly roomy for the external size (not Equinox/Terrain roomy, but still). I would probably go for a compact CUV underneath the Nox/Terrain twins instead and have the Nox/Terrain drop 500 pounds at least.

[hyperv6]

Here is the deal the first gen suffered from the lack of development and refinement since GM had no money.

The second gen got a boost in refinement and development but it still was limited. I think you see the difference in the second gen due to the Lutz factor as he pressed for the extras to make them better when those before him would just say good enough.

As for the 3.0 V6 it is fine. The truth is you need to learn to drive it like a Northstar and rev it. The engine really is not alive till you come up on 4000 RPM. It does a very good job for moving two tons. As for the 3.6, it is better but only a little. It was a good move but there is no night a day difference.

As for Size there is a lot of wasted space in the present one from the driver to the windshield. Also while the rear seat room is nice they could snug it up and still have a lot of room left. The next one will have a more shallow dash and the rear seat will lose a little leg room but it will not lack leg room. The weight loss will be the major improvement and needed improvement.

I agree no V6 but with a good 2.0 Turbo there will be no need for it.

The main complains on the present vehicle is the lack of MPG, Lack of cargo room with out folding a seat and the lack of vents for heat and AC to the rear seat.

As for Terrain or Nox it just depends on what you want Round or Square and red or blue dash.

The new one will maintain and or increase sales as many have defected because of the issues with the aging unit. Others are offering less weight and more features and GM will not let it go unanswered.

[Drew Dowdell]

But will a 4cyl be enough? I have sat in an Encore it is surprisingly roomy for the external size (not Equinox/Terrain roomy, but still). I would probably go for a compact CUV underneath the Nox/Terrain twins instead and have the Nox/Terrain drop 500 pounds at least.

A 4-cylinder is in the Equinox/Terrain now and it makes up the majority of sales in those models. After shedding 500+ lbs and adding a Turbo-4, why wouldn't a 4-cylinder be enough? The 2.0t already makes better power than the 3.0V6 did.

[regfootball]

for those that would only settle for a V6 suv, the price jump up to a traverse is a killer.

Fortunately you can still buy a new edge v6 for about 24k real world from your ford dealer.

[hyperv6]

The 2.0 does not make better power than the 3.0 in the trim we will see but it does have lower end torque and the curve is flat as Bonneville.

The new one the Turbo 4 will do just fine with the less weight.

The Buick Encore does need some more ponies compared to others in the segment. They need one up option in addition to the present engine. Adequate is not good enough for 35% of the segment.

As for the $24K Edge? You sure as hell don't get much for under $30K in it with a V6. Once you load it up then it get stupid over priced. At that point you are better off in a non Turbo Explorer.

Either way the present Nox and Terrain are the old ones in the segment and are still selling well. The Terrain numbers are as high as ever and the Nox is not really slacking off. Once the catch them up to the rest of the segment with the new features, better MPG and higher grade soft touch interiors they should be spot on if they get the styling right.

[Drew Dowdell]

"The 2.0 does not make better power than the 3.0 in the trim we will see but it does have lower end torque and the curve is flat as Bonneville."

- To me... that is better power, especially in an SUV. Even in its lowest spec, the 2.0T makes 260 ft-lbs starting from 2000 rpm. The 3.0 makes a mere 217 ft-lb and doesn't reach peak torque till red-line.... what's the point of that? There is almost no point on the torque curves where the V6 is putting out more twist than the Turbo-4. "Better power" is not a measure of absolute horsepower and torque, but also how those are delivered.

[2QuickZ's]

Area under the curve! That is what it is all about, especially when it comes to horsepower.

Edited May 9, 2013 by 2QuickZ's

[hyperv6]

"The 2.0 does not make better power than the 3.0 in the trim we will see but it does have lower end torque and the curve is flat as Bonneville."

- To me... that is better power, especially in an SUV. Even in its lowest spec, the 2.0T makes 260 ft-lbs starting from 2000 rpm. The 3.0 makes a mere 217 ft-lb and doesn't reach peak torque till red-line.... what's the point of that? There is almost no point on the torque curves where the V6 is putting out more twist than the Turbo-4. "Better power" is not a measure of absolute horsepower and torque, but also how those are delivered.

Since I own both they both do a good job but the real issue is this. The 2.0 Turbo in a vehicle that heavy would take a dive in MPG. Yes you can make a lot of low end torque but the use of the engine will need more or boost more often and it effect the MPG. Trust me I know.

Even with the added RPM the V6 will do 19 city and 26 Highway with 4,000 pound+ all day long. Now my HHR does better but it take little to start moving it as it only has 3200 pounds to move. Note GM only has been using the 2.0 Turbo in cars 3500 pounds or less for a reason.

[caddycruiser]

The 3.0L does not get enough credit, and while it lacked a bit of torque vs. the 3.6L version...as said above, it is NOT a night and day difference. A difference, but you have to be familiar with both to notice.

We've now had (2) Terrains in the family, the latest one only for 2 months. Zero issues with either, and the 2011 3.0L AWD aside from some dirt and dog hair, was just as nice and tight at 30k miles as new. The 2013 with the 3.6L makes several details that much nicer, but minorly so. Only complaints have been road noise on the highway and the same lack of rear HVAC vents others mentioned, given the size of the car.

Other than that, great build quality, looks, comfort, and power/mileage from the V6 models. Hopefully the next ones do lose bulk but don't shrink to the point they feel smaller, but are more efficient.

[hyperv6]

Nice to see first hand opinion here!

The greatest issue here is just weight and age. This was a segment leaders when it came in and turn over in this segment comes fast. It is just time to do a new one and pick up where the present on is leaving off. For once this is a case where GM does not have a deficient to make up since even the old model is still doing well. The more money for refinement and development will solve many of the issues.

I credit the changes Lutz brought in that made the present one as good as it was and these changes will continue to affect the new one but they will have a much better budget to work with.

I think the loss of the 3.0 was economic as the new engine has a little more power and MPG and why have two engines so close to each other when you have limited needs for a V6 in most models anymore. It was a good move but I would not rush right out to trade my 2012 to get one. Also I have no regrets not waiting. The color we bought was dropped for 2013 and we would not trade the color for the engine. Keep in mind my wifes last two cars were 3800 SC cars at her request. Her only complaint is she wished she got a couple more mpg.

Keep in mind the 3.0 and 3.6 is more than enough here as this is a top heavy CUV and not a Camaro.

[regfootball]

3.0 lives on in the vaunted CAPTIVA....right?

[hyperv6]

For now but the Captiva may be gone soon. I think the Holden version got the 3.6 already.
I think once GM got the DI on the 3.6 they just want top pare down the number of V6 engines offered.

[kvenne]

It is really hard to find out the car you bought isnt working out. Equinox's arent my favorite car so I agree with you on a lot of that. The rattling could be something covered under warrenty if you wanted to have it looked at by the dealer. If you tell them you arent happy with the car while you are there maybe they will make some allowances for you. Also when it comes to steering, what is the problem? Does the sreering feel tight. I used to drive my brother's equinox and I thought the steering felt a little weird but I couldnt put my finger on it.

[Guest Amy]

I have a 2015 Equinox, and I think it drives like a roller skate with loose wheels. I hate it. HATE it.

[cp-the-nerd]

Did you not test drive before you bought it? I can't fathom how someone ends up purchasing a brand new vehicle they don't even like.

[caddycruiser]

The 3.0L does not get enough credit, and while it lacked a bit of torque vs. the 3.6L version...as said above, it is NOT a night and day difference. A difference, but you have to be familiar with both to notice.

 

We've now had (2) Terrains in the family, the latest one only for 2 months. Zero issues with either, and the 2011 3.0L AWD aside from some dirt and dog hair, was just as nice and tight at 30k miles as new. The 2013 with the 3.6L makes several details that much nicer, but minorly so. Only complaints have been road noise on the highway and the same lack of rear HVAC vents others mentioned, given the size of the car.

 

Other than that, great build quality, looks, comfort, and power/mileage from the V6 models. Hopefully the next ones do lose bulk but don't shrink to the point they feel smaller, but are more efficient.

 

Just following up to this...made it for 2 years and 30k miles on the 2011, no issues, and the 3.0L was always smooth and felt powerful. Odd, versus reviews. Traded this one for a 2013 with the new 3.6L and lease, and it was much the same, for 34k miles, no issues other than a finicky MyLink radio that would crash, go black, or just not work often. That was the only oddity, but then it would come back on, and never took it in for service.

 

Parents said the 3.6L "seems to get better mileage we think" than the 3.0L, and that the transmission shifted very differently. No powertrain complaints with either, and mom was always impressed with the way the AWD dug through snow.

 

Replaced the latest one with a 2016 Traverse, and so far so good too. It's a shame the Equinox/Terrain were 3 years newer of a base design than the Lambdas and had newer details (dash & console setup, flip keys instead of old remote/key, and the newest 3.6L version), but natural transition. Odd how on window sticker & paper the big heavy Traverse with older version 3.6L 281-horsepower engine and AWD has the same 23-mpg highway rating as the LGX 3.6L new version smaller Terrain with AWD, and a different feel due to size, but should be another good run.

 

Interested to see how the next gens of both of these transform. Especially since the Lambda replacements still have a 3.6L and still a 6-speed, but different sizes and weights.

 

Equinox/Terrain will probably max out with a 2.0T/3.6L, and the GM 2.0T is great, but like most turbos has never won any fuel economy awards.

[hyperv6]

Caddy I own a 3.0 Terrain and a 2.0 HHR SS. The HHR is for sure the better power of the two and the better MPG. The Weight difference is about 600 pounds but the MPG difference is about 7 MPG better in the HHR.

I never understood the MPG ratings for the HHR SS as it was way under what reality is I get 25 City and 32 Highway and that is even with the GM Performance upgrade to 290 HP 315 FT LBS.

The Terrain is about 18-19 City and 24 Highway.

The 3.6 just has a little better MPG and Power but not enough to make it worth trading in for the near same identical model. Also the Nox platform is very old as it underpinned the original and even an Opel before that. Hence why it is so heavy and the poor packaging inside for the space given. It was good when it came out but this is where the age is showing.

The next model I expect a major weight loss and only 4 cylinders since it is moving down in size. I suspect the price will drop too just as the GMC Acadia did. Everything is sliding down as I expect a new RWD/AWD mid size to appear between the Acadia and the Yukon.

As for Amy this is just a troll that really has nothing here to offer in reality. Some people screw up because they make a foolish purchase or some just like to poke around to stir up trouble. What is funny is how many of these can be paid people from automakers too.

Anyways our 2012 is still going strong and we will keep it we close in on around 100K miles and trade up to a newer model. That is about 8-10 years and we normally get good resale and apply it to the new model.

I really did not want it but the wife did and I have to say I really have come to appreciate it. There are a couple things I would change but no deal breakers. To get a similar sized vehicle we may have to go to the Acadia next time.

My problem is I am not sure what I want next for a new car. I would love to have a Canyon but I still want something sporty to drive. I would love a new ZQ8 Canyon but I have not seen anything about them looking into this.

[caddycruiser]

Good review.

 

I had actually never driven the 3.0L AWD 2011 one until the 2 years later when we traded it for the 2013. Back to back, not a big difference. 3.6L felt torquier, but the 3.0L seemed to have more energetic revs. Really minor differences in real world driving.

 

Neither wins a fuel economy prize, by any means. Odd how the big Lambda's with the previous gen style 3.6L have the same EPA ratings, but won't do as well real world. Both platforms were still hampered by extra weight, but solid and refined.

[hyperv6]

Good review.

 

I had actually never driven the 3.0L AWD 2011 one until the 2 years later when we traded it for the 2013. Back to back, not a big difference. 3.6L felt torquier, but the 3.0L seemed to have more energetic revs. Really minor differences in real world driving.

 

Neither wins a fuel economy prize, by any means. Odd how the big Lambda's with the previous gen style 3.6L have the same EPA ratings, but won't do as well real world. Both platforms were still hampered by extra weight, but solid and refined.

Yes they are very solid. I had a buddy work for a salvage company and he would send me crash photos and it is very impressive how well they hold up. You really can feel the stiffness of the platform.

The next one will be stiffer but the less weight will improve so many things. More power only helps in one area. Less mass improves braking and handling in ways you can not do any other way.