regfootball

Audi styling is the 6 window and the horizontal line on the side (which has had a bit of swoosh lately). this is all talk from them, they'll still keep doing the same ****

I love sticks but I don't think i will ever buy another. Unless i can have like a 4th car.

Sat in one today. Didn't drive it, but actually seemed ok inside to me. It was a cloth version. It's not luxurious, but it doesn't to me come off as bad. Simple and clean dash layout, not fancy. Good space utilization, front and back, and lots of trunk room (AWD version). Improvement over the last Tiguan to me. I may try to go drive one one of these days.

So, went to sit in one. Surprisingly not as spacious as I thought. I sort of drank the KOOL AID on this one. Not larger than anything else in the class really except the legroom may be some more. Interior materials not a step above any others, nor not much different than typical Honda fare. Previous Accord actually seemed more airy and such. They must have dropped the roof a lot on this version. It may actually feel smaller inside to some. And it is not nicer or more luxurious feeling. Nothing uniquely appealing here. It is different however. So i admit I drank the KOOL AID here. I will still try to drive one at some point, as this is Honda's first go at turbos. In the end, as far as showroom appeal, if you shop around, i think this just blends into the midsize sedan goulash.

previous 2018 Equinox comments here DRIVEN: 2018 Chevrolet Equinox 1.5T AWD LS HIGHS: (previous) Rear row seats are very supportive, placed at a good height, and are nicely comfortable. And they fold flat now (WHOA!). Nothing else. LOWS (LS trim considered): See link for previous 2018 Equinox comments above. Tight, compromised, unacceptable front row space. Useless for space or comfort. No real gratification from steering, handling or anything vehicle dynamics wise. None at all. LS model gauges and center display look ridiculously cheap and third world. Suzukis had better gauges. Weak styling. The old styling was popular. On some trims it is decked out enough to be interesting. Here it is downright wussy cheap yuk. Unacceptable powertrain. Coarse, slow, it's got nothing going for it in this application. Jack on the gas and you think it will blow itself up, yet it still doesn't wanna go anywhere. I will throw out here that it was apparently AWD. So maybe the 1.5 is not cut out for AWD. That alone can really handicap a powertrain. GM really has feminized this product. I am repeating this because it is the case. Trax / Encore may actually be better choices. Upper trims ridiculously overpriced, all things considered. I don't see how this would appeal in any ways to classic GM buyer bases. SUMMARY: Like the last time, I don't want to waste much time on this one. I had came out to test a diesel that magically disappeared when i got to the dealer. Disclosure: at least Chevy paid me 50 bucks gift card to test drive this. And the dealer had a gift card offer too. As an aside the sales guy was very awesome. Later in the day I drove a Hyundai Santa Fe sport in a somewhat comparable price. That's much more enjoyable, I'd be surprised if the Tucson wasn't as well. I love the Escape and I absolutely recommend the Escape way before this. The Compass and Cherokee have great interiors and I recommend people look into those. CX-5, new Tiguan, anything but this. Mitsubishi Outlander and Sport are better choices here even. I'll go back and try a diesel and try a 2.0 again but my impressions of the new Equinox so far makes me wonder what is going on at GM to make these botches with a core product here. Of course CAFE is always a factor. I think downsizing the wheelbase was a bad idea. Feminizing the trucky styling is wrong here. Sure, some others may like this, but i don't get it. WTF GM

Taking into consideration all the ideas and advice you've all shared, good things to consider. So i decided i would try being an aggressive driver for the next couple weeks. I realize i am not juicing the car enough to see the full nuts of how it really moves out. So let's see how that goes. The extra throttle really amplifies the lawn mower engine qualities down low; but it does make sense for me to give more consideration of what its real capability might be. I pussyfoot the throttle a lot because i like to avoid the blender noises. Lots of threads in the past about the character of motors. Selling the cars gig i got exposed to a lot of different makes and models and a lot of them were recent, similar cars ...stuff like Camry's with 4 cylinders, etc.

Yes, they did a great job of selling the cheaper FWD engineering as a traction benefit. But to be honest, I like the way FWD cars drive and handle, so FWD vs RWD is not a thing for me. No doubt a car like a Camaro i would of course prefer RWD. Agree. People believe AWD is automatic safety but dedicated snows help a lot more. No matter if you are FWD, RWD, AWD. I would love to get snows for any vehicle I have.

they didn't really start giving them away until the last 12 months or so but i do think they are good choices available to people who maybe would like their style. I have a coworker that just leased a Charger. If it keeps people out of Toyotas and Nissans that is fine with me. I've had several RWD vehicles in my life time, its not correct to say can't drive them. it's that they are of no use in snow environments. And to anyone who naysays that, explain why AWD and FWD took over the market. I've chosen not to buy RWD anymore is more accurate. Unless that is specifically what you were speaking to here.

Admittedly this is a second car in a 2 car house. 235/mo on the lease can't remember how much down, i had several things available to me that acted as real cash which i could have applied to another vehicle, to bring the cap cost down nicely to the point where it made an enthusiastic deal. To buy the car would have been 500-550 a month, which is not chump change. You flip that around and realize GM put a 30k sticker on the car and even that is an average MSRP these days, the low end performance of the powertrain for competitive purposes could stand to be improved at that MSRP. And i can bet it may be part of the reason Malibu's are not flying off shelves. 30 grand is a lot of money and at that price class there shouldn't be big downsides about any vehicle. My friend who has a 15 fleet Malibu for example when he travels he has rented the new 16 a few times and he didn't like the changes. the point is that despite all the required engine downsizing and CAFE that GM (and any manufacturer) is forced into, and i noted this when i test drove it, its borderline acceptable from a overall power standpoint (my beef is low end, stoplight to stoplight driving...you will note i said its a fine highway car). We all know you get a few minutes on the test drive and i know this as well as anyone, you're not going to learn everything about that ride in 5 minutes. Because i love GM stuff and i liked the new design i was more than willing to give it a go. I was being optimistic and enthusiastic and being a homer. And now I don't have a right to point out legitimate things I don't like about the car? HMMMMM Charger is of course an interesting option, but if you don't like the style then it is what it is. But in these parts you are only looking at AWD and since I had more interest in the style of the Malibu i had a lot of faith that I would be able to endorse the whole car. Instead there are parts I think would definitely stand to be improved. One of those is a base engine with a bit more pop or the ability to buy the uplevel engine without having to get into a Premier. I know there are other GM fans that agree that not providing the 2.0 option on the LT trim sucks too. So for me to state that is not whining and I know others agree. GM's old 2.4 used to take a lot of shit in the press on car reviews, and it also has a lot of rap as problems when it comes to reliability. So to use the 2.4 as a benchmark to compare to in 2016/17/18 is pretty misguided too. It's not 2008 or 2009. The terrible seats are actually the biggest problem with the vehicle. That's the part that needs fixing the most. Many other choices are out there and have plus and minus too, so you can make the case for any vehicle over many others. Overall I like the car, but the seats and the low end engine performance are highly suggested improvements for GM. Enough such that if another person asked me about it, I would probably say look at some other rides.

RWD is not an option in the winter here. Especially since they don't treat the roads anymore. And to your point, yes, a v8 charger does cost a bit more.

stop start could be part of it...but GM won't let you turn it off. or maybe the engine is f-cked and damaged and isn't putting out full steam, reading some Malibu forum threads, opinions split on whether its a dud or not. One guy said 0-30 is 'mediocre' and i can identify with that. I'll add, i've never driven a Gm vehicle with the 2.4 that I have liked in the slightest. the 1.5 is a smoother engine on the highway and is partially why i was so excited to get into the car when i did. It truly is a great highway car. Tested many GM 2.4 cars and have never really liked any of them, save maybe the Verano. Another thing is maybe the power specs have been bumped since 16 model i should check into that. Just glad Buick passed on making the 1.5 any part of the Regal lineup. Hyundai can't even get decent performance out of its 2.0 so we should be glad GM gets what it does out if it. The only reason for me the engine is a let down is because the chassis has so much potential and is nice and light.

"Compare it to a 60s 6 cyl Malibu" wait, i thought it wasn't the 60's anymore touche i can't make claims on your 2.4 but drive the 1.5 for 18 months in stop and go and then judge if the unlivable (borderline) is something you can speak to.... how 'buzzy' it can or how just flat out dead it can be moving away from a stop sign.

i was willing to try it and i knew it was borderline when i got it. i like GM stuff and had a strong preference to get a GM car and not a Nissan, etc. .......and was excited about the new design so i was willing to be a guinea pig and give it a whirl. And it IS a good highway car but it also happens to be really compromised in town. that said, it still is a forced offering that is rammed to the 80% for CAFE reasons and i am not going to say its awesome if its not. Californians can always choose to leave California.......

and you think its ok we are being forced and shoved down our throats that these are mainstream engines...... that's my point, its not market forces its regulatory forces, the engineers do what they can but they can't work miracles. sad thing is really truly, about 15 percent more power down low would make it totally livable. i don't believe it meets a basic threshold that i was willing to be open minded about when i opted in but like i said there was no reasonable option presented as a choice.

that could be part of the problem. if the torque isn't hitting low enough its probably why its a dog off the line.

Chipping a 3200 pound car is quite different than a 5000 pound truck. 30 ftpd of torque on a 3200 pound car at 2,000 rpm would make all the difference in the world.

real world, its a dog in city driving. does well on the highway which is strange, but it flat out fails in launch feel. thing is, another 15-20 hp and 25-30 torque would be all that is needed to cross the bridge into pleasingville, and wouldn't hit the fuel economy that much. But that is where the overlords of the governments become the issue. 1.5 litre size due to chinese taxes. this ain't china. CAFE because CAFE. I can bet you part of the reason the Malibu sales are eroding apart from that its a sedan is the engine won't wow on the test drive.

so if the car is a dog getting around to the point of being annoying and makes the buyers unhappy that sort of settling for mediocrity benefits GM how

so unless you buy a camaro v8 you can go pound sand. right because of CAFE

Fusion can be had CHEAP real world price in either the 2.0 or a sport. http://www.appleautos.com/new/Ford/2017-Ford-Fusion-8ef05ec10a0e0adf47fda79c140a7870.htm Admittedly I would probably still prefer a Malibu 2.0 to the Fusion but even with GM's discounting to get a Malibu with the 2.0 choice is ridiculously expensive. GM is doing their typical shit on the Regal now too. New Regal you can get the car with heated steering wheel but still not heated seats. You have to upgrade to third trim level to get heated seats and top trim to get any safety equipment. Yet Honda has pacing cruise control available on their cheapest trims or standard.

CAFE is the only reason we have the 1.5 and an inbetween between the 1.5 and 2.0 would have been a better base engine if it wasnt all about making CAFE. Would have been a better all around compromise for power and mpg. Nothing against turbo or 4 cylinder otherwise. We need to get the feds out of the overhanded ness and Gm, needs to grow some balls.

based on my experience with having to have the critical engine reprogram and the oil leaks, i am glad i am not owning this vehicle. If it's that sensitive then i cannot imagine how it would withstand beating on it, because i surely don't beat on it. The Malibu is my jam, if they improved the base powertrain or offered the 2.0 on the lower trims.

You can't get the 2.0 unless you get a Premier, which is far too pricey. 2.0 should be an option on 1LT and up. the only way to get a real life 8 second run with the 1.5 would be to abuse it and possibly ruin it.

Well then at least provide a base engine with sufficient go juice for in town driving, or like i said, provide the 2.0 as an option on the lesser trim and lesser priced models. The numbers don't imply very well how undrivable it is at times in daily errand hopping driving. And sorry, but that 8.0 seconds can't be correct, they had to really rail the piss out of the thing to get it to do that. 2018 Accord 1.5 C/D TEST RESULTS:Zero to 60 mph: 7.3 secZero to 100 mph: 19.1 secZero to 110 mph: 24.7 secRolling start, 5-60 mph: 8.0 secTop gear, 30-50 mph: 4.0 secTop gear, 50-70 mph: 5.2 secStanding ¼-mile: 15.7 sec @ 91 mphTop speed (governor limited): 121 mphBraking, 70-0 mph: 163 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.89 g Malibu 1.5 C/D TEST RESULTS:Zero to 60 mph: 8.0 secZero to 100 mph: 24.7 secRolling start, 5-60 mph: 8.9 secTop gear, 30-50 mph: 4.9 secTop gear, 50-70 mph: 4.0 secStanding ¼-mile: 16.4 sec @ 85 mphTop speed (governor limited, mfr's claim): 130 mphBraking, 70-0 mph: 171 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.86 g either make something inbetween the 1.5 and 2.0 or detune one trim of the 2.0 for fuel mileage. it likely doesn't cost any more $$$ to put a 2.0 engine in vs a 1.5. 4 cylinders, 16 valves, 2 cams, one turbo, etc. etc.

they sell enough cars in the US to not have to make so many 1.5's here. they do it here for CAFE. i.e. overreach. i do like the FE at times, but overall it should be something inbetween the 1.5 and 2.0