Fuelly Forums

Fuelly Forums (https://www.fuelly.com/forums/)
-   General Fuel Topics (https://www.fuelly.com/forums/f8/)
-   -   thoughts of the 2010 chevy Equinox? (https://www.fuelly.com/forums/f8/thoughts-of-the-2010-chevy-equinox-11809.html)

civic94 08-22-2009 04:06 PM

thoughts of the 2010 chevy Equinox?
 
its 3800 pounds, bigger than a rav4, crv, escape, and gets better highway mileage than all of them. its even better than the 4 cylinder accord, and matches the camry at 22city and 32 highway.

I have been looking into buying a 03+ accord or 02+ camry, but both of them cant even get to that point of FE.

I have always driven hondas or toyotas, becuase of reliability. I have had a ford in the past and it was a piece of junk. so what do you guys think of this suv? If they can squeeze 32 mpg out of this brick, they can seriously get a Malibu up to 36 mpg or so. I think its a home run for GM. has anyone gotten one yet?

GasSavers_BEEF 08-22-2009 04:12 PM

what they claim and what is possible is two totally differnt things.

I would wait until some reviews from owners came out. I would think that you could do better in an accord or a camry and do factor in the lastability factor. I do drive a domestic but because it was cheap. it has surpassed all my expectations but it isn't an SUV either. my next car will most likely be a honda and even more likely to be an import (be it honda or a different company). I know people that have hondas with 300k+ on them and they have done regular maintenance stuff to them. their reputation doesn't need to be backed up. you know the rep of honda.

I would be cautious with these claims. do some research and see what real people are getting on these things.

civic94 08-22-2009 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theclencher (Post 140260)
I too am suspicious of 32 in that SUV. It's bigger than a sedan, it's heavier, it's pushing more air around. I don't think there's anything magic about it that is going to allow it to get better fe than a sedan.

Plus, it's an SUV. What are you thinking?!?


well.. Im against suv's, BUT.. if i can drive a roomier car for the same gas mileage of a smaller car, I would definately take the bigger one.. Im that kind of person that likes to get the most room for the least amount of gas used possible.

for example: a 2002 - 2006 rsx might get about 26 mpg compined, but is very cramped inside, and room for 4. a 2003 -2007 accord 4 cylinder will get the same mileage (26) combined, but is so much bigger and seats 5. I would definately take the accord.

GasSavers_BEEF 08-22-2009 05:06 PM

I agree with that. I have a growing family and am only now understanding how much crap it takes to take a small vacation.

I would still do the research on this vehicle as it seems to get better than normal mileage.

also, the rsx isn't really built with efficiency in mind. I knew a guy that had the rsx-s and it was an awesome car. it would outrun most things. it wasn't stock by a longshot but they are built on that premase. performance over efficiency. I think they could do better with a different drivetrain but that isn't what they are selling with that car.

Jay2TheRescue 08-22-2009 05:16 PM

I'd consider it. I'm always for having room, as I'm tall. if the quality of my K1500 is any indication of what GM is making now, I would definitely go for it. My K1500 is 11 years old, has 163,000 miles, and runs flawlessly. As far as the larger vehicle getting better mileage, GM may have put their active fuel management system on it. At low load, the computer will deactivate cylinders to increase economy. THis may explain why the SUV gets better mileage than the sedans.

GasSavers_RoadWarrior 08-22-2009 05:29 PM

IMO import vs domestic reliability is a maintenance/throwaway car syndrome issue, sure, there's been some bad engines and transmissions in domestics, but there's been the same issues in some imports.

Even when pre 2003 GM quality was questionable, Buicks got high ranking, with the same motors, transmissions and many other parts that other GMs had... so why? Because they were mostly bought by older guys who maintained them meticulously.

You could as easily get screwed on a used import, just because historically, owners in general were more careful with them, doesn't mean every one is a gem.

What import owners call "maintenance" domestic owners call "Sucking my wallet dry, damn thing needed plugs, wires, oil, timing belt, freaking piece of junk...." When imports need new balljoints, bushings, shocks etc at 100K it's wear, when domestics need them it's "Freaking piece of crap is a money pit..." then also the import is more likely to get dealer parts, whereas the domestic gets the $10 made in china part.

So it's really up to the owner, if you figure you're going to be getting reliability out of an import you treat like crap, then you're not going to think much of imports.

Jay2TheRescue 08-22-2009 05:53 PM

I usually get dealer parts & service for my vehicles, and I'm really anal about my maintenance. It all started years ago when I'd help my dad work on the family station wagon. We got 190,000 trouble free miles out of that Pontiac wagon, and over 13 years and 190,000 miles we never even had the valve covers off that engine. Just regular wear items like brakes, alternators, starters, etc., plus the oil changes & transmission fluid & filter... Last I saw that car it had well over 200,000 miles and the owner said it was the best car he ever had.

Last year I paid a small fortune on what I call maintenance. At 140,000 miles I had the following service done:

Oil & filter change, Mobil 1 0W30
Transmission fluid flush, filter, and refilled with synthetic ATF
Power steering flush
Brake fluid flush
Fuel system flush
Radiator flush
Serpentine belt idler pulley and belt replaced

And... To me this is all "normal" stuff to be done on a vehicle with 150,000 miles.

Jay2TheRescue 08-22-2009 06:41 PM

Yes, domestic parts are far cheaper... I remember when in college one of the guys at work had bought a 1976 Honda Accord for $100. He drove it for 6 months, and then junked it. Why? It needed a new starter, which was $300. A starter for my Buick was $40, and came with a lifetime warranty.

bowtieguy 08-22-2009 07:20 PM

does that vehicle have GM's 3.8 V6? and isn't it on GM's FWD car platform? if it does and is, i could believe 32 hwy.

15 to 20 years ago(and ever since) GM's 3.8 sedans could achieve nearly 30 if driven right. now, w/ cylinder deactivation as well...

Jay2TheRescue 08-22-2009 07:30 PM

The 3.8 V-6 got a lot of refinements in 1987. When I had replaced my engine in the Buick years ago, I made a point to tell my mechanic to make sure he ordered a 1987 engine block. As it is right now, my 1981 Buick is running a 1987 Engine block, oil pump, and a 1987 transmission.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:45 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.