Wednesday, December 13, 2006

Chevrolet Equinox Sport




I don't know much about this yet.
But from the look of the number 6 on the dial, it seems like the Equinox will get the 3.6 Liter V6/6 speed auto combo pretty soon.
As a "sport" model.
Too bad the interior isn't improved much.

Seems like the Equinox isn't really considered by most people looking for a smaller car based SUV.

34 comments:

Anonymous said...

Oh boy! A "sport" station wagon. Does it make American daddies feel more manly, or mommies feel less womanly just because the engine is bigger than the base model?

Just another reason to waste more gas while driving another gas hog.

Anonymous said...

ive always thought the equinox was one of chevys best cars, alot of space for its price and competitive set, comfortable, nice looks inside and out

Anonymous said...

I don't know why you say that Vince, It may not sell as many as the Rav4 but I see a ton of them around and I know it's a good seller for Chevy. I like this Sport model. I am glad they're not calling it SS though. And what's wrong with the interior? Looks pretty good to me.

Anonymous said...

"Too bad the interior isn't improved much."

The interior – especially in black – looks really nice, much nicer than the current Equinox. Too bad the Equinox isn't a Toyota or Honda, than you'd be falling all over yourself praising it.

Vince Burlapp said...

I think if this was a Honda I would actually marry it right now.
You are 100% right!!!

Anonymous said...

"Oh boy! A "sport" station wagon. Does it make American daddies feel more manly, or mommies feel less womanly just because the engine is bigger than the base model?

Just another reason to waste more gas while driving another gas hog"

What's the matter grandma, can't handle the few extra ponies?

Anonymous said...

Check online formus, the torrent and the equinox don't sell because cause the interior build quality doesn't compare with imports and other domestics. Cheap interior matierals and a very limiting 185 hp engine keep this suv off buyers list. Why would you buy this suv when a Rav4 has 269hp and much better mpg? At least GM is paying attention and addressing some issues. Only time will tell if it works for them.

Anonymous said...

The interior has been significantly improved. New door panels, gauges, center console/stack and seats. Post some close ups and you will see. It has a slick tap shift 6 spd and goes 0-60 under 7 sec and has rear disc brakes. As far as "wasting more gas" its the consumers choice. They can buy a Vue 4 cyl or hybrid or this and one in between as well.

Anonymous said...

I think it looks pretty good. I don't know about the Equinox, but in new GM cars, they are making some of the nicest interiors lately. Hopefully Chevy's newfound attention to interior detail would extend to this important vehicle.

Anonymous said...

Only makes sense that it would get the 3.6L that is also in its sister car, the Suzuki XL-7, with 252 hp.

Anonymous said...

if it wasn't for the 20+ year old engine design the old model would have sold very well.

Anonymous said...

Re: JABU

The "old" model sold just fine. How do you figure the engine design is 20 years old? Are you certain you know what you're talking about?

Anonymous said...

I like the sporty appeal of this equinox sport and the engine is much needed, they should ditch the 3.4 liter, make the 3.5 liter OHV V6 with VVT standard at least has about 201 horses and make the 3.6 liter available on all equinoxes.

Anonymous said...

Ooooh yes! GM's problems are all over now. This is the one that will really save them. Give the brand managers that big Holiday bonus they deserve. I mean, it's not as if the Japanese build anything better looking, better constructed, better engineered, better value, more efficient, more reliable - right?

Anonymous said...

RAV4 2006 YTD:126,838
2005 YTD: 60,875

CRV 2006 YTD: 152,679
2005 YTD: 136,340
Equinox 2006 YTD: 104,710
2005YTD:120,675

Equinox
plus Torrent 144,421 126,657

It's hard to say Equinox is a slow seller given the numbers, but it's obviously been hurt a bit this year by competition from the all new RAV and CRV, as well as GM's own Torrent. Throw in Vue (which has sold 80Kplus this year and last) and GM actually leads this segment.

pastorshannon said...

I like it, and i would buy even the base version over that weird looking CR-V.

Anonymous said...

What's the matter grandma, can't handle the few extra ponies?

Hopped-up SUVs are ridiculous vehicles symbolic of waste, greed, and small dicks, which was my earlier point you were obviously too puerile to comprehend. But if you want one, great. I can still laugh at you.

My S2000 suits me just fine for "extra ponies." But, then, I'm hung like a horse.

Anonymous said...

I like it. I am curious what the gas milage is. I think it's funny how it's quicker than a Lincoln MKZ with the 3.5 and awd. Car and Driver clocked 0-60 in the MKZ as 7.3 seconds. This thing is under 7. As a wise fictitional character once said....."Facinating."

Anonymous said...

"Hopped-up SUVs are ridiculous vehicles symbolic of waste, greed, and small dicks, which was my earlier point you were obviously too puerile to comprehend. But if you want one, great. I can still laugh at you.

My S2000 suits me just fine for "extra ponies." But, then, I'm hung like a horse."

That's your opinion, and you know what they say about those. The vision you have of your own eminence based on your vehicle choice is a sad joke. Your need to judge people on what they choose to drive is equally pathetic. Your claim of your physical endowment is most likely a wild exaggeration. And your overall post is quite jejune.

BTW, your S2000 is rated at 20 mpg city, 26 highway. The Suzuki XL7 (which has the same engine as the Equinox and is around the same size, so it'll fill in for the Equinox, as it's MPG numbers haven't been published) is rated at 18/24. Either that's pretty good for a "wasteful, hopped-up SUV", or your little sports car isn't as Mother Earth friendly as you think it is. Good day.

Anonymous said...

"Hopped-up SUVs are ridiculous vehicles symbolic of waste, greed, and small dicks, which was my earlier point you were obviously too puerile to comprehend. But if you want one, great. I can still laugh at you.

My S2000 suits me just fine for "extra ponies." But, then, I'm hung like a horse."
------------->

Interesting. I don't think that about small SUVs at all. Especially ones that are available as hybrids. Performance roadsters are symbolic of juvenile kids or balding guys with an inferiority complex. Your last comment supports that stereotype. Dude, that’s fine... drive baby, drive your Honda like the sexy manbeast that you are!

(laughter at you)

Anonymous said...

Allow me to add that the Suzuki weighs about 1200 lbs more (4094 vs 2855) than the S2000, making the Honda's paltry 2 mpg advantage all the more unimpressive.

Anonymous said...

Who here says that the RAV4 interior is better than this?
You have got to be kidding me!
Don't even talk about the SUV for women who know nothing about automobiles (who should be taking public transport).
Nasty, NASTY interiors from ToyoHonda!
NASTY!

Even Toyota benchmarked the Equinox.
It's that good.

Not surprised to hear that Vince Burlapp would "marry it in a minute" if it were a Honda.
He's the one that would cream himself over a Camry!

Anonymous said...

Pretty decent design, Great engine (although I'm not sure about gas milleage compared to the Rav-4)... Great interior space (although it's not really a small SUV even though it fits in that category.)

I'm pretty sure this version of the Equinox is possible only because of the arrival of the new XL-7, making it cheaper to produce...

This is the equinox everybody would have liked to see when it came out a few years ago. The old 3.4 engine (dating from ancient mythology) with its 185hp mated to a 4 speed tranny (at the beginning) really didn't cut it.

I really don't agree with the naming convention though... Somebody at GM must rethink the naming conventions... ex: Cadillac DTS-L VS SLS, Equinox Sport VS SS, The Pontiac pursuit (in Canada) which later became the G5 Pursuit, which later became the G5. What's next ? The name G6 came from the fact that it was the 6th generation of the Grand-Am(correct me if I'm worng) So G5 doesn't really follow the same line of thougts... Naming conventions are important to keep resale values up : Something GM has to work hard on Right NOW... A Toyota Echo has a greater value than my G6 presently on the market which is completely stupid even given the Toyota name.

I've never tried the Equinox. I've heared the shocks were too soft, that there was lots of cracking noises inside the cabin, that everything feels cheap. But how is it really on the road and in day to day commute? Vince have you tried this beauty before???

Anonymous said...

"The "old" model sold just fine. How do you figure the engine design is 20 years old? Are you certain you know what you're talking about? " i'm not to certain which one but i got the info from a car mag a few years back.

Anonymous said...

That's your opinion, and you know what they say about those.

Remember, "they" same as they say about your opinion.

The vision you have of your own eminence based on your vehicle choice is a sad joke.

Just as is your visionary choice of defending the Chevrolet Equinox Sport.

Sweetie, if you like it, fine. I'm just glad you have something so important to defend.

(end sarcasm)

Anonymous said...

The 3.9L V6 is based on the 3.5L, which is based on the 3.4, which was based on the 3.1, which was based on the 2.8 from the chevrolet celebrity back in... around 1986... And I'm not even sure it even stops there...

I'm crossing my fingers concerning my 3.5L but I know the 3.4L had some problems (gaskets mainly).

Anonymous said...

Some engine history for the 3.4L...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_60-Degree_V6_engine

Anonymous said...

"Remember, "they" same as they say about your opinion.

Just as is your visionary choice of defending the Chevrolet Equinox Sport.

Sweetie, if you like it, fine. I'm just glad you have something so important to defend."

Little missy, your insipid retorts still don't explain why your beloved S2000's 20/26 MPG is so much better than the (most likely) 18/24 MPG of a "hopped-up gas hog" like the Equinox, despite the fact the Honda weighs some 1200 lbs less.

Anonymous said...

Little missy, your insipid retorts still don't explain why your beloved S2000's 20/26 MPG is so much better than the (most likely) 18/24 MPG of a "hopped-up gas hog" like the Equinox, despite the fact the Honda weighs some 1200 lbs less.

A sports car is not an SUV. It's typically a secondary vehicle. Primary vehicles, like an Equinox gas hog will likely be, shouldn't be so wasteful.

But I'd love to see an Equinox or any domestic SUV get the actual MPG numbers they claim. We'd live in a better world. And a cleaner one.

But not as long as people defend their lust for oil.

Anonymous said...

"A sports car is not an SUV. It's typically a secondary vehicle. Primary vehicles, like an Equinox gas hog will likely be, shouldn't be so wasteful.

But I'd love to see an Equinox or any domestic SUV get the actual MPG numbers they claim. We'd live in a better world. And a cleaner one.

But not as long as people defend their lust for oil."

A sports car isn't an SUV. It's not a sofa , either. And an SUV isn't a sports car, so what's your point? You continue to evade the question. Again, how is the Equinox a "gas hog" when it's MPG numbers will most likely be a couple MPG less than a vehicle it outweighs by 1200 lbs? If you're S2000 is a "secondary" vehicle, that means you own another vehicle, and thus use more oil than someone with one vehicle. Does your lust for oil require you to own more cars than you might need? Why would you need a 2 seat roadster? BTW, I'd also like to see Japanese cars get the actual MPG numbers they claim, too.

Anonymous said...


A sports car isn't an SUV. It's not a sofa , either. And an SUV isn't a sports car, so what's your point? You continue to evade the question. Again, how is the Equinox a "gas hog" when it's MPG numbers will most likely be a couple MPG less than a vehicle it outweighs by 1200 lbs? If you're S2000 is a "secondary" vehicle, that means you own another vehicle, and thus use more oil than someone with one vehicle. Does your lust for oil require you to own more cars than you might need? Why would you need a 2 seat roadster? BTW, I'd also like to see Japanese cars get the actual MPG numbers they claim, too.


Belabor the point if you must, but you are still left defending a gas hog station wagon for daily mommy chores.

Our difference lie in that I might comment on your position in defending some daily, wasteful beast, whereas you won't offer others the same luxury for an occasional spin in my recreational toy.

General Motors built an empire on your mindset.

You two should be very happy together, and I wish you the best.

Anonymous said...

"Belabor the point if you must, but you are still left defending a gas hog station wagon for daily mommy chores.

Our difference lie in that I might comment on your position in defending some daily, wasteful beast, whereas you won't offer others the same luxury for an occasional spin in my recreational toy.

General Motors built an empire on your mindset.

You two should be very happy together, and I wish you the best."

Evade and avoid. The perfect strategy when you don't have an answer for a simple question. You claim the Equinox is nothing more than a "gas hog station wagon for daily mommy chores" and "some daily, wasteful beast", when it's MPG numbers will most likely be only a little less than your "recreational toy". One would think a car with a 2.2L 4 that weighs less than 3000 lbs can manage more than 26 mpg hwy. Yet in your own world that's perfectly alright, since you're in love with roadsters and hate SUVs. If you're so concerned with saving oil, perhaps you should stop driving altogether. Have a nice day.

Anonymous said...

Evade and avoid.

I evaded nothing nor avoided anything. You're gonna have to be good at this if you hope to maintain interest in your cause. Remind us again what is your cause by arguing my posts. Defending a Chevy Equinox gas hog? Wow, that's right up there with saving Darfur.

If you're so concerned with saving oil, perhaps you should stop driving altogether.

So you're against conservation of oil? By defending a Chevrolet Equinox Sport you make my point better than I could have. Or are you actually supporting the waste of oil?

Thanks, but I think we see where you're going with this.

Anonymous said...

The only one going anywhere with this is you, and that's nowhere fast. You still refuse to explain why a 5-passenger vehicle with good cargo room that gets (approximately) 18/24 MPG is a "gas hog", while your roadster, which seats just 2, has limited cargo room, weighs over half a ton less and gets (only slightly better) 20/26 MPG isn't. If you're so concerned with conserving oil, why didn't you choose a more efficient 4cyl engine from Honda? Or does your "love" for Mother Earth stop when it infringes on your freedom of choice?