2010 equinox looks like . . .

[Doug C]

. . . . a immature OUTLOOK !

So I thought when I saw an ad (tv) for them, fenders like a full-grown lambda platform, similiar headlights, wrapround rear window, front grill styling . . .

And i figured wow they're really rewrote the computer software on engine performance until I later chkd out a website and found that the stated 40+ mpg was with a 4 banger !!!

This "steve sisler" http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...t_drive_review , must be bought and paid for by gm 'cause the pic embedded within his 'equinox' article looks waaaay more like my OUTLOOK than it does one of those 'traverse' units he refers to !!

IMHO,
doug c

[onefunkar]

now that i cant sell new saturns anymore ive taken to selling chevs. just sold my daughter a 2010 equinox and it seems like a great vehcle. 21,895 paid for it. solid great looking car. id buy one myself it very impressive

[davidsky]

It does look like a baby Lambda.
30+ MPG, not 40+

[Doug C]

RE: " 30+ MPG, not 40+ "

Was quoting what I saw on our Cdn TV ads which is referencing Canadian (imperial) gals. plus I tend to look at the hwy mileage, albeit that would be the extreme. Also it is of the base fwd which is what I have in the OUTLOOK.

"Mi. / imp.gal. (city / hwy / combined): FWD: 31 / 46 / 36 ", with the " 2.4L DOHC I-4DI" powerplant.
http://www.gm.ca/gm/english/vehicles...cordion-header

I wonder if they (equinox) have the leg and headroom of a OUTLOOK which is what first sold me on the OUTLOOK also the payload space which was also a parameter. I was looking for something similiar in payload to my '86accord hatchback which I called a "minivan w/o the headrm" due to the amount of gear i could load into it.

I had been looking/thinking about the malibu maxx but then they went with their declared new-improved malibu Weeeeell it may still have the gas mileage, but no legroom no headrm and no hatchback !

doug c

[davidsky]

"Mi. / imp.gal. (city / hwy / combined): FWD: 31 / 46 / 36 ", with the " 2.4L DOHC I-4DI" powerplant.

46 mpg imperial converts to 38 MPG US so even that seem a bit high. Maybe at a constant 40 MPH on a perfectly flat straight road that would be achievable, at 70MPH forget it.

I wonder if they (equinox) have the leg and headroom of a OUTLOOK which is what first sold me on the OUTLOOK

According to Consumer Reports, the Equinox sans sunroof has the most combined head and legroom for the driver of any CUV tested. 43 inches legroom and 6.5 inch headroom. The headroom figure is the clearance above their "standard" 5 foot 9 inch driver

[onefunkar]

my daughter equinox has unbelievable leg room. you can sit in the front and put your legs strait out. the back row of seats also goes way back so you have almost unlimited legroom. its a great car. i sound like a chevy salesperson but im not it just a nice car

[Doug C]

"..46 mpg imperial converts to 38 MPG US so even that seem a bit high. Maybe at a constant 40 MPH on a perfectly flat straight road that would be achievable, at 70MPH forget it."

Oh well when it comes to their stated gas mileage figures even on my base FWD XE which they state 22/34 Cdn., the best I've attained so far is 18/28.

It replaced my '86 honda which was giving me 33/44 and when i was wondering about comparable units available, if vehicles sometimes get better (if driven properly). But I could not find any ref. material of what honda back in '86 claimed it would do. TransportCanada online tables don't go that far back !

Just to try it out I'm going to have to drop into a dealership with a equinox to try it out (legrm/headrm that is) curious


nite,
doug c

BTW - 6'3"/ inseam 36"kirkland pant (costco)

[davidsky]

Originally Posted by Doug C

It replaced my '86 honda which was giving me 33/44 and when i was wondering about comparable units available, if vehicles sometimes get better (if driven properly). But I could not find any ref. material of what honda back in '86 claimed it would do. TransportCanada online tables don't go that far back !

The EPA said 27 city 33 highway US back in 1986 for a 5 spd Accord (converts to 32/40 imperial)
How come you don't use liters/100kms?

[Doug C]

"The EPA said 27 city 33 highway US back in 1986 for a 5 spd Accord (converts to 32/40 imperial) "
Thanks ! The hatch' is 5spd and was recently given a poor diagnosis ($$$), probably close to being put to sleep !

"How come you don't use liters/100kms?"
Just can't get my head around THAT metric item ! My spin on it is that for marketing purposes . . . . if they had continued with say kpl how low a value in km per lt. would it be !!?

Kind of like the reason at the 'pumps' they went metric, 'cause right now they would be roughly stating $4.40/gal !! Very poor (marketing) optics !
Less of a marketing concern (?) ;
_lumber is still sold in imperial
_meats and veggies signed quite often in pounds with small metric values stated.

IMHO
doug c