Friday is only an OFFICIAL start of production date. Every vehicle built probably has had some form a assembly on a friday. Do you really think a vehicle is started and finished on one day? I have read your posts on cheersandgears. Is it your fulltime job to bash a vehicle you appear to know nothing about?
i agree with you on the vehicle bashing. joey2brix seems to know a lot about a vehicle that has only been seen in pics and in auto shows. i have seen owner reviews on the 2005 escape and they aren't even on the dealers lots yet. you would think a person would hold their comments until they had at least driven one. that way they would at least have an appearance of credibility.
even on 100 other boards, That's what makes America grand. These boards would be very boring and empty if we announced a new car coming out, said gee wiz is so gooooood then come back 18 months later when the car comes out. Many others are complaining about the cheap plastic and poor seats they've seen at auto shows. You don't pick on them and I have not commented on these issues because I have not seen them myself. My complains are engine and rear cargo area flaws from FACTS. The Equinox ribbon cutting ceremony shows a new blue Nox coming off the line so I'd assume a few cars better be asembled in a day or they'll never get to 150K units right?
What's with the rear drums? Why would ABS be an option? GM should get its act together. Am I crazy? As for the engine, too bad they couldn't fit the I-6 from the Trailblazer.
I don't know why everyone is against the 3.4L V6, it is the second largest engine in the class, second to its cousin, the Vue with a 3.5L V6. Sure the horsepower is lower than the Tribute/Escape and Vue, but horsepower isn't really the important numbers for the engine, torque plays a bigger part in performance and for some comparison here are the other small suvs torque ratings CR-V: 162lb-ft, Escape V6: 196lb-ft, Tribute V6: 201lb-ft, Rav4: 165lb-ft, Forrester: 166lb-ft and last years Vue 3.0L V6 had 195lb-ft vs. the Equinox's 210lb-ft. Also I'm pretty sure it and the Vue are the only compact suvs to have 5 speed automatics in them. The Nox will have no trouble keeping up with traffic, the Venture has the same engine, weighs more, and only had a 4 speed transmission and it was one of the faster minivans, so the Equinox should be faster than all but the Vue and turbo Forrester. Sure, the 3.5L that is in the Malibu should have been used since it is more powerful, more refined, and gets better milage, but I see no problem with the 3.4L. I've driven an Impala with this engine and I tried to start it 3 or 4 times before I realized it was already running, a lot of this was probably due to a lot of sound insolation, but if it was an unrefined engine I would have felt enough vibration to alert me that the engine was already running. I personally think a lot of people in here are just complaining to be complaining because you think that Hondas and Toyotas are the best, when most of you haven't owned an American car in 7-10 years or more. I have owned domestic vehicles and imports, and keep them until they have at least 100K miles on them, and sometimes even 150K miles, I've had a small problem here and there, but never anything big and none of my vehicles have every left me stranded.
or you'l be labeled a basher. Remeber without bashers, we'll still be driving Vegas, Cimmarons, and Citations! Drum brakes: complain to Saturn Vue. I6 doubt it would fit and mileage might be worse. I5 might have been better.
Mr Bots: No hate, just constructive suggestions to deaf GM executives. I'd really like to buy one, but I don't like the RDV threads and web sites dedicated to the leaky 3.4L intake manifold gasket failures that have cost owners thousands right after 3yr/36thousand warrenty quits. I realy get ticked off when this same problem exsisted in the early 90's TO ME on my 3.1L Chevy. Luckily it started within the first year. If GM can't spare cheap Mexican 3.5L that could have the same gasket problem. How about the 3.2L DOHC CTS V6 from England that makes 220 HP and lbs of torque. Only use it one Caddy, not a super high volume. I'll even live with the cast iron block. Sorry can't make Caddy look bad, Chinese 3.4L for you Chevy boy. I'm tired of getting a half polished product from GM. Nox will be out in 3 weeks or so. I'll rest now and I'll bring my bag of I told you so's in May when the reviews come out. Good night.
I think I remember reading somewhere that for 03 GM changed something in the engines that was supposed to fix the intake manifold problem that has plagued the 2.8L, 3.1L, and 3.4L engines, if this didn't fix the problem, the 3.5L and 3.9L that will be in the G6 will probably have this problem too since they keep boring out the same engine to enlarge it. If the problems haven't been resolved there will be a lot of heat on GM since it could potentially plague the Equinox, Malibu, Uplander, Montana SV6, Relay, Terraza, G6, & LaCrosse, on top of the cars that already use the 3.1L and 3.4L. Also has anyone seen pictures of what it looks like under the hood of the Equinox, I've looked quite a bit on the internet and can't find one.
The regular Forester has 166 lb-ft but don't forget the turbo offers 235 lb-ft at a low 3600rpm. Plus, dyno results prove that's understated, it's actually more like 265 lb-ft at the crank.
I think the 210 lb-ft is certainly adequate, but the Nox won't be light, so don't expect it to compete with the Vue Redline and Forester XT in acceleration.
I just don't get why they didn't use the 3500 from the new Malibu, 200/220 sounds pretty good plus it's more fuel efficient.
I don't think anyone here was seriously bashing the 3.4L. It's just that there are seemingly better alternatives out there already. Like Juice mentioned, the 3500 from the 'Bu seems like a good power plant. The Honda 3.5L used in the VUE is a good block. It's not so much a problem with what they have done, it's what they could have done that leaves us scratching our heads.
I can understand that the deal with Honda is limited to 50k engines, so those were taken up. But the improvements to the Malibu's V6 should have been implemented here, for the extra power, the extra torque, and the extra fuel efficiency.
I rented a Montana with the 3.4l and don't recall it fondly. I drove the Malibu and that thing chirped the tires in 2nd gear, all while getting the fuel efficiency of a 4 banger.
So why not use it here? If anything, the Equinox is more worthy of that better engine than the Malibu is.
It would be great if GM read these boards. They keep making the same mistakes. When they come out with a new vehicle they usually make it underpowered and with crummy brakes (rear drums). Then as the critics chime in, they improve the vehicle over the next few years. In any event, while it's fun to bash the Nox, my wife liked it a lot and if it's available at a reasonable lease price in May when our Envoy lease expires, we'll probably lease one. It's a good size, the styling is great (much better than VUE) and the rear seat adjustment makes for a lot of legroom.
It is highly doubtful the Equinox will be under powered (read my last posts), but the 3.5L would be better, as would 4 wheel disc brakes, also they should make the body colored bumpers standard on both model instead of just the LT, the black just looks ugly. Also, I don't think that the 3800 will fit in the Equinox, its a 90 degree engine which makes it bigger than the 3400/3500 which are 60 degree engines.
In case you didn't know, they have now made body colored bumpers an option on the LS. My guess is you will see the body colored bumpers on all of the first units off of the line (mandatory option) and then go back to the black bumpers in a few months.
The rear brakes are only drum on the basic standard vehicle. This isn't uncommon as Escape is packaged the same. If you want disc brakes buy an LT. ABS is an option, I personally dont want ABS. They are expensive to repair if they fail, and are still unproven. Keep in mind where the Equinox is positioned in GM's line up. If the 3.4L isn't sufficient they offer the trailblazer.
needsahemi, do you know for sure that 4 wheel disks are available on the LT with the ABS? I assumed this platform is packaged like the Saturn Vue, disk/drum for all models. one of my disappointments with the Nox is has been advertised as disk/drum only. the 05 escape/tribute seems to be 4 wheel disc brakes on all models, so I read anyway.
The dealer order book said all AWD models get ABS (AWD cannot have Traction control). Only on the FWD LS is ABS optional. LT's must have it also and LT FWD gets Traction control.
I was shopping for a Malibu with my dad and asked the sales lady when the Equinox would be arriving. She said they are scheduled to receive two in about 3 weeks. She said one of them was pre-ordered and sold. Sounds like it won't be long for those waiting.
As an aside, I drove a Chevy Venture a few weeks back with the 3.4L and I was surprised how peppy, quiet and smooth it was. I'm not sure why some people are so down on the motor, I found it as good if not better than the 3.0L in our Vue.
It's an attractive package and if you want 3.5L peppy then buy a Vue. Personally, I find the 3.4L that will be in there just fine. I remember reading some of the negative comments here on the 3.4L so I was surprised how nice and smooth it was.
I've never been a big Chevy fan, but the Malibu, Equinox and up coming Cobalt are slowly changing my mind on the brand.
Does anyone know if the remote starter that is on the Malibu will be offered on the Equinox? Also, I just got my April "Car and Driver" and they have a preview of the Equinox, it looks great, and they think it going to be a great vehicle. Also its expected to get 19mpg in the city, 25mpg on the highway and go from 0 to 60 in 8.5 seconds(towards the front of the pack).
I think GM's lawyers want to see how many lawsuits come up first. You know someone will start their car in a closed garage then blame GM for CO poisoning the whole family. 19/25 MPG is for the FWD, AWD will be lower. A little disappointing for a 5sp. auto. Gas should be $3/gal this summer in CA. Again, an overweight. underpowered 3.4L to blame. A CRV does 8.4 with a 4 cyl. and better gas mileage. The car will do well, but GM never tries to be the best.
Compared to Toyota and Honda, GM is far larger and has a lot more to think about than its foreign counterparts.
For instance:
- While Honda and Toyota can put more into the CRV and RAV4 GM cannot do the same with the Equinox because GM has far more divisions to sell that same product from.
- You have to keep in mind that Chevrolet is GMs (poor mans automaker). That means Chevy will always make its vehicles at GM's minimum quality standards.
- GM has under its belt; Cadillac, Buick, Oldsmobile (to be discontinued), Pontiac (sport division), Chevrolet (poor mans division), Saturn (Import fighter), SAAB and Opel, GMC and Hummer
With that many divisions GM has to be very careful not to pit too many vehicles up against eachother. Its bad enough that they have to fight Toyata and Honda but they also have to fight to keep from loosing ground against Ford and Chrysler.
So you should never expect to see Buick type quality in a Chevy and you should never expect to see Cadillac quality in a Buick.
Im not sure how many divisions Honda has but I believe they only have Acura as their luxury brand. Toyota has Lexus as its luxury brand and they have the new Scion line but im not sure if its a division.
Because of their small size, Toyata and Honda have the advantage of being able to move faster and adapt to ever changing consumer trends and it also eliminates the need to make their (everyday people) models into (poor man) models.
Its my opinion, that GM needs to let go at least two more of its divisions. My first pick would be Buick and as much as I'd hate to see it happen, my second would be Saturn.
GM gives its very best to Cadillac. And its been proven over the years as many automotive firsts have been lead by Cadillac.
Chevy/GM has a gazzilion more resources than a smaller company like Honda. They have a parts bin larger than any other manufacturer in the world. If Honda blows the design of the CR-V, there goes 10% of their product line. That's pressure! The 'Nox only represents something like 1% of GMs.
Honda has the CR-V and Element competing on the same showroom floor. At least the Saturn and Chevy are in different lots.
I agree that Honda has more flexibility and speed, but it has nothing to do with their size. Toyota ain't exactly small, so I don't buy them having their advantage because of size.
Chevy has been sitting on the sidelines, watching, and learning since 1996. When they developed the VUE, they purchased 12 CR-Vs to use as test mules for developing the CVT drivetrain. They've had plenty of time to find a niche or figure out a way to compete with the volume sellers. That's a real advantage.
I agree that historically Chevy has been the poor man's division. However, in the last few years, Chevy Trucks have come out of that classification. Now, for example, the Suburban and Tahoe have become upscale suburban vehicles. While the sedans and coupes will likely not make it there, the Nox has a shot. Further, as the Nox has no real competition in the GM lineup other than VUE, it will be competing mostly against other manufacturers' products....all the more reason to give it adequate power, discs all around etc. I am certain GM will do what it usually does and offer discs and a bigger engine next year. Why can't they get it right the first go around?
I like how manufacturers buy other manufacturers' cars to design a new one. It's just like Toyota, who purchased some Odysseys. They also used the old Sienna and drove them 600+ miles around the country to see how families use their minivans. The product - an almost perfect family minivan.
Overweight? No, but not a light weight either. Underpowered? No. Since when is 8.5 seconds to 60 classify a vehicle as being underpowered? It might accelerate to 60 in around the same amount of time as the CR-V, but the Equinox will probably be better for passing because of its higher torque rating at a lower engine speed. I do think that GM should have put disc brakes on all 4 wheels, and the 3.5L that is in the Malibu would be better, but the 3.4L will have more than enough power for the Equinox.
GM only has Vue and Nox as small SUV class so it's not competing with other divisions. I would never shop for the Vue since I hate the styling even with that sweet Honda V6. Within a year or 2 Honda, Ford, Subie will all have new models with new improvements so why not get the better engine, brakes, etc. now? The C&D article was not a road test just a preview. When they do a mini-SUV comparison test you know the Nox will not finish first because of these short comings. As said, all the parts are there in the bins, they just don't try to put out the best product. BTW Someone commented how great GM trannies are, well why was a Japanese tranny used along with a 1980 vintage V6? I hope the bumpers are better then the Malibu's. I'll still consider it, but not at MSRP.
C&D has a quick take on the Nox this month, estimate 0-60 is 8.5 seconds with 19/25 mpg.
That's OK, but not good. Their CR-V was quicker using a 4 banger and more efficient. The Escape is also a couple of tics ahead. The Forester XT is in a different performance class entirely.
I'm tellin' ya this vehicle deserves the new 3500 engine from the Malibu. Even the vans get that, the Equinox has soooo much more potential than those vans.
the huge gaps between the hood and quarter panels in the c&d pictures? I thought it looked a little like the Jeep Wranglers hood the way it attaches. In the pictures they did not include one of the hatch area , but they liked the usefulness of the strut towers/shelf.
That's the hood/fender panel line of the Vue. Having the seam on the side like that makes it look worse then it is. Probably more noticeable is some colors. Finally nice seeing the NOX in another color then silver!
The 5 speed in the Nox is a GM transmission, its just made in Japan, and if you're saying that the 3.4L is a vintage engine, then you are also stating that for the new 3.5L that is in the Malibu.
what are the family roots of the 3.5 in the new malibu? is it a bored/stroked 3.4? A comment was made that chev. would put rear discs on the nox in a year or so,,,,that never happened with the vue.
The original 60 degree V6 was the 2.8 liter back in 1980, that engine was then bored out to 3.1 liters in the 80s which was then bored out to make the 3.4 liter in the early 90s, then for 04 they bored out the 3.4 liter to make the 3.5 liter.
The 3.4L offered in the Equinox seems to be a modified version of the 3.4L used in the Venture/Aztec. The power output is the same but the 3.4 in the Equinox hits its peak torque at 200 fewer rpm. Also the the 3.4L in the Venture/Aztec is classified as the LA1, the 3.4L in the Equinox is classified as the LNJ.
Comments
http://www.cnw.ca/fr/releases/archive/February2004/19/c2124.html
-juice
The Equinox ribbon cutting ceremony shows a new blue Nox coming off the line so I'd assume a few cars better be asembled in a day or they'll never get to 150K units right?
As for the engine, too bad they couldn't fit the I-6 from the Trailblazer.
Mr Bots: No hate, just constructive suggestions to deaf GM executives. I'd really like to buy one, but I don't like the RDV threads and web sites dedicated to the leaky 3.4L intake manifold gasket failures that have cost owners thousands right after 3yr/36thousand warrenty quits. I realy get ticked off when this same problem exsisted in the early 90's TO ME on my 3.1L Chevy. Luckily it started within the first year.
If GM can't spare cheap Mexican 3.5L that could have the same gasket problem. How about the 3.2L DOHC CTS V6 from England that makes 220 HP and lbs of torque. Only use it one Caddy, not a super high volume. I'll even live with the cast iron block. Sorry can't make Caddy look bad, Chinese 3.4L for you Chevy boy. I'm tired of getting a half polished product from GM. Nox will be out in 3 weeks or so. I'll rest now and I'll bring my bag of I told you so's in May when the reviews come out. Good night.
I think the 210 lb-ft is certainly adequate, but the Nox won't be light, so don't expect it to compete with the Vue Redline and Forester XT in acceleration.
I just don't get why they didn't use the 3500 from the new Malibu, 200/220 sounds pretty good plus it's more fuel efficient.
-juice
I rented a Montana with the 3.4l and don't recall it fondly. I drove the Malibu and that thing chirped the tires in 2nd gear, all while getting the fuel efficiency of a 4 banger.
So why not use it here? If anything, the Equinox is more worthy of that better engine than the Malibu is.
Just my humble opinion.
-juice
They should have put the 3800 in the van, the 3500 in the Equinox, make both buyers happy.
-juice
In any event, while it's fun to bash the Nox, my wife liked it a lot and if it's available at a reasonable lease price in May when our Envoy lease expires, we'll probably lease one.
It's a good size, the styling is great (much better than VUE) and the rear seat adjustment makes for a lot of legroom.
do you know for sure that 4 wheel disks are available on the LT with the ABS? I assumed this platform is packaged like the Saturn Vue, disk/drum for all models. one of my disappointments with the Nox is has been advertised as disk/drum only. the 05 escape/tribute seems to be 4 wheel disc brakes on all models, so I read anyway.
(AWD cannot have Traction control).
Only on the FWD LS is ABS optional. LT's must have it also and LT FWD gets Traction control.
Disk/drum on all models.
As an aside, I drove a Chevy Venture a few weeks back with the 3.4L and I was surprised how peppy, quiet and smooth it was. I'm not sure why some people are so down on the motor, I found it as good if not better than the 3.0L in our Vue.
I've never been a big Chevy fan, but the Malibu, Equinox and up coming Cobalt are slowly changing my mind on the brand.
-juice
For instance:
- While Honda and Toyota can put more into the CRV and RAV4 GM cannot do the same with the Equinox because GM has far more divisions to sell that same product from.
- You have to keep in mind that Chevrolet is GMs (poor mans automaker). That means Chevy will always make its vehicles at GM's minimum quality standards.
- GM has under its belt; Cadillac, Buick, Oldsmobile (to be discontinued), Pontiac (sport division), Chevrolet (poor mans division), Saturn (Import fighter), SAAB and Opel, GMC and Hummer
With that many divisions GM has to be very careful not to pit too many vehicles up against eachother. Its bad enough that they have to fight Toyata and Honda but they also have to fight to keep from loosing ground against Ford and Chrysler.
So you should never expect to see Buick type quality in a Chevy and you should never expect to see Cadillac quality in a Buick.
Im not sure how many divisions Honda has but I believe they only have Acura as their luxury brand. Toyota has Lexus as its luxury brand and they have the new Scion line but im not sure if its a division.
Because of their small size, Toyata and Honda have the advantage of being able to move faster and adapt to ever changing consumer trends and it also eliminates the need to make their (everyday people) models into (poor man) models.
Its my opinion, that GM needs to let go at least two more of its divisions. My first pick would be Buick and as much as I'd hate to see it happen, my second would be Saturn.
GM gives its very best to Cadillac. And its been proven over the years as many automotive firsts have been lead by Cadillac.
What do you all think?
Chevy/GM has a gazzilion more resources than a smaller company like Honda. They have a parts bin larger than any other manufacturer in the world. If Honda blows the design of the CR-V, there goes 10% of their product line. That's pressure! The 'Nox only represents something like 1% of GMs.
Honda has the CR-V and Element competing on the same showroom floor. At least the Saturn and Chevy are in different lots.
I agree that Honda has more flexibility and speed, but it has nothing to do with their size. Toyota ain't exactly small, so I don't buy them having their advantage because of size.
Chevy has been sitting on the sidelines, watching, and learning since 1996. When they developed the VUE, they purchased 12 CR-Vs to use as test mules for developing the CVT drivetrain. They've had plenty of time to find a niche or figure out a way to compete with the volume sellers. That's a real advantage.
-juice
I am certain GM will do what it usually does and offer discs and a bigger engine next year. Why can't they get it right the first go around?
As said, all the parts are there in the bins, they just don't try to put out the best product.
BTW Someone commented how great GM trannies are, well why was a Japanese tranny used along with a 1980 vintage V6? I hope the bumpers are better then the Malibu's. I'll still consider it, but not at MSRP.
That's OK, but not good. Their CR-V was quicker using a 4 banger and more efficient. The Escape is also a couple of tics ahead. The Forester XT is in a different performance class entirely.
I'm tellin' ya this vehicle deserves the new 3500 engine from the Malibu. Even the vans get that, the Equinox has soooo much more potential than those vans.
-juice
In the pictures they did not include one of the hatch area , but they liked the usefulness of the strut towers/shelf.
A comment was made that chev. would put rear discs on the nox in a year or so,,,,that never happened with the vue.