Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

2010 Chevy Equinox

1…34689…11

Comments

  • gamehawkergamehawker Member Posts: 17
    I really love the comfort level of my Nox!
  • runoxrunox Member Posts: 156
    I'm 5'8", 185 and it seems the driver seat was carved for my backside. I can't imagine being more comfortable driving. 2nd, I like the wide open dash, no cramping here.
  • prigglypriggly Member Posts: 642
    I went for a test drive in a new LTZ six cylinder AWD Chevy Equinox this morning. I was not impressed.

    First of all, the car is grossly underpowered. The engine struggled to effect acceleration and was noisy to boot. The car felt ponderous to drive, too heavy, sluggish, tippy.

    Much has been made of how quiet the Equinox is but I found it to be just average. As mentioned above, acceleration was punctuated by a noisy drone to the engine.

    The switches and cabin controls did not feel smooth or solid. They felt cheap and flimsy. This is very surprising because my 2006 Chevy Impala SS has very solid switches and controls. You would never think the vehicles were made by the same car company! Is this the result of government control of GM??!

    The center console controls are too busy, very confusing and not ergonomic at all.

    Overall, I did not find the vehicle to be satisfactory in any respect except appearance. It is badly underpowered. I can't imagine what the four cylinder iteration feels like under acceleration!
  • wallyuwlwallyuwl Member Posts: 166
    Definitely the minority opinion on this vehicle. It isn't a sports car, nor meant to be. We test drove all its direct competitors (Rav4, CRV, Escape, Tuscon, etc.) and the only one that was better in driving experience was the Rogue (Nox still has better accleration), but the Nox was better in many other regards so we went with it. With the govt. now having a majority stake, the vehicle itself had to be far superior to the competition. It is. With the new tranny cal., its a very nice vehicle, and larger than its competitors with better mileage. Still not sure how buttons are or are not ergonomic, ya just push em. :confuse:
  • tidestertidester Member Posts: 10,059
    ...Tuscon...

    That would be Tucson! Having lived there, I might be a little oversensitive to the spelling. :)

    tidester, host
    SUVs and Smart Shopper
  • roho1roho1 Member Posts: 318
    Wow, grossly, ponderous, and punctuated. I can't image GM ever selling another Equinox based on that opinion.
    However, having checked one out myself it is on my short list. GM has a winner.
  • vanman1vanman1 Member Posts: 1,397
    Coming from a V8 Impala, of course the Equinox will feel underpowered. You are driving a car that is grossly overpowered (I know, I have driven one).

    Your complaints on noise are also surprising given the wind noise in the Impalas. I suspect you are talking about the engine and again, you are likely comparing a V8 to a V6.

    If you want something more comparable, look at the Traverse.
  • prigglypriggly Member Posts: 642
    There is NO wind noise in my Impala. Zero.
  • dbreezedbreeze Member Posts: 6
    Could someone with an Equinox (17" tires) take a second and measure the floor to fully-opened height of the Equinox liftgate for me? None of the dealers in my area have a 2010 on their lot and GM's specifications don't mention it.

    With a programmable option offered, I'm wondering if the standard liftgate will hit my garage door/opening.

    Thank you in advance.
  • prigglypriggly Member Posts: 642
    I am not comparing the power of the Equinox six cylinder to my V-8 Impala. I am, rather, comparing it to the power of my 1997 four-cylinder Subaru Outback. Not exactly a speed demon!

    The Equinox has 222 lb.-ft. or torque powering an approximately 4,000 lb. vehicle. Yes, it IS underpowered by any reasonable estimate.
  • drwilscdrwilsc Member Posts: 140
    Consumer Reports clocked the V6 Equinox 0-60 in 9.1 seconds, probably enough to keep up with traffic in normal driving situations but no stop light race car. As CR pointed out, it is not as fast as the 264 hp would suggest. I agree that problem is lack of torque in this relatively small 3 liter. GM would have been much better off offering their 3.6 liter engine in this vehicle, like they did in the later years of the previous generation.
  • dmathews3dmathews3 Member Posts: 1,739
    You may be in luck as the rear hatch is programable to open to different heights just for that reason.
  • dbreezedbreeze Member Posts: 6
    I was under the impression that the "programmable feature" was only available with the power liftgate. My question concerns the manual liftgate. If anyone knows if you can program a height stop on the manual liftgate, please advise.

    Thank you.
  • runoxrunox Member Posts: 156
    GM would have been much better off offering their 3.6 liter engine in this vehicle, like they did in the later years of the previous generation.

    That's the exact reason GM has been trashed by the economic community. GM is migrating to fuel efficiency and sustainability, even the MPG for the Camaro is up. No, for 99.9% of use, that and the 4cyl engine are     a fine match for the target market.
  • runoxrunox Member Posts: 156
    No, you cannot. You'll need to replace the piston with one that is shorter or tie a rope on it to shorten the maximum height.
  • dbreezedbreeze Member Posts: 6
    That's what I thought. So, to reiterate my question: Is there someone out there with a 2010 Equinox (with 17" wheels) that could kindly measure the floor to fully open height of the liftgate for me?

    Thank you.
  • rocketentrocketent Member Posts: 60
    The ground floor or the cargo floor? If I remember correctly, the highest point of the lift gate is the area around the chrome strip, which in my garage, comes about a sixteenth of an inch from the garage door opener mechanism. Yikes!

    I'd measure it for you now, but the light in my garage has burned out. If no one else can do it, I'll do it tomorrow. Kind of curious myself.
  • dbreezedbreeze Member Posts: 6
    Yep. Ground floor to top of liftgate. I'd appreciate it. I have searched everywhere on the Internet and haven't found it published anywhere. Some owners say that they are putting foam on their garage door frames, etc., but I'd have thought that somewhere in the GM testing, one would have tried to put one in a garage along the way.

    Just checking to see if the liftgate will hit the door frame, the garage door, the door opener, the roof, the moon, etc.

    Thanks.
  • prigglypriggly Member Posts: 642
    9.1 seconds is absolutely too slow. This is a serious detriment to the Equinox. I am in a four cylinder Outback now and have found it to be a good car overall except for its very slow acceleration figures. In real life it is absolutely too slow. So is the Equinox six cylinder, not to mention the four.

    I would not consider the vehicle on this fact alone.

    I will most likely acquire another Outback, this time the six cylinder which has more torque and a lot less weight than the LTZ six cylinder AWD Equinox. Too bad, because I really wanted to buy GM but their vehicle is just not competitive. The mileage figures are better for the six cylinder Outback as well compared to the six cylinder Equinox: 18/25 vs. 17/24.
  • dodgeman07dodgeman07 Member Posts: 574
    9.1 seconds is absolutely too slow.

    =======================================

    That is the slowest time I've heard for a V6 equipped model. Heck the I4 FWD is rated at that figure.

    The V6 FWD is around 7.8 and AWD is 8.2 0-60. If you rely on CR for your information, then that's half the problem.

    If you're looking for speed in an SUV then look elsewhere. The Chevy is not designed for drag races. It has more than adequate power with it's V6 but is not a NASCAR model.
  • prigglypriggly Member Posts: 642
    The Equinox I drove was very slow, certainly at least 9.1 sec. to 60, if that fast.

    It may not be designed for drag races but it should certainly be able to merge in fast traffic. The one I drove was absolutely not. It definitely does not have "more than adequate power."
  • gamehawkergamehawker Member Posts: 17
    I just measured my 2010 Equinox LT2 that has a manual liftgate. I backed it out of the garage and measured it in my driveway.

    The measurement I came up with (from the driveway to the opened liftgate was 83 inches. I measursed to the rear windshield wiper blade mechanism which measures about 2 inches above the liftgate.

    I hope this answers your question.
  • dbreezedbreeze Member Posts: 6
    Thank you very much. My garage door frame is 83 1/4". So sounds like worst-case scenario, it should just miss the wiper blade, but still stay clear of the rear liftgate.

    Again, thank you.
  • dmathews3dmathews3 Member Posts: 1,739
    Sorry, I guess I didn't read it right but I doubt very much it is. Do what we did on our old van, I got some foam and marked where the liftgate hit on the garage door and using the foam I glued the foam to the inside of the door. I also took an old carpeted floormat and stapled it to the sidewall where if I get a little to close to the sidewall the door can hit full open.
  • rocketentrocketent Member Posts: 60
    On mine, the highest point of the lift gate is the bow tie, which I measure in excess of 85 inches, so I would say 86 just to be safe. This is not a scientific measurement, but I held the tape in my line of vision and looked as straight as I could while standing on a ladder.
    I don't think I'm off by more than a fraction of an inch.
    I don't know why my measurement is so different from the other. 1LT with 17" wheels here.
    If I personally relied on the 83 number, I'd be smacking that lift gate.
    Tire pressure might be a variable here as well as other environmental considerations, such as slant of the ground, etc. My driveway is pretty flat fwiw.
    Also, I noticed that when I opened the lift gate, I was able to push it up a bit higher after it opened, so it's all the way up here.
    So dbreeze, if I were you, I'd want to hear at least one more owners measurement.
  • dbreezedbreeze Member Posts: 6
    Thank you for your measurement. I'm sure my garage door/opening is like others, with the opening being the lowest point and the door (if you have a sectional-type garage door) that goes up a bit higher just inside the opening as it follows the track. The liftgate might hit the opening, but by pulling up in the garage a bit, this might yield a higher opening area (almost 87") about a foot inside the door. I'll probably have to wing it if we choose to get the Equinox and make any slight modifications when we get it home. This doesn't look like it will turn out to be a deal-breaker.
  • dodgeman07dodgeman07 Member Posts: 574
    It definitely does not have "more than adequate power."

    ====================================

    I always laugh when I read comments like this. It's ironic that we all need vehicles that have tremendous power these days. When I was in my 20's (the 1980's), 4,000 pound vehicles with 150HP were the norm and we did fine. 0-60 times were often 11 or 12 seconds at best.

    Go buy your [non-permissible content removed] model.
  • prigglypriggly Member Posts: 642
    When you were in your 20's the 4,000 lb. vehicles were not constrained by all the anti-pollution devices that exist today, sapping the engines of their power. Maybe you'd also like a return to the 55 mph national speed limit.

    Go buy your [non-permissible content removed] model.

    Your racist epithet is not appreciated. I'll buy what provides the best feature set for a designated amount of money, be it Japanese, German, American or whatever. The Equinox is definitely not it.
  • dmathews3dmathews3 Member Posts: 1,739
    If you're trying to justify buying the Outback over the Nox than poof, I just justified it for ya, so go buy it and quit cutting down a perfectly reasonable car for 995 of us.BYE :P
  • vanman1vanman1 Member Posts: 1,397
    Outback is a lighter wagon, Equinox is an SUV and the is likely tuned for mileage not for 0-60. The 3.6L would be better obviously, but so far all of the ones I have seen on the road are 4 cyl.
  • prigglypriggly Member Posts: 642
    And just who appointed you the spokesman for the Equinox board? ;)

    Your defensiveness notwithstanding, the Equinox still has some serious deficits. :sick:

    I really wanted to like this car but could not get by its shortcomings.
  • prigglypriggly Member Posts: 642
    The 3.6R has a 0-60 mph time of 7.4 sec, significantly faster than the LTZ AWD six cylinder Equinox I tested.

    The supply of 3.6R's is still pretty thin but they should increase as time goes by.
  • dmathews3dmathews3 Member Posts: 1,739
    I did and it seems kind of funny you are the only one who finds all these shortcomings with the nox. I have driven 2 of them and don't find any of your shortcomings with it. I guess that is why they make so many different vehicles.
  • urdeadurdead Member Posts: 13
    I think the Nox has all kinds of shortcomings. I have a 2010 LTZ with the V6 and I have to say that as far as takeoffs go its a DOG. I don't have confidence enough in to shoot across a busy street because it is so slow to respond from a stop. Speaking of stopping you might as well be driving a stickshift if you have to stop on any slight incline with the Nox because you need 1 foot on the brake and the other on the gas cause it wont hold itself on a hill greater than a 15 degree slope. That being said when you are going 65 and want to pass someone the Nox has plenty of power.
  • mickeyrommickeyrom Member Posts: 936
    I drove an LS yesterday and found it a very pleasant drive.Had no issues with the tranny or the 4 cyl engine.Loved the interior and the overall feel of the car.My only criticism is with the controls,which are not intuitive at all.The new owner will definitely have to study the owner's manual.
  • drwilscdrwilsc Member Posts: 140
    That's the exact reason GM has been trashed by the economic community

    In the 2010 Buick Lacrosse, on Buick's own website, the 3.0 liter in the CXL gets 17/27 city/highway ratings. The 3.6 liter in the CXS gets....17/27. The exact same. I would guess because the 3.6 doesn't have to work as hard. The same would likely hold true in the Equinox.
  • dmathews3dmathews3 Member Posts: 1,739
    If thats the way you feel why did you buy it? Sounds like the shortcomings may be more than just the Nox.
  • vanman1vanman1 Member Posts: 1,397
    Seems like some of you would like more power but I think GM was concentrating on mileage. That said, 3.6 mileage would not be that much worse.

    Looking around the small SUV world, the offering from Chevy is not much different though.
  • urdeadurdead Member Posts: 13
    What are you infering by the statement "Sounds like the shortcomings may be more than just the Nox."

    One reason I bought it is it is a beautiful vehicle. :shades: Another reason is I wanted to support an american car company as I have never owned an import but I was looking at a CRV when I decided to get the Nox. I really like the technological features in the vehicle as well. That is also one of the Nox's shortcomings the tech is cool when it works but when it doesn't good luck getting someone to figure out WTF to do to fix it. I initally asked the salesman about the takeoff speed and he told me that should losen up as I drove it. Well almost 5K miles later it hasn't improved much at all. So there is your justification as to why I bought it. Also there are things that you dont find out about a vehicle until you have driven it for a bit. Let me end by saying this Im sure some of my criticisim has to do with the way Chevrolet as well as the dealer has treated me so far but IMO this vehicle is not ready for prime time yet.
  • khh2khh2 Member Posts: 4
    Like you, I also recently the 2010 LTZ 6 Cyllinder. In my research before buying, I realized the even though it is a 6 cylinder, I didn't expect a car that would scream from a dead start. I am completely satisfied with the handling, and the smooth, quiet ride. My other vehicle is a diesel pu so I am accustomed the the "diesel lag" from a dead start. Even though I'm a bit technologically challenged, I am amazed with the high tech features, still patiently trying to figure everthing out. What do you mean by WTF? So far I have figured out the bluetooth calling, the usb port for my ipod, and most of the On Star features. (I traded in a '94 suburban in cash for clunkers...so I'm amazed with the technology) Most of all I love the comfort and support of the seats. I'm over 6' and I don't feel like I'm so low to the ground like I do in other small suv's. Only have about 2,000 miles, but so far, I'm very impressed.
  • wallyuwlwallyuwl Member Posts: 166
    Seems like your main complaint is the vehicle not jumping off a the starting line when you put your foot on the gas from a stop. This is intentional by GM, sort of. As you may now from reading other threads, a few weeks ago an engineer came down from Detroit to look at my vehicle. I don't have a complaint about the starting line response, but he did say something that related to your concern. The response is made to be a little lagging to save gas. If at the slightest touch of the gas (either at the start or while in motion) you are sending more fuel, it can reduce gas mileage quite a bit because people's feet aren't 100% steady. Also, they intentionally made the acceleration linear. That is, the more you press down the pedal the more acceleration you will get, and this characteristic is lniear throughout the range of motion of the pedal. Some companies have you at full acceleration at 30-40% of pedal, which is again bad for gas mileage and you also don't get as much of a response while trying to accelerate while already in motion (ie: the pedal is already depressed and you are trying to speed up while depressing it more). So in this situation you're "off the line" response will be better but it comes at the expense of fuel mileage and a better response with acceleration while already in motion (for things like passing on the freeway). This doesn't change how the vehicle behaves, but hopefully you now understand why some of the characteristics are the way they are.
  • urdeadurdead Member Posts: 13
    I will tell you what I mean by WTF. So far my vehicle in the 2 months of ownership I have had the bluetooth module, the power seat module, OnStar unit, and the OnStar Phone unit replaced. The Nav unit has both traffic info and weather info built into it both of which also broke after a week of having this car. What I mean by WTF is the that I am by no means technically challenged however the people working on the vehicle are. I have had to physically show them in the manual the proper way that the NAV unit was supposed to work at one point. I have a problem with the power-points in my vehicle that when I have my wife's cell phone charger is plugged in when you start the car using the key there is no sound in the vehicle (ie: No radio, turn signals don't make the clicking sound, and the hands free phone has no sound either) however if you use remote start then turn on the vehicle everything works fine. Also if you start the vehicle with the key then plug it in all is good. I explained all this trouble-shooting I did to the dealer when I took it into them for repair. Their solution was "Don't plug the charger in until after you start the vehicle." WTF!!!!!!!!!! I knew that when I took it to them. I should also point out that the 1st thing I did was bought a new charger to make sure that wasn't the problem as well. I have had several other problems too which I have documented on a blog but I have already had a post removed for linking it. As far as the ride I am satisfied and it is very quiet so quiet that when I have done a couple videos to document some problems you cant even hear me start the car. I don't feel my problems are inherent to all Nox's but then again there are more base models out there than there are the models that are equipped like mine. For a car that stickered at nearly 37K I want my gadgets and gizz-whizzies to work the right way.
  • elisa81elisa81 Member Posts: 38
    I think you are totally justified in wanting your car to run correctly. I have had my NOX, 2LT 4 cyl with sunroof and power lift gate for a week tomorrow. Overall for the first week, I completely love the car. Gas mileage is turning out great and with the slower start off the light (compared to my '05 G6) it's teaching me not to be an aggressive driver. :) Plus, I always keep the instant MPG on the info screen to remind me not to be a race car driver. :shades:

    The one thing I've noticed with the past couple of days is that when I'm going through the commands for the blue tooth, sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't understand me correctly and ends up hanging up on me. Yesterday I spent 20 minutes during my drive home from work trying to get one call through. Never happened. Ironically enough my dealer called me earlier in the day to see how the car was running. So, I called him back and explained my situation. All he could tell me to do was uninstall my cell phone and reinstall it for the blue tooth. Did that, still doesn't work right.

    My main frustration is that I'm not sure if it's actually the car, or my cell phone during the pass through that is having difficulty understanding me. Does anyone know if the NOX's blue tooth pass through has a time limit for how long you can try to make a call? Below I have typed out exactly what I say, and what the car does and how my cell phone responds during pass through.

    ::Push blue tooth on steering wheel::
    Me: Blue tooth.
    Car: Blue tooth ready.
    Me: Voice
    Car: Okay, activating (says my cell phone).
    Cell Phone: Please say a command:
    Me: Call Husband
    Cell Phone: (This response varies from contacts, I did not understand you, did you say ___ and gives wrong name).
    Me: I say Call Husband (again).
    Cell Phone: Attempts to figure out what I say when the car interrupts and says...
    Car: Call ended. Goodbye (and hangs up on me).

    So, do you think it's my cell phone or the car? Any thoughts are appreciated!!

    P.S. Overall I really love this car.. and feel like the bluetooth thing is just a hiccup I hope to get past. I had patience to order the car to begin with, so I'll have some patience with this too! Maybe I'll get lucky and it ends up being a problem with my cell phone, and not the car. I will have to oad my husbands cell phone and see if it works or not.
  • ulliulli Member Posts: 14
    I've had several voice recognition phones over the years. After trying the voice option in frustration I always went to speed dialing.
    Does the same thing occur when you use the " dial " command?
    You might try using short distinct name tags - it might be easier for the system to recognize them. You must have a few favorites for your husband - My wife has many for me!!
    I haven't received my vehicle yet so I'll go thru exactly what you're going thru. As a matter of fact I don't have a bluetooth phone yet. That'll be another experience.
    I'll look forward to your solution to your problem.
    Good luck
  • geohovgeohov Member Posts: 23
    Voice commands on anything are always more of an art than science. :cry:
  • farmertullfarmertull Member Posts: 14
    I am really mixed after my test drive. Same power as my 4 cyl 2006 Rav but it has 6 instead of 4 speed. Quieter. Feels very steady.
    Things that bother me about NOX
    Windshield seems compressed. The front window posts are extra wide to contain airbags. the right rear mirror seems to dominate your rear view. I am uncomfortable with right view on cars that I cant see. The rear end is nonexistant compared to RAV. NOX much longer but somehow not hardly any rear storage. Rav is wider. When I layed down the rear seats it wasnt as smooth as Rav (2006). I get 24 average with rav. I like the 6 speed tanny on NOX. Looks on Equinox are great but I really dont know if this is a step up from my RAV
  • wallyuwlwallyuwl Member Posts: 166
    I don't know when the redesign of the Rav 4 came out, but we test drove a 2009 one prior to buying a 2010 Nox. It was one of over a dozen vehicles we drove. It did seem to have a little more room in the back than the Nox, especially because the seats fold totally flat. That said, I fit a full-size bike, laser printer inside its box, and a mini-fridge in my Nox not long ago with no problem and room to spare.

    The 2009 Rav 4 was noisy (wind and engine noise) and very unrefined inside compared to the Nox. I did not like the 4 speed tranny, caused too much revving. The seats were hard. The instrument panel and radio/hvac control console section was unattractive. It did ride OK, but the steering was unimpressive. They put really cheap tires on them, the tires on the Nox (4 cyl versions that have the Michelins) are a superior all around tire to any you will find on ANY other automobile new. I haven't seen specs, but the Nox seems wider inside to me, not the other way around. I like the individual bucket seats and really like the design of the center console/gear shift area between the seats.

    There are some tranny behavior issues described in detail on other threads in the forum, but those can be largely resolved by a new tranny calibration (software) install from the dealer. They just took some of the fuel saving features a little too far with their initial production calibration.

    GM didn't have their 60 day guarantee when we bought ours. Now that they do, I don't know why anyone on the fence wouldn't buy a Nox (or Malibu or Traverse or Arcadia or new LaCrosse - as they all hammer their respective competition). We were mad about the whole bailout and union pandering stuff, so the vehicle itself really had to be superior to the competition for us to buy it, and it was.
  • geohovgeohov Member Posts: 23
    I know a Rav 4 is a Toyota and it is a given that it will be reliable. Same with the Honda CRV. What is swinging me to the 2010 Nox purchase is the interior and the electronics. I look at the interior of the Rav 4 and the CRV and they look like a rental car interior. There is just nothing to impress. Get into a Nox (with NAV or even without) and it's definitely the next generation of automobiles. I have the NAV setup that is identical in my CTS. The hard drive has about 5,000 songs on it. Every Beatles,Led Zeppelin, The Who, Genesis, Jethro Tull,Yes and more albums that they produced and there is still room for more. On the radio you can pause it if you are getting out of the car and when you return it will start right where you left. Throw in Bluetooth for your cell calls and a host of other features I'm not going to list here.

    OK, Nox doesn't have the reliability factor yet, keep my fingers crossed. There is a 100,000 mile engine and drivetrain warrantee to cover that bet. I like the Ford Escape, but other than Sync, it's a 10 year old design, pretty much the same as Rav 4 and CRV. If you want the newest technology,engine and interior, plus newly designed body, there is no comparison, the Nox is it. If you just want a good track record, go with the other two.
  • smithpesmithpe Member Posts: 13
    In case you haven't chosen a new car yet let me respond to your request for comments.

    My 4-cyl. 2010 Nox LS now has 5000 mi. I'm very satisfied so far. I didn't buy a 4 cyl. expecting quick acceleration. I bought it in the "clunker" program so I was looking for high gas mileage. Which was my only disappointment. I get 23 city/26 highway which is quite a bit below the EPA estimate of 32 highway. I quess that's why they call it an "estimate". But it's better that the 6 cyl.'99 Chrysler minivan that was turned in as a clunker.
    I tow a 1300lb boat with no problems. It's very quiet at highway speed. My only other comment is the lack of rear vision compared to the minivan.
  • dmathews3dmathews3 Member Posts: 1,739
    Aren't those highway estimates at 55mph? How close were you to that figure. If running 65 to 70 then 26 for a box on wheels so to speak isn't all bad.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles