Review: 2010 Chevrolet Equinox

[bradyholt]

Following the near-total death of the midsize station wagon in the United States – the Subaru Outback is the only survivor south of $25,000 – the compact SUV has had to pick up the slack for someone looking for added practicality from a moderately priced family car. The smallest SUVs are still mostly built from compact cars, but they’ve grown to offer roomy front and rear seats in addition to a spacious cargo hold.

But test drives of seven popular compact SUVs showed that while they were able to match family-sedan interior comfort and safety without embarrassing themselves with their fuel consumptions, few had the level of refinement of even a decent midsize sedan. Only the Toyota RAV4 – which won the comparison – had come close.

That was in April. Since then, Chevrolet has introduced a redesigned version of its Equinox as a 2010 model, featuring a new four-cylinder engine (the previous model was V6-only) with class-leading gas mileage and class-leading refinement...

Continued at link:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-1...et-Equinox--th

[PA Dweller]

Ouch thats harsh.

[FenwickHockey65]

You do realize that GM isn't doing "corporate radios" anymore? The reason for the "low and away IP" is to do away with corporate radios in favor of integrated center stacks.

And this has to be the first review that's criticized the interior that harshly. One review did mention the hard interior, but I usually don't spend hours fondling the interior panels of my cars.

[PA Dweller]

Originally Posted by FenwickHockey65

You do realize that GM isn't doing "corporate radios" anymore? The reason for the "low and away IP" is to do away with corporate radios in favor of integrated center stacks.

And this has to be the first review that's criticized the interior that harshly. One review did mention the hard interior, but I usually don't spent hours fondling the interior panels of my cars.

I think the guy just has a hard on for the Rav 4.

[bradyholt]

Originally Posted by FenwickHockey65

You do realize that GM isn't doing "corporate radios" anymore? The reason for the "low and away IP" is to do away with corporate radios in favor of integrated center stacks.

I preferred the corporate radio. It's better-designed than this.

And this has to be the first review that's criticized the interior that harshly.

It is most definitely not.

One review did mention the hard interior, but I usually don't spent hours fondling the interior panels of my cars.

I'm pretty sure I put the low quality of the interior in the appropriate overall perspective.

[96_impala_ss]

Now my question for the center stacks is, if you want a better radio, how do you change it?

It seems to me they're integrated and permanently there.

[FenwickHockey65]

Funny, a year or so ago, everyone was bashing GM for still using corporate radios. Now that we're moving away from them, everyone wants them back.

[Barry Badrinath]

zzzz.

[bradyholt]

Originally Posted by FenwickHockey65

Funny, a year or so ago, everyone was bashing GM for still using corporate radios. Now that we're moving away from them, everyone wants them back.

No, there were people in both camps at both times. I had always supported a corporate radio done right (IE GM's as opposed to Ford's).

[ScottieDogFLA]

I purchased the last-generation (1st gen) Equinox when it came out. What a piece of crap. It had a turning circle larger than a Suburban's and barely got 15 mpg going downhill with it's wonderful Chinese-built V6. The interior panels deteriorated daily thanks to the playdoh grade plastics. The new model could only be a step in the right direction; interestingly it looks a lot like a Mercedes ML class from the profile. But so many people may have been burned by that first edition, they won't bother to give it a second glance.

[mikmak]

My mum has a Rav-4 I4 manual. It has pretty poor quality plastics, so if Equinox is worse....that's pretty bad.

The review didn't seem that bad, but then again, it had its problems. It pointed out all the positives, but then added negatives. I liked the review, but I was not entirely happy with the end result.


..... I crack myself up.

[tbirderic]

All in all I thought it to be a good review. Only item that really came up for criticism is the design and quality of the center stack. I'll reserve judgement until I see it in person, but from the pictures it looks okay. He does have a point about 'integrated center stacks' being less than ideal. I recall a recent experience testing an 09 Accord and being disappointed that the ergonomics were not on par with my sorely missed '04.

2 points. It appears that the Equinox steals the show with refinement and fuel economy. I believe current class leaders in fuel economy are the RAV4 and CRV (correct me if I'm wrong). Don't know what people are getting with the CRV, but my Dad's RAV4 is averaging 21mpg. On long highway runs it gets 27. Even if this new Equinox does not get 32mpg as advertised, it should be about 10% better than the RAV4.

Second, Brady's comments on how the RAV4's cargo capacity is rated at an extra 5 cubic feet of space over the Equinox, but actual space available appears to be the same. I believe the 'missing space' that is being referred to is under the floor of the RAV4, as there is a couple of cavernous wells on models not equipped with the 3rd row seat. I don't think the Equinox has this extra space, as the spare tire is under the floor, and not externally mounted, like the RAV4.

My only real complaint with the Equinox is that they should have made the sliding rear seat 60/40 split instead of just the seatback. Otherwise, good job, GM.

[cdp326]

Originally Posted by tbirderic

Second, Brady's comments on how the RAV4's cargo capacity is rated at an extra 5 cubic feet of space over the Equinox, but actual space available appears to be the same. I believe the 'missing space' that is being referred to is under the floor of the RAV4, as there is a couple of cavernous wells on models not equipped with the 3rd row seat. I don't think the Equinox has this extra space, as the spare tire is under the floor, and not externally mounted, like the RAV4.

Good point, the spare tire location likely is playing a large part in the cargo capacity difference. The CR-V, Outlander, etc. may be a slightly better comparison.

I just found a comparison on the cars.com review that lists cargo volume.

2010 Chevrolet Equinox - 31.4
2009 Ford Escape - 29.2
2009 Honda CR-V - 35.7
2009 Nissan Rogue - 28.9
2009 Subaru Forester - 33.5
2009 Toyota RAV4 - 36.4

[bradyholt]

Originally Posted by cdp326

Good point, the spare tire location likely is playing a large part in the cargo capacity difference. The CR-V, Outlander, etc. may be a slightly better comparison.

I just found a comparison on the cars.com review that lists cargo volume.

2010 Chevrolet Equinox - 31.4
2009 Ford Escape - 29.2
2009 Honda CR-V - 35.7
2009 Nissan Rogue - 28.9
2009 Subaru Forester - 33.5
2009 Toyota RAV4 - 36.4

Yet the Equinox is much bigger than all of those. And an even more dramatic difference is in maximum cargo capacity, with the rear seat folded down.

But as I said in the review, the Equinox certainly LOOKS like it has more space than the others.

[cdp326]

I wonder if the Terrain has about the same amount of space as the Equinox (though I imagine it would). It's about 2" shorter than the Equinox, putting it closer to the other compact SUVs. If it has the same cargo capacity, it will show that the size and packaging differences are mostly in the styling of the Equinox.