2010 Equinox: Chevrolet's New Edge?

[spidge]

Originally Posted by TriShield

So GM is targeting an SUV whose sales are now tanking due to fuel prices with their own SUV foil in a market that does not want more SUVs.

Brilliant!

Rick should have announced yesterday that they were killing these new SUV programs, that they were pruning all the SUVs and trucks that cannabalize each other like the Outlook and most GMCs, and that they would sell the Beat, Cruze and prioritize more small cars for America.

But he didn't. Is there any doubt left?

The ideal crossover for today would be the little Trax concept!

[spidge]

Originally Posted by Ambalanche

So now Chevrolet will have two midsize crossovers. One large, Traverse, one medium, Equinox. What will go against the CRV and Rav4 and to a lesser extent, Sportage? That's where the market is going in my opinion.

How about a 35 MPG small crossover?

Perhaps switching the Pontiac Vibe to Chevrolet dealers?

[Crazy4Camaro]

what's up with the lights? that bar thru them looks idiotic! the other versions look way better, especially the caddy.

[JT87]

Originally Posted by 2648562

Thanks, I learned something new today! I always thought Ramos Arizpe, Mexico was in Mexico.

I just figured you thought the Theta twins were built in Mexico, hence picking the Edge over the others :p.

[BigAls87Z28]

Originally Posted by Extreme4x4

Wrong.

The Escape is loosely based on the Mazda 626 Platform, so it is no different than the others you list. It also is no larger than any of the others that you list, except for interior volume on the Rogue.

Specs:

2008 Ford Escape:
Length: 175"
Width: 71"
Height: 68"
Wheelbase: 103"
Weight: 3272lbs base
Cargo Capacity: 66cf

2008 Toyota Rav4:
Length: 181"
Width: 72"
Height: 66"
Wheelbase: 105"
Weight: 3300lbs base
Cargo Capacity: 73cf

2008 Honda CRV:
Length: 178"
Width: 72"
Height: 66"
Wheelbase: 103"
Weight: 3389lbs
Cargo Capacity: 73cf

2008 Nissan Rogue:
Length: 182"
Width: 71"
Height: 65"
Wheelbase: 106"
Weight: 3267lbs
Cargo Capacity: 58cf

Thus, the ONLY place that the Escape is larger, is in height, by 2". It is shorter than all, more narrow than the Rav4 and CRV, and ties the Rogue. It has a shorter wheelbase than the Rav4 and Rogue, and ties the CRV. It is lighter than all, except the Rogue. It has less maximum cargo capacity than the Rav4 and CRV.

As far as distribution of sales between 4cyl and 6cyl, I don't know. However, I would bet that this has changed significantly in the last 6 months........... the same as it has for the Rav4.

The 2009 Escape, with the 2.5L I4, will have its class's best fuel economy.

I know you hate Ford, but at least get your facts correct.

My hatered of ford has nothing to do with this? My girlfriend has an Escape, and I know it very well. It is NOTHING like the Rav4 or CRV. While they might be the same size, they are very different then the Escape. Challenger and the 750i are the same size, I guess the Challenger is a luxury flag ship? Both have V6 and V8 engines, both weigh well over 2 tons, they both have large wheels and massive disk brakes.

Size has zero to do with it. Just looking at the cars shows you the difference. Id like to see a Rav4 or a CRV go off road like I have seen some Escapes.

Oh, and the Escape gets horrible horrible gas milage. City driving, my gf is lucky to get more then 15mpg. Even when we took it down to DC, we were pushing to get 20mpg.

[Uzzy]

Originally Posted by BigAls87Z28

Oh, and the Escape gets horrible horrible gas milage. City driving, my gf is lucky to get more then 15mpg. Even when we took it down to DC, we were pushing to get 20mpg.

That's what my 4.8L V8 Silverado gets.

[Eric77TA]

Originally Posted by Crazy4Camaro

what's up with the lights? that bar thru them looks idiotic! the other versions look way better, especially the caddy.

That pictures at the top of the article is the current Equinox (an Equinox Sport, actually). It's had the bar through the lights since it debuted. The 2010 does NOT have a bar like that.

[Extreme4x4]

Originally Posted by BigAls87Z28

My hatered of ford has nothing to do with this? My girlfriend has an Escape, and I know it very well. It is NOTHING like the Rav4 or CRV. While they might be the same size, they are very different then the Escape. Challenger and the 750i are the same size, I guess the Challenger is a luxury flag ship? Both have V6 and V8 engines, both weigh well over 2 tons, they both have large wheels and massive disk brakes.

Size has zero to do with it. Just looking at the cars shows you the difference. Id like to see a Rav4 or a CRV go off road like I have seen some Escapes.

Oh, and the Escape gets horrible horrible gas milage. City driving, my gf is lucky to get more then 15mpg. Even when we took it down to DC, we were pushing to get 20mpg.

Size does have something to do with it, as you yourself said that the Escape is MUCH LARGER than the Rav4 and CRV, and that it was not based on a car like those are.

I proved you wrong, so you change your arguement.

Go on Edmunds and look at the 2008 Escape. Then look at the bottom of the page, where they show the other vehicles that people who look at Escapes, look at. You will see the Rav4, the CRV, and the Rogue. However, I guess that because mighty Al says that they don't compete with each other, and are completely different........... then it has to be so.

I sure don't know what was wrong with your girlfriends Escape. I had a 2003 Mazda Tribute ES AWD V6 (loaded) for 64K miles. I NEVER got worse than 17mpg in the city, and that was when I idle it alot in the winter. Highway was always 20-23............... and that is climbing alot of mountains.

All of the vehicles talked about, get pretty similar mileage (EPA ratings), within 1mpg of each other. Thus, I guess they all get "terrible terrible mileage."

I have a friend here in Payson who has a Prius. She gets less than 30mpg in the city. I have seen, and experienced her driving. Frankly, I'm surprised she gets that much.

As for these vehicles "looking" completely different............... so what. They are all compact SUV's that are now called crossovers. They are all based off of car platforms, and are FWD based, with "automatic" AWD available. If the others AWD isn't as good as the Escapes............ well, thats there problem. Looking different is as much a product of styling, as anything else.

Finally, the CTS, and the BMW 3-series, or 5-series, are all RWD luxury sports sedans. Yet, they are very different in many ways. Thus, I guess they should not be compared either, huh???

[telo]

Originally Posted by HoosierRon

Because Chevrolet needs two 7 passenger CUVs. Losing the third row, three inches and a few hundred pounds is out of the question.

I can't see that third row being used much by most families, and there is no need to put it there just to say it's an option.

As long as the new one has the sliding rear seat that'll be all you need. Can't go wrong with 40'' of leg room.

[460ford]

Originally Posted by BigAls87Z28

Escape is much bigger then CRV and Rav4 and Rogue. For the most part, they are all 4cyl cars, while the majority of Escapes are 6cyls. The Escape is also much more truck like and has a more rugged appearance, vs the Civic based CRV, Corola based Rav4 or Sentra based Rogue. The ONLY one of them that have a V6 optoin is the Rav4.

A true CRV/Rav4/Roque CUV from Chevy would be a taller HHR with AWD.

Then you have the larger sporty mid size 5 seaters like the Murano, Edge, CX7, up to the X3. The Nox is gunna straddle the Rav4 market to the Edge market. Not gunna be built around sportiness of the Murano, but not have the small confines of the Rav4.
IMO...its the perfect middle ground. And if its big on the inside like a Edge, but gets gas milage like the CRV, and priced in the middle, is there that big of a problem?
No.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniont...z1dd7ford.html
"About 42 percent of Escape crossovers are sold with a 2.3-liter, four-cylinder engine. Ford expects the four-cylinder take rate to increase to nearly 50 percent with the introduction of 2009 models in July, said Eric Loeffler, Escape chief engineer. "

So basically its probably right around 50-50 with the engine choice in the Escape. The Escape looks more truck like that the other cute utes but is just as much of a car underneath as all of them.Whatever anyone thinks the Escape is I would say that public likes it it as they had sold 92k through June which puts it on pace for over 180k a year with the 2009's receiving more upgrades and gaining a lil more economy.

[Astra RL]

Why is this getting bigger the nox is 188.8" while the 3 row Captiva is 182.5", how do they do it. I thought the two would merge maybe they will merge as two products.

[Vetterider23]

Ok....
Here is my question

Does Direct Injection increase horsepower while simultaneously increasing fuel economy and decreasing emissions?

What would happen if DI were added to engine applications and purposely detuned, would fuel economy increase?

Example.

Cadillac CTS 3.6 With DI 304 HP XXX Fuel econ

What would happen if they added the DI and detuned the power back down to the 260 HP of the base engine? would we have higher fuel economy?

[big swede]

Originally Posted by Joevette

why would a 3.0l produce 270hp but the 3.6 only put out 280? kind of redundant if that were true

That's just peak hp we were given which definitely doesn't tell the entire story. Without even comparing dyno sheets I guarantee the 3.6 will put out way more torque at a much lower rpm and over a broader range, which is exactly what you want in a heavy vehicle.

Originally Posted by Vetterider23

Ok....
Here is my question

Does Direct Injection increase horsepower while simultaneously increasing fuel economy and decreasing emissions?

What would happen if DI were added to engine applications and purposely detuned, would fuel economy increase?

Example.

Cadillac CTS 3.6 With DI 304 HP XXX Fuel econ

What would happen if they added the DI and detuned the power back down to the 260 HP of the base engine? would we have higher fuel economy?

There is a huge percentage of people who believe that is exactly how it works but it doesn’t work that way. DI does increase power while reducing emissions but it’s much less than most people believe (usually less than 8%). DI is usually added to an existing engine at the time of several other upgrades so DI is usually credited with all of the added power.

The way you make an engine more powerful is by making it more efficient. So by taking away power you will also have to intentionally make it less efficient which will also hurt the mileage. The only real way to get better fuel economy is to start with a smaller engine and bring it up in efficiency. If you start with a 210hp 3.0 V6 and increase the efficiency to the point it makes 260hp you will get much better mileage than if you start with a 300hp 3.6 V6 and choke it down to 260hp. Hope that helps.

[Vetterider23]

Originally Posted by big swede

That's just peak hp we were given which definitely doesn't tell the entire story. Without even comparing dyno sheets I guarantee the 3.6 will put out way more torque at a much lower rpm and over a broader range, which is exactly what you want in a heavy vehicle.



There is a huge percentage of people who believe that is exactly how it works but it doesn’t work that way. DI does increase power while reducing emissions but it’s much less than most people believe (usually less than 8%). DI is usually added to an existing engine at the time of several other upgrades so DI is usually credited with all of the added power.

The way you make an engine more powerful is by making it more efficient. So by taking away power you will also have to intentionally make it less efficient which will also hurt the mileage. The only real way to get better fuel economy is to start with a smaller engine and bring it up in efficiency. If you start with a 210hp 3.0 V6 and increase the efficiency to the point it makes 260hp you will get much better mileage than if you start with a 300hp 3.6 V6 and choke it down to 260hp. Hope that helps.

Not 100% sure you are correct on this part. I am pretty sure engineers can dial down horsepower in favor of fuel economy...etc...Of course I agree with the fact that you should start with an efficient engine.

[djo165]

Originally Posted by BigAls87Z28

Size has zero to do with it. Just looking at the cars shows you the difference. Id like to see a Rav4 or a CRV go off road like I have seen some Escapes.

Oh, and the Escape gets horrible horrible gas milage. City driving, my gf is lucky to get more then 15mpg. Even when we took it down to DC, we were pushing to get 20mpg.

Size has EVERYTHING to do with it!!!

Live and drive every day in a crowded city? A few inches plus or minus in length or width of a vehicle makes a big difference in lane changes, maneuverability, and parking. It also can make a difference in the driver's perception of the vehicle, much in the same way that vehicle mass does.

The CR-V and Escape are very comparable. Sure, the Honda is lighter, probably more nimble, and maybe not as "rugged." But we're talking FWD/AWD small CUVs here, not Hummers, Jeeps, or Land Rovers.