[MelvinJ]

They seem to have gotten underperforming engines in both the Tahoe and the crew cab pickup from a couple of months before. Their acceleration should have been considerably better.

They mention the Tahoe having a green engine, only 90 miles when they got a hold of it. I wish GM would break these things in a bit before they turn them over to be tested.

They Yukon XL tested a couple of years ago did zero to 60 in 8.2 seconds, quicker than the Tahoe they tested at the same time, but it had 15,000 miles on it.

The 5.3 may not take the Hemi and Nissan's 5.6, but it can certainly put on a better showing than these two tests.

 

[MelvinJ]

Originally posted by joey@Mar 15 2004, 06:50 PM

A loaded CRV is 23K MSRP, and you can get a V6 3.3L DOHC 242 lbs of torque Highlander with 3rd row seating for 26K, the middle level trim price of a Nox, so why bother?

The LT is the top of the line trim for the Equinox, and the AWD version of that is $24,900. A 4WD, V6 Highlander with third-row seating starts at $27930 and doesn't include the level of equipment of the Equinox.

Just where are you getting your prices? I'm got these directly off of the Mfg web sites.

 

[MelvinJ]

Let's stick to apples to apples comparisons with prices. Did the Highlander in the paper include leather, towing package, aluminum wheels, power seats, and all the other stuff you chose to use as an example for the Equinox?

I'm sure I could go down to my local Chevy dealer and get considerably more than $500 off of an Equinox. Even if I couldn't, GM should be so lucky that the Equinox will sell for $500 off sticker for more than a month or so.

 

[MelvinJ]

Originally posted by joey@Mar 16 2004, 12:47 AM
True! I'll wait for 2 grand cash back this summer. Go on gmbuypower.com and checkout loaded LT AWD Nox's with 1SE package: 29,300K MSRP. You can't even get all the options yet like side curtain airbags, which would push the car to almost 30K. Some nerve, not even with the Honda Engine

And a loaded Highlander is well over $37K. So what's the point? It's not uncommon for there to be some overlap in classes of vehicles, but the level of equipment isn't the same.

And with the Highlander's 8.8 second 0-60 time, the Equinox should be just as quick, if not quicker according Car and Driver's estimates.

Of course, it won't be as "refined" as the Highlander, but the several extra thousand dollars in the pockets of the Equinox owners (compared to comparably equipped Highlanders) should help muffle a little of the lack of refinement.

 

[MelvinJ]

Originally posted by joey@Mar 16 2004, 12:47 AM
True! I'll wait for 2 grand cash back this summer. Go on gmbuypower.com and checkout loaded LT AWD Nox's with 1SE package: 29,300K MSRP. You can't even get all the options yet like side curtain airbags, which would push the car to almost 30K. Some nerve, not even with the Honda Engine

And a loaded Highlander is well over $37K. So what's the point? It's not uncommon for there to be some overlap in classes of vehicles, but the level of equipment isn't the same.

Price out a lightly equipped Highlander in the $27K range, and it will have the 160 hp 4-cylinder/4-speed automatic, although it's got DOHC and VVT-i, so that's all that matters. Never mind it will be glacially slow.

Meanwhile, the Equinox will have heated leather power seats, sunroof, and a 6-disc in-dash CD changer, and 185 hp/5-speed automatic.

It's all about assembling the right pieces to hit a specific price point, and an OHV V6 is a good choice for the Equinox's target. When capacity for the updated versions is increased, it will probably get at least the 3500.

 

[MelvinJ]

Overhead cams make a lot more sense on inline engines, and all of GM's inline engines are OHC designs now, I believe. In the case of DOHC, you only have 2 cams per engine and the drive system for the cams is fairly straightforward. Inline engines are inherently narrow, so the increase in head width isn't a problem. Only the height can become a problem.

It's when you get to V engines that DOHC (or SOHC) comes with some serious consequences. 4 cams instead of two, and the drive system for them gets much longer and complex. Width becomes an issue too.

I'm no expert on the subject, but the statement that OHC designs use fewer parts just seems wrong to me. Even if there are fewer parts, the cost of the parts for a DOHC engine versus an engine with one in-block cam has got to be higher. I mean, sure you've got a lot of pushrods, but how expensive are those? On the other hand, producing 4 cams instead of one must be way more costly.

Could I get other knowledgable GMI folks to weigh in on this? Which design typically uses more parts, and and which is more costly?

The Gen III small-block was a complete redesign back in 1997, so all the castings were new then, and still GM went with pushrods. Similarly, GM has had two different DOHC V6's with their own blocks (including the new 3.6L), so they have invested in the castings. It's not about them wanting to use old or existing castings that keeps them developing pushrod engines.

There are definite cost/value advantages to pushrod V engines that make them appropriate for a huge portion of the North American market. Sure, the industry as a whole goes with DOHC designes now, but that's the easy way out. You don't need to do as much development on a DOHC engine to meet mileage and horsepower targets, but the customer pays with higher build and maintenance costs. For instance, the timing belt in my Probe GT would have cost about $450 to replace, and it should have been done every 60,000 miles. I've never replaced a timing chain on a pushrod engine.

 

[MelvinJ]

Hey Joey, we agree on something.

I think the I-5 would be a nice engine in the Equinox. It might even be nice in the CSV's. But I'm not sure if there is enough width to put it in the Equinox or the vans, given that they have transversely mounted engines (the Colorado is longitudinal). And I think there is a fair amount of engineering required to change an engine from longitudinal to transverse, so it wouldn't be a no brainer.

The Aisn transmission in the Colorado is a longitudinal manual, versus a transverse automatic in the Equinox, so I'm not sure if there is much similarity there.

 

[MelvinJ]

Thanks, Rabbit. Very interesting. Good visual comparison also.