This would be great if GM offered it here

Regular duty 1.6L are 168hp/206lb-ft
The "Performance Turbo" is 197/221

GM bets on new four-cylinder family in Europe; U.S. plans unclear - Autoweek

 

Spark SS we need someone to take out that Fiat 500 Abarth

 

197hp 221lb-ft would be perfect in the Equinox. The current 2.4L feels a little light on the torque.

 

Definitely.

Look at the Kia Sportage, Ford Explorer & Edge. Turbo 4's are a good all around setup for this type of vehicle. I drove the '13 Sportage SX with the 260hp / 269ft-lb turbo 2.0L and it actually felt like it could move its heft around. My wife's car is a '11 Equinox 2.4L which is a complete slug in comparison. The 'nox is rated at 22/32 and the Sportage is 22/29, I would gladly give up a few hwy mpg for the low end torque to move the vehicle around.

 

TQdrivenws6,
I see from your signature that you have an '06 Equinox and a '11 Equinox. The '06 must be a 3.4L V6, is it FWD or AWD? I'm assuming the '11 is a 2.4L, and is it FWD or AWD? I'm asking because I'm curious to hear how much of a real world difference you've experienced between the two in MPG.

I have a 3.4L AWD '07 Torrent and I love it. Before buying it used, I test drove a new '11 Equinox and the 2.4L seemed underpowered and a little whiny to me, but I'm wondering how much real world MPG I'm giving up with the older 3.4L engine.

 

Both are FWD, and yes the '06 is the 3.4L and the '11 is the 2.4L.

The '06 consistently gets 20-21 on my commute with summer gas, 19 on the higher ethanol winter blend. 23 maybe 24 on the highway if the car is loaded up, the best it ever did not carrying much was 24.75.

The '11 will get 23-25 on the same commute, a little better if you're nice to the throttle (which doesn't seem to impact the 3.4L near as much). We consistently get 28-30mpg on the freeway with the 2.4L with the car packed full and if cargo is moderate it will clip 31-31.5 in the right weather, still have yet to hit that 32mpg number on any sizable trip.

Most of my highway miles are between the twin cities and Eau Claire, WI which is fairly hilly once you are into WI.

All that being said, the '11 is 10x the vehicle that the '06 is. The v6 in the new models is rated slightly better than the old 3.4L but I don't have much seat time in one (only a few test drives).

 

thanks for your reply. It sounds like the highway miles are where the 2.4L really shines, with the difference being minimal around town. Other than the 4 cylinder feeling a bit weak, I also found the rear quarter visibility to be very difficult in the '11 Equinox due to the triangular window that is deeply shrouded by the interior panels. I'd assume that the visibility is better in the Terrain, but I haven't sat in one to be sure.

 

this has Sonic RS written all over it. Do it GM

 

SuperSonic