Z28Wilson

No offense, but you do as much "picking and choosing" of fact as you accuse Chevrolet of doing.

onebadponcho

It sure doesn't take much to get you spun up, does it? Are you still bitter from the last time I owned your *** on here?

How old were the RAV4s you drove? The V6 engine is "coarse"? Really? That's the only thing you can say about it? It's funny, my GF got rid of her 2007 BMW 328I for her RAV4. As far as the engine being "coarse", it wasn't any different than the 3.0L I6 was in her Beemer, not to mention the RAV4 is actually quicker. I wouldn't try and drag race that "appliance" in your 3rd-gen either if I were you - unless you want to get embarrassed.
No, I haven't gone out and driven a new Equinox. It's not exactly at the top of my list of "must-drive" vehicles. I have ridden in and driven my friend's new Trailblazer though. You want to talk about "cheap-feeling" with a "coarse" engine.....Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's supposed to be a level up from the Equinox, right?
Also, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the 3.0L DI engine itself. One thing that I maintain is that GM powertrains are really second to none. What I don't understand is why they put that engine (3.0L) instead of a more appropriate size for the vehicle 3.6L.
Oh yeah, Toyota does use that "coarse" 3.5L across many of their vehicles. As good as GM's DI 3.6L is, I'd think they'd use it in even more vehicles than they do. Maybe it's that kind of stuff that has the government funding GM instead of it standing on it's own feet.

onebadponcho

I'm not "picking and choosing". I'm saying that if GM is going to do that kind of "picking and choosing" in their advertising, unless their entire model line is better than the competition in their ad, they leave themselves wide open to equal and opposite "picking and choosing". That's it.

Z28Wilson

Ugh, now we're comparing Equinox against the Trailblazer? The Trailblazer is no longer in production for one. For seconds, you're talking about a vehicle (TB) that was virtually unchanged since it debuted in 2002.

Your comparison is akin to taking a 2010 Rav4, comparing it to a 2002 Highlander and expecting the Highlander to be a better vehicle.

Is it or is it not foolish to assume that Rav4 is better than Equinox as a whole simply because its V6 is slightly more powerful and efficient? That is the epitome of "picking and choosing" to me.

The 2010 Equinox has been unanimously praised thusfar. Why this sticks in your craw so much, I have little idea.

R377

Even in hot weather, I find there's very little advantage to remote start. On a 90º day, the interior is probaly 120 or more ... that's a lot of work for the A/C on an idling engine to do. If I wait until I get in the car, open the sunroof and windows, I can vent out most of the really hot air and make the A/C's job that much easier, so I'm getting cooled in pretty much the same time.

Z28Wilson

Valid point....but isn't remote start one of those "expected" features that magazines love to harp on when it isn't offered? Kind of like memory seats and mirrors. "For this kind of money we would expect it to have this feature, arrrrg"....Honestly, I have never seen a simple convenience feature like this be ragged on for being included standard.

Threxx

I can't imagine how Toyota's 3.5L V6 would be described as 'coarse'. It's a smooth and quiet enough engine to make it in the ES350, GS350, and RX350 without any complaints and in some of those applications also has direct injection which increases engine noise by default.

I never cared for the 3.0 or 3.3 V6s though... or the transmissions that Toyota typically paired them with.

Still, overall if the only thing you can say against the 2010 Equinox is that its V6 is slightly underpowered and not as economical as the V6 Rav4 then I think they're doing something right. By all accounts everything else about the Equinox is superior which is a refreshing thing to say about GM since in the past the most you could hope to ever say is that their new products were 'good enough to be able to be compared to the competition's products that came out 2-3 years prior'.

Bringing the TB into the discussion is pointless. The TB is an 8 year old design that's been discontinued, never was spectacular even when it first came out, and it's a large body on frame SUV that was replaced by the Traverse... a far superior unibody SUV.

You really shouldn't be pointing fingers here.

R377

I agree ... if the market demands it, they should offer it (especially since it's relatively inexpensive to integrate). I'm just saying I personally don't think it's that useful, and I kinda understand why some people criticize it. But the customer should be the final voice.

jcamere94z28

are the new ones even out already? in the dealers....??? My mother is looking to get a new car...

Z28Wilson

They are slowly making their way to dealers. My friend bought one of the first produced (he works for the supplier that did the dash) and my co-worker priced one out and is waiting on his dealer to get more in. Apparently the dealer got 2 - one which sold right away and one they are keeping as a display model until they can get more.

96_Camaro_B4C

I can't speak to the "coarse" nature of the 3.5L Toyota, but I can say confidently that the inline six in the Trailblazer is anything but coarse. The Trailblazer's weak point is its interior / dash. The Envoy and the Saab 9-7x both take care of that shortcoming.

The only reason I'd be after a TB is for the SS model (and you can get the same powertrain in the 9-7x Aero). The Envoy is nicer to look at and sit in.

But the engine was one of the TB's / GMT360's strong points, not a weakness.

Threxx

I don't think the I6 in the TB was coarse either, but I do strongly disagree that the Envoy or 9-7 "fixed" anything about the TB's interior. All three are disgusting inside. Maybe the Envoy isn't quite as bad and the 9-7 is barely acceptable for TB type money... but but Saab money it's right back to 'crap' rating in my book. They really didn't change nearly enough about the 9-7x to justify putting the Saab branding on it.

Jason E

If you're implying I'm a GM nuthugger, that wouldn't work because of the fact that I've been outted on this very board as being unduly harsh on GM for the sheer weight of the new Camaro, and the odd nature of the dashboard. I've also downed GM multiple times over their complete alienation and annihilation of Pontiac and its owner base. If anything, I've been severly dissappointed with GM on several fronts for more than a couple years now. Some on here have claimed I have an affinity for Chrysler products because my living is made in a direct correlation to their success Other than really, really being happy with my Ram, and being impressed with the new Ram and several Jeep offerings, and lusting after a Challenger more than a Camaro, Chrysler can pound sand, too. Overall, I think Ford's lineup is the best rounded of any of the Big 3. Hard to say I'm a nuthugger on any front

onebadponcho,
Not really sure where you owned me, over anything. I do remember you getting defensive when I scoffed at you buying a 7/8 scale "real truck" when you were kicking sand at GM's offerings, claiming you only buy the best or whatever else you may have said at that point. I disagreed. Big deal, right? The fact is the RAV4 is inferior to the Equinox on a variety of levels, and you DO pick and choose your battles here. And yeah, on a personal level, I do feel the RAV4, and CRV for that matter, feel quite tinny. That's not solely my observation, either. I've had my own customers comment to that fact when slamming the doors of the Libertys and Patriots that I offer. By no means am I saying that this fact leads me to assume either of those are better...in some ways they are, and other ways they aren't...

But to call out GM on their EPA claims, and claim that because the V6 isn't best in class they can't claim best-in-class economy (when in fact they DO have best-in-class MPG), makes you sound like a whiny Toyota guy...which goes back to you defending your Tundra from another post in a land far away

The fact remains the Equinox is a helluva effort, and deserves credit for being a great crossover. Period.

As for my boat-anchor third gen, which bears no relevance to this post in any way, shape or form, I appreciate you downing my 19 year old engine. Its good to know that your new Rav4 could beat it. The relevance of that is astounding Let me go drag race a '91 4Runner, conversely, and see how I fair

Just might beat that one...

Threxx

You're a Chrysler nut hugger whenever it's only domestics in question, and you're a 'anything domestic' nut hugger when anything japanese is brought into the equation.

Yes that's a generalization, and yes you can explain away everything because there's always exceptions, but in the end I think most people in the lounge especially would agree you shouldn't be pointing fingers at anyone calling them out for being biased as you yourself tend to be a big offender, even if you deny it and try to hide it these days (you used to be much more 'out' about it until it started eating at away at your credibility.).

Just because you admit that some other product is superior in some ways doesn't mean you aren't giving the competing product that you prefer far more credibility than it deserves. If I have a pile of gold on my right and a pile of crap on my left and I admit that the gold is more desirable, that doesn't exactly prove that I don't like the pile of crap way more than any reasonable person should ever like a pile of crap.

onebadponcho

Without going into too much detail, I seem to recall something like this:
1. You said Tundra was a POS.
2. I told you Tundra was the most reliable full size truck sold in America from 2000-2006, and provided factual evidence.
3. You said Tundra never won any awards.
4. I posted numerous links to evidence contradicting those claims.
.....something like that, so without recalling the whole thing, that's being owned at least twice in the same thread.

So I figured, at least maybe you would've learned from that experience, that when I say something here, I post valid, factual references, so really, you're arguing with those and not really me - at which point a logical person would ascertain that you're fighting a losing battle.

Anyway, this is what's up from here on out. Since I can't say anything good about a foreign make vehicle here to you without you getting all butt-hurt about it, I'm no longer going to dignify your blind, unsubstantiated off-the-cuff remarks with a factual response. Deal?

I will concede profusely that the remark about your 3rd-gen was WAY below the belt. We both know I LOVE 3rd-gens.

It's a brand new model, so what you're saying remains to be seen. We've also heard early praise on lots of GMs lately, only to be dissappointed later, so I tend to be "cautiously optimistic" when hearing it.
On the other hand, the model I've made reference to is the 2nd best selling compact SUV (to the Honda CR-V), and has been for quite awhile. Since this is a growing segment, if the domestics can penetrate it, it will benefit us all (since we all are basically shareholders in GM and Chrysler now).