Let be pre-face this with ...
sorry for writting a small book
Quote:
Originally Posted by fielderLS3
So exactly how similar is this to an Equinox? Does it share a platform, or is it an older version of a platform? Basically, if one was looking for 1-2 year old Equinox, would this be close enough to look at instead once they start reselling them?
They're more or less equivelent to a ~5 year old Equinox, Vue, or Torrent. I believe the current Equinox/Terrain are a little bigger (yet more efficient) and are overall better vehicles. So while they both fill the same spot in GM's line up (small crossover) you'd notice a not-insignificant difference if you compared them directly as a customer. On the other hand ... I bet you could save quite a bit of money picking up a used Captiva vs a similar used Equinox.
It have to respectfully disagree. The 2.4L 170hp Ecotec in a 3700 lb SUV is quite weak. That puts it in line with the Vulcan Taurus, except the Vulcan had more torque, and likely had less drag to overcome.
In my opinion, you have to take today's horsepower numbers with a grain of salt, because not all horsepowers are necessarily created equal. 170hp today is not the same as 170hp was even 10 years ago. Most of today's engines do have impressive specific horsepower numbers, but specific torque has not increased so much. Newer engines tend to make their power by revving high. So yes, an Ecotec 2.4L will make the same 170hp as the 3.4L in my Alero, but the Ecotec has a narrower power band, and has to be whipped a lot harder to force it out.
Another big difference between cars of today & those of 10 or 20 years ago is that 6 speed transmissions are pretty much the norm these days. By having more gear options, the engine can stay in its optimal RPM range better for the current situation. And yes, this sometimes means downshifting to keep the revs (and power) up. But a few seconds or even a couple minutes of that isn't going to hurt the engine. It was built to handle those sorts of situations on a regular basis. Its use, not abuse.
Same goes for all the modern 300+ horsepower V6s every manufacturer seems to have now. I've driven several of them, and honestly, they just don't feel like it. Run any of those 300hp V6s against a bigger displacement 300hp engine from 10-15 years ago in a similar weight car, and I bet you the older one wins almost every time.
Because when you were driving them, chances are you weren't using their 300 hp. Same with the 300 horse V8s from the late 90s. You were probably more likely to encounter their mid-range, moderate to heavy throttle power -which would be more in the older V8s. But, and this is the important bit, 300 hp is 300 hp. If you lined up 2 cars at the drag strip where the only major difference is that one makes about 50 ft-lbs more peak torque (at a lower RPM), it will be a very close race & probably be decided in the first hundred feet or so. The older car would have the advantage, but only early on. Once the cars get to their upper RPM range at full throttle, they're making the same power and are going to accelerate at pretty much the same rate. In the end, I'd say its more of a drivers race than anything.
Maybe it's just me, and maybe I'm making myself sound a bit crazy, but the philosophy of saying "good enough," and engineering for the bare minumum of adequacy was a major contribuing factor to GM's and Chrysler's market share losses and bankruptcies, and I'm worried about them heading in that same direction again.
GM's problems were deeper than that. They planned on being competetive with what was currently out on the market, then they cheapened their cars further becase cost to the company was seen to be more important than value to the customer. Consequently, when the new car was launched some 4 years after the initial product planning they had a product that was generally worse than the previous generation of its competition  In retrospect, its astonishing that Detroit managed to keep moving along as well as they did (afterall, all 3 of them were doing the same thing). But I'm pretty sure they've learnt their lesson: when the bean counters calling the shots, they lost money & marketshare. With product development in charge, they made money & gained marketshare. |
See bold
To bring it back to 'a 4 banger isn't enough for a kinda big crossover' I think its important to note that GM can't build enough 4 cylinder Equinoxes these days, and recently had to initiate an incentive program to try and shift the production mix to include more V6s. And thats ~3 years after the vehicle was launched when overall demand
should be dying down. So its pretty clear to me that the overwhelming majority of buyers are just fine with their underpowered CUVs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ringo64
Something that has always gotten me w/ 4-cyl engines and why I will never willingly own one is because you have to mash the pedal to get into the higher revs to get any power out of them and you're stuck waiting till it kicks in. Living in Florida I deal with no hills but I test drove and have driven my sister's 4 cyl SUV. It just feels like to get it out in traffic and accelerate I'm wasting more gas than needed because I'm raping the accelerator. Then I get in my mom's Terrain w/ the 6 cyl and that thing flies! (Of course nothing on my Camaro  )
Just seems to me that any gains of having a 4 cyl are reduced when you actually need the power. Which yes if you change driving styles then you can take advantage of that but I'd rather have the ease of mind knowing I have the power to get out of a situation rather than not.
Why unless I get a small roadster, the smallest engine I will go is a V6. |
But to merge with traffic or pass another car, you are only on the gas hard for a few seconds at a time. The amount of fuel consumed in that time is minimal. With a bigger, more powerful engine you might complete the manuever a little quicker, but durring that time you've also burned a lot more fuel. Remember that it takes X amount of gasoline to produce Y amount of power. So if you want twice the power, you need to burn twice the gas. Simple as that. Now it is true that a more powerful car would take less time to merge into traffic but durring that time its consuming more fuel. Your argument would work if and only if the more powerful car could make the pass in less than half the time -but the laws of physics say that it would always take more than half the time. So in the end the net result is that when you use more power you consume more gasoline.
If things were the other way around, sports cars would be more efficient than sub compacts. And I'm not even talking about say a Z06 vs a Corolla. How about a Mazda 2 vs Miata? They weigh about the same, both have 4 bangers, both are made by the same company, and you can get either of them with a 5 speed manual transmission. They're about as similar as you can get, with the main difference being the engine. But the much less powerful Fit (with the smaller engine) is substantially more efficient than its sporty counterpart.