Cubical-aka-Moltar

Current Equinox--anyone have experience with one?

30 posts in this topic

hyperv6    774

We have a Terrain. 

What do you want to know. Had it since 2012. Generally good and no major issues. Few quirks but nothing off putting. 

Stick to V6. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reliability? Mileage?  Ok in snow (not sure what part of the country you are in)?   Just general livability impressions...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dfelt    1,874

In washington state, we have plenty of them and most are the V6 that I see in the city and up on the pass. They seem to be solid AWD CUVs that just go. People I have talked to like them and I have not heard anything really bad other than those that have the 4 banger wish they got the V6. Seems smoother and a bit more get up and go. 

I suspect the newest redo on the CUV can change allot of this especially for the 4 banger, but if you are looking used, then you should go AWD V6 and do not worry, they seem to handle very well in snow. If you need new tires, I would go with Bridgestone Duellers. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hyperv6    774
1 hour ago, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

Reliability? Mileage?  Ok in snow (not sure what part of the country you are in)?   Just general livability impressions...

Reliable very good to this point. Nothing but a right mirror that acted up when it tilted down when backing up. Also a rear strut on the gate both under warranty.

mileage is as posted on the V6 18-19 city 25-26 highway.  That is not easy driving either.

Ours is Fwd and once we got the Hankook that came OE off and put on Goodyear Tripletreads there is no drama even in the worst snow here in the NÉE Ohio snow belt. It is the wife ride and she has no issue even in the worst now here.

The interior has been fine no issues. I thought the rear seat not folding flat would be an issue but it has actually helped with long items. The rear strut towers stick in some and could be packed better but it is no a big problem.

Major complete would be the lack of vents to the back seat. It is cold in back in the winter and hot in the summer. They really needed vents back there.

The V6 is fine it just needs RPMs to move as it is built to rev. The 4is ok but with 4000 it could be better at times. The early years some had oil use issues but not all of them and later years no issue.

i expect the new one to be packaged better and the The turbo 4 to get decent mpg and should run as well or better than the 6 with more torque and less weight.

The sliding back seat is a neat idea but you set it and never move it again. 

The wife loves it. I was ok with it when we bought it but now I love it. We will replace it with a new Terrain or  now similar sized Acadia.

Note I have hauled everything from soap box derby cars to a large number of bags of chipped marble. 

Oh I also lost a battery right when the warranty was off the battery. The new Delcos just don't last anymore.

I see you are in Cleveland and we are in Akron even Fwd no drama as the driver aide keep it all going right Awd would help but is not require. Note when we lived in Akron the city never plowed our street and she always got in and out wit no issues.

Edited by hyperv6
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good to hear...my Jeep is at 170k and I think I need to replace it before my move from AZ to CLE.   It's served me well for 16 1/2 years, but it's time for a new car, thinking of an Equinox as a cheap runabout for a few years..    I didn't realize you were in Akron, Hyper, or I forgot it. I grew up in Steubenville and the New Philadelphia area, spent 6 years in Kent for undergrad and 1st round of grad school....moving back to NE Ohio after 23 years away, I'm moving to Seven Hills, off of Rockside Road and I-77.   Got a bit of snow outside this AM...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hyperv6    774

We got hit good here just south of Akron.

Nothing at home but a whiteout 3 miles away.

I work in Tsllmadge and drive into the snow belt. 

I can see nothing at home and 10 inches at work. Got to love the snow belt.

keep in mind the Nox is newer GM but it is their early stuff. While better you still have some cheap plastic etc. But no nagging issues that spoil the experience. 

There are some things I would change but nothing that would change my mind buying one  again.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Morning randomness...ade it from the hotel in Independence to my house in Seven Hills (2.5 miles) this morning in the Passat rental car.   Driveway has probably 4-5 inches of snow in it.   Got the snow shovel out and cleared a path for the mailman and the ADT guy that's supposed to show up this afternoon...first time I've shoveled snow in close to 30 years... man, i'm out of shape.  Got to get a snow blower.

Edited by Cubical-aka-Moltar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hyperv6    774
37 minutes ago, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

Morning randomness...ade it from the hotel in Independence to my house in Seven Hills (2.5 miles) this morning in the Passat rental car.   Driveway has probably 4-5 inches of snow in it.   Got the snow shovel out and cleared a path for the mailman and the ADT guy that's supposed to show up this afternoon...first time I've shoveled snow in close to 30 years... man, i'm out of shape.  Got to get a snow blower.

I have a Toro, the kind with the rubber flaps. it is the third one we have had in 40 plus years and I swear by them. My dad bought the first one when I was still at home and I told him he made a mistake and I later had to eat my words. We wore that one out and bought another after 20 plus years. Then when my parents passed I gave it to my father in law and he is still using it as I have a new one from my old house.

They are light and will eat though about anything.

My neighbor and I both have the two largest concrete drives and I can clear them both fast and easy. 

Do look for one with the chute that has a control on the handle. It makes life easier.

1 minute ago, Frisky Dingo said:

Decent reliability, poor mileage, poor driving dynamics. 

It'd be about the last CUV I bought, personally.

What is poor dynamics? Also what suspension and wheel combo?

A lot of complaint and little detail. Lets hear some detail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frisky Dingo    635
1 hour ago, hyperv6 said:

 

What is poor dynamics? Also what suspension and wheel combo?

A lot of complaint and little detail. Lets hear some detail.

Mediocre ride. Lifeless, overboosted, non-linear steering. Ponderous handling. Lots of body movement. Poor acceleration in I4 form. Along with thrashy feel and sound. Idles like a diesel. Wheel/tire combo doesn't matter. I've literally driven them all. Early ones, late ones, I4 ones, V6 ones, LS ones, LTZ ones, Denali ones, 17" ones, 20" ones. They all suck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hyperv6    774

So you are saying it drives like a CUV?

If you Drove them all you would have noted the 4 has electric power steering and could be claimed to be over boosted but left out the V6 that has Hydraulic and if anything can be on the heavy linear side.

You May have driven them all but they are not all the same. 

Handling and ride for a 4,000 pound top heavy vehicle is about as good as you get for this price range. This is not a BMW.

The 4 can be taxed due to the weight but it is no worse of better than any other Ecotec out there.

The bottom line is for someone expecting a CUV or SUV will we ok with the handling and ride.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ccap41    1,236
22 minutes ago, hyperv6 said:

So you are saying it drives like a CUV?

If you Drove them all you would have noted the 4 has electric power steering and could be claimed to be over boosted but left out the V6 that has Hydraulic and if anything can be on the heavy linear side.

You May have driven them all but they are not all the same. 

Handling and ride for a 4,000 pound top heavy vehicle is about as good as you get for this price range. This is not a BMW.

The 4 can be taxed due to the weight but it is no worse of better than any other Ecotec out there.

The bottom line is for someone expecting a CUV or SUV will we ok with the handling and ride.

"as good as you get for the price range" is not accurate at all. Drive a CX-5 and say that drives like an Equinox/Terrain. Just because CUVs/SUVs generally don't drive very well doesn't mean that they don't drive differently, better and worse, from each other.

Just because it weighs 4000lbs doesn't mean it should and none of the competition weighs that much and they do away with better engine/trans combos for better fuel economy as well.

Personally, I would give a CX-5 a shot before being stuck on one vehicle. I loved the one I drove and would have bought one instead of my Escape back when I bought that had they had the 185hp engine instead of the 155hp engine in the first model year.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frisky Dingo    635
42 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

"as good as you get for the price range" is not accurate at all. Drive a CX-5 and say that drives like an Equinox/Terrain. Just because CUVs/SUVs generally don't drive very well doesn't mean that they don't drive differently, better and worse, from each other.

Just because it weighs 4000lbs doesn't mean it should and none of the competition weighs that much and they do away with better engine/trans combos for better fuel economy as well.

Personally, I would give a CX-5 a shot before being stuck on one vehicle. I loved the one I drove and would have bought one instead of my Escape back when I bought that had they had the 185hp engine instead of the 155hp engine in the first model year.

 

This. Virtually every CUV out there is better. The gap between it and the best of the segment is a gulf.

 

And I didn't say they were all the same. I said they all sucked. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ccap41    1,236

The V6 AWD is rated 16/23. That is literally full size truck numbers and worse(2.7EB F150 4WD has a higher combined rating at 19mpg). Ram 1500 3.6 4WD is rated 16/23. The cx-5 is about half a second slower in the 1/4 yet gets a 24/29mpg rating (AWD). The V6 Cherokee AWD is rated 20/27 and is a low-mid 15 second 1/4 mile vehicle.

It's just dated, badly. And that is why they have a replacement coming out very, very shortly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hyperv6    774
1 hour ago, ccap41 said:

"as good as you get for the price range" is not accurate at all. Drive a CX-5 and say that drives like an Equinox/Terrain. Just because CUVs/SUVs generally don't drive very well doesn't mean that they don't drive differently, better and worse, from each other.

Just because it weighs 4000lbs doesn't mean it should and none of the competition weighs that much and they do away with better engine/trans combos for better fuel economy as well.

Personally, I would give a CX-5 a shot before being stuck on one vehicle. I loved the one I drove and would have bought one instead of my Escape back when I bought that had they had the 185hp engine instead of the 155hp engine in the first model year.

The CX5 is more car than SUV.  In the cross over segment you have a range of vehicles as some are more car like and some are more SUV like. Some are more like a tall car than they are SUV. Some are even like a tall Mini Van.

The Nox drives more like a truck like it or not that is the feel it has and that appeals to many people. It is not all over the road. It has a decent ride and it is not unsafe. Now If you want a more car like feel the CX5 is fine as well as some of the more car like models.

That is also why the ride height is different on many models Some are taller than others.

None of them are bad it is more of just what you want or expect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
daves87rs    351

I'm between of Nox and an Escape myself...

 

With the Nox Leases will be cheap, and I know the engine very well. Wondering what the buyout will be on one....

 

Escapes are nice...new one looks good! Discounts are much better, and I'm betting I could get an Escape S at a pretty good price...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dfelt    1,874
1 hour ago, ccap41 said:

"as good as you get for the price range" is not accurate at all. Drive a CX-5 and say that drives like an Equinox/Terrain. Just because CUVs/SUVs generally don't drive very well doesn't mean that they don't drive differently, better and worse, from each other.

Just because it weighs 4000lbs doesn't mean it should and none of the competition weighs that much and they do away with better engine/trans combos for better fuel economy as well.

Personally, I would give a CX-5 a shot before being stuck on one vehicle. I loved the one I drove and would have bought one instead of my Escape back when I bought that had they had the 185hp engine instead of the 155hp engine in the first model year.

Have to totally disagree with you CCAP, the CX line sucks and after having spent extended time in the CX-9, I could never recommend the CX CUV lineup to anyone. Jeep, Ford, Chevy or GMC before the Mazda CX line. Terrible entry and exit, pathetic weak motors, tight cramped space and over all fit n finish leaves much to be desired. In fact the 4 I mention all have beeter Nav, Bluetooth, Andreoid / apple play systems than the Mazda.

Nope, Pass on the Mazda CUV family. Not worth it at all.

52 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

The V6 AWD is rated 16/23. That is literally full size truck numbers and worse(2.7EB F150 4WD has a higher combined rating at 19mpg). Ram 1500 3.6 4WD is rated 16/23. The cx-5 is about half a second slower in the 1/4 yet gets a 24/29mpg rating (AWD). The V6 Cherokee AWD is rated 20/27 and is a low-mid 15 second 1/4 mile vehicle.

It's just dated, badly. And that is why they have a replacement coming out very, very shortly.

Having spent considerable time in the Mazda cuv line since the start of Dec, I have yet to get anywhere near the MPG stated for the CX-9 or CX-5. Those MPG figures are totally false in real world driving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ccap41    1,236
22 minutes ago, dfelt said:

Have to totally disagree with you CCAP, the CX line sucks and after having spent extended time in the CX-9, I could never recommend the CX CUV lineup to anyone. Jeep, Ford, Chevy or GMC before the Mazda CX line. Terrible entry and exit, pathetic weak motors, tight cramped space and over all fit n finish leaves much to be desired. In fact the 4 I mention all have beeter Nav, Bluetooth, Andreoid / apple play systems than the Mazda.

Nope, Pass on the Mazda CUV family. Not worth it at all.

Having spent considerable time in the Mazda cuv line since the start of Dec, I have yet to get anywhere near the MPG stated for the CX-9 or CX-5. Those MPG figures are totally false in real world driving.

Well if you're not 6'6" tall, it's great. The motors are of equal power levels of the competition and Mazda's are of the lightest of their given segments. If you think one of these CUVs in this segment are tight and cramped then you will think they all are at 6'6".

2nd quickest out of 8 only to the V6 Cherokee. I have a hard time believing you've driven a CX-3 so to dismiss the whole lineup based off of your poor CX-9 experience is not fair. The CX-5 has gotten rave reviews since it has come out.

"Totally false" mpg's I would give you less than 1mpg off based on MT's "Real MPG" testing that they do but saying they are "totally false" sounds more like a grudge against the vehicle rather than something factual. Doing a little research on user's mpg shows it right on top of their ratings (fuelly.com) of 25.6-26.6 for the 2.5L and 28.2-28.8mpg for the 2.0L.

CX-5 compared/tested

Edited by ccap41

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ccap41    1,236
39 minutes ago, hyperv6 said:

The CX5 is more car than SUV.  In the cross over segment you have a range of vehicles as some are more car like and some are more SUV like. Some are more like a tall car than they are SUV. Some are even like a tall Mini Van.

The Nox drives more like a truck like it or not that is the feel it has and that appeals to many people. It is not all over the road. It has a decent ride and it is not unsafe. Now If you want a more car like feel the CX5 is fine as well as some of the more car like models.

That is also why the ride height is different on many models Some are taller than others.

None of them are bad it is more of just what you want or expect.

All of the vehicles in this segment are more car-like than truck-like. I don't know anybody who actually WANTS a truck-like drive. Even the guys who own trucks know a truck just doesn't have the drive of a car/SUV.

Equinox ground clearance: 6.9 inches

CX-5 ground clearance: 6.7 inches

I'm not saying the Equinox is bad, but it's the worst in its competitive field of CUVs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dfelt    1,874
15 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

Well if you're not 6'6" tall, it's great. The motors are of equal power levels of the competition and Mazda's are of the lightest of their given segments. If you think one of these CUVs in this segment are tight and cramped then you will think they all are at 6'6".

2nd quickest out of 8 only to the V6 Cherokee. I have a hard time believing you've driven a CX-3 so to dismiss the whole lineup based off of your poor CX-9 experience is not fair. The CX-5 has gotten rave reviews since it has come out.

"Totally false" mpg's I would give you less than 1mpg off based on MT's "Real MPG" testing that they do but saying they are "totally false" sounds more like a grudge against the vehicle rather than something factual. Doing a little research on user's mpg shows it right on top of their ratings (fuelly.com) of 25.6-26.6 for the 2.5L and 28.2-28.8mpg for the 2.0L.

CX-5 compared/tested

Been driving the CX-5 as I loaned my full size SUV to a coworker and have been monitoring the MPG, I have yet to crack 20 on this CUV. Better than the CX-9 but nothing like has been stated and has so many of the same issues as the CX-9.

With that, if the CX-9 and CX-5 I make the assumption the CX-3 is not far off from these then.

Yea everyone seems to think the world of the Mazda CX CUV lineup, but I bet more real world input is far from the marketing message.

Your entitled to your opinion as am I and my own experience has left me less than impressed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
frogger    117

My coworker had one but replaced it with a CX5 last year after the lease expired, she just said it was reliable but felt very dated compared to the models she test drove when it came time to buy it out or give it back.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ccap41    1,236
1 hour ago, dfelt said:

Yea everyone seems to think the world of the Mazda CX CUV lineup, but I bet more real world input is far from the marketing message.

 

CX-5 2.5.PNG

CX-5 2.0.PNG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoticons maximum are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.