By on March 27, 2017

2018 Chevrolet Equinox

To say the 2018 Chevrolet Equinox is an important model for General Motors is to downplay the importance of the crucial compact crossover segment. Lighter, trimmer and more fuel efficient than before, the new right-sized Equinox erases many of the drawbacks of its long-in-the-tooth predecessor.

However, if “Old GM” was still in existence (and some would argue it still is), the 2018 model would have arrived on dealer lots with a built-in drawback approved by Detroit bigwigs. By that, we mean design. According to the vehicle’s chief engineer, the third-generation model’s initial design sent focus groups scurrying up a tree.

Speaking to Automotive News, GM’s Mark Cieslak said the first design presented to focus groups met with all the acclaim of the Ghostbusters remake (or Malibu Maxx). And, had this been the pre-bankruptcy era, the automaker would likely have said, “Okay, screw it. You’re getting this. Capisce?

“Back in the day, we would have probably just kept going,” said Cieslak. That’s quite an admission, coming from a company that tries to avoid mentioning its pre-bankruptcy products in a bad light.

Those early test consumers essentially said the new model looked too bulky, too odd, and just generally underwhelmed the senses. Basically, all of the criticism leveled at the widely panned eighth-generation Malibu — a model that factored into what came next. Rather than green-light the phoned-in body and take what sales it could find, Chevy — already dealing with the Malibu’s lackluster reception — headed back to the drawing board in an effort to not be Old GM.

With the model’s existing generation poised to last eight model years, its replacement needed to wow. Or at least not repel.

Ultimately, the automaker scrapped the designed-by-committee styling, shaved 400-plus pounds from the curb weight, and shoehorned the downsized model into the heart of the compact segment. The Equinox has always represented something of a value buy, so it will be interesting to see if the tech-laden, fuel-sipping 2018 model surpasses its popular predecessor in sales.

[Image: General Motors]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

70 Comments on “Chevrolet’s Early Choice for an Equinox Redesign Was a Real Dog: Report...”


  • avatar
    PrincipalDan

    The Edsel was designed with customer input as well.

    • 0 avatar
      ect

      As were others. In the early 90’s, when Ford and Chrysler were designing their next-gen minivans, they both asked focus groups about offering a model with 4 doors – i.e., a second sliding door on the driver’s side. All of the focus groups said didn’t see any point in it.

      Ford accepted the result and the Windstar debuted with only 3 doors. Chrysler decided to ignore the focus group input and launched their new models in September ’95 (18 months after the Windstar intro) with the option of that 4th door. The market loved it, and suddenly the Widstar lost all momentum.

      Even worse, for Ford, they couldn’t retrofit a 4th-door option to the Windstar design. They did introduce a ’98 model with a longer driver’s door, to supposedly allow some access to the second row from the driver’s side, but the market was not impressed.

      Consumer research is important, but it’s no substitute for good judgment.

      • 0 avatar
        Guitar man

        The lack of a fourth door was the least of the problems an unfortunate Windstar owner would encounter.

        • 0 avatar
          John-95_Taurus_3.0_AX4N

          No doubt about that, but its not like Chrysler minivans were shining examples of reliability.

          His point was, the Windsar was barely out of the gate when it became apparent that it had shot itself in the foot by not offering dual sliders.

        • 0 avatar
          ect

          I worked with a guy some years ago who drove a Windstar Sport. I always wanted to ask him what could possibly be sporty about a minivan (really, “sporty minivan” sounds like a total oxymoron), but I had the sense it might not be a welcome question…

  • avatar
    Der_Kommissar

    Yet again- GM truly has no clue what makes their cars successful. Every redesign is just a crap shoot led by people out of touch with either a) the market or b) internal design principles that result in a positive gestalt. Maybe they are starting to get it.

  • avatar
    Felix Hoenikker

    I’d love to get on one of those focus groups. Then again, I like jury duty! THe bubonic plague was not all bad either.

  • avatar
    sirwired

    The early “first-drive” reviews seem to consist of “It’s really a pretty good vehicle, but hoo-boy, is it expensive.”

    So this is either an attempt to take the model/brand upmarket (as in, banishing the “I couldn’t afford a nice Escape or CR-V, so I bought this Chevy” label) or an opportunity to dump cash on the hood right out the gate with unending “sales”.

    • 0 avatar
      carguy

      I would have to agree on the pricing comment. I am sure that the new Equinox is a nice ride but those MSRPs are bordering on delusional – particularly for the higher end trims.

      • 0 avatar
        rudiger

        ^This. One thing that hasn’t changed from the old GM is an insane pricing strategy (likely at the insistence of the powerful GM dealer consortium) where the vehicles are priced as much (if not more) than the still better built Japanese competition. They’re able to milk a few schlubs out of their money in the beginning, inventory backs up wildly, and they start throwing massive amounts of money onto the hoods to move the acres of vehicles sitting on dealer lots. It’s the GM way.

        Once, they actually priced a car appropriately from the start, and that was the original mild hybrid Malibu. There wasn’t much electric assist so the fuel mileage wasn’t all that much more than the non-hybrid, but the price was something like a very reasonable $850 over the non-hybrid Malibu, too.

        But it didn’t last. The very next year, the premium for the hybrid Malibu shot up to $2000 and, as per the normal GM formula, they languished on dealer lots and were ultimately discontinued due to poor sales.

  • avatar

    I am not fond of this redesign. Too many swoops and slashes and the rear quarter panel meets the back of the car awkwardly. The original design must of really stunk if they settled for this instead.

    • 0 avatar
      Drzhivago138

      Must have. Or must’ve. “Must of” is not standard.

      • 0 avatar
        ScarecrowRepair

        Neither [are] sentences without verbs.

      • 0 avatar
        John-95_Taurus_3.0_AX4N

        That drives me nuts too. Or to? Two? Lol

        Try this one:

        Their must of been something wrong with the breaks on the car, your going to need new one’s. To bad sense your just going to sale the car anyways. At least it’s the Special Addition model with a clean tittle.

        Disclaimer: No, I’m not perfect, and I don’t think Drzhivago138 claims to be either. Everyone makes mistakes.

  • avatar

    I like it and will most likely be trying one out within the year to repalce our current 2011 LTZ.

    Am also hoping an EPA overhaul might mean better engine choices. V6 would be nice.

    • 0 avatar
      PrincipalDan

      But but but… diesel! ;-)

    • 0 avatar
      gomez

      Not likely. The D2XX platform wasn’t designed to accommodate a V6.

    • 0 avatar
      ajla

      “better engine choices. V6 would be nice.”

      V6 from GM in 2017? Lol, good luck with that.

    • 0 avatar
      Car Guy

      I wouldn’t count on it. The 2.0L Turbo is likely the engine upgrade. I currently have a 12MY Equinox FWD I4 and its been a good vehicle short of fuel economy. 32MPG highway rating is laughable. I’ve babied it on some long trips and never seen over 28MPG. We will see if the 1.5L in the new one can get it over 30MPG in real world driving.

      • 0 avatar
        indi500fan

        At 2 bucks a gallon, I don’t think any real world users really care. The smaller engine and weight reduction on the new ones are more driven by fuel econ regs than actual demand.

      • 0 avatar
        Drzhivago138

        28 MPG isn’t terrible considering the old Equinox is a midsize vehicle, not a compact.

        • 0 avatar
          Car Guy

          No, it’s not terrible but very disappointing when the window sticker clearly says 32MPG. 4MPG difference over 50K miles is several hundred dollars lost……

      • 0 avatar
        ixim

        Had a 2013. Currently a 2016. Both I4 FWD. Both bought with tons of $$$ on the hood. The new base 1.5T engine is rated just a few hp less than the current 184hp 2.4 N/A mill. With 400 fewer pounds to move, performance should be the same. Still, the EPA mpg combined is less – 28mpg vs 32. Probably b/c you’ll be on the turbo a lot even in slow driving. In the current model, I often see 30+ mpg in straight highway work; mixed driving consistently yields 25mpg. The 2.0T would be the one to get; comes with an 8 [9?] speed trans and may be limited, as is the current V6 to AWD. Can’t see the extra cost diesel panning out. The new model looks OK, better than the old one. Goodby sliding 2nd row. 2 zone A/C with long overdue rear vents. Excellent brakes [not “breaks”!], corners better than you’d expect. Not so good riding on lumpy streets, though. Could use a little more ground clearance as it’s cursed with the ubiquitous GM air dam up front. So? Look, GM has consistently been behind the curve with ‘Nox content but its a solid, easy driving, trouble free versatile alternative to, say, an Impala. Always discounted in my area. Sorta Midwest Nice on wheels.

      • 0 avatar
        NormSV650

        Car guy, our 2015 GMC Terrain SLT can see 30+ mpg….with AWD. Just have to keep it at the speed limit.

  • avatar
    Boxerman

    As a current equinox owner the new one seems disjointed. The old one was just hard to remember.

    What made the old one so good, is that it was lutz era, everythign was eresigned to drive and work properly by peopel who knew thatb that emat. It steers well, the suspension is well tuned and in phase with the rest of the car, and while heavy its built like a tank, old school german.

    I tried every vehicle in its class from japan Korea etc, my objective asessment was that the equinox was simply the best vehicle of the group, by far. That’s why the equinox lasted 8 years and sold well all along. You just need to drive one and the difference to other vehicles in its class was marked. Somehow I doubt the newer ligher one will be the same. But hey I could be wrong.

  • avatar
    deanst

    It boggles the mind that GM is only now producing a vehicle that is similar in size to its main competitors – in the biggest market segment outside of pickup trucks. Beyond this craziness, it should be said that GM design is horrible – while their products now have some uniformity, it is uniformly bad.

  • avatar
    Russycle

    It’s somewhat distinctive and not terrible, so that’s something. I don’t understand why focus groups didn’t see the original design until it was nearly set in stone. That seems insane, is that really SOP in the industry?

  • avatar
    PRNDLOL

    Well now we have confirmation just how the 2004 Pontiac Grand Prix happened.
    http://4-photos5.ebizautos.com/used-2004-pontiac-grand_prix-gtsedan-1186-9310226-45-800.jpg

    • 0 avatar
      John-95_Taurus_3.0_AX4N

      Don’t remind me. I just pushed the pile of crap GP, that’s been here way too long, down the hill.

      I’m so sick of that thing, I was nearly tempted to drag it down to the owners house and say “when you feel like buying the parts, maybe I’ll feel like working on it.” Since I’ll be in my 70s by then, that’s highly unlikely.

      They keep telling people that I haven’t told them what it needs. My cousin’s wife stood up and said she was there two of the 3-4 times I texted them the parts list. She said I know y’all got it because you responded almost immediately.

      Evidently there was an awkward silence, followed by a change of subject.

      I also wrote it down and gave it to them. I’m not sure what else I can do. Maybe hire a sky writer?
      Get Morgan Freeman or Patrick Stewart to read it to them in a documentary style video?
      Staple it to their shirt collar?

    • 0 avatar
      Roberto Esponja

      Yeah, that was truly one of Pontiac’s coffin nails.

  • avatar
    gtemnykh

    I can’t help but wonder if the 400lb lighter equinox lost a substantial amount of rear passenger space or cargo room as part of the downsizing ala next gen Acadia et al. Or if the new platform allows for superior packaging all while losing weight.

    The old Equinox/Terrain were larger/heavier than their rivals, while also having less cargo space, but had the benefit of massive rear legroom and a really solid/quiet ride.

    • 0 avatar
      th009

      Legroom is apparently down only 0.3 inches. But third row is no longer an option, so likely there is a more significant loss of cargo space.

      • 0 avatar

        The Equinox was NEVER available with 3rd row…

        • 0 avatar
          PrincipalDan

          Terrain/Equinox = No 3rd Row.

          New Acadia half size smaller than old Acadia and half size bigger than current Terrain.

          GM is starting to carve those CUV slices very thin…

          • 0 avatar
            Drzhivago138

            Half-size bigger than current Terrain, yes, but the new Terrain will be the same size as the new Equinox, a compact rather than midsize.

            Old lineup–
            Subcompact: Trax/Encore
            Compact: None, unless you wanna go back to the Captiva (bleh)
            Midsize: Equinox/Terrain, even if they did compete on price with compacts like the CR-V or Escape
            Full-size: Traverse/Acadia/Enclave

            New lineup–
            Subcompact: Trax/Encore
            Compact: Equinox/Terrain
            Midsize: Envision
            3-row midsize: Acadia/new Blazer? (same WB as old Equinox/Terrain)
            Full-size: Traverse/Enclave

            Things just overlap right now because they’re not releasing it all at once.

          • 0 avatar
            PrincipalDan

            Drz…

            I was trying to give context. The pie is getting sliced mighty fine.

            My mother in law is trying to make a deal on a leftover 2016 Acadia to replace her 2009 Pontiac Torrent (108,000+ miles). I can figure out why she has stuck with GM. Her Torrent has burned a quart of oil between changes since the 60,000 mile mark and recently developed an overheating issue that the dealer has changed thermostat, then water pump, then did a tuneup claiming it was somehow related to a cylinder misfire (with no CEL coming on). Still never fixed the problem.

          • 0 avatar
            gtemnykh

            “Subcompact: Trax/Encore
            Compact: None, unless you wanna go back to the Captiva (bleh)
            Midsize: Equinox/Terrain, even if they did compete on price with compacts like the CR-V or Escape
            Full-size: Traverse/Acadia/Enclave”

            Dr Z, I get the designations based on exterior size, but as you correctly note, based on price and how they are used, the Nox landed squarely in compact CUV space, and the Lambda triplets competed against the likes of the CUV-ized Pathfinder, Pilot, Explorer, Highlander, CX9, Durango. That midsized three-row crossover class spans quite a range of sizes, with the Highlander near the small end, and the Lambdas undoubtedly at the largest end. The Lambda’s key to success (IMO) was to sell a roomier, larger vehicle at the same price (or less after discounts) than competing three row crossovers. I think the Lambdas had one of the best third rows, and were the only ones to still have a commodious trunk space with all three rows in use. Why GM walked away from this winning niche is beyond me.

          • 0 avatar
            Drzhivago138

            @gtemnykh: Who says they’re “walking away”? From what we’ve seen, the next-gen Traverse (and presumably the Enclave too) will be just as large as the Lambdas. Only the Acadia has been downsized.

            The Lambda CUVs and the Ford Flex/Lincoln MKT were intended as minivan alternatives (notice that no other company makes a true full-sized CUV, but does offer a minivan), so it’d be silly for them to abandon that niche.

          • 0 avatar
            John-95_Taurus_3.0_AX4N

            @gtemnykh

            The Torrent was like the opposite of what Pontiac was. Usually, the Pontiac version of a car was overstyled and, frankly, ugly. The Torrent actually made the first gen Equinox *better* looking. Instead of that plastered chrome spear overwhelming the front end, it was far more tasteful, nicer, just all around more pleasant to look at.

            However I would still spring for a 4 cylinder Terrain over it because I despise the 3400 V-6. I, for one, don’t think the first gen Terrain is bad looking at all.

        • 0 avatar
          John-95_Taurus_3.0_AX4N

          I thought that when I read that too. 3rd row? ‘Nox? No.

          But, I didn’t know the phucking Rogue offers a 3rd row. I can’t imagine what that must be like. Probably like riding in the back seat of a JDM CRX.

  • avatar

    I dunno. If I was on a GM focus group, and someone told me…

    “Okay, screw it. You’re getting this Caprice.”

    …I’d be ecstatic.

  • avatar
    John-95_Taurus_3.0_AX4N

    The 2nd gen Equinox was GM’s best effort from that era IMO.

    So far as the new one goes, the diesel sounds very interesting. What a creative idea to set it apart from Escape/CRV/RAV4/Rouge. In a year or so when cash on the hood makes the price reasonable, it may be a fantastic buy for the right customer.

    I like the styling a lot more than the latest Malibu or Cruze. The Cruze hatch looks good from behind, its just ugly up front.

    Am I the only one (here) that liked the Malibu Maxx?

    Also, does anyone else using a mobile device have your keyboard lag horribly when commenting, but not when editing a comment? I think all the ads slow it down somehow, because it isn’t a problem anywhere else, only if I’m on the main article page. Its also the same on all three of my mobile devices, no matter if using 4G or WiFi.

  • avatar
    gtemnykh

    Semi related note: my brother had to replace the timing chain/tensioner on a ’10 ‘Nox with 180k miles that came in with “low power” codes, turns out it had already had the chain replaced once before. As somewhat expected, the car came into the shop very low on oil so that premature chain wear was likely at least in part due to negligent oil maintenance. Similar complaints on other GM 2.4 Ecotecs and 3.6 DOHC mills, GM shortened the oil change interval from 10k down to 7500 miles I think. Still, 2 sets of chains in 180k miles, at about $1400 for parts and labor on the second go-around. You’d think the owner would have wisened up to more regular oil changed after the first bill came. All of a sudden those timing belts don’t sound all so awful…

    • 0 avatar
      ajla

      Anecdata, but my friend’s mother has a 2.4L Nox and the engine popped at like 76000. They gave her a refurbished engine for free even though it was outside the powertrain warranty period. I guess the dealer never told her exactly what failed on the original engine but they claimed some relation to “low oil”. My assumption is something timing chain related.

      I’m certain she has no idea how to even open her hood, but she did have 3000 mile oil change interval records from Chevy dealers and none of them ever mentioned a low oil level.

      • 0 avatar
        gtemnykh

        I have heard of oil burning on the 2.4s, but yeah I figure even with elevated oil use a 3k OCI would have prevented any critical issues.

        Curious indeed. In the case of the ’10, it had jumped timing 3 teeth, thankfully no valves hitting pistons. But man that chain was slack!

    • 0 avatar
      John-95_Taurus_3.0_AX4N

      People get this mindset like “its fixed, for good” when something major is done, so they don’t feel the need to continue to keep it running/going well.

      Like some car ads I see: “Engine rebuilt 40k miles ago, needs head gasket and radiator”. Geeze, you couldn’t get more than 40k out of it before you ruined it AGAIN?

      Those types should be assigned a Mitsubishi Mirage until they learn to properly appreciate a decent vehicle.

      No, you don’t get to “upgrade” so you can drive an even nicer car into the ground by mistreating and abusing it. You can drive a penalty box. Or, ride the bus.

  • avatar
    Whatnext

    Chevy needs to ditch the weird split grille motif. It’s hideous.

  • avatar
    dwford

    This new Equinox is not attractive. I’d hate to see the rejected version.

    • 0 avatar
      Dr. Claw

      I almost want to see it. I was expecting something more in line with the improvements to the look of the Trax and Sonic. But…instead, as one mentioned, the same greenhouse, the 3-bar grille again, so on and so forth. Maybe the interior’s a step up.

      Basically, I was thinking it would be more of a Captiva (aka Vue/Antara)

  • avatar
    SPPPP

    “Those early test consumers essentially said the new model looked too bulky, too odd, and just generally underwhelmed the senses. Basically, all of the criticism leveled at the widely panned eighth-generation Malibu — a model that factored into what came next.”

    This sounds backwards to me, based on what Wikipedia is calling the 8th-generation Malibu, which is 2013-2016. That model was heavily criticized, but not for design. If I recall correctly, the criticism was mostly from downsizing the wheelbase and reducing rear legroom. That eliminated one of its few strong points and replaced it with a weakness relative to the competition. The 8th generation interior design was given more attention than the previous 7th generation, but the embellishment had the side effect of making the interior feel cramped.

    Styling-wise, the 8th generation Malibu was much more attractive than either the 7th generation before it or the 9th generation (current) that came afterward.

    The 9th generation Malibu was UPsized with a 4 inch longer wheelbase, but also lightened by up to 300 pounds.

    So it sounds like the changes Chevy has made to this Equinox more closely mirror the 7th-to-8th-gen Malibu change, which downsized the model and gave it more attractive styling. The results, for the Malibu, appeared to be a sales decline. However, I believe that the base price was also hiked at the same time, and that’s a very price-competitive segment, so it may be less the car than the price that got a cold reception.

    If Chevy was learning from the 8th-to-9th-gen Malibu change, you would expect this Equinox to get a longer wheelbase and a lower base price. However, based on what I see here and preliminary estimates of pricing, what you get here is a SHORTER wheelbase and a HIGHER price.

    If the Malibu is the test case, we should expect to see Equinox sales fall as a result.

    I know this contradicts the thesis of this article, and that is why I took the time to write it out.

    • 0 avatar
      RedRocket

      The 2013-15 Malibu was a hideous design inside and out. The front end was high and block, looking like it was designed by a different group than the Camaro-esque rear end, both of which were then welded to a mid-body designed by a third group. Nothing worked together. Then inside another group gave you a tombstone-shaped center stack, “ribbed for her pleasure” dash appliques on the passenger side, and woodgrain decals on the armrests and center console. It was a total mess, and the hurried-up front end redesign for 2014 did it no favors.

      I’m not a fan of how the new Equinox is so reminiscent of the existing model in the rear greenhouse. I saw one on a dealer lot yesterday and drove past it, thinking it was the old design. The Terrain is looking more promising.

      • 0 avatar
        Dr. Claw

        I agree fully about the 2013-15 Malibu. The only point at which it looked decent… was when they put a Holden badge on it. Otherwise, it was a step down from the Malibu that came before it. Now’s a step in the right direction.

        • 0 avatar
          SPPPP

          I disagree about the exterior styling. To my eyes, the 2013 was well-proportioned and relatively coherent outside. To me, the 2016 (current) Malibu is oddly proportioned and fussily detailed. I especially dislike the way that the rear fenders are wide and very high, but suck under the car in the lower corners. I am sure there is a wind tunnel reason for it, but to me, it looks terrible.

          As for the interior, well, I agree that the 2013 looks a little silly. Frankly, I don’t care for the 2016 interior either. That’s why I didn’t spend a lot of time commenting on it, other than in terms of room.

          John, I am not here to tell you that the Equinox should get bigger. I am just saying that, when GM went from 7th to 8th generation Malibu, they made it smaller inside and more expensive, and sales fell. Then they reversed the change and went bigger inside and cheaper from 8th to 9th generation, and sales went up. (But who knows, it may be due to advertising, novelty, luck, or other factors.)

          Based on the information here and elsewhere, GM is REPEATING the mistakes of the 8th-gen Malibu (smaller and pricier), while SAYING they have learned from them.

          All I am saying is, there is a disconnect between the reality as described by GM’s engineer (and repeated by Steph), and the reality as perceived by my own eyes.

    • 0 avatar
      John-95_Taurus_3.0_AX4N

      The Equinox was already too large for its segment, and you want it to get bigger? It does NOT have the ability to attract Edge/Murano customers. It does have the ability to pull compact crossover buyers who might’ve bought a Rouge or Escape instead.

      GM is going to release another CUV to compete with the class above the Equinox. It was downsized to better compete with its intended market, and to make room for that future model, supposedly called Blazer.

      • 0 avatar
        Guitar man

        Equinox and Acadia are both based on the same compact platform, the latter with a longer wheelbase.

        GM wants to reduce its models to just two platforms : a compact platform and a full size platform, both using a boxed in chassis design similar to that used in the F-150 which has a lower centre of mass and better fuel efficiency than a conventional unitary design (such as Cruze) would have.

  • avatar
    hifi

    This is what is supposed to impress people? It’s mediocracy on wheels. It’s built just the same as any car built in the past fifty years. Except we are supposed to be impressed with it shedding a few pounds compared to the previous porker, and a rowdy 4-banger that shifts constantly at the slightest incline. Where is the carbon fiber frame? Where is the unique packaging? Where is the unconventional use of materials that shows that GM’s R&D team isn’t completely out of touch? This is an ordinary bowl of nothing that GM is trying to convince us is groundbreaking. Frankly, I would find owning this car to be completely depressing. So, GM, don’t try to sell us on the idea that this car is groundbreaking when it is a completely phoned-in effort.

    • 0 avatar
      Drzhivago138

      “Where is the carbon fiber frame?”

      Nowhere, since it’s a unibody vehicle. :P And unibody construction is hardly the same as “any car built in the past fifty years.” More like thirty.

      Also, it’s “mediocrity.” Mediocracy would be a great film or album title, though.

      • 0 avatar
        John-95_Taurus_3.0_AX4N

        GM should listen to lofi, they could learn a lot about spending Ferrari money on a mass produced mainstream family vehicle, and then they can finally ditch that carburetor and 3 on the tree they stuck in this ‘Nox.

    • 0 avatar
      OldManPants

      “Where is the carbon fiber frame?”

      BwaHa.. on a low 20K single-Mom wagon? Why not ask for flappy doors, too?

    • 0 avatar
      John-95_Taurus_3.0_AX4N

      Give me a $75k vehicle for $20k and I’ll STILL say it sucks because it says Chevrolet on it! Listen to me Mary Barra! I’m tryna tell you how to go bankrupt even quicker than before!

      400lbs? Ive lost more weight than that in a Stucky’s bathroom!

      I want a flying time machine warp 9.9 capable Equinox with a matter-energy converter that makes espressos in the dash and also somehow does my taxes and teaches my kids how to speak French, and then I still won’t buy it! Hello GM! Are you listening? I don’t want a unibody AWD vehicle with a 1.5L Turbo and a 6 speed automatic just EXACTLY like a 1967 Biscayne!

      I don’t think its GM that is completely out of touch. Get off the Hateraid and get real.

  • avatar
    SuperCarEnthusiast

    The new redesign Equinox is no looker either! It kind of mess up design! Inside looks nice but outside is troublesome!

  • avatar
    oldowl

    The slanted C pillar makes it look as if the rear end was grafted on a sedan. A lot of venom in that vellum.

  • avatar
    bd2

    Wonder how ugly the original design was as this isn’t exactly a “looker.”

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • el scotto: @Dartdude Our Federal Government, thankfully, is not like Apple computer corporation. I have an iPhone 3...
  • el scotto: @SCE to Aux; I can think of three stand-alone Cadillac dealers. Lockhart Cadillac in Greenwood and Fishers...
  • Ol Shel: You should choose a car from a company that’s never had a recall, like: Nash, Duesenberg, Datsun,...
  • RHD: That’s a lot of money to put on the line for such a silly bet. Truth be told, ICE vehicles will be slowly...
  • DenverMike: The old fogeys say that. It assumes the grade coming up the mountain is the same one going down. Or...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Matthew Guy
  • Timothy Cain
  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Chris Tonn
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber