My wife has started shopping for a new midsize SUV. She currently has a 2016 Chevy Equinox LTZ with the 87 octane 308 horsepower V-6 and all the toys that were offered that year. A few yaers ago they downsized the Equinox and eliminated the 6. They rebodied the 2016 Equinox as the NEW BLAZER and raised the price insanely. It’s the same sizes, dimensions and standard/ offered equipment as her 16 even down to the sliding second row seat. Of course she’s gotten me involved and man is it frustrating. ALL the manufacturers are pushing these gutless 4 cylinder turbos that REQUIRE PREMIUM FUEL. In the midsize there have gotten to be VERY FEW that run on 87. I remember reading years ago that the then Cadillac 3.6 was only 260 HP and required premium gas. When they changed it to direct injection,the horsepower went up to 300 and it runs on 87. GREAT, but now you pretty much have to spend 40 thousand and up to get a SUV that runs on 87 and has any balls. Then the way they do the packaging, in order to get one option, you have to buy an expensive package. Kinda like 66-70 Chevelles, you could only get a big block if you ordered the SS package and vise-versa. Unlike say the Caprice down to the Byscane, you could order any drivetrain they had. I’ve tried talking her into going back to a pick-up, which she’s had 5 in the last 27 years. But she likes the midsized SUVs.
New Vehicles Suck
- Thread starter Doug Chahoy
- Start date
- Status
I didn’t realize this until now but the 2022 Equinox is only available now with the 1.5 turbo 4 cylinder. The 2021 however is available with the 2.0 which is a much better engine. Both require 87 octane. You can choose to use a higher octane for better performance but it’s not required. The 2.0 is far from gutless at 252 hp and 260 lb ft of torque. Quite impressive actually when you consider a fuel mileage rating of 28 hwy with AWD. Maybe look for a 2021 off lease vehicle instead of buying new? I really like the 3.6 V6 but I’m not sure they have ever fixed the timing chain issues.
Here's a question.... if it's a 2016.... why the NEED to replace it, especially if there isn't anything you really like out there?
5 pickups also in 27 years.... sounds like the wife only gets 4 or 5 years out of a vehicle which sounds.... well, to be honest like either she's really hard on things or somewhat wasteful. You're taking MASSIVE depreciation on these things, then letting someone else capture the relatively affordable operating years.
Thats just my opinion mind you, everyone has their reasons for doing certain things their way. I just figure, even in the worst of the rust belt, 10 yrs a vehicle is about the average minimum lifespan and allows some of that depreciation hit to be spread over a greater use life.
5 pickups also in 27 years.... sounds like the wife only gets 4 or 5 years out of a vehicle which sounds.... well, to be honest like either she's really hard on things or somewhat wasteful. You're taking MASSIVE depreciation on these things, then letting someone else capture the relatively affordable operating years.
Thats just my opinion mind you, everyone has their reasons for doing certain things their way. I just figure, even in the worst of the rust belt, 10 yrs a vehicle is about the average minimum lifespan and allows some of that depreciation hit to be spread over a greater use life.
Not sure about those specific engines, but the small displacement turbo setup to get better fuel economy is a bit misleading. As long as you can stay out of the boost, they're not bad. So it's fine if you can just cruise with little to no speed changes. But as soon as you start to accelerate, fuel consumption jumps significantly.
I have a 2016 F150 with the 3.5L Turbo. The EcoBoost. As someone said once, that terms is mutually exclusive....you can have Eco or you can have Boost - but not both.
Honda's been under criticism lately because their little turbo 4s don't warm up in cold weather with stop and go traffic, so the heaters don't work
I'm in a similar boat but for myself. Gotten to a point in life where'd I'd like something new so I've been looking at 2016 and up ATS Cadillacs with the 2.0 ecotecs, RWD. So much conflicting info... Big headaches...
Actually, even though those new engines "require" premium gas, you can fill it up with 87 no problem.
The engine management system will detect the lower octane and automatically make changes to the spark and fueling to counteract it.
That said, you will lose a bit of power and possibly fuel economy.
New cars do suck, because I run 87 in my 96 Caprice (as is recommended) and the engine has 10.5:1 compression. Because LT1! But the reverse cooling tech (as far as I know) was never really used again.
I'm still young, I don't need a new car yet because I haven't gotten tired of old car shenanigans yet!
The engine management system will detect the lower octane and automatically make changes to the spark and fueling to counteract it.
That said, you will lose a bit of power and possibly fuel economy.
New cars do suck, because I run 87 in my 96 Caprice (as is recommended) and the engine has 10.5:1 compression. Because LT1! But the reverse cooling tech (as far as I know) was never really used again.
I'm still young, I don't need a new car yet because I haven't gotten tired of old car shenanigans yet!
Natasha's 2015 Colorado has been pretty rock solid since new. Only oil changes and few other minor issues. It just crested 90,000 miles on the same V6 your are discussing here. It's been run on premium since new.
The only way we are getting out of this truck is into a HEMI Ram... since the alternatives are junk.
The only way we are getting out of this truck is into a HEMI Ram... since the alternatives are junk.
Somewhere down the line I missed the whole point of his posting. I've had plenty of "must use: high octane gas cars Never have! It's an SUV, grocery getter, take the kids to school and go shopping! How much horsepower do you need for that, 500 +?
Quite the opposite actually...Like everything else this is a matter of opinion and if you’re a mopar or no car kind of guy I get it. The Hemi has major design defects including a fatal flaw with camshaft lubrication and dropping valve seats. After working with FCA and seeing their lack of engineering discipline there is no way I would own a dodge. Not trying to start a shyt storm here but the data speaks for itself.
- Status
