At least they didn't put the rear seat half an inch off the floor to get increased rear seat headroom.

At least they didn't put the rear seat half an inch off the floor to get increased rear seat headroom.

This is true.

It looks pretty good, but as others have pointed out it's still not the right size. The old Equinox was way too big, with a huge turning circle, poor economy, and sluggish performance. They were supposed to alleviate those problems with this one, but it usually doesn't signal a door-buster product when all they did too design it was correct the problems with the old one, instead of thinking of something new.

GM really just needs to start building cars the market wants, instead of building cars it wants and then throwing up its hands in bewilderment when the market doesn't bite.

GM: there are segments. Build cars. In the segments. Stop getting cute with the compact width/midsized length (Theta) or the midsized width/fullsized length (W).

Not to stir up controversy here, but if the new Nox is based off Theta like my vue is, it's not actually hurting for rear hip room. I mean, I'm always the driver in any case, but I've never had anyone say it was tight back there. I think it'll be ok if that's the case.

GM really just needs to start building cars the market wants, instead of building cars it wants and then throwing up its hands in bewilderment when the market doesn't bite.

GM: there are segments. Build cars. In the segments. Stop getting cute with the compact width/midsized length (Theta) or the midsized width/fullsized length (W).

you guys are absolutely right with this idea. it is one that is clearly evident within GM's thinking and another point of the strong reasoning that says GM is completely mismanaged. this is one that just gets me angry because GM is giving even more reason, perhaps the biggest reason of all, to shoppers to look elsewhere. if you can't buy the car in the size you want, then you just have to look elsewhere. this is even bigger than quality materials in my opinion at chasing away buyers. this is my own personal primary problem with GM, being that I like small cars that are smaller and nimble on the outside yet reasonably space efficient and premium on the inside. as you said they need to quit building the cars they want to build and instead build the cars the market wants.

Edited December 25, 200817 yr by turbo200

And the begrudging and backhanded press has already started.

Edmunds seems unimpressed as they bitch about the styling, chrome wheels, steering wheel and try to pass it off as an update to the existing Equinox.

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/autoshow...oletequinoxr343

And is it just me, or does the Equinox look much nicer than the SRX?

Edited December 31, 200817 yr by FUTURE_OF_GM

And is it just me, or does the Equinox look much nicer than the SRX?

Maybe, but the SRX looks like crap.

And the begrudging and backhanded press has already started.

Edmunds seems unimpressed as they bitch about the styling, chrome wheels, steering wheel and try to pass it off as an update to the existing Equinox.

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/autoshow...oletequinoxr343

And is it just me, or does the Equinox look much nicer than the SRX?

It's annoying that they keep saying the Equinox was invisible... I can't tell you how many I see on a daily basis... MUCH more than a CRV or Rav4.

"WHY DO CROSSOVERS HAVE LESS CARGO ROOM THAN STATION WAGONS OF 15 YEARS AGO?????!!!"

1994 is now 15 years ago and most wagons were on the way out. GM B body and A body were an old man's cars and on thier last legs. 94 Taurus was only wagon that was selling OK.

Besides, the only cargo area needed by common 'cute ute' drivers is for 3-4 shopping bags.

Edited January 2, 200917 yr by Chicagoland

1994 is now 15 years ago and most wagons were on the way out. GM B body and A body were an old man's cars

Maybe our elders were smarter than we are. I wish station wagons would come back.

Maybe our elders were smarter than we are. I wish station wagons would come back.

I'll be honest, I've always hated the look of a station wagon.

I never understood why people bought SUVs and Crossovers because "they're safer in icy weather". Uh, your four wheels slip just as easily as mine, and you're more top heavy.

I don't understand why the pricing of these crossovers are so much higher than the sedans they are based on or close in size to. It used to be that the wagon version of a sedan might be a few hundred more. But the Equinox is at least $3,000 more than the Malibu. The Edge is almost $6,000 more.

How does the average family guy afford the average family wagon anymore?

BTW, I also agree with the post about the old station wagons being roomier. Crossovers seem like a step back in that regard. The old A-bodies had terrific cargo carrying abilities while delivering decent gas mileage.

I don't understand why the pricing of these crossovers are so much higher than the sedans they are based on or close in size to. It used to be that the wagon version of a sedan might be a few hundred more. But the Equinox is at least $3,000 more than the Malibu. The Edge is almost $6,000 more.

How does the average family guy afford the average family wagon anymore?

BTW, I also agree with the post about the old station wagons being roomier. Crossovers seem like a step back in that regard. The old A-bodies had terrific cargo carrying abilities while delivering decent gas mileage.

A $300 difference in 1970 (the peak of station wagons' popularity) is equivalent to $3k in today's money, considering you could buy a Corvette for $6,500 in those days. Ditto for convertibles.

If you compare apples to apples, a FWD Equinox would be about $3k more than a Malibu LS or LT1, for example; however, naturally the AWD component is going to add to the cost.

But there is no denying that there is some price gouging on the part of the SUVs, particulary the higher end stuff like Suburban, Infinity, etc.

I know that wagons were on the decline in 2000, but this shows that there was roughly a $1,000 difference between Taurus sedans and wagons then. Passats showed a similar difference. I don't believe there was that much percentage difference in 1986 when Taurus wagons were fantastically popular.

According to the CPI, $300 in 1970 would equal $1,642 today. A more attainable difference for the average guy needing a family wagon.

A $300 difference in 1970 (the peak of station wagons' popularity) is equivalent to $3k in today's money, considering you could buy a Corvette for $6,500 in those days. Ditto for convertibles.

If you compare apples to apples, a FWD Equinox would be about $3k more than a Malibu LS or LT1, for example; however, naturally the AWD component is going to add to the cost.

But there is no denying that there is some price gouging on the part of the SUVs, particulary the higher end stuff like Suburban, Infinity, etc.

I think because of the overall size and height of crossovers, mfgs believe they get away with pricing markups since the impression is of a very large, hefty vehicle.

Well, I feel that the interior is fantastic, but the exterior looks rather Korean to me; and not in a good way.

It's just me. I don't like the blobby, bubbly exterior at all.

I'll be honest, I've always hated the look of a station wagon.

I never understood why people bought SUVs and Crossovers because "they're safer in icy weather". Uh, your four wheels slip just as easily as mine, and you're more top heavy.

Paulie--they're "safer" because of basic physics: in a collision, mass wins. These things are generally tanks, and the AWD/4WD near-exclusivity of SUVs in the early years of the segment's popularity DO make a difference in icy weather. Now that AWD is becoming more and more mainstream, this advantage is pretty much moot.

How did I miss this monstrosity?? The current one may be a little generic, but at least it's modern looking. This just screams '90s Kia.

This new Equinox is gorgeous - both inside and out. This is the type of balanced, "almost muscular" car design that releases good endorphins and maybe even stirs a feeling of lust in my head.

Oh, geez, perhaps I've said too much...I think my point was: YES I like it!

I hope that the trim, finishes, and mechanical refinement are top-notch.

I look forward to seeing the un-disguised GMC Terrain version.

This new Equinox is gorgeous - both inside and out. This is the type of balanced, "almost muscular" car design that releases good endorphins and maybe even stirs a feeling of lust in my head.

Oh, geez, perhaps I've said too much...I think my point was: YES I like it!

I hope that the trim, finishes, and mechanical refinement are top-notch.

I look forward to seeing the un-disguised GMC Terrain version.

You and me alike. However, I've begun to wonder if GM hasn't already scrapped the Terrain. The last "camo'ed" spy shots were taken in November, there's been no mention of the Terrain for release at Chicago or NY, nothing new in the news about it, and Chris hasn't responded to any of my requests for in about it in any of the threads posted around C&G.

Fancy Saturn Vue...

Fancy Saturn Vue...

No, no, no, thats the SRX. The Equinox is a re-grilled VUE. And the Terrain will be a re-grilled Equinox.

No, no, no, thats the SRX. The Equinox is a re-grilled VUE. And the Terrain will be a re-grilled Equinox.

And the VUE will be dead!