# 2018 Chevrolet Equinox DIESEL



## CruzeDan (May 17, 2015)

Check it out, Chevrolet just released the details for the 2018 Equinox, which will include the 1.6 Whisper diesel bound for the 2017 Cruze. I am in such disbelief, yes this is for the US market. 

All New 2018 Equinox: Fuel Efficient SUV | Chevrolet


----------



## mkohan (Dec 19, 2015)

Interesting, Thanks for sharing


----------



## Tomko (Jun 1, 2013)

Incredible!

I wonder where they'll use the 2.0 whisper diesel?

(Thread moved to gen 2.)


----------



## MP81 (Jul 20, 2015)

YESSSSSSSS!

You don't know how excited I am about that. I think I'm scaring my wife.


----------



## Tomko (Jun 1, 2013)

MP81 said:


> YESSSSSSSS!
> 
> You don't know how excited I am about that. I think I'm scaring my wife.


It will work very well for my needs that have changed since I ordered my CTD 3.5 years ago.


----------



## chevrasaki (May 1, 2015)

Huh, well would you just look at that. 

Hope it catches on, diesel engines make a lot of sense especially for heavy vehicles because of the high torque they produce. I wouldn't personally buy one of these Equinox diesels because I'm not a fan of crossovers and I'm 99% sure they won't offer a manual transmission. I've said it before if I wasn't so stubborn about driving a manual, I would have went with a diesel Cruze. (But I'm never giving up my clutch, and you can't make me!) 

Boring stuff alert:
Gas and diesel engines work in fundamentally different ways. Most gas engines draw in a fuel and air mixture, compress it, then ignite it with a spark plug. But since gas is so volatile it's prone to pre-detonation (pinging/knocking - the gas explodes in the cylinder before the spark plug ignites it) during the compression stroke if the conditions are met (Too much compression/heat and not enough octane). This is why turbo gas engines generally have lower piston compression ratios and require higher octane fuel. Pre-detonation is very harmful to a gasoline engine.

Diesel engines on the other hand use very high compression to ignite the diesel. They draw in and compress only air, and when the piston has fully compressed the air, it injects diesel which instantly detonates, no spark plug needed. This allows diesel engines to more easily accept turbo chargers since they aren't limited by pinging, they're limited by strength of the parts. That's why diesel fuel has no grades of octane. (Octane ratings are measures of resistance to pre-detonation) Diesel fuel itself has many advantages over gasoline. It contains more energy potential per gallon, and burns cooler than gasoline which is good for efficiency. Diesel fuel also has better lubrication properties, and because diesel engines have higher compression they tend to use higher strength components, both of which aid in longevity of the engines. The downside is a higher initial cost.


----------



## MP81 (Jul 20, 2015)

Tomko said:


> It will work very well for my needs that have changed since I ordered my CTD 3.5 years ago.


My wife has mentioned getting a crossover in the past - and this would certainly have my vote. Near-CTD fuel economy, in a slightly bigger package. Boom.


----------



## CruzeDan (May 17, 2015)

I saw that and I instantly fell in love. I want it so bad. I just hope GM knows what they are doing with all these diesels. Either they are the dumbest people in the room, or the smartest.


----------



## Tomko (Jun 1, 2013)

MP81 said:


> YESSSSSSSS!
> 
> You don't know how excited I am about that. I think I'm scaring my wife.





CruzeDan said:


> I saw that and I instantly fell in love. I want it so bad.


Yep, I think I've got a woody.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

I was just about to post this. Pretty cool that the diesel will be put in a crossover!

...and thank goodness the Equinox will be motivated by gas turbos as well. The current generation sorely needs torque.


----------



## diesel (Jun 8, 2013)

OMG, I want one!!!  

It's pretty cool so many people are excited about this


----------



## pandrad61 (Jul 8, 2015)

A suv getting 40 hwm mpg never thought id see the day... Cruze is rated 42 and i get expenensally more mpg imagine the new equinox.. Maybe 45 mpg hyper mileage


----------



## Tomko (Jun 1, 2013)

Found this elsewhere:



136 horsepower, 236 lb-ft of torque and 40 MPG highway with a 6T45 six-speed automatic for the diesel
170 horsepower, 203 lb-ft of torque and 31 MPG highway with a 6T40 six-speed auto for the 1.5 gas
252 horsepower, 260 lb-ft of torque, 28 MPG on the highway and a 9T50 nine-speed for the top of the range 2.0 liter


----------



## MP81 (Jul 20, 2015)

What I've read has stated that the transmission for the diesel has yet to be disclosed. 



GMAuthority said:


> However, GM’s latest nine-speed automatic transmission will not be fitted to the 1.6L turbo diesel, and Majoros was unwilling to expand on what will provide shifting duties.


----------



## Tomko (Jun 1, 2013)

This from GM:

*1.6L turbo-diesel: max efficiency and capability*
The 2018 Equinox is slated to be the only competitor in the North American compact SUV segment with a diesel choice for customers seeking the ultimate in fuel economy and capability. It is expected to offer a GM-estimated fuel consumption rating of 5.9 L/100km (40) mpg highway.
The 1.6L turbo-diesel is an all-new design, with output estimated at 136 hp (101 kW) at 3,500-4,000 rpm and 236 lb.-ft. of torque (320 Nm) at 2,000 rpm. A variable-geometry turbocharger helps generate a broad torque band that makes the engine very responsive at low rpm. It also features stop/start technology and is one of the industry’s most refined diesels.


----------



## Tomko (Jun 1, 2013)

This also from GM:

*Powertrains*

Engine / Type:
*1.5L turbo DOHC DI *
*2.0L turbo DOHC DI *
*1.6L turbo-diesel *
Block material:
Cast aluminum
Cast aluminum
Cast aluminum
Cylinder head material:
Cast aluminum
Cast aluminum
Cast aluminum
Fuel delivery:
Direct injection
Direct injection
Direct injection
Horsepower (hp / kW):
170 / 127 (GM-estimated)
252 / 188 (GM-estimated)
136 / 101 (GM-estimated)
Torque (lb.-ft. / Nm):
203 / 275 (GM-estimated)
260 / 353 (GM-estimated)
236 / 320 (GM-estimated)
GM-est. fuel economy:
31 hwy
28 hwy
40 hwy
Transmission:
Hydra-Matic 6T40 six-speed automatic
Hydra-Matic 9T50 nine-speed automatic
Hydra-Matic 6T45 six-speed automatic



Chevrolet Introduces All-New 2018 Equinox


----------



## MP81 (Jul 20, 2015)

Interesting, because the quote I posted was from Chevy's Director of Marketing. So either he was unaware it's a 6-speed - or it isn't, and it was mistakenly entered.


----------



## Tomko (Jun 1, 2013)

MP81 said:


> Interesting, because the quote I posted was from Chevy's Director of Marketing. So either he was unaware it's a 6-speed - or it isn't, and it was mistakenly entered.


In the past I've seen things get switched around before production actually begins. I would have never guessed 6T45. I was thinking 6T70. 

But there's still the 2.0 whisper diesel. I wonder if it will make it into the new terrain or something else?


----------



## sparkman (Oct 15, 2015)

Tomko said:


> Yep, I think I've got a woody.


x2. My jaw dropped when I saw the redesign. Hopefully my dealer will get one in first and I can throw a video up for you guys.


----------



## sparkman (Oct 15, 2015)

pandrad61 said:


> A suv getting 40 hwm mpg never thought id see the day... Cruze is rated 42 and i get expenensally more mpg imagine the new equinox.. Maybe 45 mpg hyper mileage


We have a 2015 Tahoe, and I never thought I'd see 27 mpg out of a 6,000 lb flying brick of an SUV with a V8.


----------



## pandrad61 (Jul 8, 2015)

> A variable-geometry turbocharger helps generate a broad torque band that makes the engine very responsive at low rpm. It also features stop/start technology and is one of the industry’s most refined diesels


i dont like diesel with stop start


----------



## chevrasaki (May 1, 2015)

sparkman said:


> We have a 2015 Tahoe, and I never thought I'd see 27 mpg out of a 6,000 lb flying brick of an SUV.


My dad has owned countless Sierra trucks usually with the 5.3L, but some with the 6.0L or 6.2L V8 engines and the new DI 5.3L engine is unbelievable. It's much more powerful than the previous generation and it's way more efficient. The only downside in my opinion is it doesn't sound like the previous V8, it sounds weird. The 8-speed is much better than the previous 6-speed too. They did an excellent job with this new generation.


----------



## Tomko (Jun 1, 2013)

sparkman said:


> We have a 2015 Tahoe, and I never thought I'd see 27 mpg out of a 6,000 lb flying brick of an SUV with a V8.


I'd make sweet love to Mary Barra if she'd build me a diesel Tahoe.


----------



## sparkman (Oct 15, 2015)

chevrasaki said:


> My dad has owned countless Sierra trucks usually with the 5.3L, but some with the 6.0L or 6.2L V8 engines and the new DI 5.3L engine is unbelievable. It's much more powerful than the previous generation and it's way more efficient. The only downside in my opinion is it doesn't sound like the previous V8, it sounds weird. The 8-speed is much better than the previous 6-speed too. They did an excellent job with this new generation.


I agree. It has a weird idle sound, not the typical V8 rumble. The only time is sounds awesome is mid range to WOT. Put's a grin on my face every time. Quick 0-60 video I took up a hill with 4 people and the A/C on:


----------



## Tomko (Jun 1, 2013)

pandrad61 said:


> i dont like diesel with stop start


Have you ever tried one?


----------



## pandrad61 (Jul 8, 2015)

> I agree. It has a weird idle sound, not the typical V8 rumble. The only time is sounds awesome is mid range to WOT. Put's a grin on my face every time. Quick 0-60 video I took up a hill with 4 people and the A/C on:


due to emissions and current level of power expectation many manufactures that stay N/A move the power band up since more rpm at a given time has more hp ( may have not explained it right) thats why you see the new colorado have lots of HP but you need to rev it out to feel it,,, now if you wot for a while it feels amazing


----------



## IndyDiesel (May 24, 2015)

Tomko said:


> Yep, I think I've got a woody.


Well try not to think about it for more than four hours at a time.....:shocked:


----------



## diesel (Jun 8, 2013)

pandrad61 said:


> i dont like diesel with stop start


I don't like anything with stop start. All those cold starts are bad for the engine. Plus, cars with stop start will shut off the engine immediately after you stop, even if you've just driven WOT up a mountain pass and got the turbo good and glowing hot.


----------



## pandrad61 (Jul 8, 2015)

> Have you ever tried one?


yes and i cant stand it. its known that having a turbo that was just ran hard and shutting it off is bad since even the modern oils are stressed to not coke. imagine doing so many time sin city driving on off on off. turbo wont last even gm pulled warranty to only 50k not 100k anymore. 



> I don't like anything with stop start. All those cold starts are bad for the engine. Plus, cars with stop start will shut off the engine immediately after you stop, even if you've just driven WOT up a mountain pass and got the turbo good and glowing hot.


its a industry known fast most wear and tear is caused during start up not during operation.. why would i want to speed up its wear to save a few mpg


----------



## MP81 (Jul 20, 2015)

Starting a warm engine, however, will hardly produce more wear and tear than leaving the engine idling - which is also terrible for an engine.

I do agree that start-stop should be monitored by the computer, and if the engine just came off a stressful drive (WOT pulls, for instance), it will not activate.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

MP81 said:


> Starting a warm engine, however, will hardly produce more wear and tear than leaving the engine idling - which is also terrible for an engine.
> 
> I do agree that start-stop should be monitored by the computer, and if the engine just came off a stressful drive (WOT pulls, for instance), it will not activate.


I think some [non-hybrid] systems already do this. At least the Mercedes did - after zooming up a canyon road at full throttle, it didn't shut off when stopped at the top. It would also not shut off when the engine was cold (IIRC the Cruze did this one too).

And it certainly hasn't hurt the longevity of engines designed with it in mind. Take a look at any Toyota hybrid.


----------



## Tomko (Jun 1, 2013)

pandrad61 said:


> i dont like diesel with stop start





Tomko said:


> Have you ever tried one?





pandrad61 said:


> yes and i cant stand it.


I'm curious. What diesel with stop start was it that you tried?


----------



## pandrad61 (Jul 8, 2015)

> i'm curious. What diesel with stop start was it that you tried?


not a diesel stop start a few gasoline. I wish i could on a diesel just to post here how it is


----------



## pandrad61 (Jul 8, 2015)

> i think some [non-hybrid] systems already do this. At least the mercedes did - after zooming up a canyon road at full throttle, it didn't shut off when stopped at the top. It would also not shut off when the engine was cold (iirc the cruze did this one too).
> 
> And it certainly hasn't hurt the longevity of engines designed with it in mind. Take a look at any toyota hybrid.


if its monitered and adjusted then id be less leery, is that toyota hybrid a turbo tho?


----------



## Tomko (Jun 1, 2013)

pandrad61 said:


> i dont like diesel with stop start





Tomko said:


> Have you ever tried one?





pandrad61 said:


> yes and i cant stand it.





Tomko said:


> I'm curious. What diesel with stop start was it that you tried?





pandrad61 said:


> not a diesel stop start a few gasoline. I wish i could on a diesel just to post here how it is


Well I have. A Citroën C4 Picasso five speed that I spent a week with two years ago. Driving through France, Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg, Netherlands and Switzerland. 

Start stop worked brilliantly on this application. It was trigerred by the vehicle not moving and the application of both the brake and the clutch. When either clutch or brake was begun to be released, even while not moving, the diesel was restarted.


----------



## IndyDiesel (May 24, 2015)

I have shared my thoughts on start stop before, I don't like nor do I want one with it, if I have to buy with it I will do my best to learn how to disengage or eliminate it. I love efficiency or I wouldn't own a CTD but yikes when does the stuff stop that isn't necessary. The two cars I drove with this feature I HATED, one Malibu and a BMW. Both sucked, BMW sucked even more. I agree with diesel, stopping the engine when a turbo is super hot to save 10 cents worth of fuel should be our choice. Fine put it on cars, allow me to disable it from the DIC.


----------



## IndyDiesel (May 24, 2015)

I do like the look of the 18 Equinox CTD however. I think that could sell very well if priced correctly.


----------



## ibedonc (Oct 18, 2015)

*2018 chev equinox*

looks like the 1.6l diesel will be going in the Equinox , if that is the case that will be my next SUV

All New 2018 Equinox: Fuel Efficient SUV | Chevrolet


----------



## Tomko (Jun 1, 2013)

Duplicate thread merged with original thread.


----------



## diesel (Jun 8, 2013)

Tomko said:


> Well I have. A Citroën C4 Picasso five speed that I spent a week with two years ago. Driving through France, Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg, Netherlands and Switzerland.
> 
> Start stop worked brilliantly on this application. It was trigerred by the vehicle not moving and the application of both the brake and the clutch. When either clutch or brake was begun to be released, even while not moving, the diesel was restarted.


The Range Rover TD6 has it. It's not too bad, however most everybody that has one turns it off. There is a way to disable it completely by pulling a fuse or something. Perhaps that will be so on the GM cars.


----------



## dougc905 (May 24, 2015)

CruzeDan said:


> Check it out, Chevrolet just released the details for the 2018 Equinox, which will include the 1.6 Whisper diesel bound for the 2017 Cruze.
> 
> All New 2018 Equinox: Fuel Efficient SUV | Chevrolet


Scroll down to the description of the engines, then click on the 2.0 L turbo. I want to know more about that trailer!


----------



## Tomko (Jun 1, 2013)

dougc905 said:


> Scroll down to the description of the engines, then click on the 2.0 L turbo. I want to know more about that trailer!


Cool trailer. I took a screen shot but can't seem to post it here.


----------



## pandrad61 (Jul 8, 2015)

> the range rover td6 has it. It's not too bad, however most everybody that has one turns it off. There is a way to disable it completely by pulling a fuse or something. Perhaps that will be so on the gm car


gm is smart consumers stupid. Just like the vetts had skip to 4th to avoid gas guzzler tax gm made it super easy to disable it after its off the showroom floor. Even if they make it as simple as a fuse thats obvious labeled stop start, most consumers wont know to remove it


----------



## _MerF_ (Mar 24, 2015)

pandrad61 said:


> gm is smart consumers stupid. Just like the vetts had skip to 4th to avoid gas guzzler tax gm made it super easy to disable it after its off the showroom floor. Even if they make it as simple as a fuse thats obvious labeled stop start, most consumers wont know to remove it


It could also be that most people aren't terrified of technology that they don't understand.

On to the topic-at-hand....I want this truck. The only reason I had avoided the Equinox was because of the terrible driving experience. This sounds like a winner. The Cruze may get traded in late next year!


----------



## pandrad61 (Jul 8, 2015)

> it could also be that most people aren't terrified of technology that they don't understand.
> 
> On to the topic-at-hand....i want this truck. The only reason i had avoided the equinox was because of the terrible driving experience. This sounds like a winner. The cruze may get traded in late next year!


you say this and i have a feeling your implying that i fear it. If thats your point im no scared and i understand it just fine. I dont care to have 1 more mpg for added complexity. Now a 10 mpg sure but for marginal returns why bother with it.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

They're doing everything they can to get an extra 0.1 MPG out of vehicles these days.

Weight reduction, small turbo engines, transmissions with 8-11 gears, stop/start, aerodynamic tweaks...

Weight reduction is something GM should have focused on YEARS ago, but even that doesn't come with massive gains.


----------



## MP81 (Jul 20, 2015)

jblackburn said:


> Weight reduction is something GM should have focused on YEARS ago, but even that doesn't come with massive gains.


Exactly, weight reduction mostly comes into play when you're moving from a stop.


----------



## chevrasaki (May 1, 2015)

jblackburn said:


> They're doing everything they can to get an extra 0.1 MPG out of vehicles these days.
> 
> Weight reduction, small turbo engines, transmissions with 8-11 gears, stop/start, aerodynamic tweaks...
> 
> Weight reduction is something GM should have focused on YEARS ago, but even that doesn't come with massive gains.



Weight reduction may not have a massive return on economy, but it pays off in many different ways. Better acceleration, handling, and less wear on the brakes. A light car is a happy car, just look at the MX-5.


----------



## pandrad61 (Jul 8, 2015)

> they're doing everything they can to get an extra 0.1 mpg out of vehicles these days.
> 
> Weight reduction, small turbo engines, transmissions with 8-11 gears, stop/start, aerodynamic tweaks...
> 
> Weight reduction is something gm should have focused on years ago, but even that doesn't come with massive gains.


100% agreed. Unless we revolutionize the car not much more can be done. We can keep evolving but we are near pinnacle of it with reasonable cost to consumer. Now if we could make cars from all carbon fiber, magnesium, aluminum we would see a huge gain but at what cost


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

chevrasaki said:


> Weight reduction may not have a massive return on economy, but it pays off in many different ways. Better acceleration, handling, and less wear on the brakes. A light car is a happy car, just look at the MX-5.


One of the most fun cars I've owned to drive was a 1988 Honda Accord. A whopping 98 HP, but it weighed just over 2500 lbs. One of my fond memories of that junkheap was keeping up with a bunch of BMWs on a twisty back road.

I went from that to a 3300 lb Camry, to a 3200 lb Volvo, and despite the Volvo not being a big car, it felt like a giant pig in comparison. 

The Cruze masks its weight well with a good chassis, and the torquey nature of the 1.4T helps as well, but sometimes I am envious of the significant weight loss of the Gen 2. Seems like it would be more fun to drive.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

pandrad61 said:


> 100% agreed. Unless we revolutionize the car not much more can be done. We can keep evolving but we are near pinnacle of it with reasonable cost to consumer. Now if we could make cars from all carbon fiber, magnesium, aluminum we would see a huge gain but at what cost


I wish we could figure out a way to bring back the "lean burn" method Honda/others used in the 1990's, and reduce NOx emissions. The 90's Civic HX could return some absolutely ridiculous fuel economy when it went to lean burn mode.

Unfortunately, with turbochargers, it's a constant battle between fuel economy and cylinder temps/knock - most turbo engines dump fuel to keep temps down.

Beyond that, hybrid setups are going to become more and more common for the great bump on city MPG. I really hope CVTs don't proliferate everything as well.


----------



## BlueTopaz (Aug 25, 2012)

I think it will do well. Especially once the Colorado, Ram 1500, Titan 1500 diesel's have been out a while. More will get use to them being around and seeing how well they work.

Now if only GM would put one back in the Suburban and GMC Yukon XL.


----------



## chevrasaki (May 1, 2015)

jblackburn said:


> One of the most fun cars I've owned to drive was a 1988 Honda Accord. A whopping 98 HP, but it weighed just over 2500 lbs. One of my fond memories of that junkheap was keeping up with a bunch of BMWs on a twisty back road.
> 
> I went from that to a 3300 lb Camry, to a 3200 lb Volvo, and despite the Volvo not being a big car, it felt like a giant pig in comparison.
> 
> The Cruze masks its weight well with a good chassis, and the torquey nature of the 1.4T helps as well, but sometimes I am envious of the significant weight loss of the Gen 2. Seems like it would be more fun to drive.


My Cobalt was a lot peppier than I gave it credit for. It was 2,700 lbs and had 155HP/150ft-lbs with an really nice 5-speed manual. I didn't really appreciate it until after I got rid of it for the Cruze. Not saying the Cruze is bad, it's just not quick by any measure. 

I think a sonic coupe with the 2.0L turbo would be the unsuspecting sleeper pocket rocket that I'm craving.


----------



## pandrad61 (Jul 8, 2015)

> i wish we could figure out a way to bring back the "lean burn" method honda/others used in the 1990's, and reduce nox emissions. The 90's civic hx could return some absolutely ridiculous fuel economy when it went to lean burn mode.
> 
> Unfortunately, with turbochargers, it's a constant battle between fuel economy and cylinder temps/knock - most turbo engines dump fuel to keep temps down.
> 
> Beyond that, hybrid setups are going to become more and more common for the great bump on city mpg. I really hope cvts don't proliferate everything as well.


i do despise cvt a lot. If american consumers came to term with more basic and slower cars maybe we can ditch the turbo and stick with small 2.0 n/a with that lean burn you speak of... I know old carb cars when made for econ where jetted lean too and when you hit the trails ran um a bit richer


----------



## chevrasaki (May 1, 2015)

pandrad61 said:


> i do despise cvt a lot. If american consumers came to term with more basic and slower cars maybe we can ditch the turbo and stick with small 2.0 n/a with that lean burn you speak of... I know old carb cars when made for econ where jetted lean too and when you hit the trails ran um a bit richer


The only CVT I want is in my 2-stroke snowmobile.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

pandrad61 said:


> i do despise cvt a lot. If american consumers came to term with more basic and slower cars maybe we can ditch the turbo and stick with small 2.0 n/a with that lean burn you speak of... I know old carb cars when made for econ where jetted lean too and when you hit the trails ran um a bit richer


I hate small N/A engines. Give me torque!


----------



## Cruz15 (Mar 17, 2016)

2018 Chevrolet Equinox DIESEL looks like a winner for me if the price is low enough.
I will not be paying 30Gs just for a Diesel Ever!!


----------



## chevrasaki (May 1, 2015)

Cruz15 said:


> 2018 Chevrolet Equinox DIESEL looks like a winner for me if the price is low enough.
> I will not be paying 30Gs just for a Diesel Ever!!


I'd definitely pay 30K for a new silverado LTZ 6.6L duramax.


----------



## diesel (Jun 8, 2013)

Cruz15 said:


> 2018 Chevrolet Equinox DIESEL looks like a winner for me if the price is low enough.
> I will not be paying 30Gs just for a Diesel Ever!!


The price of a base Equinox LS with AWD is $28K. You're almost guaranteed that the sticker on the diesel will be every bit of $30K (if you want AWD, that is)


----------



## MP81 (Jul 20, 2015)

chevrasaki said:


> My Cobalt was a lot peppier than I gave it credit for. It was 2,700 lbs and had 155HP/150ft-lbs with an really nice 5-speed manual. I didn't really appreciate it until after I got rid of it for the Cruze. Not saying the Cruze is bad, it's just not quick by any measure.
> 
> I think a sonic coupe with the 2.0L turbo would be the unsuspecting sleeper pocket rocket that I'm craving.


Well remember - the Cobalts only weighed 2700-2800 lbs, with a "big" N/A I4 (in comparison to a 1.4L). The Cruze feels more "tight" than my Cobalt, simply because it's a factory vehicle - but when it comes to actual ability and nimbleness, my Cobalt is so far ahead. It's significantly not-stock, though, so there is that tidbit too...but even if they were on the same level - you're talking a difference of over 500 lbs.

The Gen 2 Cruze, however - is right back down to near-Cobalt weight.


----------



## Tomko (Jun 1, 2013)

dougc905 said:


> Scroll down to the description of the engines, then click on the 2.0 L turbo. I want to know more about that trailer!





Tomko said:


> Cool trailer. I took a screen shot but can't seem to post it here.


I found it! It's called a Yakima RackandRoll Trailer.


----------



## sparkman (Oct 15, 2015)

sparkman said:


> We have a 2015 Tahoe, and I never thought I'd see 27 mpg out of a 6,000 lb flying brick of an SUV with a V8.


Ha, go figure, I never thought I'd see this. Today we took the Tahoe in for air bag recall and vibrating seat motor repair. Drove it out of the dealer, done the road a mile, and the CEL came on. Guess what?

Catalytic converters are shot. Over $1000 to repair, but luckily warranty should cover this one. Ridiculous, the SUV only has 37k on it. 











Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


----------



## _MerF_ (Mar 24, 2015)

sparkman said:


> Catalytic converters are shot. Over $1000 to repair, but luckily warranty should cover this one. Ridiculous, the SUV only has 37k on it.


Jeez, are they going to do a failure analysis on that? Maybe the engine is running rich? That's unacceptable.


----------



## MP81 (Jul 20, 2015)

_MerF_ said:


> Jeez, are they going to do a failure analysis on that? Maybe the engine is running rich? That's unacceptable.


Absolutely - there is no reason for the cat to fail. 

I'm pretty sure the cat on the Cavalier was original when I replaced it at 231,000 miles...and it worked fine (the flanges had basically disintegrated, and with the price I paid for a new one, and once I sell the old one, it'll actually _make_ money).


----------



## diesel (Jun 8, 2013)

sparkman said:


> Ha, go figure, I never thought I'd see this. Today we took the Tahoe in for air bag recall and vibrating seat motor repair. Drove it out of the dealer, done the road a mile, and the CEL came on. Guess what?
> 
> Catalytic converters are shot. Over $1000 to repair, but luckily warranty should cover this one. Ridiculous, the SUV only has 37k on it.
> 
> ...


What?!? Emissions issues on a gas vehicle! Blasphemy! (sarcasm) 

Glad to hear it's covered under warranty!


----------



## sparkman (Oct 15, 2015)

Yeah I hope they do a failure analysis on it. I'd really hate for them to put TWO new ones in and another 37k down the road be in the same boat!


----------



## Chris Tobin (Feb 23, 2016)

pandrad61 said:


> i dont like diesel with stop start


It works well for other manufacturers even if it gives the driver a weird sensation knowing the engine shuts off at a stoplight... My son reviewed a 520d BMW in Germany that we ran in Ultimate Diesel Builder's Guide magazine and he loved the car, and while the stop/start was unexpected he said it never faltered even in bumper to bumper city traffic.

If GM does it right it will be fine. We had a Malibu ECO loaner while some work was getting done on the Cruze and there were settings for the stop/start system to give comfort or mileage priority and it would stay running at a stop if the AC was on but shut off if it was off...


----------



## Chris Tobin (Feb 23, 2016)

BlueTopaz said:


> I think it will do well. Especially once the Colorado, Ram 1500, Titan 1500 diesel's have been out a while. More will get use to them being around and seeing how well they work.
> 
> Now if only GM would put one back in the Suburban and GMC Yukon XL.


I really hope GM pulls the trigger on the 4.5L Duramax V8 they designed years ago for the 1/2-ton trucks and SUVs. It really was a great engine and was fully designed and ready to go, then the economy crashed and it got shelved...


----------



## MP81 (Jul 20, 2015)

Chris Tobin said:


> I really hope GM pulls the trigger on the 4.5L Duramax V8 they designed years ago for the 1/2-ton trucks and SUVs. It really was a great engine and was fully designed and ready to go, then the economy crashed and it got shelved...


You mean like the 2.9L TD V6 they co-developed with VM Motori (when they owned a 50% stake)? 

Which is now a 3.0L and in the Ram 1500s - because Fiat owned the other 50% (and now 100%)?


----------



## Tomko (Jun 1, 2013)

Chris Tobin said:


> I really hope GM pulls the trigger on the 4.5L Duramax V8 they designed years ago for the 1/2-ton trucks and SUVs. It really was a great engine and was fully designed and ready to go, then the economy crashed and it got shelved...


The 4.5 was splendid. Just like the Cadillac DT7 (Zeta-based replacement for DTS). Both got flushed during the bankruptcy. 

Even the prototype 4.5 duramax have been sold off. Two came up on eBay recently and a suburban powered by a 4.5 was sold at auction some time ago. 

Sadly it is gone. To never come back again.


----------



## Tomko (Jun 1, 2013)

MP81 said:


> You mean like the 2.9L TD V6 they co-developed with VM Motori (when they owned a 50% stake)?
> 
> Which is now a 3.0L and in the Ram 1500s - because Fiat owned the other 50% (and now 100%)?


Yep, the 2.9 was developed for Cadillac and intended primarily for the European market. But it would have made it here by 2013. 

No one knows for sure how closely it is related to the 3.0 used by ram and jeep - but it's got to be **** close. 

Another fallout from the bankruptcy.


----------



## money_man (Feb 25, 2014)

GM has dropped the ball so many times its not even funny. Now they're pushing diesel vehicles like crazy. In a 4 year span they'll have a diesel car, diesel Suv, and diesel 1/4 ton. Hopefully they run with it, need to get the emissions under control though.


----------



## pandrad61 (Jul 8, 2015)

> it works well for other manufacturers even if it gives the driver a weird sensation knowing the engine shuts off at a stoplight... My son reviewed a 520d bmw in germany that we ran in ultimate diesel builder's guide magazine and he loved the car, and while the stop/start was unexpected he said it never faltered even in bumper to bumper city traffic.
> 
> If gm does it right it will be fine. We had a malibu eco loaner while some work was getting done on the cruze and there were settings for the stop/start system to give comfort or mileage priority and it would stay running at a stop if the ac was on but shut off if it was off...


i hope its better then the luxury 3 series i drove.. Cars has maybe 30k on it and god dang is it jerky. Not smooth at all. I would not really mind if new cars come with it as long as i can disable it permanently in the settings and done. what i dont like is being FORCED into a technology as a consumer. Just like how i hate gm forces you a sunroof to get a stereo upgrade... hate sunroofs like stereo... why should i have to buy both?


----------



## money_man (Feb 25, 2014)

Ford is the worst at that. Want a center console shift in an f150? Better buy the high end model that's at least $10k more because they don't offer it in a regular 4x4 truck. Oh and now you're stuck with leather.


----------



## pandrad61 (Jul 8, 2015)

> Ford is the worst at that. Want a center console shift in an f150? Better buy the high end model that's at least $10k more because they don't offer it in a regular 4x4 truck. Oh and now you're stuck with leather.


agreed. i understand packages save $ and make it easier to sell but as a consumer i hate being forced into packs. technology pack makes sense, a performance pack makes sense, buy why do you need to spend 10k more for a center shift console, or have to get the sunroof for a stereo, or HAVE to buy a automatic to get a LTZ vs a stick


----------



## Tomko (Jun 1, 2013)

pandrad61 said:


> i hope its better then the luxury 3 series i drove.. Cars has maybe 30k on it and god dang is it jerky. Not smooth at all. I would not really mind if new cars come with it as long as i can disable it permanently in the settings and done. what i dont like is being FORCED into a technology as a consumer. Just like how i hate gm forces you a sunroof to get a stereo upgrade... hate sunroofs like stereo... why should i have to buy both?


I agree with you 100% on that stereo = sunroof thing GM forces. I can't stand sunroofs but want the premium sound. 

Why would I want a giant hole in my roof and an extra 100 pounds at the highest point in my car; thereby raising its center of gravity and reducing its cornering ability?

Why should I pay more for less performance??

Only the bean counters at GM know.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

I suppose I'm one of the few customers then that wants both! Hurray package! 

Some of the other stuff (tech packages mostly) aren't bundled well though.


----------



## pandrad61 (Jul 8, 2015)

> I agree with you 100% on that stereo = sunroof thing GM forces. I can't stand sunroofs but want the premium sound.
> 
> Why would I want a giant hole in my roof and an extra 100 pounds at the highest point in my car; thereby raising its center of gravity and reducing its cornering ability?
> 
> ...


on top of if you live in ohh say Florida or Arizona its a glaring window to give our bald drivers sunburn and let more heat in even with the shade pulled. Also possible water leaks down the road


----------



## Tomko (Jun 1, 2013)

pandrad61 said:


> on top of if you live in ohh say Florida or Arizona its a glaring window to give our bald drivers sunburn and let more heat in even with the shade pulled. Also possible water leaks down the road


Plus reduced headroom for those who are taller or prefer to drive wearing a hat (because it's freezing cold six months of the year.)


----------



## pandrad61 (Jul 8, 2015)

there use to be a balance of bean counters and engineers. in today world the bean counters rule even if the engineers says its not gonna last or be the wisest option


----------



## MP81 (Jul 20, 2015)

pandrad61 said:


> there use to be a balance of bean counters and engineers. in today world the bean counters rule even if the engineers says its not gonna last or be the wisest option


Yep - I deal with that every day, haha.


----------



## pandrad61 (Jul 8, 2015)

> Yep - I deal with that every day, haha.


engineers will banrupt a business as wil bean counters. one makes the product so well its too expensive one makes it so cheap no one will buy it.... lately bean counters are taking the final say


----------



## MP81 (Jul 20, 2015)

pandrad61 said:


> engineers will banrupt a business as wil bean counters. one makes the product so well its too expensive one makes it so cheap no one will buy it.... lately bean counters are taking the final say


If engineers were told to go wild, sure. We're usually pretty good on what we do and don't pursue, cost-wise. It'd be wasting our time to try and propose something outrageously expensive that has no chance of approval.


----------



## money_man (Feb 25, 2014)

I can't count how many times I've been working on a car and wanted to stab an engineer. They don't so dumb stuff with locations of stuff.


----------



## MP81 (Jul 20, 2015)

money_man said:


> I can't count how many times I've been working on a car and wanted to stab an engineer. They don't so dumb stuff with locations of stuff.


We actually have a class here that is relates to designing for serviceability.

But yes, I've encountered plenty of situations like that - mostly powertrain or chassis, though.


----------



## pandrad61 (Jul 8, 2015)

> We actually have a class here that is relates to designing for serviceability.
> 
> But yes, I've encountered plenty of situations like that - mostly powertrain or chassis, though.


sebrings.... batt in the wheel well....


----------



## MP81 (Jul 20, 2015)

pandrad61 said:


> sebrings.... batt in the wheel well....


My mom's '08 Avenger was like that too. We were moving cars around one winter, and I backed the Avenger out into the street to go pull my car in. A minute later, I went to pull her car in, and it flat out would not start. Accessories would work (if I remember correctly), but no noise whatsoever from the key. We initially thought maybe it was something funky with the battery - and that's when we tried to find it, and found out it was in the **** bumper. 

Turned out it was the wireless connection with the key fob (even though it wasn't push-start or anything like that), and it wouldn't communicate with the car to allow it to start. All within a minute of it working previously.


----------



## pandrad61 (Jul 8, 2015)

> my mom's '08 avenger was like that too. We were moving cars around one winter, and i backed the avenger out into the street to go pull my car in. A minute later, i went to pull her car in, and it flat out would not start. Accessories would work (if i remember correctly), but no noise whatsoever from the key. We initially thought maybe it was something funky with the battery - and that's when we tried to find it, and found out it was in the **** bumper.
> 
> Turned out it was the wireless connection with the key fob (even though it wasn't push-start or anything like that), and it wouldn't communicate with the car to allow it to start. All within a minute of it working previously.


i own old chrysler and mopar.. Like the old stuff but this new crap since the 90's sucks for that brand even worse now that fix it again tony is in charge


----------

