|
stodge
|
 |
« Reply #20 on: May 31, 2006, 10:30:49 pm » |
|
I drove the Equinox and thought it was very peppy. Shame the suspension thudded like it 20 years old.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
stodge
|
|
« Reply #21 on: June 01, 2006, 05:58:40 pm » |
|
And the interior quality was that of a sub-13k car made 10 years ago. The quality of the plastics and dash controls was laughable. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
smainville
Guest
|
|
« Reply #22 on: June 01, 2006, 06:45:47 pm » |
|
Right...yours is in the 10 second range, not 9, so that won't fly  Same 0-60 time as my little 2.7....go figure And only 131 lb curb weight difference. 51 lbs with the AWD. As I said from the beginning, not an amazing engine, that 3.4L. Numbers from AJAC (you favorite source) Tucson 2.7 V60-100 @ 11.4 80-120 @ 8.1 X-Trail 2.5 I40-100 @ 10.2 80-120 @ 8.0 Equinox 3.4 V60-100 @ 9.2 80-120 @ 8.5 So the X-Trail is a little closer to the 9s than the Tucson   |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
gosteelerz
Auto Obsessed
 OfflineVehicle: 2006 Mazda3 Sport 2007 Focus Sedan
Gender: 
Location: Brampton, On
Posts: 643
member
 
|
|
« Reply #23 on: June 01, 2006, 11:20:20 pm » |
|
Numbers from AJAC (you favorite source)
Tucson 2.7 V6
0-100 @ 11.4
80-120 @ 8.1
If that's with the V6 I would hate to see the 4 cyl. You might be able to outrun a dump truck. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Shnak
|
|
« Reply #24 on: June 02, 2006, 09:20:19 am » |
|
And I have the Sportage 2.7L AWD, and it certainly feels faster than 11.4s... the transmission is geared a little conservatively, but if you push it, it sticks in 2nd gear and accelerates pretty good, certainly better than 11.4s.
And laspalmas, that 9.0s you quote, is that with auto or manual? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Shnak
|
|
« Reply #25 on: June 02, 2006, 10:32:20 am » |
|
Oh ok wasn't sure. I never asked about manual... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
footlong58
Auto Obsessed
OfflineVehicle: 2010 Nissan Sentra SE-R
Gender:
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 900
|
|
« Reply #26 on: June 03, 2006, 01:22:13 pm » |
|
Yeah, but who buys a 2WD SUV? That's even LESS useful than most useless SUV's... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Craig
|
|
« Reply #27 on: June 03, 2006, 05:45:40 pm » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
skypoint
Auto Obsessed
Offline
Gender:
Location: Toronto
Posts: 598
Give me a turbo or give me death
|
|
« Reply #28 on: June 05, 2006, 01:05:57 am » |
|
And the interior quality was that of a sub-13k car made 10 years ago. The quality of the plastics and dash controls was laughable.
Absolutely. However, the Torrent's interior quality felt far superior to the Equinox. After sitting in the two, I would never consider buying an Equinox, but would be tempted by the Torrent. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Black 2002 Volvo S60 2.4T
|
|
|
|
|
|
Snowman
|
|
« Reply #29 on: June 05, 2006, 07:24:42 am » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Shnak
|
|
« Reply #30 on: June 05, 2006, 11:35:02 am » |
|
Yeah, but who buys a 2WD SUV? That's even LESS useful than most useless SUV's...
A 2WD SUV is a lot more useful than an Acura EL... that's for damn sure. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
