4 ms·

Oddly enough, the Equinox uses the same V6 engine as the Impala and Cadillac. I guess it comes down to how you use the vehicle and not how you power it. The 3.6

Oddly enough, the Equinox uses the same V6 engine as the Impala and Cadillac. I guess it comes down to how you use the vehicle and not how you power it. The 3.6L V6 VVT is a good engine too -- reliable, 300+ hp, 30+ mpg hwy, etc. Built in Detroit even though the vehicles are assembled in Oshawa. This shutdown is a bellwether, not just a cost move.

markvdb 8y ago
Very much off topic: 3.6l is >2 times more cylinder volume than useful in >95% of scenarios. Pick your favorite reason to minimise your crude oil consumption. Global warming and not subsidising oil despots are two good ones to me.
- OldManAndTheCpp 8y ago
  In order to show that the engines are wastefully large, you first have to show how a smaller engine provides better fuel efficiency over the 95% range, and then show how the remaining 5% is unimportant. For example, if the big engine is 5% less efficient over the power range of the little engine, but the increased max power it provides allows you to accelerate out of getting stuck in the snow, or travel at safe speeds up mountain roads, reasonable people might decide that the trade offs are acceptable.
  - slededit 8y ago
    Have you ever seen a muscle car in the snow? A big engine in a car is practical for nothing except having fun. That’s why my car has 300hp and my next will as well. But I don’t pretend I’m saving the environment or that it’s practical.
- johnohara 8y ago
  Disagree it's off-topic. Automobile manufacturers are focused on sales and right now they are moving with the market toward SUV's. The 3.6L engine is in both GM sedans and GM SUV's. Same engine, different body style. This move by GM means they are focused on production and it's probably too expensive to retool these plants. Very much topic-related. Not sure where you're going with the "oil despots" statement. That seems off-topic.
- linksnapzz 8y ago
  Clearly, 640K is enough RAM for anyone.
- freehunter 8y ago
  Cars are very expensive ($30k on average), and their production is a huge use of crude oil and water and electricity. What you seem to be advocating (and maybe I'm reading this wrong) is that people buy multiple cars, one small fuel efficient everyday driver, and one bigger more powerful vehicle for the 5% of the time they need something bigger than a Fiat. Humans are heavy, cargo is heavy, trailers are heavy, and furniture is big. A 1.8L engine in a subcompact can't always support those use cases. I don't know too many people who could afford a $20k car to drive to work and then a $40k truck just to park in their garage 95% of the time. And if they can, they're buying a BMW instead.
  - ip26 8y ago
    What do you require a 3.6L for? A 1.8L will move all the cargo you care to. A 2.5L tows my 1200lb camper over high mountain passes. A big engine is really only a must if you are towing something north of a ton, as far as I'm aware. People tend to buy more engine than they need, and 1.8L's are more powerful than ever. And nobody had 300hp thirty years ago except the sports cars. We survived.
    - freehunter 8y ago
      The average American camper weighs 5,200lbs [1] completely empty. Once it's loaded with water, fuel, and gear, it's about 1,500 lbs heavier. I encourage you to find a 1.8L engine that will tow a 6,000+ lb trailer over a mountain pass. I'm guessing the next argument will be "yeah but no one needs a 5,000 lb camper" to which I will say "why do you need a camper or car at all if you're trying to save the environment" to which the response will be "yeah but" and then I'll come back with "but no" and then I'll get yelled at by `dang so let's skip all that and say someone buying a 3.6L engine they don't need is a bad thing but so is the self-righteous idea that what works for you must always work for everyone else, and then agree that we're not going to solve the world's climate problems with throwaway HN comments. [1] https://camperreport.com/camper-weight/ https://camperreport.com/camper-weight/
      - ip26 8y ago

markvdb 8y ago

Very much off topic: 3.6l is >2 times more cylinder volume than useful in >95% of scenarios. Pick your favorite reason to minimise your crude oil consumption. Global warming and not subsidising oil despots are two good ones to me.

OldManAndTheCpp 8y ago
In order to show that the engines are wastefully large, you first have to show how a smaller engine provides better fuel efficiency over the 95% range, and then show how the remaining 5% is unimportant. For example, if the big engine is 5% less efficient over the power range of the little engine, but the increased max power it provides allows you to accelerate out of getting stuck in the snow, or travel at safe speeds up mountain roads, reasonable people might decide that the trade offs are acceptable.
- slededit 8y ago
  Have you ever seen a muscle car in the snow? A big engine in a car is practical for nothing except having fun. That’s why my car has 300hp and my next will as well. But I don’t pretend I’m saving the environment or that it’s practical.
johnohara 8y ago
Disagree it's off-topic. Automobile manufacturers are focused on sales and right now they are moving with the market toward SUV's. The 3.6L engine is in both GM sedans and GM SUV's. Same engine, different body style. This move by GM means they are focused on production and it's probably too expensive to retool these plants. Very much topic-related. Not sure where you're going with the "oil despots" statement. That seems off-topic.
linksnapzz 8y ago
Clearly, 640K is enough RAM for anyone.
freehunter 8y ago
Cars are very expensive ($30k on average), and their production is a huge use of crude oil and water and electricity. What you seem to be advocating (and maybe I'm reading this wrong) is that people buy multiple cars, one small fuel efficient everyday driver, and one bigger more powerful vehicle for the 5% of the time they need something bigger than a Fiat. Humans are heavy, cargo is heavy, trailers are heavy, and furniture is big. A 1.8L engine in a subcompact can't always support those use cases. I don't know too many people who could afford a $20k car to drive to work and then a $40k truck just to park in their garage 95% of the time. And if they can, they're buying a BMW instead.
- ip26 8y ago
  What do you require a 3.6L for? A 1.8L will move all the cargo you care to. A 2.5L tows my 1200lb camper over high mountain passes. A big engine is really only a must if you are towing something north of a ton, as far as I'm aware. People tend to buy more engine than they need, and 1.8L's are more powerful than ever. And nobody had 300hp thirty years ago except the sports cars. We survived.
  - freehunter 8y ago
    The average American camper weighs 5,200lbs [1] completely empty. Once it's loaded with water, fuel, and gear, it's about 1,500 lbs heavier. I encourage you to find a 1.8L engine that will tow a 6,000+ lb trailer over a mountain pass. I'm guessing the next argument will be "yeah but no one needs a 5,000 lb camper" to which I will say "why do you need a camper or car at all if you're trying to save the environment" to which the response will be "yeah but" and then I'll come back with "but no" and then I'll get yelled at by `dang so let's skip all that and say someone buying a 3.6L engine they don't need is a bad thing but so is the self-righteous idea that what works for you must always work for everyone else, and then agree that we're not going to solve the world's climate problems with throwaway HN comments. [1] https://camperreport.com/camper-weight/ https://camperreport.com/camper-weight/
    - ip26 8y ago