8/6/2023 0 Comments 2018 equinox vs 2017 equinox![]() ![]() The CX-5 does miss out on the Holden’s self-parking capability though.īoth Mazda and Holden come with standard, self-dipping LED headlights although the CX-5’s sophisticated “adaptive” system, which regulates the LEDs to suit prevailing circumstances, we tended to prefer the Equinox’s simpler on-off system because of its excellent high-beam penetration. Like the CX-5, it comes with lane-departure warning, lane-keep assist, blind-spot monitoring and rear cross-traffic alert – but it misses out on the adaptive cruise control we’re coming to expect even at less hi-falutin levels of the market.Įqually, the autonomous emergency braking system (AEB) is low-speed only where the Mazda system functions at high and low speeds, and in reverse. The Equinox is not short on safety technology. However, in 19-inch-wheel, AWD LTZ-V form, it has a 12.7m turning circle which is way more than the 11.0m Mazda. The Equinox is a bit better at towing too, rated at 2000kg for a braked trailer against the Mazda’s 1800kg. Sit five passengers in the six-speed auto CX-5, and the extra weight has the aspirated powerplant beginning to show signs of a struggle. ![]() Opinions on the quality of the Holden’s steering were mixed: Some believed it felt a bit more artificial than the CX-5, while others noted there was a nice crispness to initial driver inputs that compared favourably against the Mazda’s tendency towards slower reactions.īut coupled with what we thought was really a more-than-satisfactory ride/handling compromise, was the Holden’s authoritative power supply.Īdd the benefits of the nine-speed auto and you get a mid-size SUV that performs with enthusiasm, even when fully loaded. It softened-out the bumps better and, in the composed, quiet way it handled a wide spectrum of road challenges from undulating bitumen, to rough, poorly-maintained surfaces, to smooth, open freeways, felt more at one with the driver. There was a bit of an about-face when the two were judged on overall road behaviour though: Not to say we were unimpressed with the Holden’s Australia-friendly suspension tune, but the Mazda had a clear edge in terms of its overall ride-handling balance. Fuel tank sizes are essentially the same: 59 litres for the Equinox and 58 litres for the Mazda. As expected, the differences were reflected during our comparison, where the Mazda sat happily around 8.5L/100km and the Equinox struggled to get below 10.0L/100km.Īnd the Holden asks for a 95 RON diet where the Mazda is happy with regular unleaded, or an E10 ethanol mix (if you can find an outlet). ![]() The Holden (heavier, at 1735kg tare compared with the Mazda’s 1670kg) claims 8.4L/100km and 196g/km against the Mazda’s 7.4L/100km and 175g/km. Road trippingĪt this point the Equinox shows a clear lead: Fielding its beefier turbo engine the LTZ-V is already a big step ahead of the CX-5 Akera’s 140kW/252Nm 2.5-litre aspirated petrol engine – although there is a price to pay in both fuel economy and exhaust emissions. To get a clear idea, we are here taking a look at how the top-spec Equinox LTZ-V compares with the best that the segment-leading, Japanese-built CX-5 Mazda has to offer: the Akera-spec model which we elected to test, in the interests of fuel-diet equivalence, in petrol form rather than the pricier diesel. What does all this mean when the new Holden is thrown into the mid-size SUV mix? Whichever engine, AWD doesn’t become available until LTZ level, where it adds $4300 to the price. ![]() On top of that, the Equinox picks up two new turbo-petrol engines: A base 127kW/275Nm 1.5-litre and, from LT upwards, a way more powerful 188kW/353Nm 2.0-litre – the former driving through a six-speed automatic transmission and the latter, a nine-speeder. It is shorter than the Captiva by a mere 21mm yet, at 2725mm, has an 18mm longer wheelbase, meaning reduced overhangs. Although it’s roughly the same size as the ousted Captiva, the Mexican-built Equinox somehow looks bigger, maybe because its proportions are more satisfactorily balanced through having a slightly lower roofline (1697 against 1727mm) and essentially the same width (1843 against 1849mm). ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |