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.
2018 equinox vs 2017 equinox driver#
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 kommentar(er)
