GMC Terrain, Equinox, and SRX Forum banner

2011 Equinox timing chain replacement under warranty

123K views 84 replies 32 participants last post by  kumarreet21 
#1 ·
I purchased a 2011 Equinox with the 2.4L I4 engine for my wife in April 2014 with 42k miles. Afterwards, I ran across the timing chain problem in reading forums. The Equinox did have a noisy little engine, certainly louder than my 2004 pickup truck. It did consumer excessive oil as well. Over the past year, I decided to be as proactive as possible and change the oil every 3,000 miles with full synthetic. I did not think I could do anything about the timing chain problem, except prolong it with good oil change maintenance.

Fast forward to yesterday, 4/13/15, the Equinox is at 67k miles, I am discussing the timing chain problem with some coworkers. I am thinking of trading it in for another crossover, when my coworkers tell me the 5 year/100k mile powertrain warranty is still intact on the vehicle, until the end of 2015. I figured the warranty had ended when the original owner sold the car. I call the GM dealer down the street and setup an appointment for today, 4/14/15, to have a look at the noisy engine. Just over an hour into the vehicle being dropped off at the shop, I call to also mention the oil usage. The service manager told me the timing chain is being replaced under warranty, the parts are in stock, and the car will be ready by this afternoon. I applaud GM for giving me a no-hassle experience, though I am disappointed there has not been a recall. I had to seek out the repair on my own.

I wanted to present my individual case to my fellow forum users and thank you for providing information about this problem in the 2010-2011 Equinox/Terrain vehicles. I purchased this vehicle, expecting to keep it until it dies, hopefully in the high 200k mile area.
Is the timing chain replacement a long-term solution? Or will this problem rear its ugly head in the future?
 
See less See more
#2 ·
The TSB document download just below, references the extended coverage regarding timing chain, oil consumption, ring wear, and a few other issues. You may find that after replacing the timing chain there still is oil consumption due to ring wear, metal debris from the worn timing chain tensioners, and possible cam phasing actuators. These items have all been covered by extended warranty for most owners.
Here is a document that relates to your TSB warranty coverage: - - - -http://www.archwayprints.com/uploads/latestFile1400872639.pdf
[/url]


There are quite a few who have had the issue on 2010 to 2012 2.4L engines. Yes, GM is aware of it and there are several threads dealing with it here and most owners have had good results with extended warranty GM has offered for this. Also, GM has since redesigned the 2.4L engines. These problems are due mainly to the mandated requirements for less pollution and better fuel efficiency and the car industry going to DI (Direct Injection) technology.

Newer pistons and ring design has been implemented.

Here is a link to an article that barely scratches the surface : * * *

http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2012/12/should-you-buy-a-car-with-direct-injection.html

In GM's defense, these newly developed Direct Injection gasoline engines have technology that has been troublesome to adapt for all the car makers. Car makers have adopted this technology in response to increased pollution and efficiency demands placed upon them by the government. If you do some searches, you will find that Ford, BMW, MB, Honda, Toyota and others are continuing to have problems, but, like GM, also continue to make improvements and modifications to resolve DI compromises in engine operation and durability. For the most part, all of the major car makers, domestic and foreign, have had the same or similar issues, with failed fuel systems, durability issues, and reoccurring problems. . .. until the past 2 years or so.

What you have happened into by buying a 2010-12 Terrain or Equinox was to get in on the advent and learning curve of this new Direct Injection (DI) engine technology. Even accelerated wear and reliability testing by all the car makers did not catch all the issues that have arisen. So in closing, you would have likely had issues no matter what vehicle you purchased with a DI engine in the 2009 to 2013 time frame. And some car makers would not have covered what GM already has done for your vehicle repairs.

Well, I hope this helped a little with some perspective. Believe me, it is not agreeable to me either, to have to do so much research and consideration when buying a car. But these are the times we find ourselves in. Also today, it is imperative to learn and follow proper operation and maintenance items when owning a car. They are not as forgiving as what we were used to 10 or more years ago. Oil levels must be checked at every fuel fill up if not at least twice a month.
Well, I hope this gave a bit more insight. If not, best wishes down the road.
 
#3 ·
glad you had no hassle from the dealer.

On GMs-- the warranty follows the car.


On Hyundai/Kia, with their 100,000 or 10 yr warranty...
the warranty ends-- when the owner sells the car.
 
#4 ·
As a followup: I picked the vehicle up in the afternoon and it runs much quieter now. The dealer also found that the oil was diluted by gas, and replaced the high presuure fuel pump.
I'm not sure if all of this is a long-term fix for the vehicle. I originally planned to keep it until it died, hopefully in the 250-300k mile area. Is there any information about this problem occuring after the fix has been made? Is the vehicle's life shortened? Just weighing on whether I should keep the Equinox or trade it in for a different SUV.
 
#5 ·
spaceman_spiff said:
As a followup: I picked the vehicle up in the afternoon and it runs much quieter now. The dealer also found that the oil was diluted by gas, and replaced the high presuure fuel pump.
I'm not sure if all of this is a long-term fix for the vehicle. I originally planned to keep it until it died, hopefully in the 250-300k mile area. Is there any information about this problem occuring after the fix has been made? Is the vehicle's life shortened? Just weighing on whether I should keep the Equinox or trade it in for a different SUV.
Yes. . . there are still potential problems because of running the engine with oil diluted by fuel.

Pluse, in case you missed it downlaod and read THIS GM Technical Service Bulletin: - - - -http://www.archwayprints.com/uploads/latestFile1400872639.pdf
[/url]


There were other fixes for the 2010 to 2012 model year 2.4L engines including better piston rings and more. 2013 and newer have very improved designs and have had no issues.
 
#7 ·
spaceman_spiff said:
Thanks. Yes, I had read the Tech Service Bulletin from one of your prior posts on this forum that informed me of the timing chain problem. That zebra striping issue can't be good.
All of the issues in the TSB are covered by an extended warranty for 2010 to 2012 2.4L engines. So if you still are using oil (recommended checking every 4 days) then the rings and pistons will likely need replacing. Print the TSB out in case you need to take it to the dealer and show him you are aware of additional issues and coverage.
 
#8 ·
rbarrios said:
On Hyundai/Kia, with their 100,000 or 10 yr warranty...
the warranty ends-- when the owner sells the car.
Interesting - wondering if this is part of the reason why the Korean cars' resale value had not been very good - although I think it has come a long way.
 
#9 ·
Took my 2011 2.4 into the dealer for Seat bolt recall, they noticed the timing chain rattle. They said it had to be fixed. They then noticed my oil was low! I was 4200 miles into my 6000 mile interval. Aside from that, I told the service rep about this service bulletin. His reply bothered me, so please post my next move if I need to do something different.

His reply: "We need to do an oil consumption test. We top you off today after we fix your timing chain issue. Then, you monitor the oil level. You come in whenever its low (any time it falls between full and empty on the dipstick), and I document the level, and how much oil we had to add. We have to have 4 readings before we can open the engine."


So, after today, my timing chain issue is getting fixed, and they are doing the oil change (i'm only getting charged 45 for the full synthetic oil change vs 86-bleh), but they have me by the balls because I use full synthetic and not the partial synthetic they put it in from the factory. I have to check the oil every few days to check for oil consumption.

I'm frustrated to say the least. I love my Equinox, but now that its burning oil, and the oil was dirty (don't believe him, and they had already drained the oil when I asked for a sample to send in for testing)...I'm getting to a point where this may be getting close to the end of the line for this Equinox owner's experience.
 
#10 ·
The TSB document download just below, references the extended coverage regarding timing chain, oil consumption, ring wear, and a few other issues. You may find that after replacing the timing chain there still is oil consumption due to ring wear, metal debris from the worn timing chain tensioners, and possible cam phasing actuators. These items have all been covered by extended warranty for most owners.
Here is a document that relates to your TSB warranty coverage: - - - -http://www.archwayprints.com/uploads/latestFile1400872639.pdf
[/url]


There are quite a few who have had the issue on 2010 to 2012 2.4L engines. Yes, GM is aware of it and there are several threads dealing with it here and most owners have had good results with extended warranty GM has offered for this. Also, GM has since redesigned the 2.4L engines. These problems are due mainly to the mandated requirements for less pollution and better fuel efficiency and the car industry going to DI (Direct Injection) technology.

Newer pistons and ring design has been implemented.

Here is a link to an article that barely scratches the surface : * * *

http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2012/12/should-you-buy-a-car-with-direct-injection.html

In GM's defense, these newly developed Direct Injection gasoline engines have technology that has been troublesome to adapt for all the car makers. Car makers have adopted this technology in response to increased pollution and efficiency demands placed upon them by the government. If you do some searches, you will find that Ford, BMW, MB, Honda, Toyota and others are continuing to have problems, but, like GM, also continue to make improvements and modifications to resolve DI compromises in engine operation and durability. For the most part, all of the major car makers, domestic and foreign, have had the same or similar issues, with failed fuel systems, durability issues, and reoccurring problems. . .. until the past 2 years or so.

What you have happened into by buying a 2010-12 Terrain or Equinox was to get in on the advent and learning curve of this new Direct Injection (DI) engine technology. Even accelerated wear and reliability testing by all the car makers did not catch all the issues that have arisen. So in closing, you would have likely had issues no matter what vehicle you purchased with a DI engine in the 2009 to 2013 time frame. And some car makers would not have covered what GM already has done for your vehicle repairs.

Well, I hope this helped a little with some perspective. Believe me, it is not agreeable to me either, to have to do so much research and consideration when buying a car. But these are the times we find ourselves in. Also today, it is imperative to learn and follow proper operation and maintenance items when owning a car. They are not as forgiving as what we were used to 10 or more years ago. Oil levels must be checked at every fuel fill up if not at least twice a month.
Well, I hope this gave a bit more insight. If not, best wishes down the road.
 
#11 ·
JayTee2014 said:
In GM's defense, these newly developed Direct Injection gasoline engines have technology that has been troublesome to adapt for all the car makers.

What you have happened into by buying a 2010-12 Terrain or Equinox was to get in on the advent and learning curve of this new Direct Injection (DI) engine technology. Even accelerated wear and reliability testing by all the car makers did not catch all the issues that have arisen. So in closing, you would have likely had issues no matter what vehicle you purchased with a DI engine in the 2009 to 2013 time frame. And some car makers would not have covered what GM already has done for your vehicle repairs.

Well, I hope this helped a little with some perspective. Also today, it is imperative to learn and follow proper operation and maintenance items when owning a car. They are not as forgiving as what we were used to 10 or more years ago. Oil levels must be checked at every fuel fill up if not at least twice a month.
Has the Direct Injection (DI) technology really been 'troublesome', or did GM just build a batch of bad engines?

My 2011 V6 Nox has a (DI) engine and it's been trouble-free for 75,000 miles now. In fact, I think the track record of the V6 so far has been very good, so I don't think you can say "you would have likely had issues no matter what vehicle you purchased with a DI engine in the 2009 to 2013 time frame"

Now, the 2.4's are another story. But I think the failures there have had more to do with GM just making bad engines rather than troubles with the DI technology, otherwise the V6's would've been failing at a similar rate. Isn't GM repairing these defective engines really more of a "We-screwed-up-and-we're-trying-to-make-it-right-for-you" type of thing, rather than challenges with building a DI engine?

Lastly, in 4.5 years now since I bought my '11 V6 Nox new, I've never *once* checked the oil dipstick in between oil changes. In fact, in 30 years of driving and maintaining my cars myself, I can't remember *ever* pulling the dipstick in between oil changes on *any* of the cars I've ever owned (but maybe I did it once or twice). I change the oil and filter at regular intervals and that's the end of it. I don't think about it again until the next oil change. That's the way it should be. If you want to check it at every fill-up, then fine ... go ahead, but nobody should *have* to do that (on a newer engine). A *newer engine* should hold its oil between oil changes, and if it can't - it's a *defective* engine.
 
#12 ·
Nope. . .. you need to read the Autoguide article I included in the above link. DI engines tech has been a struggle for even luxury car makers. BMW, Mercedes, etc. A "batch" of bad engines? I guess you could look at it that way. Except there were also timing chain issues with the earlier V6 (both 3.4L and 3.6L) engines as well, although not necessarily DI related. But who knows. The point is Ford, Toyota and others have had DI engines struggles. The potential for carbon build up on the intake valves is pretty much a DI engine gremlin.

And, yup. Same here. An engine should hold it's oil pretty much between changes. +35 vehicle owner here over the years and I had a few that used some oil, but only a couple that needed say a half to one quart in 3K miles. So far my 2015 Equinox V6 only uses a few ounces in 3K miles. And that I found in the catch can I installed. So engines do use oil in 3K to 7K miles of use. That isn't to say that checking oil level a couple times a month isn't a prudent thing to do. Most owners manual over the years would say so.

And, lastly, of course GM is trying to do the right thing. Don't most car makers that want to stay in business? That said, GM and other car makers could have done more extensive life testing before the DI engine tech was so widely utilized. And the 2.4L rings that were redesigned were a miss. The 2.4L high pressure fuel pump issue was an unforeseen DI snafu. I don't know how much testing would show up a seal that would fail over time and leak fuel into the oil contributing also to timing chain, cam actuators, etc failures. Even catalytic converter failures are reported because of oil consumption.

So, yes, I think it is fair to say DI engine tech contributed in a large way.

So then.. . . must still be bored here , huh? LOL :cheers:
 
#13 ·
Colt Hero said:
Has the Direct Injection (DI) technology really been 'troublesome', or did GM just build a batch of bad engines?

My 2011 V6 Nox has a (DI) engine and it's been trouble-free for 75,000 miles now. In fact, I think the track record of the V6 so far has been very good, so I don't think you can say "you would have likely had issues no matter what vehicle you purchased with a DI engine in the 2009 to 2013 time frame"

Now, the 2.4's are another story. But I think the failures there have had more to do with GM just making bad engines rather than troubles with the DI technology, otherwise the V6's would've been failing at a similar rate. Isn't GM repairing these defective engines really more of a "We-screwed-up-and-we're-trying-to-make-it-right-for-you" type of thing, rather than challenges with building a DI engine?

Lastly, in 4.5 years now since I bought my '11 V6 Nox new, I've never *once* checked the oil dipstick in between oil changes. In fact, in 30 years of driving and maintaining my cars myself, I can't remember *ever* pulling the dipstick in between oil changes on *any* of the cars I've ever owned (but maybe I did it once or twice). I change the oil and filter at regular intervals and that's the end of it. I don't think about it again until the next oil change. That's the way it should be. If you want to check it at every fill-up, then fine ... go ahead, but nobody should *have* to do that (on a newer engine). A *newer engine* should hold its oil between oil changes, and if it can't - it's a *defective* engine.
Do you ever check the antifreeze, transmission fluid (on transmissions that can be easily checked), power steering fluid (on engines with a hydralic pump), or air in the tires (including the spare)?
 
#14 ·
Colt Hero said:
... I've never *once* checked the oil dipstick in between oil changes. In fact, in 30 years of driving and maintaining my cars myself, I can't remember *ever* pulling the dipstick in between oil changes on *any* of the cars I've ever owned (but maybe I did it once or twice). I change the oil and filter at regular intervals and that's the end of it. I don't think about it again until the next oil change. That's the way it should be. If you want to check it at every fill-up, then fine ... go ahead, but nobody should *have* to do that (on a newer engine). A *newer engine* should hold its oil between oil changes, and if it can't - it's a *defective* engine.
Your experience and mine have been the same. I agree that the oil level should stay within limits between oil changes (every 4000 miles for me) or something is wrong with the engine. Blaming oil consumption on DI technology is nonsense. DI technology has been around for years in Diesel engines and has worked well.
 
#15 ·
EquinoxTN said:
Your experience and mine have been the same. I agree that the oil level should stay within limits between oil changes (every 4000 miles for me) or something is wrong with the engine. Blaming oil consumption on DI technology is nonsense. DI technology has been around for years in Diesel engines and has worked well.

Oh
Ok. . . clairfication. And not just "oil consumption" problems. We're talking Gasoline DI tech in widely used consumer vehicles. The Autoguide article and others , if searched for on the net, pretty much show gasoline DI tech has had it's struggles. It is new for for use in the past few years on all the major brands. Go back 6 or 7 years and you will be hard pressed to find a GM, Ford, Chrysler, etc gasoline DI engine in wide use.

Regarding the "oil consumption" issue on the earlier 2.4L example, however, certainly has a helper in the failed high pressure DI fuel pump seal that diluted the oil and therefore contributed to oil being used.
 
#16 ·
I also agree the engine oil shouldn't need to be refilled between oil changes. Every other car owner feels that way too. Every manufacturer shoots for that goal.
No offense, but it feels to me some of you are making it sound easy. IMO, you should try building a modern engine then see if you can guarantee <1 qt oil loss between oil changes for 100k miles. It ain't easy. Then you need to mass produce them. And be profitable.

As for direct injection affecting engines, I'm just playing the devil's advocate here:
The fuel being direct-injected into the cylinders are at much higher pressures than older port-injected systems. Gasoline is a good "detergent" to wash oil off contaminated surfaces (I use gasoline to wash off oil spots on driveways). One possibility is the direct injector is at a different angle in the heads for the 2.4 vs the 3.0/3.6 engines. Perhaps the 2.4 is injectors are washing off more oil from the cylinder liners than for the V6? So the former, cheaper iron piston rings in the 2.4 couldn't stand to the diluted oil cylinders and wore out faster leading to higher oil consumption earlier in engine life. When GM updated the ring material to a moly coating, the rings seems to have held up better. I don't know what rings are used in the 3.0/3.6 - perhaps they already come with the moly rings? (The 2.4 engine is supposed to be considered a cheap build vs the V6 which is supposed to be a little premium offering.) The 2.4 engine has been used in years before without the direct injection, and they were cheap and reliable.

There are lots of things in life that should or should not happen. Doesn't give you the excuse to be reckless. Colt Hero, frankly, I'm a bit surprised you don't check your vehicle's vital fluids. After you'll try to squeeze every dollar out of maintenance, you'll neglect the $20k investment you made for the next several thousand miles? Not being frugal. But then again, you're definitely not the only one doing this. :shrug:

In my opinion, it's nonsense comparing a cheaper gasoline engine to an expensive diesel engine. Yeah, direct injection technology has been around for years, but diesel engines are built with different materials. Even the engine oil used are much different! How about comparing the GM 3.6 to the Ferrari 3.6? Why can the Ferrari 3.6 make 125 hp more than GM's engine?! Ferrari's technology has also been around for years! :facepalm:
 
#18 ·
The point is/was, the 2.4L engine was around long before gasoline DI tech was used on it. Bang. . . all of a sudden a number of issues crop up with it use and associated changes in applying it to that engine.

Fast forward. GM issues a TSB outlining several issues (timing chain, actuators, fuel pump, etc) and redesign the engine with more rigorous parts. Also repairs customers engines of affected years. GM includes new design elements on the 2.4L gasoline DI engine. Apparently issues are resolved.


Articles appear on the net indicating issues with other car makers use of gasoline DI engines. Just growing pains and unfortunate for those car owners affected.

Anyway, just my opinion and siting a few links in my earlier post to show where to get the TSB and some related industry articles.

Read and use with how many grains of salt that you wish. I like salt on my pretzels and popcorn. :cheers:
 
#19 ·
1995 White CS Coupe:

Do I *ever* check those things? Well, yeah .. on an older vehicle (where I'm aware of a problem, either because the temp gauge has started to creep up, or the steering is starting to whine, or whatever). On a *new vehicle* I'm not checking these things - unless I'm going on a long trip ... then, of course, I'm going through everything on the vehicle.

JayTee2014:

I've read articles like the one you posted the link to - and they pretty much all say the same thing. They all harp on two things (which are long-term concerns):

1.) Carbon build-up over time.

2.) High-pressure fuel system concerns.

But when engines are failing right out of the block, that's defective engines (or defective parts contributing to defective engines). That's not "challenges with DI technology". It's convenient to blame it on that, but they've proven they can successfully implement it *here*, so why did it fail *there*?

And what percentage of those 2.4L engines failed? Does anybody (other than GM) know? We know it wasn't *all* of them. Maybe it was 30%? Just guessing. So why didn't the rest of them fail? Seems like a quality issue to me.

Chas:

Since I've maintained all of my cars for 30 years now, I certainly *do* appreciate what goes into designing and building an automobile. It always amazes me that, with all their intricate parts, automobiles are as reliable as they are (which is *very* reliable - typically). That said, I would have absolutely *no patience* with *any* manufacturer that sold me a *brand new* vehicle which turned out to be unreliable. That's primarily what I'm purchasing when I buy a new vehicle: RELIABILITY (and for the next 4 years, *at least*). And if I'm making it sound "easy" that's because it *should* be (for them). We're talking about mega-sized companies here, with endless resources including very smart (and experienced) people, very advanced manufacturing technologies, etc. And they've been doing it for 100 years!! We're also talking about adapting an existing technology here. It's primarily an engine design 'tweak'. It's not like this is the Jetsons. It's still an internal combustion engine with four wheels on the ground. Heck, to put this in even more perspective, I would say that implementing DI technology isn't even close to what Toyota did *15 years ago* with the introduction of the Prius. Now THAT was an eye-opening achievement. Toyota designed and built that completely new technology, and got it to market well ahead of anybody else, in a nearly flawless manner! Today they make several popular and successful models of the Prius, while GM flounders (for one reason or another) with the Volt. Seems to be a trend here, no?
 
#21 ·
Chas said:
There are lots of things in life that should or should not happen. Doesn't give you the excuse to be reckless. Colt Hero, frankly, I'm a bit surprised you don't check your vehicle's vital fluids. After you'll try to squeeze every dollar out of maintenance, you'll neglect the $20k investment you made for the next several thousand miles? Not being frugal. But then again, you're definitely not the only one doing this. :shrug:
I consider myself a de-facto mechanic. I'm very comfortable doing what I do. I don't think it's reckless in the least. We're talking about new vehicles here. It's not like I'm driving the car 15,000 miles and never opening the hood! I change my synthetic oil every 5,000 miles. At that point, I'm looking around the engine compartment for anything amiss. I can see the fluid levels in the tanks. I can see if anything's leaking. I can smell burning oil or coolant. And then in the interim, the vehicle is telling me what might be going wrong via its gauges, sounds, or driveability. For someone who doesn't maintain their own vehicle, and doesn't have a sense for the kinds of problems automobiles develop over time, maybe they need to be more vigilant and continuously pull those dipsticks and caps.

And with regard to the Owner's Manual - I have to admit that I rarely "read" it. It's so high-level that it's almost worthless beyond such things as fluid and filter types. Yeah, there's the occasional discovery of some feature you didn't know your vehicle had, but by-and-large, it's a fairly worthless book. I only *refer* to it (maybe) once, then it goes into the drawer, probably never to be seen again. But tonight I'm going to read what it says about oil changes and monitoring the oil level on my Nox. I can't wait ...
 
#22 ·
P. 11-9 In 2014-15 Equinox Owners Manual:

Fluids
Proper fluid levels and approved
fluids protect the vehicle’s systems
and components. See
Recommended Fluids and
Lubricants on page 11-11 for GM
approved fluids.
. Engine oil and windshield
washer fluid levels should be
checked at every fuel fill.
. Instrument cluster lights may
come on to indicate that fluids
may be low and need to be
filled.
 
#23 ·
Yeah, Colt Hero, I know you're happy to see this debate. Makes your Friday, huh? :cheers:

Hyperboles make it difficult to have logical discussions. If I wanted to get technical:
Colt Hero said:
That's primarily what I'm purchasing when I buy a new vehicle: RELIABILITY (and for the next 4 years, *at least*). And if I'm making it sound "easy" that's because it *should* be (for them). We're talking about mega-sized companies here, with endless resources including very smart (and experienced) people, very advanced manufacturing technologies, etc. And they've been doing it for 100 years!! We're also talking about adapting an existing technology here. It's primarily an engine design 'tweak'. It's not like this is the Jetsons. It's still an internal combustion engine with four wheels on the ground.
1) Didn't you rip GM in an earlier thread for taking out a Federal bailout to fend of bankruptcy? This isn't the 70's. GM doesn't have "endless resources".
2) Prior to the 2010's, there were absolutely zero experience with gasoline direct injection technology at GM. Or am I mistaken?
3) GM is a low budget brand and they try to provide high technology at cheap prices. This challenge is far more complicated than the Jetsons. If you wouldn't mind forking over $100k for an Equinox, I'm sure GM can design it to be super reliable for 4 years.

Colt Hero said:
Heck, to put this in even more perspective, I would say that implementing DI technology isn't even close to what Toyota did *15 years ago* with the introduction of the Prius. Now THAT was an eye-opening achievement. Toyota designed and built that completely new technology, and got it to market well ahead of anybody else, in a nearly flawless manner! Today they make several popular and successful models of the Prius, while GM flounders (for one reason or another) with the Volt. Seems to be a trend here, no?
I don't want to go off point with this, so I'll only briefly discuss this. These were found with a simple Google search:
1) The first generation Prius had major design flaws "including poor performance in both hot climates and high altitudes".
2) Some additional troubles: "Steering box issue, HC absorber Cat sticking valve, and the HV battery sealing" along with "throttle sensor has been an issue but there is a member servicing them."
3) I'm not gonna waste any time looking further into the Prius. Quite simply, you and I don't own a Prius, so we have no idea the reliability of them. Apparently you were awed by the "new" technology Toyota was offering. However, still true today as it was then, the Prius is not cost competitive to gasoline vehicles. The Chevy Volt has this same cost competitive problem. From the first Prius out in 1997 to the end of its generation in 2004, there were only 41,300 Prius sold in the US. GM probably sells 40k Equinox and Terrains in about two months. I wouldn't call the Prius a "success", but I still compliment Toyota's effort. And I also commend GM's effort with the Volt. I prefer the Volt's approach to using plugged in electricity first, then revert to gasoline to generate electricity for longer trips rather than the 1st generation Prius which would only use the battery to capture gradual deceleration energy (can't be plugged in). As a matter of fact, some Prius owners took to hacking their ECM to have it function more like how the Volt is designed.
I like electric cars, but petroleum energy is cheap. I like my $$$ better. I've been eyeing Tesla, but they are far from cheap!

Colt Hero said:
I consider myself a de-facto mechanic. I'm very comfortable doing what I do. I don't think it's reckless in the least. We're talking about new vehicles here. It's not like I'm driving the car 15,000 miles and never opening the hood! I change my synthetic oil every 5,000 miles. At that point, I'm looking around the engine compartment for anything amiss. I can see the fluid levels in the tanks. I can see if anything's leaking. I can smell burning oil or coolant. And then in the interim, the vehicle is telling me what might be going wrong via its gauges, sounds, or driveability. For someone who doesn't maintain their own vehicle, and doesn't have a sense for the kinds of problems automobiles develop over time, maybe they need to be more vigilant and continuously pull those dipsticks and caps.

And with regard to the Owner's Manual - I have to admit that I rarely "read" it. It's so high-level that it's almost worthless beyond such things as fluid and filter types. Yeah, there's the occasional discovery of some feature you didn't know your vehicle had, but by-and-large, it's a fairly worthless book. I only *refer* to it (maybe) once, then it goes into the drawer, probably never to be seen again. But tonight I'm going to read what it says about oil changes and monitoring the oil level on my Nox. I can't wait ...
You certainly seem to know your way around the engine which is why it's surprising to me that you won't inspect it more frequently than just at oil changes. At the gas station, it literally takes less than a minute to pop your hood and read the oil level on the dipstick! And then take a glimpse around the engine bay. Do this while the nozzle is fueling up the tank so it really doesn't take any additional time from your day. I don't understand why you're refusing to do this?

I do agree with you - any brand new vehicle should be trouble-free for the first few years. Everyone agrees with you about this. Even GM does too! This is not where my disagreement is with you, Colt Hero.

Let me try this analogy:
A person buys a stock and after 5 years, it blooms and returns 100 times the initial investment. This happens quite often in today's world. Does this mean the next stock the person buys should return 100 times in the next 5 years? The common saying is: "Past performance is not a indicator of future risk."

Colt Hero, just because the previous brand new cars you've bought before were trouble-free does not mean your next one will be.
GM says when they're selling a brand new vehicle to you, they will guarantee:
1) Every non-wear item to be in good working condition for 36k miles or 36 months.
2) Critical powertrain items to be in good working condition for 100k miles or 60 months.
Any premature failure will be covered by GM only within these timeframes. Any earlier damage/excessive wear that spoils the vehicle beyond these timeframes are simply not covered by GM. Colt Hero, you can expect your car to last 200k miles, but it's not what GM is selling.

Simply: there is no oil level indicator for the Equinox and Terrain. The oil level can drop below minimum level in less than 5k miles. This low level operation can cause premature wear and significantly shorten the engine lifespan. GM will attempt to keep it running sufficiently past 100k miles or 60 months. Then it's dumped on to you.

My disagreement is simply: every owner should check the engine vitals at every fuel fill up. If I noticed oil consumption (perhaps lost 1/2 quart after 500 miles), I'll be booking an appointment with a dealership to get it fixed before any engine damage happens. So after the repair, my engine has a better chance at a longer lifespan than the others' engines who were kept running while they were 2 quarts low or whatever.
 
#24 ·
JayTee2014 said:
P. 11-9 In 2014-15 Equinox Owners Manual:

Fluids
Proper fluid levels and approved
fluids protect the vehicle’s systems
and components. See
Recommended Fluids and
Lubricants on page 11-11 for GM
approved fluids.
. Engine oil and windshield
washer fluid levels should be
checked at every fuel fill.
. Instrument cluster lights may
come on to indicate that fluids
may be low and need to be
filled.
Thanks! Got home late from work, ate my supper, and the next thing I knew it was 12:30 am! Wasn't about to dig out the Owner's Manual at that point.

Is that *all* the verbiage for the fluids? If so, why are they only telling you to check the engine oil and windshield washer fluids at every fuel fill? Why not mention to check the coolant, brake fluid, power steering fluid (on the V6's), and tranny fluid levels ... oh, that's right ... no dipstick for the tranny fluid. BTW: Is the transmission cooler integrated into the radiator or is it separate on the Nox? Haven't bothered to check. If it's integrated, should probably be a dipstick.

=============================
Chas:

I don't think I "ripped" GM for taking the bailout. That was somebody else (or group).

$100k for a reliable GM car? We're getting a bit ridiculous now ...

C'mon - you gotta give Toyota credit for the Prius. I'm not saying the direct-injection engine thing was 'nothing', but it's a tweak of an existing design that most everyone was doing. Toyota went it alone with the Prius, and it was completely new technology. It was a bold move with guaranteed losses up-front. I don't own a Prius because I still think the value isn't quite there for *me*, but it's not *that* far off, and I'm sure I'll own a plug-in (or at least a hybrid of some kind) in the next 10-15 years.

Your stock analogy is certainly true with the "past performance" thing, but I guess I just come to trust my vehicles based on the intimate relationship we share (LOL!). What's kind of funny here is - I'm the one criticizing GM, but I trust my GM car, while others apologize or defend GM - but they're checking their fluids every 300 miles.

If I buy a new vehicle and the engine consumes a 1/2 Qt at 500 miles, 1 Qt at 1000 miles, and by the time I do an oil change only 2-3 Qts come out - *wherever this might occur within the warranty period*, then it's a *defective engine*. And if it's a defective engine, then I'd rather see it totally seize up and destroy itself than try to save it so that the manufacturer and its complicit dealership can turn me into their personal test lab while they try to figure out what's wrong. I understand that parts around the engine can fail, but major *internal* failures I won't tolerate.

They'll get the vehicle back with the pistons welded to the cylinder walls...
 
#26 ·
GOOD luck but my engine was never any good even after all the work done the problems kept returning and i did not have the time to keep going to the dealership every week and waste all my time, some people have to work and GM ANSWER JUST KEEP BRINGING IT BACK WE WILL KEEP TRYING TO FIX IT :banghead:
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top