Compare Chevrolet Equinox vs Chevrolet Traverse vs Chevrolet Equinox 3
Variants
FWD
AWD
281 AWD
281 FWD
288 AWD
288 FWD
1.5
1.5 AWD
1.5
1.6d
1.6d AWD
2.0
2.0 AWD
Capacity
Cargo Capacity
860 L / 30.4 cu-ft
Coolant Capacity
9.9 L / 10.5 qt
11.2 L / 11.8 qt
Engine Oil Capacity
3.8 L / 4.0 qt
5.2 L / 5.5 qt
Fuel Capacity
63.0 L / 16.6 gal
83.3 L / 22.0 gal
Passengers
5
5
Chassis
Brakes | Front
Ventilated discs
Ventilated discs, 325 mm
Brakes | Rear
Disc
Ventilated discs, 331 mm
Power Steering
Hydraulic Steering
Electric Steering
Suspension | Front
MacPherson strut
MacPherson strut
MacPherson strut
Suspension | Rear
Multi-link, Transverse stabilizer
Multi-link
Multi-link
Tire Size
235/65 R16
245/70 R17, 255/65 R18, 255/55 R20
Turning Circle
12.3 m / 40.3 ft
11.4 m / 37.4 ft
Construction
Body Style
5-door SUV
5-door Crossover
5-door SUV
Dimensions
Ground Clearance
183 mm / 7.2 in
Size | Height
1705 mm / 67.1 in
Size | Length
4795 mm / 188.8 in
Size | Width
1835 mm / 72.2 in
Track Width | Front
1565.0 mm / 61.6 in
Track Width | Rear
1570.0 mm / 61.8 in
Wheel Size
6.5J x 16
7J x 17, 7.5J x 18, 8J x 20
Wheelbase
2860 mm / 112.6 in
2725 mm / 107.3 in
Performance
Acceleration | 0 - 100 km/h
9.0 sec
Acceleration | 0 - 60 mph
8.6 sec
Top Speed
180.0 km/h / 111.8 mph
Towing Capacity
2358 kg / 5199 lbs (w/ brakes @ 12% gradient)
Powertrain
Engine
LNJ
Engine | Bore
92.0 mm / 3.6 in
94.0 mm / 3.7 in
Engine | Compression Ratio
9.5:1
Engine | Displacement
3.4 L / 204.4 cu-in / 3350.0 cc
3.6 L / 217.5 cu-in / 3564.0 cc
Engine | Power
185.0 hp / 138.0 kW @ 5200 rpm
Engine | Specific Output
55.2 hp/L / 0.9 hp/cu-in
Engine | Stroke
84.0 mm / 3.3 in
85.6 mm / 3.4 in
Engine | Torque
285 Nm / 210.2 lb-ft @ 3800 rpm
Engine | Type
Naturally-aspirated multi-port injected petrol V6 engine with 2 values per cylinder
Naturally-aspirated direct-injected petrol V6 DOHC engine with 4 values per cylinder
Transmission | Gears
5-speed
6-speed
Transmission | Type
Automatic
Automatic Hydra-Matic 6T75
Automatic Hydra-Matic
Production
Availability
2005 ~ 2009
2009 ~ 2017
Reviews
Neofiliac score
18%
21%
19%
Pros
- Decent drivetrain reliability
- High cargo capacity
- Rather reliable powertrain
- Cheap to purchase
Cons
- Very ugly indeed
- Bad 0-100kph time
- Can't even reach 200km/h
- No powerful engine options
- Stuck with MacPherson struts in the front
- Stuck with MacPherson struts in the front
- Very bland, unfinished styling
- Ugly
- Only available with small engines
- Poor suspension setup
Remove
Remove
Remove
Add up to 4 products to the comparison using the search bar above
Information on this page is provided on an as-is basis. No warranty on accuracy is implied. This page may contain affiliate links to third-party merchants such as Amazon and eBay. If you make a purchase using the supplied link, we may receive a commission. Neofiliac places the utmost respect for your privacy. We use no cookie whatsoever beyond that needed for the proper functioning of the website.