Was 2014 a good year for Chevy Equinox?
Overall, yes. The 2014 Chevrolet Equinox offered a practical, well-equipped package with roomy cargo and on-road versatility, though its appeal varied by engine choice: the 2.4L four-cylinder favored fuel economy, while the 3.6L V6 delivered stronger performance at the cost of efficiency.
Performance and powertrains
The 2014 Equinox came with two main engines, each shaping how the SUV felt in daily driving.
- 2.4L inline-4 with a 6-speed automatic: about 182 horsepower, generally better fuel economy, and adequate around-town and highway performance for most daily needs.
- 3.6L V6: around 301 horsepower, notably quicker acceleration and higher towing capability (up to about 3,500 pounds), but with lower fuel economy compared with the four-cylinder.
For buyers who prioritized efficiency and short trips around town, the 2.4L was the logical pick. Those who needed more muscle for highway merging or light towing appreciated the V6, accepting its fuel-use trade-off.
Interior, space and features
The Equinox continued to stand out in its class for interior practicality and usable space, with tech features that broadened its appeal in 2014.
- Spacious cargo area and flexible seating: roughly 31.5 cubic feet behind the second row, expanding to about 63.7 cubic feet with the rear seats folded, making it competitive for family gear and weekend trips.
- Comfort and materials: roomy front seats and a reasonably quiet cabin, though some lower-trim plastics could feel less upscale compared with class leaders.
- Infotainment and conveniences: Chevrolet MyLink was available, with Bluetooth and touchscreen options; rearview camera became more common across trims, improving daily usability.
Overall, the 2014 Equinox delivered strong daily practicality and tech options that appealed to families and buyers who valued interior versatility and modern features.
Safety, reliability and ownership costs
Safety features and reliability profiles shaped the 2014 Equinox’s reputation, with a mix of strengths and caveats typical of mid‑2010s GM crossovers.
- Safety and driver aids: standard items like airbags and stability control, with available or optional features aimed at improving awareness and protection on the road.
- Reliability considerations: owners and reviewers generally saw the Equinox as dependable for daily use, but reliability ratings in some surveys were mixed, with occasional reports of electronic or drivetrain-related annoyances common to the segment and era.
- Ownership costs: maintenance and parts were affordable relative to premium rivals, with fuel economy and maintenance costs varying by engine choice and driving style.
In summary, the 2014 Equinox offered a reasonable ownership proposition, particularly for buyers who prioritized space and value, while those seeking the most refined reliability or best-in-class efficiency might have found it to be more variable depending on trim and engine.
Market reception and sales context
Within Chevrolet’s lineup, the Equinox remained a core model in 2014, competing in a crowded compact-SUV segment that included the Honda CR-V and Toyota RAV4.
- Market position: it continued as a strong seller for Chevrolet, appealing to shoppers who needed a practical and versatile family SUV.
- Competitiveness: while not the segment leader in terms of efficiency or some reliability rankings, the Equinox offered a solid value package with generous space and available tech features.
For buyers focused on interior practicality, engine choices, and a balanced feature set at a reasonable price, 2014 was a favorable year for the Equinox. Those who prioritized top-tier fuel economy or the strongest reliability scores might have looked at rivals or later model-year refinements.
Summary
The 2014 Chevy Equinox represented a solid, well-rounded choice in its class, delivering space, flexibility and modern features that many shoppers value. Its strengths—versatility, interior practicality and reasonable ownership costs—made it a good year for many buyers. Its drawbacks—varying reliability impressions and fuel-economy differences between the two engines—meant that the overall verdict depended largely on the chosen powertrain and how the vehicle was used.
