Back in June 2024, GM Authority reported that fuel economy ratings for the next-gen Equinox from Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) showed that the fourth-gen crossover was less efficient than its third-gen counterpart. With that in mind, the EPA has released its fuel economy figures for the 2025 Chevy Equinox, and the numbers tell a similar story.
2025 Equinox units equipped with a front-wheel drivetrain are rated at a combined 27 mpg, while AWD examples are rated at a combined 26 mpg.
| 2025 Equinox FWD | 2025 Equinox AWD | 2024 Equinox FWD | 2024 Equinox AWD | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Engine | Turbo 1.5L I4 LSD | Turbo 1.5L I4 LSD | Turbo 1.5L I4 LSD | Turbo 1.5L I4 LSD |
| Transmission | CVT | 8-speed auto | 6-speed auto | 6-speed auto |
| EPA city/highway/combined ratings (mpg) | 26 / 28 / 27 | 24 / 29 / 26 | 26 / 31 / 28 | 24 / 30 / 26 |
Meanwhile, 2024 Chevy Equinox units with FWD were rated at a combined 28 mpg, while AWD units were rated at a combined 26 mpg. Looking over all the fuel economy ratings as a whole, the 2025 Equinox is slightly less efficient compared to the preceding generation.
As a reminder, the online configurator for the Bow Tie brand’s compact crossover is currently live and primed for tinkering. Prospective buyers can option their 2025 Equinox in one of three trim levels – including the LT, Activ, and RS – and explore notable features like the Convenience Package (RPO code ZQ3), Safety and Technology Package (RPO code CWN), and Midnight Edition Package (RPO code WN5).
Under the hood, the 2025 Chevy Equinox features a single powerplant that was carried over from the third-gen model. The turbocharged 1.5L I4 LSD gasoline engine is rated at 175 horsepower and 184 pound-feet of torque in FWD variants, or 203 pound-feet of torque in AWD versions. Speaking of which, FWD units feature the GM continuously variable automatic transmission (CVT), while AWD examples rely on the GM eight-speed automatic transmission.
In regard to structure, the fourth-gen Equinox rides on an updated variant of the GM D2 platform, which has been stretched in terms of wheelbase, length, and width. Meanwhile, production kicked off in May 2024 at the GM San Luis Potosà plant. Pricing starts at $29,995 for a base FWD LT, while AWD RS units start at $36,395.
Be sure to subscribe to GM Authority for Chevy Equinox news, Chevy news, GM green news, and more obsessive-compulsive GM news coverage.
Comments
Those numbers are hideously uncompetitive. Bring back the 6-speed. They switch to a CVT/8-speed and numbers go DOWN? Maybe a conspiracy to try and talk buyers into the EV. I wouldn’t put it past them.
Not sure it’s a conspiracy, I just think it’s a sad comment on the fact that it’s the best GM Powertrain can come up with right now. Or maybe it’s just laziness or leadership being naive to the competition. Or maybe all the talented ICE engineers were put on the program to develop the LT6/LT7.
LOL, GM’s switch to tiny turbos and snow mobile transmissions backfired and they lost customers as well due to them being underpowered. DUH! GM needs new leadership now!
I smell total BS with these numbers because they are illogical. How do you switch over to a CVT which is a more efficient transmission in any other application and lower rated torque and come out with 1 less combined and a whopping 3 less on the highway in what is essentially the same wine with a new bottle. I agree they are playing some kind of game here trying to make people believe they need to buy an EV hoping that a prospective buyer doesn’t notice that last year’s models were more efficient.
If that’s the case then why did the Malibu’s MPG increase on all 3 counts when they switched from the old 6 speed to the current CVT? How is it that Nissan, Toyota and Honda get excellent combed and highway mileage figures from their CUV’s using CVT transmissions? If GM’s CVT is that inefficient then why use it when it is a fail/fail on both counts?
Beachy and Joe Y: Enough with the silly conspiracy theories.
This all has to do with everything getting bigger, heavier, fatter and with brick like design. Just like the new trucks (Ahem, GMC, Escalade and many more) where the front end is so huge and bulky that it looks like a 1970’s semi truck coming down the road. So please stop the EV diatribe and admit that it’s the push from the buyers who think they need these things.
And while people buying these things and doing the exact same type of driving as I do are getting the not so impressive MPG, I’ll happily be driving my Bolt EV the 300 +/- miles per charge and “filling” up in my driveway for about $7.00 total,
Thank you for the logic. So tired of conspiracy theories, when did that become the norm? The frontal area increased on the new model, as did the weight, both of which affect fuel economy. I typically beat the EPA estimates in my Trax all the time, last tank was 36mpg by hand calculation, 38.1mpg according to the car and it’s rated at 30mpg combined. Same with our Bolt, we tend to beat the EPA range estimate by 25-30 miles.
AhodieVW: You are welcome. And I feel like conspiracy theories have been around since the dawn of man. The difference is that it became “normal” about 8 years ago and has only gotten worse.
Congrats on the great MPG numbers. I tend to get better on all my cars because of how I drive: Normal. On my last 4 cars (2020 Cadillac CT4, 2021 Volvo S60 PHEV, 2021 Chevy Malibu LT and now my 2023 Bolt EV), I always get better than the rated numbers. My Malibu was fantastic and would blow the sticker numbers away. But nothing is better than in my Bolt. It’s rated at 259 miles of range per charge (at 100%) and I do normally charge to 100%. My best showing range was last week at 336. My absolute worst was 276 and that was just after I got it and the weather was chilly for sure.
CVT’s are in fact nominally less efficient. Most belt CVT,’s are only mid 80% efficient, and if you care to do research, in off road Motorsports, belt CVT’s drop down to 10% efficient when slogging through muck.
This iteration of CVT is The gold standard of CVT’s with a chain coated in brake material vs a belt and a torque converter for low speed efficiency, it reaches 88% efficiency while cruising, and mid 80’s under power.
The 6speed transaxle was 94% efficient, and the 9/8speed is 96% efficient to the ground while cruising respectively. Low 90’s at WOT.
Yes, CVT’s are more efficient than a 4/5 speed that keeps the converter open till 3rd gear, but it’s less efficient than pretty much all modern cogboxes. The CVT is a cost savings move. This 3 cylinder and ATV transmission likely costs GM 5-6K less then a better unit, say the 2.5 LKW paired to the 9T40. Such a setup would push 40 mph highway EPA, 50 in real life. However, right now RAV4’s and Camrys are costing mid 50K in many cases. Millennials can’t afford that. The equinox, with sharing an engine with the Malibu, trax, Buick CUV’s has massive economies of scale and Chevy can undercut Toyota by 10K, and even Kia by 1-2, which to a millenial, the extra savings in the car payment out weights the gas savings with the exception of living in LA county California, and NYC. Chevy winning millennials and Gen z is more important than getting a middle age buyer over a couple savings in MPG
Tell that to Toyota, Honda, Mitsubishi and Nissan who all somehow exceed these low mileage ratings on similar or heavier CUV’s using CVT transmissions and turbo engines of similar size or larger NA in many cases. An example is the Outlander which uses a larger 2.5 NA 4 cylinder hitched to a CVT and it achieves 27 combined and 31 highway utilising a upright boxy design and higher curb weight on their FWD models. The 2025 Nissan Rogue goes a stage further and flat out embaresses the Equinox with a 30/33/37 using a small turbo 1.5 3 cylinder with more power and torque hitched to a CVT. In fact I can’t think of one other competing CUV in FWD form with a CVT that gets anywhere near this poor mileage in this size class.
What does look bad is that the FWD model with a CVT gets lower highway mileage than the AWD model which is not the case with any competitor and makes GM powertrain look incompetent.
Even if it’s a bit more aerodynamic, there’s no Rogue magic secret sauce for mpg. Rated, EPA, gov. numbers are unreliable – last few years should have taught everybody that.
Steve overall has good points. I don’t know details of gm’s CVT, it is just a price point strategy, but it only really belongs in smaller CUVs than Equinox. It also means the industry move to high-feature engines didn’t matter, and was a screw-job for regular Joe’s to cater to NVH diva car reviewers.
I agree with all of that you just wrote. My question is why not offer the more powerful drivetrain as an option for those willing to pay for it????
Enough of the conspiracy theories already. Get a life!
The new model is wider and taller. Additionally they have the Activ model which has a more aggressive tire pattern that will get worse fuel efficiency. No sxxt it’s going to be less efficient.
Use some common sense versus conspiracy bs.
No excuse for lower numbers.
Beachy: The companies obviously think this new brick design is what buyers want. So if you wish to have an SUV/CUV or a truck that looks like something you’d find on the exterior of a house surrounded by cement, and if you (people in general) think they need to have AWD for those two times a year when they should be staying at home anyhow, then welcome to the dismal MPG numbers.
Not me. I’ve never been happier with a vehicle than with my Bolt EV. The fact that it costs me exactly 81% LESS to drive my Bolt EV vs. my 2021 Chevy Malibu (which was very efficient) is near magical. And that’s doing the exact same driving in the exact same climate and streets/freeways.
Design and weight have entered the chat…
Kim Kardashian???
No, but plenty of reasons: increased weight, increased frontal area, increased drag due to “box the car came in” shape, wider tires……
I love general motors
Yep, exactly the vehicle I was thinking of. And a new one (which will probably be hybrid-only, a bad move) is on the way for ’26.
With similar dimensions and weight, the Honda CRV 1.5T with CVT achieves 28/34 MPG. What has GM done wrong?
The Honda CRV is a very soft looking crossover, not at all rugged looking like the new Equinox. I assume the CRV still has among the highest percentage of women buyers of any vehicle as it did in the past.
But that’s not the point!
My point was the CRV is probably more aerodynamic than the Equinox, but you pay for that with the soft, bland styling.
Wow, those are pathetic numbers. “Here, enjoy the crappiness of a CVT wihtiout any fuel economy benefit!”
How does 2024 FWD 6 speed have more gas mileage than 2025 FWD 8 speed. How does that make sense
Can someone explain to me like I’m a toddler the rationale behind carrying over the 1.5L lump? It lagged behind the competition in every metric BEFORE the redesign and now it’s even worse?
If I’m not seeing an efficiency bump for living with the sluggish 1.5 then at least give me the option of the 2.0 from the Blazer.
Behind in every metric? It was the torquiest option outside of one as a base engine. Acceleration was mid to low 8’s which was plenty and the big torque numbers made cruising on the highway and the accelerating around town much better than the competition in many cases. So no, that is false they “lagged behind the competition in every metric”, they were quite competitive. Down on HP but up on TQ, I will take a torquey motor over a high HP motor any day in most vehicles, especially around town meant to haul people and stuff…
I love general motors
I love general motors
Believe me the wife and I leased 2018 and 2021 Nox’s. The 1.5 is at the very most, adequate. We now have a ’24 Blazer and the driving experience is night and day with the 2.0, even in the larger vehicle. And the mileage penalty I’ve observed is practically nothing. Now they engineer a new Equinox wrapped around an 8 year old motor and ask it to compete with all of the other models in the same class that offer standard powertrains with more power, better economy, or both. Let’s not even get into the fact that GM won’t even offer you an optional powertrain like all the others. It’s a decision that simply does not make sense to me. Oh yeah, a hybrid version will come in 2027 or something, well maybe anyway.
Another powertrain option with a single digit take rate hurts profitability. GM is in business to make money, not make MAGA octogenarians happy.
You did exactly what GM wanted you to do. For the single digit percentage of buyers who want more power than the Equinox offers, you have the slightly larger, much more expensive Blazer. Most people for whom the Equinox 1.5 is a deal breaker go to the Blazer, which makes GM very happy since the Blazer has higher margins.
Really? Weird how literally every Equinox competitor offers an optional motor. How is it that they find enough customers to make that strategy viable? I hear an awful lot of excuses.
And yeah, this may be the first and last Blazer we lease because the vehicle is getting a bit long in the tooth. I’ve been thinking for a while about checking other options, it may be time.
If the motor was behind in every metric, it wouldn’t be adequate, which is exactly the type of person that buys these vehicles want. It isn’t a car guys vehicle or something for driving enjoyment, it is a compact CUV for soccer moms who are either downsizing or early in their family life. I have driven plenty of 1.5’s, adequate is a good word to use. I knew what the class of vehicle was offering. We had a 2.5 NA Rav4 for years, even though it had a little more top end power the around town and highway driving stunk, I much preferred the 1.5. That Rav4 would down shift at the slightest hill or head wind, it had to rev higher just to keep up with traffic from a stop. I so rarely needed the HP but on the daily I needed the torque which the 1.5 offered.
Sure, as a car guy I want tons of power, but we aren’t the main buyer for these vehicles. The 2.0 didn’t sell and of course it will do better offering another 60 hp, but 200k+ buyers each year with most or recently all being the 1.5 beg to differ this engine is the worst in its class, it isn’t. Manufacturers do so many studies and polls of current, past or other brand buyers, they know what most people want in many cases. I have don tons of those requests (they are kind of fun as you see stuff you wouldn’t. Heck, I even saw the G8 ST (Pontiac sport truck, think el camino) in one study that never made light even though it was supposed to before Pontiac got the axe, it even had the GTO interior in it). Either way, most probably said the 1.5 is as you say, adequate, and they saw no need to spend money on a whole new motor with at the time, EV coming and later knowing a hybrid will join as an optional engine.
They are in the business to make money, and when something works enough as a stop gap they can continue with it with future plans to eventually address it if the current scenario is foggy. The rest of the package is a step up, so they will sell tons of these again even with the 1.5 in it and eventually it will have an optional engine.
I’m not looking for a monster motor, I’m not even necessarily asking for 200+ HP. What I was hoping for is a new Equinox with an updated motor. Now the big thing you like the 1.5 for, torque – well it’s down on that now as well at least in FWD models presumably because of the CVT. And you can’t tell me these fuel economy numbers are good. They’ve gone backward in every metric. I understand weight and body design considerations but good luck explaining that to people who are cross-shopping these things with other brands. I want GM to offer a competitive product right on down the line, from on-paper to when people drive it.
TL;DR
TMI: Thank you. Well said. I’ll add to that.
Mark: It’s not the engine. You could put about anything in these boxes and it won’t help. The law of physics don’t change due to brand, model, engine (ICE OR EV), year or anything else. The laws of physics are constant. Why do you think the game of football has never changed the design of the ball? I’m not a sports guy, but don’t need to be. If you attempted to use a basketball in a football game, the results? Point should be made.
I don’t buy into the claim that the buyers want these boxy and heavy front end designs. What I do think is that the manufacturers have run with the theory that everyone wants butch design and I think they are wrong. I think the new Equinox (ICE) and GMC Terrain and Enclave and Traverse and Acadia are all but ugly. I also think the overall design theme that Kia and Hyundai are taking is but ugly. So I’m an equal opportunity hater here. I just hate SUV/CUV’s and the design or lack of that they are pushing.
My 2018 equinox 2.L gets 29 mpg regularly. This vehicle is to big for the motor. U need to push the motor to move this vehicle, while I just cruise around using little peddle pressure. Smaller engines is not the save all for fuel mileage or I assume pollution.
I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE FORUM. DOES GM MAKE THERE OWN CVT TRNSMISSION OR ARE THEY USING JATCO TRANSMISSIONS IN THE 2025 EQUINOX.
I want to like it but that powertrain and it’s expected reliability and mediocre fuel mileage…
Not sure how CAFE for fleet compliance purposes is calculated, but unless the CVT gets some sort of special credits toward CAFE standards, it was obviously a mistake for GM to put the CVT in this vehicle. Unless the CVT is far cheaper than the old 6 speed, which I find hard to believe considering the 6 speeds age and fully depreciated tooling, someone really messed up with this decision.
Would love for Alex to ask GM how the Equinox/Terrain twins CVT powertrain ended up getting such a lousy EPA rating.
How do they keep on going backwards .. What’s causing it ? The redesign exterior ? Oof.
Missing the boat on this one . Nobody expects this to be car guys dream car … or expects it to be slightly faster than a turtle . They do expect it to be somewhat efficient . So going backwards mpg because they want it to make it look sexy is not it . Might as well get the 24 and save little more at pump . Nobody taking this car to car show ..
I just read my first review of this (I actually had no idea that they’d been shipped yet, but there are over 8K on lots, to my surprise) and it was less than flattering. No surprise.
It’s is or was gms second best selling vehicle, it deserves more than one engine choice and they certainly make enough money on engine choices. They don’t have to engineer a new engine they have a 2.L. So things don’t just have to be adequate. I had to look at several dealerships to find a 2.L equinox, so glad I didn’t settle for adequate.
Anti-conspiracy theorists: shut up. This probably isn’t a conspiracy, but it’s not like the world hasn’t given us all enough material to understand why some people start seeing them everywhere. Take your attitudes and bury them in the back yard.
Pro-conspiracy: it’s probably just the new Equinox is following style trends that are less aerodynamic, and they haven’t updated the engine at ALL to keep up. Except to drop its power in the more common FWD model, but that’s another talk. Yes, GM wants us all to drive EVs, because that’s what the government wants, but given how greedy the world is for money, this is probably just laziness and penny pinching. It still looks like an excellent vehicle.
Take the 3500 V6 and 4 speed combo from a 2005 G6 GT and put it in this and you would get better acceleration and better mileage, this is a joke.