Topic: 2012 Chevrolet Traverse LT AWD; Day 1

[Autos_Editor]

The Chevrolet Traverse enters 2012 with a few minor updates. Follow James' blog this week to see what he thinks of this big crossover, four years after its introduction in 2009.
Read More...

[TheKnownSpace]

I am very interested in hearing what the fuel economy ratings will be for this vehicle in a real-world driving environment, especially a vehicle of this size. Although these vehicles have been on the market for a few years now, i've heard nothing but mixed reviews on their fuel-efficiency from friends, car mags etc.

I do fully understand that the Lambda platform was designed to replace GM's minivans and midsize body-on-frame SUV's (so they need to be designed to carry cargo and people in abundance), but these crossovers are MASSIVE, why? Anti-suv sentiment began around 2 main issues: size and fuel efficiency, so why are we making these crossovers the same, if not bigger size than most of the van/SUVs they were meant to replace; Also the reason why i'm anticipating the fuel figures.

I used to drive a 96' Chevy Tahoe 4x4 (absolutely loved everything about it except fuel cost) and whenver i would park it somewhere besides one of these crossovers (traverse, New explorer, Pilot, MKT, new durango, GL class etc.), the crossover would usually DWARF the Tahoe in overall size and dimension... and back in it's heyday, the tahoe was considered pretty damn huge. We can argue that "driving dynamics" are a factor too, but i test drove a Pilot last year and did not find it comparatively "easier" or more "civilized" to drive than any modern pickup and SUV i have driven.

[Blueprint]

InsideLine has went below 10 mpg IIRC with their long-term Traverse.  I can't believe the prices these things can reach with options...50k$ 

Depreciation must be dramatic.  The Buick Enclave at least looks the price.  The Chevy...not so much.  And it's still smaller inside than a well-equipped 32k$ minivan, despite the huge size.  I parked my Odyssey next to an Enclave, and the Buick dwarfed the van.

[theonlydt]

I'm not a big fan of the GM triplets. They seem mildly underpowered - given that they have a naturally aspirated v6 to move a lot of car around. A turbo/supercharged 3.0 would be better, but really these vehicles need a 3.0 diesel.

They're also pretty inefficient in terms of interior space, the Chevy and GMC look plain (especially the GMC - often their cars look better than the Chevy counterparts - not this time) and fuel economy is poor. Compare this to an Odessey and I think we all know which one would make sense.

[robsaw]

With the price they charge for these things no wonder GM wanted to replace minivans with crossovers.  Charge twice as much, with a large part of that going to profit margin.  I know these vehicles work for some people but to me they are large, inefficient (fuel and space) and offer middling performance.

[whaddaiknow]

I am very interested in hearing what the fuel economy ratings will be for this vehicle in a real-world driving environment, especially a vehicle of this size. Although these vehicles have been on the market for a few years now, i've heard nothing but mixed reviews on their fuel-efficiency from friends, car mags etc.
...

+1, except I'm more curious about how FAR the real-world number will depart from the claimed. 

[airbalancer]

I haven’t had this hard of a time reversing a vehicle in a long time

You have not driving your truck enough 

[Solstice2006]

I don't really understand the statement from others about, the inefficient space in these Lambda series vehicles.  The 3rd row is useable, many are not, the ones that are not useable, are inefficient.  Don't compare these to a minivan, it's not the same.  Minivans can't tow 5200lbs.  And not everyone likes the image, so there is a market for them, and whats wrong with that.  Everybody wants to make a buck.  If you don't like it, go buy a Caravan.  I would like to know how this compares to a Mazda CX-9, and Ford Flex, in terms of fuel efficiency, 3rd row space, and driveability, these vehicles often get left out in comparison tests.

[wing]

From what I recall the Ford Flex is more efficient and more versatile in terms of passenger space.  The CX-9 I have never even seen unfortunately.  My educated guess says less efficient (or similar) but much less usable space.

[Solstice2006]

Wing,

Insert Quote
"From what I recall the Ford Flex is more efficient and more versatile in terms of passenger space."  With this statement, are you talking about the front passenger seat going flat, and you can have the 2nd and 3rd row as captain chairs.  But is the cargo room, and 3rd row leg room similar.  From the dimensions from other websites, it says so, but real life is different. 

But the CX-9 isn't as small as it looks, the interior finish is top notch as well.  I am looking forward to more reviews on the CX-9 or a 3rd row comparison test.

[nlm]

Thing with the Flex in this segment is that the design is polarizing, and by unscientific sample, all females that I know looking this segment have commented on its terrible looks and would veto its purchase.

[dirtyjeffer]

yea, my wife says it looks like a hearse.

[Mozeby]

From what I recall the Ford Flex is more efficient and more versatile in terms of passenger space.  The CX-9 I have never even seen unfortunately.  My educated guess says less efficient (or similar) but much less usable space.

I own an Acadia and one of by best friends bought a Flex.  The Acadia feels much larger and has more cargo room behind the 3rd rows with the chairs up, and more space with both the 2nd and 3rd rows folded.  I sat in a CX-9 (2nd row) at this year's autoshow for comparison, and found it feels much tighter and smaller.  The GM's have a bigger greenhouse than any other competitor I've tried (including the new Durango and Explorer) and have unmatched cargo space.  I think Car and Driver compared all these guys in a recent comparo and they have the numbers and stats.  The Traverse was by far the largest interior, basically minivan sized.

[Danno001]

"I averaged 12.3L/100km over the week and at no point did I see anything like 8.8, but I didn’t expect to either."

Ho - hum. No big deal vehicles are getting nowhere near their ratings. Something seriously wrong with the system when journalists are accepting this as "normal".

[Sir Osis of Liver]

The Transport Canada ratings are out to lunch. The EPA are pretty representative of what people end up getting for mileage.

[whaddaiknow]

"In fact, on the highway I averaged 12.3L/100km over the week and at no point did I see anything like 8.8, but I didn’t expect to either."

Ho - hum. No big deal vehicles are getting nowhere near their ratings. Something seriously wrong with the system when journalists are accepting this as "normal".

Moreover, you missed some key words there. Fixed it for ya.

How can this be in anyway fuel efficient these days? I'm sure, James was alone (or with a single passenger) in the car most of the time, and still got such terrible mileage. My 5-year-old Entourage with supposedly older tech 3.8l engine with FULL load (4 adults, 2 children and 300+lb of luggage) moving briskly with the flow (120-130kmh) returned <12 l/100km Ottawa to Montreal and back, with some MOntreal traffic thrown in.

James, how can you downplay such poor fuel economy, especially when it was pushed in the ads as the most fuel efficient CUV in its class in Canada?
We get so excited that a small car gets 10% better fuel economy that whatever else, and really make it as no big deal when you get 40% worse than advertised?

[Danno001]

"In fact, on the highway I averaged 12.3L/100km over the week and at no point did I see anything like 8.8, but I didn’t expect to either."

Ho - hum. No big deal vehicles are getting nowhere near their ratings. Something seriously wrong with the system when journalists are accepting this as "normal".

Moreover, you missed some key words there. Fixed it for ya.

How can this be in anyway fuel efficient these days? I'm sure, James was alone (or with a single passenger) in the car most of the time, and still got such terrible mileage. My 5-year-old Entourage with supposedly older tech 3.8l engine with FULL load (4 adults, 2 children and 300+lb of luggage) moving briskly with the flow (120-130kmh) returned <12 l/100km Ottawa to Montreal and back, with some MOntreal traffic thrown in.

James, how can you downplay such poor fuel economy, especially when it was pushed in the ads as the most fuel efficient CUV in its class in Canada?
We get so excited that a small car gets 10% better fuel economy that whatever else, and really make it as no big deal when you get 40% worse than advertised?

Thanks.

I wonder who will be the first to sue car manufacturers for false advertising. A big fat class-action lawsuit might do some good here.

 

[Mozeby]

"In fact, on the highway I averaged 12.3L/100km over the week and at no point did I see anything like 8.8, but I didn’t expect to either."

Ho - hum. No big deal vehicles are getting nowhere near their ratings. Something seriously wrong with the system when journalists are accepting this as "normal".

James, how can you downplay such poor fuel economy, especially when it was pushed in the ads as the most fuel efficient CUV in its class in Canada?
We get so excited that a small car gets 10% better fuel economy that whatever else, and really make it as no big deal when you get 40% worse than advertised?

I don't remember any ads that said it was the best CUV in it's class.  Only better than the Pilot, which id does beat in EPA ratings by a good margin in HWY mpgs.  Something like 24 mpg vs. 20.  I think you're thinking of the Equinox that is advertised as the best CUV in it's class.

[wing]

I downplay it because it is the NORM.  This is average for such a large vehicle unfortunately the gov ratings are out to lunch and until they update them they will be.

Even on small cars, the Accent is rated at what 4.5? LOL

[whaddaiknow]

I downplay it because it is the NORM.  This is average for such a large vehicle unfortunately the gov ratings are out to lunch and until they update them they will be.

Even on small cars, the Accent is rated at what 4.5? LOL

I am sure, on a highway, you would be able to see 4.5 in an Accent at legal speeds with a light foot.
I a Fit, I saw high 4's on the highway, with 5.5 being my best in COMBINED driving. Better than claimed 5.7 highway. Why is 40% off Govmt is the NORM? Does the NORM apply to everyone? Or "some" simply get away with false advertising? Especially when you didn't see the trip computer anywhere NEAR the 8.8 claimed at ANY time? Cooked numbers? They must be if they are not achievable even in ideal conditions. That should be illegal.