Author Topic: Test Drive: 2013 Chevrolet Traverse  (Read 5825 times)

Offline Autos_Editor

  • Car Crazy
  • *****
  • Posts: 6556
  • Carma: +80/-446
  • member
    • View Profile
Test Drive: 2013 Chevrolet Traverse
« on: January 07, 2013, 06:31:29 am »


The Chevrolet Traverse is big on the outside, and even bigger on the inside. Its price and fuel consumption are a concern, but its versatility is undeniable.

Read More...

Offline AP

  • Drunk on Fuel
  • ****
  • Posts: 2216
  • Carma: +69/-89
    • View Profile
Re: Test Drive: 2013 Chevrolet Traverse
« Reply #1 on: January 07, 2013, 06:54:10 am »
Quote
the Traverse consumed 17.0 L/100 km while driving around town, and 12.2 L/100 km during a 500-km highway trip

While I do not doubt that the autos.ca reviewers dutifully report observed fuel economy, I am always astounded by just how poor the reported results tend to be.  I do better in my full-size pickup without heroic efforts to hypermile.  Inefficient driving habits and/or poor driving conditions have to be at play here. 

Offline Snowman

  • Car Crazy
  • *****
  • Posts: 34064
  • Carma: +581/-977
  • Gender: Male
  • Its never crowded along the extra mile.
    • View Profile
  • Cars: Cars: 2012 Audi TT-RS. 2011 Toyota Venza AWD.2004 Honda S2000 Bikes: Giant Defy Avdvanced 0. Giant Talon 29 "hardtail"
Re: Test Drive: 2013 Chevrolet Traverse
« Reply #2 on: January 07, 2013, 07:41:25 am »
Quote
the Traverse consumed 17.0 L/100 km while driving around town, and 12.2 L/100 km during a 500-km highway trip

While I do not doubt that the autos.ca reviewers dutifully report observed fuel economy, I am always astounded by just how poor the reported results tend to be.  I do better in my full-size pickup without heroic efforts to hypermile.  Inefficient driving habits and/or poor driving conditions have to be at play here.

Perhaps normal driving habits and real driving conditions. Life is not a test lab  ;D

Offline AP

  • Drunk on Fuel
  • ****
  • Posts: 2216
  • Carma: +69/-89
    • View Profile
Re: Test Drive: 2013 Chevrolet Traverse
« Reply #3 on: January 07, 2013, 08:03:00 am »
Perhaps normal driving habits and real driving conditions. Life is not a test lab  ;D

Gee, I had to pay an Oakville style lot premium but didn't sign up for the test lab lot.  My results are real world from a non-zealot! 

Offline ChaosphereIX

  • Drunk on Fuel
  • ****
  • Posts: 1265
  • Carma: +35/-96
  • Gender: Male
  • Wont run with the pack
    • View Profile
  • Cars: 97 Alfa Romeo 155 V6, 07 Saab 9-3 2.0T, 99 Mazda Protege (RIP), 04 Pontiac Grand Prix GT (RIP)
Re: Test Drive: 2013 Chevrolet Traverse
« Reply #4 on: January 07, 2013, 08:20:45 am »
funny how one review of the equinox says the v6 is gutless, but another of the traverse with the same engine and heavier body says acceleration is brisk. What have they done to the equinox transmission to dull app its 300hp? Will drive both at work today to try and find out. I'm stumped.
Objects in mirror are losing

"I don't see why someone should lose their life just so you can have a snack." ~Russel Brand'

"If driving an Alfa does not restore vitality to your soul, then just pass the hospital and park at the morgue to save everyone time." ~John

Offline Threader

  • Learner's Permit
  • *
  • Posts: 203
  • Carma: +10/-25
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
  • Cars: 2008 STI, 2012 Caravan
Re: Test Drive: 2013 Chevrolet Traverse
« Reply #5 on: January 07, 2013, 09:31:05 am »
Thinking the same thing as I read this article after finishing up on the Equinox Day to Day article. We have a slightly lower HP rated 3.6 in the Traverse but more weight. Might have something to do with expectations not being met and seat of pants subjectivity meters.

The problem I have always had with Auto.Ca reviews is the utter lack of a simple measuring tools for objective performance numbers instead of subjective opinions.
2008 Subaru STI Performance Build Story

http://www.autos.ca/forum/index.php/topic,80495.0.html

Offline aaronk

  • Drunk on Fuel
  • ****
  • Posts: 1508
  • Carma: +43/-36
    • View Profile
Re: Test Drive: 2013 Chevrolet Traverse
« Reply #6 on: January 07, 2013, 09:57:07 am »
At nearly 5,000 lbs with only 266 lb-ft torque, I would be very surprised if acceleration was anything better than marginal. I don't understand why these barges have to be so heavy - every performance metric would benefit from making them ligther. Either that or give it a turbocharger or V8 - fuel economy would likely stay the same as the engine isn't working as hard.

Offline northsparrow

  • Learner's Permit
  • *
  • Posts: 142
  • Carma: +5/-18
    • View Profile
Re: Test Drive: 2013 Chevrolet Traverse
« Reply #7 on: January 07, 2013, 10:11:38 am »
Might I suggest we include "Cost Per Ton" in our simple set of measuring tools?

Offline Northernridge

  • Car Crazy
  • *****
  • Posts: 6499
  • Carma: +311/-349
  • Gender: Male
  • Because I say so.
    • View Profile
  • Cars: 2012 MB E350, 2011 GMC Sierra 1500
Re: Test Drive: 2013 Chevrolet Traverse
« Reply #8 on: January 07, 2013, 10:16:55 am »
I've rented these a few times and while bland, they make very good prairie highway cruisers (except for gas mileage). Very comfortable and easy to drive and actually good for large families with lots of crap to haul around...maybe a better choice than a Tahoe if you stay on road and don't tow but have to have a Chevy. The new front clip is a big design improvement but that steering wheel is the ugliest one in all of car-dom.
There are things that are so serious that you can only joke about them.
― Heisenberg

Offline SaskSpecV

  • Drunk on Fuel
  • ****
  • Posts: 1514
  • Carma: +64/-132
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Test Drive: 2013 Chevrolet Traverse
« Reply #9 on: January 07, 2013, 10:22:18 am »
1.  Nice to see a review from Michel, I've always liked his articles at auto123.com (pretty much the only writer from that site for which I can say that).

2.  Before reading this article, my personal opinion was that the new Pathfinder looked to be the best value in the 7-passenger AWD crossover market.  After seeing the price comparison, I'm more convinved than before - the price on those other loaded "mainstream" CUVs is getting out of hand.  Although how many Traverses/Acadias/Highlanders/Durangos are going out the door in top-tier trim I wonder?  At a 30 - 35K base price, they seem very reasonable.  At $50K, not so much (and yeah, we gripe about the poor value of loaded vehicles in EVERY vehicle class - but $15-20K in optional equipment for a family vehicle?)  I'm sure there are big discounts available, but those MSRPS really jumped out at me - and those 50K prices don't include tax either!  I can see why the "Canada value package" Grand Caravan sells so well compared to these large crossovers...

Offline Fobroader

  • Car Crazy
  • *****
  • Posts: 15171
  • Carma: +550/-728
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Test Drive: 2013 Chevrolet Traverse
« Reply #10 on: January 07, 2013, 10:25:47 am »
I've rented these a few times and while bland, they make very good prairie highway cruisers (except for gas mileage). Very comfortable and easy to drive and actually good for large families with lots of crap to haul around...maybe a better choice than a Tahoe if you stay on road and don't tow but have to have a Chevy. The new front clip is a big design improvement but that steering wheel is the ugliest one in all of car-dom.

Because of the horrid gas mileage, I think thats the best reason to go into a Tahoe. You get a much better 4x4 system, a better engine,  towing capability, better visibility, better reliability......I honestly cant see a single reason to take one of the Traverse or its Buick brethren over a Tahoe.
Keep the change you filthy animal.

Offline aaronk

  • Drunk on Fuel
  • ****
  • Posts: 1508
  • Carma: +43/-36
    • View Profile
Re: Test Drive: 2013 Chevrolet Traverse
« Reply #11 on: January 07, 2013, 10:27:26 am »
1.  Nice to see a review from Michel, I've always liked his articles at auto123.com (pretty much the only writer from that site for which I can say that).

2.  Before reading this article, my personal opinion was that the new Pathfinder looked to be the best value in the 7-passenger AWD crossover market.  After seeing the price comparison, I'm more convinved than before - the price on those other loaded "mainstream" CUVs is getting out of hand.  Although how many Traverses/Acadias/Highlanders/Durangos are going out the door in top-tier trim I wonder?  At a 30 - 35K base price, they seem very reasonable.  At $50K, not so much (and yeah, we gripe about the poor value of loaded vehicles in EVERY vehicle class - but $15-20K in optional equipment for a family vehicle?)  I'm sure there are big discounts available, but those MSRPS really jumped out at me - and those 50K prices don't include tax either! I can see why the "Canada value package" Grand Caravan sells so well compared to these large crossovers...

Absolutely, the GC makes a great value proposition for a family vehicle that's hard to beat, especially compared to these large crossovers that can't tow anything.

Offline Northernridge

  • Car Crazy
  • *****
  • Posts: 6499
  • Carma: +311/-349
  • Gender: Male
  • Because I say so.
    • View Profile
  • Cars: 2012 MB E350, 2011 GMC Sierra 1500
Re: Test Drive: 2013 Chevrolet Traverse
« Reply #12 on: January 07, 2013, 10:33:35 am »
I've rented these a few times and while bland, they make very good prairie highway cruisers (except for gas mileage). Very comfortable and easy to drive and actually good for large families with lots of crap to haul around...maybe a better choice than a Tahoe if you stay on road and don't tow but have to have a Chevy. The new front clip is a big design improvement but that steering wheel is the ugliest one in all of car-dom.

Because of the horrid gas mileage, I think thats the best reason to go into a Tahoe. You get a much better 4x4 system, a better engine,  towing capability, better visibility, better reliability......I honestly cant see a single reason to take one of the Traverse or its Buick brethren over a Tahoe.

Reasons to buy over a Tahoe: Superior ride, comfort and easier to drive plus consumers are now trained to buy a CUV and not a 'truck'. I wouldn't buy one and I wanted to hate the Travererse but it really was pretty good. Ford Flex is better tho.

Offline Fobroader

  • Car Crazy
  • *****
  • Posts: 15171
  • Carma: +550/-728
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Test Drive: 2013 Chevrolet Traverse
« Reply #13 on: January 07, 2013, 10:38:25 am »
I've rented these a few times and while bland, they make very good prairie highway cruisers (except for gas mileage). Very comfortable and easy to drive and actually good for large families with lots of crap to haul around...maybe a better choice than a Tahoe if you stay on road and don't tow but have to have a Chevy. The new front clip is a big design improvement but that steering wheel is the ugliest one in all of car-dom.

Because of the horrid gas mileage, I think thats the best reason to go into a Tahoe. You get a much better 4x4 system, a better engine,  towing capability, better visibility, better reliability......I honestly cant see a single reason to take one of the Traverse or its Buick brethren over a Tahoe.

Reasons to buy over a Tahoe: Superior ride, comfort and easier to drive plus consumers are now trained to buy a CUV and not a 'truck'. I wouldn't buy one and I wanted to hate the Travererse but it really was pretty good. Ford Flex is better tho.

Ive been in our neighbors Buick version, ride, if you like really soft, like overcooked pasta soft, comfort, Ill take the buckets out of the tahoe any day and easy to drive.....what do you mean, the Tahoe is really easy to drive. The thing I noticed about the Buick were the horrid sightlines and the seats felt really cheap.

Offline SaskSpecV

  • Drunk on Fuel
  • ****
  • Posts: 1514
  • Carma: +64/-132
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Test Drive: 2013 Chevrolet Traverse
« Reply #14 on: January 07, 2013, 10:47:18 am »
I honestly cant see a single reason to take one of the Traverse or its Buick brethren over a Tahoe.

FAR more space for 3rd row passengers, and 10K lower starting price for comparably-equipped vehicles (50 vs 60K for the Tahoe).
Wouldn't buy one myself, but for lots of people it makes WAY more sense than a Tahoe...

Offline canuckystan

  • Learner's Permit
  • *
  • Posts: 187
  • Carma: +5/-58
    • View Profile
Re: Test Drive: 2013 Chevrolet Traverse
« Reply #15 on: January 07, 2013, 11:14:07 am »
What happened to SUV's like the previous generation Ford Explorer in terms of size?  That is the perfect size for us - these new ones are virtually identical in size to the last generation Ford Expedition, which was constantly criticized for its size!  We tried an Acadia and it is simply too big for daily chores and shrinking parking spots.

I guess the Toyota Highlander is one of the last nicely sized 3 row SUV's, but alas it is a cross-over and not great for towing duties.  It seems as though all the car companies have written off those of us who actually use an SUV off road and for towing, as these car-based ones just don't work well for those.

One example - 18" wheels.  Try getting a decent all-terrain tire for an 18" wheel, and the ride off-road (rough gravel roads) will be harsh.  Low profile tires with highway tread get flats all day long on rough shale gravel roads.  Low range 4 wheel drive is quite handy on a dirty, slippery gravel boat ramp.  I guess I drive my Explorer until it dies.

Offline Fobroader

  • Car Crazy
  • *****
  • Posts: 15171
  • Carma: +550/-728
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Test Drive: 2013 Chevrolet Traverse
« Reply #16 on: January 07, 2013, 11:24:22 am »
I honestly cant see a single reason to take one of the Traverse or its Buick brethren over a Tahoe.

FAR more space for 3rd row passengers, and 10K lower starting price for comparably-equipped vehicles (50 vs 60K for the Tahoe).
Wouldn't buy one myself, but for lots of people it makes WAY more sense than a Tahoe...

I dont know, for me, I cant imagine having this and a black Tahoe Z71 side by side in a dealership and myself even giving a second glance to the Acadia/Traverse....

Offline Fobroader

  • Car Crazy
  • *****
  • Posts: 15171
  • Carma: +550/-728
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Test Drive: 2013 Chevrolet Traverse
« Reply #17 on: January 07, 2013, 11:30:19 am »
What happened to SUV's like the previous generation Ford Explorer in terms of size?  That is the perfect size for us - these new ones are virtually identical in size to the last generation Ford Expedition, which was constantly criticized for its size!  We tried an Acadia and it is simply too big for daily chores and shrinking parking spots.

I guess the Toyota Highlander is one of the last nicely sized 3 row SUV's, but alas it is a cross-over and not great for towing duties.  It seems as though all the car companies have written off those of us who actually use an SUV off road and for towing, as these car-based ones just don't work well for those.

One example - 18" wheels.  Try getting a decent all-terrain tire for an 18" wheel, and the ride off-road (rough gravel roads) will be harsh.  Low profile tires with highway tread get flats all day long on rough shale gravel roads.  Low range 4 wheel drive is quite handy on a dirty, slippery gravel boat ramp.  I guess I drive my Explorer until it dies.

With the loss of the Pathfinder to the soccer mom /mall crawler side, your only option would be a 4Runner, Xterra, Jeep Wrangler, Jeep Grand Cherokee.

Offline aaronk

  • Drunk on Fuel
  • ****
  • Posts: 1508
  • Carma: +43/-36
    • View Profile
Re: Test Drive: 2013 Chevrolet Traverse
« Reply #18 on: January 07, 2013, 11:57:17 am »
What happened to SUV's like the previous generation Ford Explorer in terms of size?  That is the perfect size for us - these new ones are virtually identical in size to the last generation Ford Expedition, which was constantly criticized for its size!...

I think Hyundai is bringing out a 7-seater Santa Fe in 2013, and that vehicle should be a good size. The new Pathfinder, although still quite big, is a good value.

Was the old Explorer actually a 3-row SUV? I thought it was a 5-pass, and in that category there's TONS of options. What's even more good news is the availability of new compact fuel-efficient offerings like the Ford C-Max and Chevy Orlando.

Offline canuckystan

  • Learner's Permit
  • *
  • Posts: 187
  • Carma: +5/-58
    • View Profile
Re: Test Drive: 2013 Chevrolet Traverse
« Reply #19 on: January 07, 2013, 12:12:24 pm »
Yes, it had 3rd row, body on frame, wheels that allow nice all-terrain tires, 4x4 low and high, rear drive, mid-size.  All great stuff for towing and off-road.  I can't see anything current that compares now that the Pathfinder is a front drive car, and the Commander is gone.  The 4runner may do it, but I'm not sure if the rear 3rd row folds into the floor or not (the ones up against the rear side windshields are ridiculous).