Topic: Test Drive: 2013 Chevrolet Traverse

[dkaz]

I'd rather buy a fully loaded 2008 Enclave for under $20k.

Seems the real world gas mileage on these things is no better than my Mazda MPV which I considered terrible. This includes the Buick Enclave, GMC Acadia, Chevrolet Traverse, and defunct Saturn Outlook. Minivans appear to be the better way to go. Better 3rd row space and fuel economy that's 2 to 3 L/100km better. But, the Enclave is nice enough to justify the increased gas usage.

[whaddaiknow]

Of course, the ultimate irony is the reviewers here couldn't afford the $50,000 cars they pan as "underpowered" anyway. That's because in the real world, 20 and 30-somethings don't drove $50k cars. They drive $15k cars if they are lucky.

Somebody woke up grumpy today  Hard to disagree, though.
OTOH, I thought the reviewers were paying for their own gas.

[sirAQUAMAN64]

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...

Agreed. Unless you need to tow or really like the width or truck feel, I question why family folks would buy a Tahoe which offers laughably small cargo volume behind the 3rd row over this.

The cleaned-up front end design and interior are huge improvements to the Traverse IMO.

I had an Acadia Denali over the holidays and echo most of what the reviewer wrote. Except mine was a full $10,000 more - yikes!

[Solstice2006]

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.

I find buff-book cub reporters a scream: they drive free cars all the time and then snivel that a 300 bhp car is "underpowered." Did it have trouble merging? Problems with grades? Nope, hardly a care made now would have these problems.

Of course, the ultimate irony is the reviewers here couldn't afford the $50,000 cars they pan as "underpowered" anyway. That's because in the real world, 20 and 30-somethings don't drove $50k cars. They drive $15k cars if they are lucky.

I get what your saying, but "20 and 30 somethings drive $15k cars if they are lucky" , that's a major exaggeration.  Your saying in the real world, no one under 40 buys a new car.  I would consider $25k cars if they are lucky to be more appropriate (and if your curious I am 32).

[Solstice2006]

I'd rather buy a fully loaded 2008 Enclave for under $20k.

Seems the real world gas mileage on these things is no better than my Mazda MPV which I considered terrible. This includes the Buick Enclave, GMC Acadia, Chevrolet Traverse, and defunct Saturn Outlook. Minivans appear to be the better way to go. Better 3rd row space and fuel economy that's 2 to 3 L/100km better. But, the Enclave is nice enough to justify the increased gas usage.

It's like comparing Apples and Oranges.  A minivan is much cheaper, better on gas, insurance, more cargo, easier entry (sliding doors) While an mid-size to full-size SUV can tow (like 5000lbs for the GM triplets), has more ground clearance, usually AWD as an option, usually more features, and to the masses they are cooler.

So it's a question of whats most important to you, and like the article says, needs vs wants.

[Solstice2006]

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...

Interesting to see how the value priced Pathfinder will compare against one of the best 7-passenger in the segment, the Mazda CX-9 (according to several websites, including MotorTrend).  Although the CX-9 has only received a minor facelift. 

[Vanstar]

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.

I find buff-book cub reporters a scream: they drive free cars all the time and then snivel that a 300 bhp car is "underpowered." Did it have trouble merging? Problems with grades? Nope, hardly a care made now would have these problems.

Of course, the ultimate irony is the reviewers here couldn't afford the $50,000 cars they pan as "underpowered" anyway. That's because in the real world, 20 and 30-somethings don't drove $50k cars. They drive $15k cars if they are lucky.

I get what your saying, but "20 and 30 somethings drive $15k cars if they are lucky" , that's a major exaggeration.  Your saying in the real world, no one under 40 buys a new car.  I would consider $25k cars if they are lucky to be more appropriate (and if your curious I am 32).

Easy, low interest, long term financing makes this possible. A car should never be more than a third of your annual net income. But then again, more than half of Canadian workers have no savings, for the same reason.

[dkaz]

It's like comparing Apples and Oranges.  A minivan is much cheaper, better on gas, insurance, more cargo, easier entry (sliding doors) While an mid-size to full-size SUV can tow (like 5000lbs for the GM triplets), has more ground clearance, usually AWD as an option, usually more features, and to the masses they are cooler.

So it's a question of whats most important to you, and like the article says, needs vs wants.

Consider that a lot of these big SUV drivers do not need SUV capabilities but perceive minivans as too embarrassing to be seen in. These Chevrolets are often delegated to nothing more than TRAVERSE-ing through vast swaths of concrete jungles otherwise known as suburban parking lots.

As I said though, a four to five year old Enclave is high on my shopping list for seven plus passenger vehicles. That's a beautiful vehicle and can be found for the same price as a four to five year old Sienna or Odyssey.

[aaronk]

The last time I checked the Toyota Sienna was available as a 7-pass AWD van, a great alternative to something like this Traverse.

[Solstice2006]

It's like comparing Apples and Oranges.  A minivan is much cheaper, better on gas, insurance, more cargo, easier entry (sliding doors) While an mid-size to full-size SUV can tow (like 5000lbs for the GM triplets), has more ground clearance, usually AWD as an option, usually more features, and to the masses they are cooler.

So it's a question of whats most important to you, and like the article says, needs vs wants.

Consider that a lot of these big SUV drivers do not need SUV capabilities but perceive minivans as too embarrassing to be seen in. These Chevrolets are often delegated to nothing more than TRAVERSE-ing through vast swaths of concrete jungles otherwise known as suburban parking lots.

As I said though, a four to five year old Enclave is high on my shopping list for seven plus passenger vehicles. That's a beautiful vehicle and can be found for the same price as a four to five year old Sienna or Odyssey.

I would rather have a 4 year old Odyssey than a 4 year old Enclave.  Nothing against the GM triplets, just a fully loaded Odyssey is quite comfortable, easier to drive, and load than an Enclave.  Sure the Enclave has that in style look.  But it drives like a school bus compared to a minivan.

[Vanstar]

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.

Of course, the ultimate irony is the reviewers here couldn't afford the $50,000 cars they pan as "underpowered" anyway. That's because in the real world, 20 and 30-somethings don't drove $50k cars. They drive $15k cars if they are lucky.

Lol, what?

Used cars.

Frankly, from a selfish standpoint, I really don't care that Canadians are now more indebted than Americans were in 2008. It will mean excellent investment opportunities when the reckoning comes. Smart investors reaped huge profits in the aftermath of the crash, the old buy low and sell high paradigm.

Americans have learned that borrowing too much is not a good thing. Their savings rate is now at a 30 year high. That same education programme is coming here sooner than the indebted want to think.

[Mike]

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.

You know, when you are driving around in somebody else's car burning somebody else's gas, there is little disincentive to keep from stomping the go pedal. I also note most of the reviewers here are of a rather young age and I know I drove a lot harder in my 20's and 30's than I do now.

Whenever you see observed fuel consumption figures from a buff-rag, always see it as a worst case. Heck, many buff books don't even report observed fuel economy anymore. Probably makes the manufacturer's fictitious claims look bad.

We pay our own gas.  I feel like we have gone over this before.  We are not a 'buff site'.  You should see what we would get if we really did flog the cars hard.

[Mike]

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.

I find buff-book cub reporters a scream: they drive free cars all the time and then snivel that a 300 bhp car is "underpowered." Did it have trouble merging? Problems with grades? Nope, hardly a care made now would have these problems.

Of course, the ultimate irony is the reviewers here couldn't afford the $50,000 cars they pan as "underpowered" anyway. That's because in the real world, 20 and 30-somethings don't drove $50k cars. They drive $15k cars if they are lucky.

I get what your saying, but "20 and 30 somethings drive $15k cars if they are lucky" , that's a major exaggeration.  Your saying in the real world, no one under 40 buys a new car.  I would consider $25k cars if they are lucky to be more appropriate (and if your curious I am 32).

Easy, low interest, long term financing makes this possible. A car should never be more than a third of your annual net income. But then again, more than half of Canadian workers have no savings, for the same reason.

I have owned 3 new cars since I was 23 and four used ones (I'm 32 now), I have zero cars payments now (one car bought new, one car heavily used), we have a ton of savings and ridiculous life insurance.  Since you already know how much I make (which you are right, isn't much) it is a wonder how I do it.

The hard fast rules like '1/3 income' are a bit out of date.  A good guideline, but not the gospel.

[Vanstar]

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.

I find buff-book cub reporters a scream: they drive free cars all the time and then snivel that a 300 bhp car is "underpowered." Did it have trouble merging? Problems with grades? Nope, hardly a care made now would have these problems.

Of course, the ultimate irony is the reviewers here couldn't afford the $50,000 cars they pan as "underpowered" anyway. That's because in the real world, 20 and 30-somethings don't drove $50k cars. They drive $15k cars if they are lucky.

I get what your saying, but "20 and 30 somethings drive $15k cars if they are lucky" , that's a major exaggeration.  Your saying in the real world, no one under 40 buys a new car.  I would consider $25k cars if they are lucky to be more appropriate (and if your curious I am 32).

Easy, low interest, long term financing makes this possible. A car should never be more than a third of your annual net income. But then again, more than half of Canadian workers have no savings, for the same reason.

I have owned 3 new cars since I was 23 and four used ones (I'm 32 now), I have zero cars payments now (one car bought new, one car heavily used), we have a ton of savings and ridiculous life insurance.  Since you already know how much I make (which you are right, isn't much) it is a wonder how I do it.

The hard fast rules like '1/3 income' are a bit out of date.  A good guideline, but not the gospel.

Fortunately, bankruptcy is never out of date and only happens to other people.

[dkaz]

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.

I find buff-book cub reporters a scream: they drive free cars all the time and then snivel that a 300 bhp car is "underpowered." Did it have trouble merging? Problems with grades? Nope, hardly a care made now would have these problems.

Of course, the ultimate irony is the reviewers here couldn't afford the $50,000 cars they pan as "underpowered" anyway. That's because in the real world, 20 and 30-somethings don't drove $50k cars. They drive $15k cars if they are lucky.

I get what your saying, but "20 and 30 somethings drive $15k cars if they are lucky" , that's a major exaggeration.  Your saying in the real world, no one under 40 buys a new car.  I would consider $25k cars if they are lucky to be more appropriate (and if your curious I am 32).

Easy, low interest, long term financing makes this possible. A car should never be more than a third of your annual net income. But then again, more than half of Canadian workers have no savings, for the same reason.

I have owned 3 new cars since I was 23 and four used ones (I'm 32 now), I have zero cars payments now (one car bought new, one car heavily used), we have a ton of savings and ridiculous life insurance.  Since you already know how much I make (which you are right, isn't much) it is a wonder how I do it.

The hard fast rules like '1/3 income' are a bit out of date.  A good guideline, but not the gospel.

Fortunately, bankruptcy is never out of date and only happens to other people.

1/3 of net income on monthly payment or purchase price of the car?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

If you make $60,000 a year, $20,000 is the maximum total purchase price the car should cost.

I think I heard too that houses should cost no more than twice or was it three times your annual income? Must be many $250k+ families in Vancouver.

[dirtyjeffer]

regarding the comments in the review about touch screen features not working with gloves on (i have read this a few times lately)...please note, that most newer touch screens are capacitive (not pressure sensitive), and since the standard material in gloves is not conductive, it doesn't work on these screens...however, you can buy gloves that are "touch screen compatible"...i have a set and the index finger pad and thumb finger pad have a special conductive material on them.

[dkaz]

You could also sew conductive thread into your gloves, a few inches worth on the pointing finger and a few inches worth the thumb.

[sirAQUAMAN64]

regarding the comments in the review about touch screen features not working with gloves on (i have read this a few times lately)...please note, that most newer touch screens are capacitive (not pressure sensitive), and since the standard material in gloves is not conductive, it doesn't work on these screens...however, you can buy gloves that are "touch screen compatible"...i have a set and the index finger pad and thumb finger pad have a special conductive material on them.

Hmmmm... first time thinking about that.

[sirAQUAMAN64]

The last time I checked the Toyota Sienna was available as a 7-pass AWD van, a great alternative to something like this Traverse.

I agree it's a great alternative that aside from the run-flat controversy makes a ton of sense, but Toyota sells very few of 'em. For me the AWD is a key pro consideration factor in favour of the Sienna.

[Woohoo!]

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.

You know, when you are driving around in somebody else's car burning somebody else's gas, there is little disincentive to keep from stomping the go pedal. I also note most of the reviewers here are of a rather young age and I know I drove a lot harder in my 20's and 30's than I do now.

Whenever you see observed fuel consumption figures from a buff-rag, always see it as a worst case. Heck, many buff books don't even report observed fuel economy anymore. Probably makes the manufacturer's fictitious claims look bad.

I'm 37, I pay for my own fuel, and I drive press vehicles like any normal 'owner' would. Light throttle during take-offs, and driving at posted speed limit. Occasional bursts of speed here and there to test out the powertrain's output and torque spread, but usually 95% slowpoke driving.

Fuel economy obviously worsens in winter driving conditions, that's why I specified a "snowy test week" in the article. I have acheived slightly better results in the past aboard GM's Lambda crossovers (Traverse, Acadia, Enclave, Outlook) but for the most part, fuel consumption was always a concern, summer or winter.

As for the manufacturer's fuel economy claims, they are obliged to publish city and highway ratings based on Natural Resources Canada's established test procedures. The highway rating is based on a simulated drive at an average of about 77 km/h... so even at a constant speed of 100 km/h on the highway, you technically can't match the published highway rating.