Topic: Test Drive: 2013 Chevrolet Traverse

[Autos_Editor]

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...

[Snowman]

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 

[ChaosphereIX]

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.

[Threader]

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.

[aaronk]

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.

[northsparrow]

Might I suggest we include "Cost Per Ton" in our simple set of measuring tools?

[Northernridge]

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.

[SaskSpecV]

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...

[Fobroader]

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.

[aaronk]

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.

[Northernridge]

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.

[Fobroader]

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.

[SaskSpecV]

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...

[canuckystan]

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.

[Fobroader]

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....

[Fobroader]

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.

[aaronk]

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.

[canuckystan]

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).

[Vanstar]

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.

[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.