Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirty D
 @Viral
You say the Traverse has a better ride quality, no SUV comes close? I’ve driven my Tahoe from Virginia to Missouri to Texas and it’s as solid and smooth on the interstate as it is towing my boat or off road. How does your Traverse do towing a 24ft boat? |
I made no comments about the performance abilities compared to the Tahoe. One is a body on frame SUV while the other is a crossover, with all of the abilities and shortcomings afforded by their respective platforms. Everyone here on C5 is quick to jump all over the mustang's ride because of it's solid rear axle vs the Camaro's IRS. The same argument holds true for the Tahoe vs the lambdas (I own an Acadia BTW, not a Traverse). The point is, ride comfort IS a compromise you make with a Tahoe in order to have off-road and big towing capabilities. To say otherwise is completely foolish. It may ride very nicely for a solid rear axle vehicle with truck tuned suspension, but it's not going to compare to the Lambda's softer tuned IRS.
Quote:
Now, by you saying that "the traverse is BIGGER than a Tahoe in passenger and cargo space", tells me you haven’t really looked at the numbers or you’ve been drinking the crossover kool-aid for too long, I'm not sure which.
Front head room Tahoe: 41.1 Traverse: 40.4
Front shoulder Tahoe: 65.3 Traverse: 62.0
Front Hip room Tahoe: 60.3 Traverse: 59.1
Front leg room Tahoe: 41.3 Traverse: 41.3
2nd row head Tahoe: 39.2 Traverse: 39.4
2nd row shoulder Tahoe: 65.2 Traverse: 61.3
2nd row hip room Tahoe: 60.6 Traverse: 57.8
2nd Row leg room Tahoe: 39.0 Traverse: 36.8
3rd row head room Tahoe: 37.9 Traverse: 37.8
3rd row shoulder Tahoe: 61.7 Traverse: 57.6
3rd row hip room Tahoe: 49.1 Traverse: 48.3
3rd row leg room Tahoe: 25.6 Traverse: 33.2
Cargo Volume 108.9 116.4
Where again does the Traverse have more passenger and cargo room?
|
While it may have been a stretch to say more passenger AND cargo room, let's break down those numbers. Let's take legroom first. Since both front and middle rows adjust fore and aft, you have to add all three rows together to find out which has more (since they were simply measured at one fixed distance, which can adjust by 8-10 inches).
Tahoe Legroom: 41.3 + 39.0 + 25.6 =
105.9 inches
Traverse legroom: 41.3 + 36.8 + 33.2 =
111.3 inches
When you look closer at the numbers, the Traverse gives its passengers over FIVE more inches of legroom. That's a lot.
Headroom next - Because the traverse has an arched roofline, the front and rear is a bit lower than the tahoe, the middle is higher. But we're talking fractions of an inch, barely noticeable as different.
Shoulder and hip room - The Tahoe is wider and has far less "tumble home" than the traverse, so it does provide and inch or two more room in these dimensions.
Finally, let's compare cargo room, which measure each vehicle with both rows down (or out in the case of the Tahoe, since I still don't think the 3rd row has a fold flat option):
Tahoe: 108.9 cu in
Traverse: 116.4 cu in
This is the most telling of all. It shows that the Traverse has MORE interior volume than the Tahoe.
In summary, the Traverse provides more cargo room, far more legroom, about equal headroom and less hip/shoulder room than a Tahoe. IMO, legroom is the one people will "feel" and cargo room is the one people will measure. Traverse wins both of those. Yes, it's a bit less wide, but saying it's FAR too small for you compared to the Tahoe is completely false.
If you need the off road and towing capabilities that an old school SUV provides, then say that. But claiming you need all the extra room it provides compared to a Lambda is patently false.