Quote:
Originally Posted by Viral
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.
|
So you're the expert in deciding what I should think about how a vehicle feels when I ride in it? That's like telling me what type of mattress is more comfortable for me to sleep on. I mean there are people out there that prefer Mustangs and Challengers over Camaros too. I've driven all three and don't agree with them either but if it's what they prefer then so be it.
Because I like the feel of a SUV over a crossover, I'm foolish? Then I guess everyone else in here that has praised their Tahoe/Denali ride OVER the Traverse/Acadia are fools too? Camarofan69, TahoeCamaro, and myself all like the ride in the Tahoe better than your Traverse/Acadia....get over it. I guess I shouldn't tell you what flavor of ice cream I like or what my favorite color is because that would make me an idiot if it isn't what you like.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viral
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.
|
If this was spread out across all three rows or even the 2nd and 3rd, I would agree, but all of that five inches is in the back row. You have to look at the legroom on a row by row basis, not cumulative. The numbers again show that the Tahoe 2nd row passengers have more leg room while the Traverse 3rd row passengers have more room. If I'm using my 3rd row a lot, this might be a consideration, but I don't.
Without knowing for sure, I would assume that these measurements are taken for each row while they are at their furthest apart for a selling point. For the 2nd row that would the front seats all the way forward and the 2nd row all the way back. The 3rd row measurement taken with the 2nd row forward and the 3rd row back. In my Tahoe, the 2nd and 3rd rows don't move so there is no guessing there. The seats move in the Traverse so it sounds like a numbers game. Again, I am assuming on how the measurements are taken but it sounds logical. They wouldn't take the measurements with the seats at their closest, it wouldn't sound a s big would it? Just like Chevy claiming 30 mpg from the V6 Camaro. (2LS only with the 2.92 rear end)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viral
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.
|
Yes, the Tahoe has a more box-like interior and than extra shoulder and hip room is welcome so kids aren't complaining about being in each others space, lol. Also adds to the feeling of more open space inside. The roof clearance won't be noticed unless you're over something like 6'6" I assume. I'm not that tall but my son is 6'4" and he hasn't complained yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viral
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.
|
My Tahoe doesn't have fold flat 3rd row seats and I don't think the newer ones do either. Again, each has one row with more leg room than the other so I don't see the Traverse winning here. Kids don't "feel" legroom, they feel how close their brother or sister is next to them.
The cargo room for both is somewhat misleading because those numbers are only available if you're not carrying passengers. When am I ever going to haul 108 or 116 cu ft of cargo and no passengers? That's why I have a F-150. The real question should be what is the cargo volume with all the seats up or in my case, with the 3rd row in. Does the cargo volume of the Traverse include the in floor storage areas? Not sure, so I don't see a win here either.
BTW, I never said it was FAR too small....quit adding words.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viral
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.
|
The point of all that was that I have all the seats and cargo space I need, my second row is bigger and wider, and I have more capabilities that a Traverse/Acadia and according to me and a few others that have posted here a better ride.
I never claimed that "I need all the extra room" in my Tahoe...again with you adding words. I've put my wife and kids in a Traverse and we drove it....no one liked it. Not the seats, not the ride, not the ride height, not the (lack of) power.
I'll say it like this and maybe this wil placate you.... we felt we had more room in our Tahoe, which is a better fit for my family....that work for you?
Wow, that was along post.
Sorry for the Thread Jack OP!