My camaro has officially been traded.

[NoSyT]

Originally Posted by Viral

So because of a bad back, you traded your Camaro with IRS on a body on frame old school SUV?? Why not a Traverse or crossover with a comfortable smooth ride?

Never been in a '07-'11 Tahoe have you? Man, this thing is a really nice, smooth and comfortable ride. The Traverse is too small for my family and it can't beat the feel of the Tahoe.

Originally Posted by xXSilencerXx

Dad's got a 03 Avalanche Z-71, rides smoother than both of my cars.

Originally Posted by Camarofan69

I DROVE THE TRAVERSE AND I WAS READY TO BUY IT, THEN I DROVE THE TAHOE FULY LOADED WITH EVERYTHING AND IT DROVE AS GOOD OR BETTER THAN THE TRAVERSE. IT DROVE BETTER THAN MY SILVERADO, AND CAMARO.

I have a 4x4 with the 5.3L in it....great torque, good HP, and with the AFM, I still get about 20-21 mpg. Put a dual Flowmaster kit on it, you will not regret it!

Originally Posted by TahoeCamaro

Wow... Have you ever driven/riden in a Tahoe? The ride is nicer than the Camaro's and Traverse's, and it's far from old school. I have no idea where you got all of this from, but it's completely inaccurate ^^.

Hands down the best Truck/SUV I have ever driven.

[Viral]

Originally Posted by Dirty D

Never been in a '07-'11 Tahoe have you? Man, this thing is a really nice, smooth and comfortable ride. The Traverse is too small for my family and it can't beat the feel of the Tahoe.

I have, actually. You've never driven a lambda, have you? No body on frame SUV with truck suspension comes close to the ride quality of the traverse/enclave/Acadia. They ride like a sedan, because they basically are.

Your 'too small' comment also seems to indicate your lack of knowledge on these crossovers. The traverse is BIGGER than a Tahoe in passenger and cargo space. If it's too small for you then the Tahoe must be positively cramped

[NoSyT]

Originally Posted by Viral

I have, actually. You've never driven a lambda, have you? No body on frame SUV with truck suspension comes close to the ride quality of the traverse/enclave/Acadia. They ride like a sedan, because they basically are.

Your 'too small' comment also seems to indicate your lack of knowledge on these crossovers. The traverse is BIGGER than a Tahoe in passenger and cargo space. If it's too small for you then the Tahoe must be positively cramped

@Viral
My wife and I actually thought about trading the Tahoe for a Traverse until we drove one. We prefer the ride, room and capabilities of the Tahoe without a doubt. 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? The Traverse AWD is pretty solid when your off the city streets too I assume? If I wanted the feel of a sedan; I would have a sedan, not a 4x4 SUV. Some of us actually have a 4x4 SUV because we use them for more than getting groceries and taking the kids to school.

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.

Let's compare my "lack of knowledge" on crossovers, as you call it, to the actual numbers from Chevy:

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?

Wow, look at that....according to Chevy's numbers my Teenagers have more passenger room in my Tahoe, go figure. And I'm the one with a lack of knowledge on crossovers?

So, quickly…the Traverse is longer, narrower, and sits lower than my Tahoe but with more cargo room. Great. Whereas my Tahoe has more passenger room, a smaller turning radius, an 5.3L Gas/E85 V8 with AFM vs. your 3.6L V6 (no need to even start with HP and TQ numbers), 4WD vs AWD, I can tow 8,500 lbs and my Tahoe isn't restricted to pavement.

Anymore knowledge you want to give me?

[Camarofan69]

and they get the same mileage!

[Viral]

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.

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.

[NoSyT]

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.

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)

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.

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.

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!

[Viral]

You're right, I can't possibly assume what feels best to you. I can only speak to the technology. You prefer the feel of a live axle over IRS, I got it. You like the feel of an SUV over a crossover. That's certainly your choice to make, but laughing at me for pointing out that the traverse is, in fact, larger than a tahoe, regardless of what your family perceived, doesn't make you right.

The middle row seats in the Lambdas slide fore and aft about 8 inches, so you get to decide exactly where you want that extra 5.4 inches of legroom, even splitting the difference between rows with the captains chairs. The bottom line is passengers WILL have more legroom in all rows in a Lambda. It DOES have better (meaning newer, higher tech, more refined by GM's standards) suspension, whether you personally like the feeling or not. It DOES have more cargo space than a tahoe whether you ever choose to use it or not. That all speaks to your comment: "The Traverse is too small for my family..."

I wasn't questioning your reason for buying a Tahoe. My post was directed at the OP, curious why he chose a live axle truck for a bad back. He answered, you attacked. I'll drop it now as well since we've gotten way off topic.

[Camarofan69]

Im sorry, but wtf is a Lambda?


Also my back did not hurt because of the type of suspension. It was the seats.

[NoSyT]

Viral, just so we are clear. I didn't attack you. If you took it that way, it was unintentional and I didn't mean for it to come across like that. I thought it was more of a debate.

The laugh was at your statement that no SUV comes close to the ride of a Traverse/Enclave/Acadia. That's simply a brash and assuming statement for anyone to make unless you've driven everything under the sun IMO. The "cramped" family line....that's just plain funny. You know you thought it was funny when you wrote it.

As far as the legroom...our back and forth posts have actually gotten me curious and wanting to firgure out how they do actually take the measurements. If you want to contest the 2nd row numbers from Chevy, cool, you see the numbers one way, I see them another....it's splitting hairs now.

Yeah, we've gotten off topic...it's dropped. We cool?

[Camaro2SSLS3]

Sorry to see t go, but as long as You got another GM then that's all that matters! Congrats on your Tahoe

[Viral]

Camarofan69 - lambda is the platform of the traverse, Acadia and enclave.

Dirty D - yup, we're good

[Camarofan69]

thank you.

[demonspeed]

Originally Posted by Viral

Camarofan69 - lambda is the platform of the traverse, Acadia and enclave.

And Saturn Outlook

But I digress...

Sorry, I'm mostly a lurker on the site, but I figured to make a comment with the OT nature (which I've enjoyed the discussion!)...

My coworker bought an AWD Acadia this past fall. She is married with two young kids (ie: normal American family). Her and her husband went with the Acadia over the Yukon due to the greater interior volume. They also tow a wave runner with it.

For a "soccer mom," the Lamda's are a great platform. If one tows anything of substantive nature, the full-sizers will be a better bet. I'm willing to guess most sheeple are best suited with the crossover, though. It's truly the best vehicle for people who want a more plebian vehicle, but aren't lame enough to default to a minivan.

Personally, I like my BOF TrailBlazer.

[Viral]

LOL, I know, I just didn't include the now defunct brand

I own and run the forums for all four Lambdas.