2010 Chevrolet Traverse: Love/Hate

I have not driven the Traverse, but have driven both the Acadia and the now defunct Outlook siblings. The negatives that I noticed immediately were much the same as noted above. There was a distinct tendency to uphift and lug...in an attempt to increase gas mileage, I guess. It was very annoying. I had read immediately that there was an issue with poor gas mileage. Early reports were from 11-13mpg. My much larger '03 Expedition did better than that as does my current SUV, an '08 Armada (which we bought instead of these GM models). The clincher to me was price. I bought a roomier, more powerful and more capable vehicle for less (with rebates and discounts, of course). Lastly, GM listed interior space within fractions of my Expedition, but we found that to be largely misleading. You see, the second row slides back and forth. The second row leg room measurement had to be taken with the seat all of the way back and the third row measurement with that seat moved all of the way forward. Very misleading. These GM SUV's are decently roomy, but real world feel is nowhere near that of full-sized SUV's.

I drove one for the first time a couple weeks ago back to back with a Flex. The Traverse felt smaller, despite it's size. Despite both cars having the same transmission, the Traverse programming also felt better and more responsive.

We are trying to decide new Traverse (employee discount) or beater minivan right now. The Toyota/Honda vans are so freaking expensive, even used.

"I expected to get the posted MPG but not worst then my over 13 year old vehicle that i traded in."

I don't understand the obsession with replacing worse with worst. I suppose they are so unhappy they'll put their Traverse up for sell. :P

I've never gotten anywhere close to my city EPA numbers on of my receont both cars and neither has anywone else that I've know. The EPA scale is a closed laboratory simulation and people seem to ignore the range of possible MPG figures printed under the main value. Remember, that bold number is only an ESTIMATED value.

chavis10:

With my current ('10 Mazda3) and previous 2 cars ('03 Golf, '06 Jetta) I have managed to hit the EPA combined # for my driving style (60 hwy/40 city) easily. With my 3 I am easily averaging ~1.5 MPG above EPA combined estimate.

"I've never gotten anywhere close to my city EPA numbers on of my receont both cars and neither has anywone else that I've know. "

You must not know many people or all that you know drive really fast. Since the EPA numbers were adjusted down a few years ago, all of my friends newer cars (and my wifes Prius) gets right around the posted numbers....but most of my friends are in their late 30s to early 50s and all drive safely and dont like to waste fuel and money by flogging cars.

I dont get close to the large EPA city number. I'm like 15% below that number. It all depends on WHERE and how you drive. The EPA test DOES NOT simulate true city driving. If you're in Philly, NYC, Chicago, etc. and drive there daily you will NOT get EPA city mileage. Saying "all my friends meet or beat EPA numbers easily" means nothing without details on where and how they drive.

We have an '09 Saturn Outlook (front wheel drive as well), which is mechanically identical to the Traverse, and love it. ~25k miles on it and no issues hitting the EPA estimates. The space behind the 2nd row is huge in comparison to the competition.. or at least it was at the time we bought it.

Anecdotal city mileage doesn't mean of anything because depending on who you ask that covers everything from 25-40 mph suburbs with two stops per mile to the 0-20-0 mph urban crawl with a light every hundred yards.

No amount of safe and gentle will get the EPA numbers out of riding the brake for an hour.

I thought that the Traverse family was the only SUV that had seating for 8. For my daughter, that would be a nice extra. Unfortunately (in some ways) she bought a Jetta TDI Wagon instead. The Jetta is, of course, far less expensive than the Traverse, and gets amazing gas, uh, I mean diesel mileage. It's just that for any conjoined family outings we need to take 2 cars. (Actually, we can't even take 5 people in the Jetta-- it is just too small a car, and the rear seat shoulder room is pitiful.)

Anyway, zoomzoomm said that his(?) '08 Armada was roomier than the Traverse. Does the Armada have seating for 8?

By the way, why is zoomzoomm driving an Armada, rather than a CX-9?

"he EPA test DOES NOT simulate true city driving. If you're in Philly, NYC, Chicago, etc. and drive there daily you will NOT get EPA city mileage."

I do, easily. My ride is rated 14/20 and I get 16-17mpg (not combined) right in the heart of NYC.
Highway cruising at 75-85mph yields 21-23mpg, depending on temperature and terrain. My lawyer will attest that I don't always obey the highway speed limits :)

My previous E90 325i was rated 20/29 under the OLD EPA system, and I got 21 city and 33 highway all the time.

"The EPA test DOES NOT simulate true city driving"

What is true city driving?

I live in a city of several million people, have a long commute and beat the EPA numbers with ease. I can even beat the Canadian mileage numbers if I really try.

The thing is if you examine 100 different drivers daily commute you will 100 different set of test results. Every driver is different, every route is different and every day is different.

The EPA number is just a number they came up with to tell you what a rough average city mileage figure you will get. It does simulate true city driving, just not eery possible combination of city driving (how could it?).

It's main purpose is to give a number to compare when shopping around.

I'm with the 1st commenter. Where are actual driving experience comments from the IL staff? The Traverse appears to be going the route of the Edge. Intoduced, a couple posts, then nothing.

The last 3 posts have all been links to Traverse stories elsewhere. I've got Google for random stories about the Traverse. I come to the road test blog to get YOUR experience. If you aren't going to actually talk about it, dump it and add something to the fleet you do want to talk about (the Outback that many commenters have requested comes to mind).

"I'm with the 1st commenter. Where are actual driving experience comments from the IL staff? The Traverse appears to be going the route of the Edge. Intoduced, a couple posts, then nothing."

I surmised that the Traverse is probably used for their back-end production support and not frequently driven by the editors. To assuage the constant bitching about not enough posts, perhaps they should just not include it in the published long term fleet. I don't agree with that though, because few driving impressions and fuel economy updates are better than none. Even though reading about this thing is boring since it's already been done with the Enclave.

Folks, the EPA test is outlined on their site. If your driving approximates those conditions than you will get EPA city mileage or close to it- its that simple. My last three vehicles have not met EPA city figures (the updated figures) and other people get the same results. Its all about the conditions. The EPA city test has a top speed of 56mpg and includes about 23 stops in 11 miles of driving. I probably stop 2-3 times that much over the course of 11 miles. The notion that ONE test can be accurate for ALL city driving is ridiculous and its crazy that people are really trying to argue that the test covers it all.

"It's main purpose is to give a number to compare when shopping around."

agreed. My point is the EPA test doesnt come close to projecting mileage in a dense, older city with short blocks and heavy traffic. Most East Coast cities come to mind. The layout and density of the older US cities has NOTHING in common with LA or cities of the south that were developed largely around the car. Interections are more frequent, there are fewer highways, roads have less capacity, etc. Unless you hypermile or drive a hybrid you will NOT get EPA city numbers in a city like Philadelphia. Period.

"I do, easily. My ride is rated 14/20 and I get 16-17mpg (not combined) right in the heart of NYC.
Highway cruising at 75-85mph yields 21-23mpg, depending on temperature and terrain. My lawyer will attest that I don't always obey the highway speed limits :)"

In a V8 powered car rated at 14mpg you get 17mpg driving through NYC proper? With no effort? Miracles never cease. If you look at the EPA test schedule you will see it has NOTHING to do with driving in New York. The top speed, idle time and # of stops are very conservative.

"I do, easily. My ride is rated 14/20 and I get 16-17mpg (not combined) right in the heart of NYC.
Highway cruising at 75-85mph yields 21-23mpg, depending on temperature and terrain."

My M3 with the 6MT is also rated 14/20, I get about 18 in mixed city driving. On the highway averaging 75-80 mph I get about 22-23 mpg.

"My M3 with the 6MT is also rated 14/20, I get about 18 in mixed city driving. On the highway averaging 75-80 mph I get about 22-23 mpg."

Nah, bimmerjay, stop BS-ing. We are both liars. The 1487 has spoken. He may not have owned our cars but he must be right about its fuel economy. Our own trip computers and gas station receipts are no match for the test reports he read online. He is THE 1487, after all ;)

"The top speed, idle time and # of stops are very conservative."

HYPOTHETICALLY, is triple digit (and I don't mean 101mph) on the BQE considered conservative? :)

@ e90 M3

Or "THE OVERBROOK" ;)

@bimmerjay & @e90_m3 -

i had previously thought you were both reasonable, rational people. now i know the truth. filthy liars, both of you!

Aggressive upshift programs work great on the EPA tests, but they are useless in a city with heat, slopes or both. The driveability goes to hell in a handcart and the driver ends up using way more throttle than he/she would like just to prevent the upshifts and the vehicle bogging down. As a result, they do not get the EPA city mileage because the car has been built for the test, not to have that sensation of driveability.

pezzy669- i've had two Mazda3's ('05 and '07) and neither averaged even the city mileage number let alone the "combined" rating. My the '05 didn't even average 20mpg over its 33k miles. I have 41k on the '07 and it is barely averaging 20mpg. No one that drives in a real city is hitting their combined average- if they claim they are, I simply do not buy it. And if you run the HVAC system, forget it. Maybe these things are possible in suburbia but in a REAL city, it ain't happening.

PS- this has been my experience in every car that I have driven, not just including my personal vehicles.

I'm also with 1487- I don't see how a 4L V8 in an M3 is averaging the same as my 2.3L I4 car when driven in city gridlock. It seems almost impossible if you ask me. In the winter time, if I use the auto climate control, I will return tanks in the 16-18mpg range.

"I'm also with 1487- I don't see how a 4L V8 in an M3 is averaging the same as my 2.3L I4 car when driven in city gridlock. It seems almost impossible if you ask me. In the winter time, if I use the auto climate control, I will return tanks in the 16-18mpg range."

This mirrors my experience with 4-banger cars as well. In my various rental car trips, none of them came close to their EPA rating. City MPG is reasonably close if traffic is not horrendous, but highway MPG usually comes well below the rating. I don't punch it at every given opportunity, but I do cruise at about 10-15mph above PSL.

It appears to me that marginally-powered cars have a hard time reaching EPA rating because the engine is constantly wrung out, while high power cars can deliver the every-day acceleration requirements at barely over idling. It's by no means authoritative, just from the various cars I've owned or driven for a reasonable duration.

@zcal and e90,

Thanks for catching my lies. I'll strive for more truthiness in my future posts. I can only hope to one day achieve the level of factual, objective perfection as The 1487/overbrook.

I had a V8 Taurus SHO that averaged 17-18 in 4 years of Chicago city driving, my 2007 Forester averaged 17-18 in 3 years of Chicago city driving, my 2004 Jetta 1.8T averages 18-19 so far after 3 months of Chicago city driving.

If you aren't treating stop lights as drag strip trees I have no problem believing that an M3 would get similar mileage as my 4 cyl Subaru and VW.

@bimmerjay -

remember, they're not facts if he doesn't like them.

anyone else remember the top gear (real version) test where some generic hybrid drove as fast as it could around the track and an M3 simply had to keep up? guess which got the better mileage?

If the theory about a larger more poweful engine getting better fuel economy than a 4 banger were true then GM would have squeezed an LS3 in the Cruze. It would be able to maintain highway speeds just by taking your foot off the brake. I also thought this was true until someone informed me that even at low revs a V8 is still constantly firing 8 fuel injectors. And the larger the engine displacement means an increase in the amount of fuel the injectors are spraying. This is why Ford and BMW have poured money into develpoing turbo 6s to replace the V8 for performance while increasing fuel efficiency. I also think that turbo 4s will be phased in to replace V6s (or I6s in BMWs). Don't be surprised in few years when BMW debuts a turbo 4 cylinder 3 series and the beloved turbo I6 will be reserved for the M3. If Hyundai can get 274 hp out of a 2.0 turbo 4 just think what the Germans can do.

My other prediction is that the 5.0 in the Mustang is going to be short lived. The next generation GT will have the Ecoboost as the standard engine. I really think the 5.0 was developed to replace the 5.4 in the F 150 but debuted in the Stang to compete with the Camaro. The next gen Camaro SS and base Corvettes will probably have a turbo version of the 3.6 V6. Look for the upcoming Cadillac XTS to debut the turbo 3.6. The original 3.6 and the DI 3.6 both debuted in Caddys. This sounds crazy but remember that Porsche has been kicking butt with turbo 6s for decades and the GTR is also doing pretty good with a turbo 6.