|Topic Review (Newest First)|
|04-19-2019 10:55 AM|
Cargo volume to seat one.
Subaru. = 73.3
|04-19-2019 08:16 AM|
Originally Posted by Montereyjack2$ View Post
I'm fine with all of those statements about a Tahoe but it's ignorant to say that about a Suburban. I will continue to pound this drum so readers of this thread don't get mislead.
|04-19-2019 07:57 AM|
|srwa||What beach are U on?|
|04-14-2019 02:53 PM|
I owned a 1998 Tahoe and it had two rows of seats. When I started looking for a new SUV in 2017 all I found were large and medium SUV's that had 7 and 8 passenger seating with the addition of a third row of seats that unlike passenger vans, was not removable. I went to the local Chevy dealer with my tape measure and measured the amount of cargo space in the 2018 Tahoe and the 2018 Suburban and it was far less than that of the 2018 Subaru Outback which has only two rows of seats.
I was delighted when the 2018 Traverse arrived and it provided more usable space although only the base level model had a second row bench seat and so mine has captains chairs for the second row and I ended up installing a "pet bridge" to get a flat space in this area.
Part of my objective with the new SUV was to be able to put our road bicycles into the rear without having to remove the front wheels and store them somewhere while driving. I could do this with the Outback and of course with my 2500HD pickup but I wanted something in between the two. No way would bicycles fit in the rear of the Tahoe or the Suburban with their third row of seats. If you travel with 6-7 other people all the time then it is maybe a tougher looking alternative to the mini van. But I tend to use the SUV as a utility vehicle and not as an 8 passenger van alternative.
Take 30 minutes and borrow a tape measure and head down to the local Chevy dealer and check this out for yourself. Then you will understand why I did not buy a Tahoe or Suburban as a utility vehicle to actually haul more than a bag of golf clubs or the family poodle. I cannot understand why people pull crap out of the air and type their unsubstantiated opinions and pollute forums with their drivel.
By the way the GM owner manual states "All-wheel-drive vehicles can be used for off-road driving. Vehicles without all-wheel drive and vehicles not equipped with All Terrain (AT) or On-Off Road (OOR) tires must not be driven off-road except on a level, solid surface." I replaced the factory 3-season tires with AT ones the first week after I got the Traverse.
|04-12-2019 11:09 AM|
Originally Posted by Thomcat View Post
Tahoe's aren't much cheaper, piss away $25k on a Tahoe or $30k on a Burb... why do you think I bought a well used Traverse?
And totally concur, I have the harbor freight 4x8 trailer that can haul almost 2,000 lbs and use it regularly... it will become my landscaping trailer this year since I get the distinct privilege of becoming my mother-in-law's lawn care maintainer.
|04-12-2019 10:07 AM|
Originally Posted by cintocrunch View Post
Cargo space and vehicle length:
2018 Traverse = 23 cu. ft. length = 204"
2018 Tahoe = 15 cu ft. length = 204"
2018 Suburban = 39 cu ft. length = 224"
In fact Tahoe and Traverse are not close in cargo space for length of 7-8 passenger vehicle with a length that comes in handy trying to stuff it in tight garage space.
Granted the larger Suburban is a wise choice for a family with 7 children consistently hauling 39 cu ft. of cargo, otherwise just an extra $30K bucks to pi$$ away for the privilege of hauling an extra 1-3/4 ft of empty vehicle a$$.
That's one reason for having a trailer hitch on a Traverse/Tahoe - can add another 150 cu. ft. of cargo space with a $1500 six foot trailer or rent one for $29/da on the rare occasion it is needed.
|04-12-2019 09:07 AM|
|Capucine||Agree that you cannot beat the room inside a Suburban. Lots of room to spare. Also the ideal vehicle to tow big trailers. Personnally for my needs a Tahoe would be my dream vehicle even if the price is more expensive than a Traverse. The newer models looks very nice.if you open the tailgate of both the Suburban and the Subaru outback side by side the comparaison is day and night in room capacity.|
|04-12-2019 07:19 AM|
Originally Posted by Montereyjack2$ View Post
My dad has a Yukon XL so I have had plenty of opportunities to load up both the Traverse and Yukon XL, it's not even close.
|04-11-2019 08:15 PM|
I would definitely not trust the stock tires on sand or even on dirt and the owner's manual states this quite clearly. I replaced the factory tires with all terrain ones for this reason the first week I had the Traverse.
I would want to lower the tire pressure and have a portable compressor to add air later. I would also have a hitch with clevis available for the rear receiver and a snatch strap so I could be pulled out if stuck.
The advantage of a true 4WD with part time 4WD is that you can shift into low range and have more power if needed to muscle through the sand. Optimally the tires should allow the vehicle to float on top of the sand but sometimes one can hit a soft spot and sink down to the axles. No idea what the new Tahoe has for 4WD but if it does not have a low range option with the transmission and a locking differential then it is no better than the Traverse.
I looked at the 2018 Tahoe and Suburban but both had less than half as much rear cargo space as the Traverse and so they were quickly discounted. Actually less rear cargo space in either of these vehicles than with a Subaru Outback. Adding more rows of passenger seating has made the SUV's function like a van but most are now worthless as a SUV.
|02-22-2019 01:10 PM|
Originally Posted by Cmerkert View Post
Too bad....looks like a badged '13 with the pearl finish.......shame they made the later ones in Mexico, the drivetrains were OK but the bodies and beds were glued together with snot and the long Escalade CMHSL's soon filled up with water...went through 3 of them under warranty and then gave up.
As for any Chrysler product....gave up on them a long time ago, Duster, Cordoba, Volare, 300M, T&Cs, Cirrus, Breeze and Sebrings......bodies all made like crap. They finally came up with THE first, and decent, SUV/crossover with their '00 series Pacifica (not related to the current piece of crap) which was bulletproof in FWD and loved the semitransparent Nav built into the speedometer pod.........then they screwed it up with a rubber band AWD version.....then Diamler bought them, sucked out their computer technology, put in a German drive train and dumped them...and they reverted to their older out of date drivetrains......luckily I traded my gasping AWD '05 Pacifica for an '07 Avalanche and never looked back at Chrysler. Now that the European bottom feeder Fiat owns them I wouldn't even buy a tricycle with a Chrysler emblem.
My advice if you want to go with a Chrysler product.....drive a few used newer models first to see how they held up..
|This thread has more than 10 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.|