Traverse Forum banner

2024 Traverse News and Predictions

530 Views 11 Replies 8 Participants Last post by  Watthour
4
Information continues to trickle out. Looks like it will be powered by a new 2.5 liter turbo four. Production is slated to start in December.


Also, there are some details on the interior. Of note is the Supercruise LEDs and sensor. Looks to be similar to the Colorado. May have a purse holder under the console as well, something my wife liked very much in the Nissan Pathfinder.


Car Vehicle Land vehicle Motor vehicle Wheel


Colorado:

Car Vehicle Gear shift Motor vehicle Steering part



Exterior shots:

Wheel Car Tire Vehicle Grille


Tire Wheel Car Vehicle Automotive tire



All in all this appears to bring the Traverse up to date. If it maintains its space and driving dynamics for a similar price I think it will do very well.
See less See more
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Yikes....
Key words... all new engine and all new 3rd gen.
That means, stay away from it for a minimum of 2 maybe 3 model years.... until the guinea pigs... i mean owners, 'test out' all the bugs.
Glad i got a 23.
  • Like
  • Helpful
Reactions: 5
Yikes....
Key words... all new engine and all new 3rd gen.
That means, stay away from it for a minimum of 2 maybe 3 model years.... until the guinea pigs... i mean owners, 'test out' all the bugs.
Glad i got a 23.
I'm not convinced it's all new. The proportions and glass and certain lines, like the tailgate, look the same to me, and six years would be an unusually short platform run by GM standards. I think it's a major refresh.

We thought of waiting but my wife still preferred the Traverse to anything else and the price was right. I would hesitate to buy a first year GM engine as well.
  • Like
Reactions: 1
The Pontiac "Iron Duke" 4-holer was also 2.5L (151 CID), offered from 1977 to 1993. The early Chevrolet 4-cylinder (153 CID) was 2.5L built from 1962 to 1982. The later Chevrolet 140CID SOHC 4-cylinder was 2.3L, and had a short build from 1971 to only 1977, when the "Iron Duke" took over. Similarly, the Ford 2300cc and its evential re-stroking to 2.5L (and its variants) were built from 1974 to 2001. NONE of these were realistically 100,000 mile engines. Certainly, some did make it that far, but it was exceptional instead of expected.

The later Chevrolet 2.2L / 134 CID (commonly called the 122 family) was built from 1982 to 2003. 1990's and later version were potentially a 200,000 mile engine with proper maintenance and timely repairs, but repairs beyond routine maintenance were expected, such as head gaskets, valve train wear, and eventual piston skirt clearances getting the better of them.

Also consider that none of those were pushed to deliver power much beyond 1 horsepower per cubic inch displacement.

Contrast that to a Buick 231 V-6, which had a realistic life expectancy of 200,000+ miles for a "stupid" owner, and 400,000 miles for a conscientious owner, revealing that the sacrifice in durability of a lightweight engine design would have even a crainially-challenged buyer asking hard questions.

Given that brief history, I would also be wary of the first-year powerplant design. Even the current 3.6L V-6 has a history of teething problems for the first few years.
See less See more
I'd be surprised if they released a new Traverse as a '24 model with the recent heavy refresh. I think it is more likely a new engine joins the lineup and maybe a new trim level or some shuffling of trim levels.
Given that brief history, I would also be wary of the first-year powerplant design. Even the current 3.6L V-6 has a history of teething problems for the first few years.
And don't forget GM's diesel debacle in the 1980's. There's a short description of it here:

It was a debacle. I remember folks pulling the diesels and swapping in gas motors.
I was an Oldsmobile mechanic back then and we did swap out some of the diesels for gas. If I remember, seems like oil leaks were one of the biggest issues. Never could get those engines to seal.
I had two of those diesel engines. They had three problems. One factory that made the blocks turned out improper clearance for the rear main crank bearing which caused failures. GM also went to a less strong head bolt resulting in blown head gaskets. And the Rousa injector pump timing ring would fail letting all kinds of crap into the fuel system. If you got the right block, used new head bolts, and got some one who knew how to rebuild the pump correctly, the engine could be quite reliable. I did replace the engine in my station wagon with a hopped up gas motor which my 16 year old son used to outrace firebirds and Cameros. (Really humiliating because the wagon still had all its diesels emblems on it.)
That's reminiscent of a different Olds wagon I had, but not a diesel. A '71 Vista Cruiser (basically a Cutlass platform wagon), hiding behind my '67 F-body in the Polaroid. It was set up with a 455, TH400, and 3.55 12-bolt for towing. It was a real sleeper, too. That Olds put down a lot of torque on the low end (between stop lights).

See less See more
  • Like
Reactions: 2
Ah Vista Cruisers, we used to head down to the junkyard and cut the roofs off them and graft them onto van roofs to customize vans back in the '70's.
I told Mrs. Watt that she probably didn't need/want a sunroof in her '23, lest she be accused of driving around in a re-popped Vista Cruiser. If you think about today's SUV/CUV segment, it's not too much of a stretch.

Back onto the topic, the sneak-peeks of the '24 seem to be getting even closer to that, with a possibly lower nose and flatter hood.
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top