[copperbeech]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/22/automobiles/autoreviews/22traverse.html

A very good review of "our" Traverse..."better" than its cousins?

 

[duayned]

Copper, thanks for the alert to that one.
Wow, it's one of the best reviews done on the Traverse. Gotta show it to my wife - she believes everything she reads in the New York Times. ;D

And I really liked this section: "While the three others are solid, impressive vehicles, G.M.’s engineers seem to have learned a lot since those models came to market. Though late to the party, the Traverse benefits from their fine-tuning. The company says it tweaked the steering and transmission, enlarged the engine mounts for smoothness and improved the shock absorbers for a better balance of ride and handling."

Boo-yahh! Sorry, early Acadia, Outlook and Enclave buyers!
(But I'm a little dubious about any "tweaks" to the tranny, since by many reports the downshift is a bit sucky -- to use a technical term. lol)

 

[copperbeech]

And I really liked this section: "While the three others are solid, impressive vehicles, G.M.’s engineers seem to have learned a lot since those models came to market.

Boo-yahh! Sorry, early Acadia, Outlook and Enclave buyers!

And DD what you say is right ie early A, C, E are lacking. The article gives the impression that Traverse are superior to current A, C and E when of course all 2009 Lambdas would benefit from what was learned from the earlier editions.

 

[duayned]

And .... The article gives the impression that Traverse are superior to current A, C and E when of course all 2009 Lambdas would benefit from what was learned from the earlier editions.

Oooooh, good point, there, CopperBeech. One would assume any refinements were made also be applied to all the 2009 Lamda sibs.
But one never knows, do one?