CarSPIN Forums

Auto Talk => The Big Guys => Topic started by: 2o6 on June 27, 2008, 10:57:30 AM

Title: Chevy Traverse
Post by: 2o6 on June 27, 2008, 10:57:30 AM
http://www.autoblog.com/2008/06/27/2009-chevy-traverse-priced-from-28-990/

Nice, but overall is pointless.

(http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2008/06/x09ct_te034_opt.jpg)


I have a feeling this car only happened, because dealers were complaining......
Title: Re: Chevy Traverse
Post by: crv16 on June 27, 2008, 01:21:01 PM
Quote from: 2o6 on June 27, 2008, 10:57:30 AM
I have a feeling this car only happened, because dealers were complaining......

They may have done this so they can shoot Saturn in the head.
Title: Re: Chevy Traverse
Post by: ifcar on June 27, 2008, 01:24:58 PM
Chevrolet is the brand the Lambda should have been in from the start. It's the GMC and Saturn that are redundant, even if they were brought to the market first.
Title: Re: Chevy Traverse
Post by: 2o6 on June 27, 2008, 01:38:33 PM
Quote from: ifcar on June 27, 2008, 01:24:58 PM
Chevrolet is the brand the Lambda should have been in from the start. It's the GMC and Saturn that are redundant, even if they were brought to the market first.

I think GM should have gone ahead with the LAMBDA minivans, or at least made the chevy version Shorter and less powerful (Cheaper) to differenciate it from the other LAMBDA platform mates.
Title: Re: Chevy Traverse
Post by: sportyaccordy on June 27, 2008, 01:55:41 PM
Quote from: ifcar on June 27, 2008, 01:24:58 PM
Chevrolet is the brand the Lambda should have been in from the start. It's the GMC and Saturn that are redundant, even if they were brought to the market first.
The stupidity never ends with GM
Title: Re: Chevy Traverse
Post by: the Teuton on June 27, 2008, 02:34:28 PM
Quote from: 2o6 on June 27, 2008, 01:38:33 PM
I think GM should have gone ahead with the LAMBDA minivans, or at least made the chevy version Shorter and less powerful (Cheaper) to differenciate it from the other LAMBDA platform mates.

Don't quote me on this, but I believe GM was planning on making the Lambda the platform for a new set of minivans.  If the market hadn't fallen out for minivans and GM hadn't pussy-footed around, I think that would have been an excellent idea.
Title: Re: Chevy Traverse
Post by: giant_mtb on June 27, 2008, 03:27:32 PM
What's the point of this silly thing? Hmm...
Title: Re: Chevy Traverse
Post by: 2o6 on June 27, 2008, 03:45:32 PM
Quote from: the Teuton on June 27, 2008, 02:34:28 PM
Don't quote me on this, but I believe GM was planning on making the Lambda the platform for a new set of minivans.  If the market hadn't fallen out for minivans and GM hadn't pussy-footed around, I think that would have been an excellent idea.

Isn't that what I just said?  :confused:
Title: Re: Chevy Traverse
Post by: CALL_911 on June 27, 2008, 07:30:27 PM
Quote from: 2o6 on June 27, 2008, 03:45:32 PM
Isn't that what I just said?  :confused:

:lol:

That's what I was thinking.
Title: Re: Chevy Traverse
Post by: sandertheshark on June 30, 2008, 07:17:08 PM
I'm not liking the huge gaping grilles on this and the Malibu.  It puts me off a little more every time I see it.
Title: Re: Chevy Traverse
Post by: Eye of the Tiger on June 30, 2008, 07:41:58 PM
This would definately be my vehicle of choice for traversing your mom. So where does this leave the Trailblazer? Maybe they already stopped making that; I can't afford to pay attention to this SUV epidemic anymoar.
Title: Re: Chevy Traverse
Post by: Madman on July 14, 2008, 03:42:12 AM
Quote from: 2o6 on June 27, 2008, 10:57:30 AM

I have a feeling this car only happened, because dealers were complaining......

...........And GM needed to build something (anything!) in the old Saturn plant in Spring Hill, Tennessee.  I have a feeling this is just a stop-gap measure intended only to keep the lights on at the factory until they figure out what to do next.

Cheers,
Madman of the People
Title: Re: Chevy Traverse
Post by: SVT666 on July 14, 2008, 07:43:55 AM
Quote from: sandertheshark on June 30, 2008, 07:17:08 PM
I'm not liking the huge gaping grilles on this and the Malibu.  It puts me off a little more every time I see it.
I was surprised when I saw the Malibu in person for the first time that huge gaping grille isn't so huge and gaping in person.
Title: Re: Chevy Traverse
Post by: ChrisV on July 14, 2008, 07:50:54 AM
Quote from: HEMI666 on July 14, 2008, 07:43:55 AM
I was surprised when I saw the Malibu in person for the first time that huge gaping grille isn't so huge and gaping in person.

Yeah, it's smaller than Audi grilles by a bunch.
Title: Re: Chevy Traverse
Post by: nickdrinkwater on July 14, 2008, 08:55:06 AM
Quote from: Madman on July 14, 2008, 03:42:12 AM
...........And GM needed to build something (anything!) in the old Saturn plant in Spring Hill, Tennessee.  I have a feeling this is just a stop-gap measure intended only to keep the lights on at the factory until they figure out what to do next.

Cheers,
Madman of the People


Wouldn't they build it alongside the Buick and Saturn SUVs?
Title: Re: Chevy Traverse
Post by: 93JC on July 14, 2008, 09:20:34 AM
They don't have the capacity at the plant in Lansing that builds the Outlook, Enclave and Acadia.

The plant in Spring Hill was retooled specifically for production of the Traverse, after production of the Vue was moved to Ramos Arizpe, Mexico, and production of the Ion ended.
Title: Re: Chevy Traverse
Post by: cozmik on July 14, 2008, 10:06:17 AM
It's my understanding that the Acadia will be killed under GM's plan to trim back on models that overlap.
Title: Re: Chevy Traverse
Post by: Laconian on July 14, 2008, 10:13:02 AM
There is buzz that the entire GMC unit is on the chopping block.
Title: Re: Chevy Traverse
Post by: SVT32V on July 14, 2008, 04:24:09 PM
Quote from: 2o6 on June 27, 2008, 03:45:32 PM
Isn't that what I just said?  :confused:

One important distinction he made is that the minivan market has been shrinking so not bringing one ot market may have been a plus.
Title: Re: Chevy Traverse
Post by: CMan on July 23, 2008, 09:32:07 AM
What is with GM and Ford trying to pull this crap?

"We have a new vehicle. If we put three different grilles on it, that should mean we will have three times the sales! Yippeee!"

Give me a break...
Title: Re: Chevy Traverse
Post by: CMan on July 23, 2008, 09:35:35 AM
Actually, you know what? GM should just axe all the brands but Saturn and Cadillac. They are the only GM brands with cars worth a crap.
Title: Re: Chevy Traverse
Post by: nickdrinkwater on July 24, 2008, 01:37:46 AM
Quote from: CMan on July 23, 2008, 09:32:07 AM
What is with GM and Ford trying to pull this crap?

"We have a new vehicle. If we put three different grilles on it, that should mean we will have three times the sales! Yippeee!"

Give me a break...

I've pointed this out many times before.
Title: Re: Chevy Traverse
Post by: The Pirate on July 24, 2008, 05:06:53 PM
Quote from: nickdrinkwater on July 24, 2008, 01:37:46 AM
I've pointed this out many times before.

You greatly overestimate the intelligence of the average U.S. car buyer.  I've had people vehemently tell me that the Olds Intrigue and Pontiac Grand Prix were two completely different cars.  Ditto for Taurus and Sable, etc...
Title: Re: Chevy Traverse
Post by: Soup DeVille on July 24, 2008, 05:14:22 PM
Quote from: CMan on July 23, 2008, 09:32:07 AM
What is with GM and Ford trying to pull this crap?

"We have a new vehicle. If we put three different grilles on it, that should mean we will have three times the sales! Yippeee!"

Give me a break...

Historical momentum. GM is a strange car company in that they went into business not to make cars, but to buy car companies. When they did so, a certain amount fo baggage came along as well- and part of that was they also bought the right to dealer networks, and those rights came with the obligation of giving those dealers cars to sell.
Title: Re: Chevy Traverse
Post by: 2o6 on July 24, 2008, 06:20:38 PM
Quote from: The Pirate on July 24, 2008, 05:06:53 PM
You greatly overestimate the intelligence of the average U.S. car buyer.  I've had people vehemently tell me that the Olds Intrigue and Pontiac Grand Prix were two completely different cars.  Ditto for Taurus and Sable, etc...


Intreigue and Grand Prix = Not quite. The Intrigue was shorter, smaller, had similar engines, but looked far enough apart to have different sales.


Taurus and Sable = People knew these looked alike. They weren't priced alike, nor were they equipped alike.




The Problem with the Traverse, is that it is priced almost identical to it's other LAMBDA siblings.
Title: Re: Chevy Traverse
Post by: ifcar on July 24, 2008, 06:29:25 PM
The Taurus and Sable were priced about $300 apart.
Title: Re: Chevy Traverse
Post by: 2o6 on July 24, 2008, 06:49:56 PM
Quote from: ifcar on July 24, 2008, 06:29:25 PM
The Taurus and Sable were priced about $300 apart.

Oh. What about the original ones from 1986?  :lol:
Title: Re: Chevy Traverse
Post by: The Pirate on July 24, 2008, 06:53:46 PM
Quote from: 2o6 on July 24, 2008, 06:20:38 PM

Intreigue and Grand Prix = Not quite. The Intrigue was shorter, smaller, had similar engines, but looked far enough apart to have different sales.


Taurus and Sable = People knew these looked alike. They weren't priced alike, nor were they equipped alike.




The Problem with the Traverse, is that it is priced almost identical to it's other LAMBDA siblings.

Semantics.  With the exception of the Shortstar engine, both had the same drivetrain, the same switchgear, and were built on the W-Body.  Point is that more or less the same car, and not two completely different automobiles, as people have argued.  Same for the Taurus/Sable. 
Title: Re: Chevy Traverse
Post by: Schadenfreude on July 24, 2008, 09:24:33 PM
Quote from: CMan on July 23, 2008, 09:35:35 AM
Actually, you know what? GM should just axe all the brands but Saturn and Cadillac. They are the only GM brands with cars worth a crap.

:wtf: :nutty: You sure you don't want to take that statement back?
Title: Re: Chevy Traverse
Post by: the Teuton on July 24, 2008, 10:04:10 PM
Quote from: The Pirate on July 24, 2008, 06:53:46 PM
Semantics.  With the exception of the Shortstar engine, both had the same drivetrain, the same switchgear, and were built on the W-Body.  Point is that more or less the same car, and not two completely different automobiles, as people have argued.  Same for the Taurus/Sable. 

GM really could have hit a homerun with the Intrigue.  It was that good of a car.

About the Ws and chassis sharing, I drove a LaCrosse a lot last year when I had to drive my wrestling club to different places.  When my parents drove my brother to NY last year, they rented a Grand Prix. 

If I could have a LaCrosse as a long-distance commuter, I would.  It was a nice ride.  My parents, otoh, hated the GP and felt uncomfortable the whole time.  You can make the same basic components completely different feeling if you try hard enough.
Title: Re: Chevy Traverse
Post by: Atomic on July 30, 2008, 05:59:29 PM
Quote from: sportyaccordy on June 27, 2008, 01:55:41 PM
The stupidity never ends with GM

u r so right! i agree with iffy, too.