Model Year | 2011 | 2013 | |
Model | Chevrolet Traverse | ||
Engine | |||
Transmission | |||
Drivetrain | |||
Body | |||
Difference | |||
Total Legroom | 0 in (over 1 rows) | 0 in (over 1 rows) | 0 in |
2011 Chevrolet Traverse Seat Room and Comfort: Cons | ||
Year | Body/Powertrain | Comment |
2012 | 4dr SUV 281-horsepower 3.6L V6 6-speed shiftable automatic AWD |
Although the rear captain seats are quite comfortable, I do not like how they roll forward. There is a track in the floor in which the rear seats fold and slide up behind the front seats. All I notice when in the back seat is how extremely difficult it is to clean out the mud and grit and salt (I live in Canada, we use salt on our roads) that gets left behind in the track from passenger footwear. see full Chevrolet Traverse review |
2011 | 4dr SUV 281-horsepower 3.6L V6 6-speed shiftable automatic FWD |
The headrest position is horrible for long trips. Felt like my head was being pushed forward. see full Chevrolet Traverse review |
2013 Seat Room and Comfort: Pros | ||
Year | Comment | |
2014 | Like the G37, the Q50 has one of the roomiest rear seats among BMW 3-Series challengers. On paper it offers the most combined rear legroom, 44.5 inches in the front seat and 35.1 inches in back, about 2.5 more than the BMW and Lexus. But the difference doesn't seem as large as this number suggests. The Audi S4 and Cadillac ATS remain more cramped. The Q50 doesn't come by its extra room through brilliant packaging. Instead, at 188 inches it's about a half-foot longer than a 3-Series or ATS. see full review |
None of our members have yet commented on the seat room and comfort of the 2013 .