trinacriabob

David, I think I will rank order like this: Gabriel Ultra, Monroe Sensa-trac, and then KGY. Gabriels used to be a household word. Now, they seem to have be requested. They get decent reviews in one of the links. Monroe is sort of the known name. As for the Sears generic you refer to, I have talked to Sears and they tend to carry Gabriel as the base line. The question then becomes the longer term, given that Sears is not doing too well. I hate to think about that, having grown up with them. KGY is the brand that Les Schwab, now prevalent throughout the West, seems to use. The problem is if a person moves out of "Les Schwab country." Les Schwab used to be really good in terms of honesty and being competitive. I have really seen them slip over the years. Thanks for those diagrams on the ball joints. That one graphic showing how to tell if one is worn was super helpful. I'm thinking it will be a fresh set of Gabriels, an ISS, and a 4 wheel alignment sooner than later. The car rides nicely but, in it's first 3 to 5 years, the ride was almost faultless.

David, thanks for that wealth of info. I will have more to say. As for the geographic area, I'm on the West Coast and there is no salt to contend with. frogger, was it just annoying, did it create steering issues and need steering correction as you drove, and/or could it have broken? It seems that many replace them because they hate the noise and want their OEM ride back. I've done some reading and they say that, only recently, have they come up with a design for post OEM that works. A lot of the older replacement ones eventually came around to the same problem. I couldn't believe how, on my '92 Regal, the steering wasn't as nicely weighted as it is on this car (the LaCrosse weighs about 300 pounds more) but it remained tight for almost 300,000 miles.

I'd like to see them go off alpha-numeric names. Since they've done that, I've sort of lost interest in their product line. I was at the last auto show and do not like their flagship sedan (or DTS equivalent) much at all. It had some ungainly aspects to it.

I've got a few questions on front end maintenance for my 2008 GM W-body. The first is: at what point would you replace the struts all the way around? About 2 years ago, they were very firm. Now, there is a little more sponginess up front when pushing down on the car and releasing. However, it doesn't oscillate or do anything drastic. I'm thinking of replacing them at 70,000 miles (this has been a low mileage car for me), whether it needs them or not. I also want to do this to get rid of the OEM ones and keep the newer and second set of tires doing well. Also, when I first started driving and needed to replace shocks in the rear wheel drive Oldsmobiles, I always turned to Gabriel. Any thoughts and ideas of which - Gabriel, Monroe, other - puts out the better strut? And what the ride might be like with these products? The second question is about the steering intermediate shaft (i-shaft). The car has no recall on it. I've read on forums that, on W-bodies, this is not the most long lived component. It seems that they develop quirky little rattles and whatnot. They show the shaft as being an assembly that sits way up high and the labor time for replacing them is not especially lengthy. Have you ever replaced one (on a W-body)? Do you know someone who has? I once had an engine mount on my last car, the Regal, that needed to be replaced, but it wasn't overly annoying. You could tell that the engine would lean just a hair when throttled and then come back. How does one know how long to wait before replacing a steering/suspension component? One final question has to do with ball joints. On rear wheel drive cars, I knew where they were. Whether RWD or FWD, I've never had them replaced in any vehicle. Are these easy to inspect (on a W-body) and is it something that a tech could show you when the car is jacked up? I'm thinking that a fresh set of good struts and the possible replacement of a front end component or two, combined with a wheel alignment, ought to make the car run somewhat close to new. As for the inner workings of the car, I recently checked the mileage and I exceeded the EPA highway rating by a little bit on several tanks. I feel pretty good about that.

Thank you for that attachment. I plan to order it from one of the major chain auto parts stores. The other one actually had a piece chip off and then slowly fell apart. This solitary one has been sustaining me for 2 to 3 years. It needs its identical twin back. Let's see how well this goes. Thanks.

Thanks, Drew, I saw that and will have to reconfigure them somehow. Thanks, balthazar. I'm thinking this meant that you let someone do it or at least inquired about the price. I sure wouldn't want to buy these at a better price (I'd save $60 compared to what the dealer wants for the 5 button fob) and then mess it up and render the thing useless. The other one I had got banged up in briefcases, backpacks, and pockets and even soldering it together didn't make sense.

So, after a few years of postponing it, I'm going to buy a second key fob. The other one got damaged and slowly started giving up the ghost. This is for a 2008 LaCrosse with the base 3800 V6. My current one identifies itself with "Welcome Driver 2" upon inserting the key. The dealerships want anywhere from $40 to $62 to do this task. I will be buying the key fob aftermarket from one of the major auto part stores. Questions: Can I do this myself? How will the key fob "know" to attach itself to my vehicle once I take out of the shipping container and begin programming it? Will it "know" that driver 2 is already programmed and then default to being the key fob for driver 1? Any recommendations on how to do this right, unless you recommend having someone do it if not the most tech savvy? Thanks! Let me know if you've had to buy a replacement or second key fob ... it would be interesting to know how well people have done with these.

The more I analyze this, the more I'd go with a $29K (before deals and discounts) Dodge Charger SE in white with a black cloth interior (the only color choice for cloth) and drive it into the ground. And here I thought I would be bowled over by the Chrysler 300. Nothing beats renting a car prior to making an ownership decision. That sure helped me sort that out regarding my current car.

Thank you. I've gotten so used to these cars and like them that I'm almost afraid to look at what their next rendition might be like.

Yes, with respect to the Charger. At first, I thought the revised grille put it in the same league as their more intermediate car, whatever it's now called, and sort of sold out on the trademark Dodge front end that wasn't as cavernous as the one on the trucks. However, I've gotten to like the new grille. For one thing, the front bumper area looks like it is a better design to absorb smaller impacts. 2015 Dodge Charger - front But when they bowed the rear light bar and put the Dodge inscription on it, that made it stand out for the better. And it's also really nice to view from the side because of the curvature. 2015 Dodge Charger - rear Also, I prefer white for this car as well. And, while I definitely like some of the geometries in the 300's dash, this isn't a bad place to live for a long interstate haul ... 2015 Dodge Charger - interior ... and certainly not if you're pulling in 30 mpg!

Interesting (and good) that a base 300 could come with a cloth interior, if I interpreted your post correctly. As for the bold type, I'm mixed. I'll go with yay for the 300 and nay for the Charger. Before 2015, it would have meant a front grille that looked like this and this is exactly the one I like. 2014 Chrysler 300 And, in white, it looks great, is more visible, is better for both a super hot climate and even matches the snow! I think the current grille for the 300 is a slight step backwards.

So I got my Chevy Cruze (which I reviewed) for under $20 a day from Friday through Monday over a holiday weekend because I booked the rental, and the category of car, months in advance. The rate within a week or two of the rental was around twice as much. However, I didn't plan for how I would get around on Tuesday. It's seldom that I don't plan. I was looking at the rental agency sites as that Tuesday approached and was even slightly nervous. I saw some crazy one day rates for that Tuesday, including at neighborhood locations where they don't load you up with airport fees and taxes. Then, about 2 days prior to that, one of the majors was running a prepaid price of about $50, out the door, for a luxury car, which was about the same as they were charging for a Nissan Versa. I called them up and asked what this type of car might me and was told "most likely a Chrysler 300" ... or 'even a Cadillac.' Sold. I prepaid the day in a rental car, a first for me, to lock in that low rate occurring during the week and for that type of car. Wow. Everything went smoothly, quickly, and I even indicated I had seen a dark silver Chrysler 300 in a particular stall that I thought would be nice to have. It was assigned to me. At an airport location, they even pulled it around and put it under the canopy. I hadn't been in a Chrysler product for a long time, so I pulled it back into a stall, adjusted everything, and familiarized myself with the controls. As for this process, it was harder than it is in a GM car yet a little easier than it might be in a Ford, such as the Fusion. Everything about this ride was sort of surreal and a modernized time warp ... especially the whole Gotham City feeling of the car. The dashboard is nicely clustered in the IP zone, with its own lid, as Cadillac is doing, and even nicer in the center stack. The bezels for the speedometer and tachometer are sort of strange, with their different depths and they are blue in color. The center stack, however, is really nice because it's crowned by an old school "chronometer," as Chrysler has historically called it. The silver accents on many of the bezels are a nice touch. Also, hooray for a logically placed trunk release while the release for the fuel door isn't as obvious, which could be a good thing. The car had a push button ignition, which was to be expected. It also had a dial as the gear selector for its 8 speed step gear automatic transmission. While I really like this feature, and the Ford Fusion now has this as well, I found that if I was maneuvering quickly, such as from reverse and back into drive if making a three point turn, I sometimes found myself in neutral. Haste makes waste as they say. The seats are broad, comfortable, and in perforated leather and, for this price point, they are nicely finished. It also had the sliding moonroof with the doubled up effect, meaning it even covered a good part of the rear seating area. It took a while to figure out how to operate the shade, the tilt feature, and the panels, so I just chalked it up to "o.k., cool," kept it closed, turned on the air conditioning, and didn't fuss with it. The sound system was fine but then I don't have a trained ear when it comes to what constitutes a good sound system in a car. I'll listen to anything without static. With approximately 100 miles spent behind the wheel of the Chrysler 300, I got into it only a time or two while getting onto interstate ramps to see what it could do. It packed a lot of punch and didn't need much pedal pushing to work its magic. I didn't have to open the hood to see that this base model featured the 3.5 Pentastar V6 that it also the base engine in the Dodge Charger. This means that 292 horses were at one's disposition. That's about 50% more horsepower than my current vehicle, and I am satisfied with how my own car handles and accelerates. The 8 speed automatic transmission shifts quietly and confidently, though the first, second, and possibly third shift points could be felt, even in ordinary driving. I will say that, on the interstate at about 65 mph, that 8th gear practically makes the engine dormant. I believe it was only turning about 1,400 or 1,500 rpm. This car had less than 10,000 miles on the clock. I can say that the Chrysler 300 feels more steady than it does smooth. It's definitely smooth, but what you feel, first and foremost, is that you're at the helm of a land yacht. I put the power seat adjuster as high as it could go and it still felt weird sensing where the outer edges of the fenders were, even though there are old school fender creases at the tops of them. The C pillar is sort of thick but, because the backlite is more upright than in so many cars, visibility was not a problem. The rear camera in the center stack came in useful when parking and backing up. However, I believe that lane departure warnings were silenced because they would illuminate yet not make any sounds. I didn't bother to pull out the manual because I'd be in it for less than 24 hours. I'm not so sure I liked the steering wheel. It was leather wrapped, with an exposed hard surface at its top edge that would have been the surface material for the entire steering wheel on a Cadillac from the 80s. The few times my hands transitioned from the leather to this surface felt weird and I would have preferred a leather steering wheel all the way around. For its size, it is agile enough but not really nimble. Still, its handling is way better than that of 4,000 pound cars from some 25 years ago. I returned the car, filling it up prior to doing so. The driving was mostly in the city along with some in-city freeway driving. I didn't calculate the fuel economy, but those 100 miles took about $8 of regular fuel. That wasn't bad and I attribute that to some of the interstate segments. In conclusion, I'm glad I got to drive this car. For those who want a retro boulevardier with a commanding presence, an unmistakable sense of holding the road, many bells and whistles, and a rich legacy, I think they'd enjoy owning a 300. I tend to like entry level models and, in that guise, it comes in at a MSRP of $31,000 or $32,000 before discounts. However, even if I was in the market and I had the funds, I would not opt for this car and I sort of can't put my finger on what it is ... and sort of can. I have had a couple of Dodge Charger rentals and prefer those, coming in at an MSRP that is about $3,000 less. Noise suppression and general tightness between the 300 and the Charger, in base form, is hardly noticeable and, over some bumps and pavement gaps, I heard a few minor arthritic creaks from the 300 whereas that Chevy Traverse I reviewed, for example, was tomb quiet under the same conditions. However, back to the 300 and its sibling the Charger, I found that the Charger has a more user friendly dash, even though the shapes on the 300's are more inspiring and the Charger's orange illumination is not to my liking. Not only that, the Charger can be had with cloth seating, has a more rakish roofline, a front grille that I've grown to like, and is easier on the eyes from every vantage point, especially with the more recent thinning and curvature of the horizontal rear light light bar. Make no mistake about it that the Chrysler 300 is a handsome and stately car. It's just that, if I was buying a traditional full size RWD car, I'd buy the Charger and keep that $3,000 difference in my wallet. Also, from having clocked the mileage on a Dodge Charger with the same Pentastar V6, and babying it, I was able to get 31 mpg on the best tank. One had to be overly diligent to do that. I'm thinking that typical highway mileage might be more like 28 or 29 mpg. Front three quarter view - I prefer the front grille from about 3 years ago with the really thin horizontal slats more so than this one with the hexagonal / egg crate pattern I tend not to like high belt lines but, on this car, it is fitting and looks great The rear tail lamps keep getting nicer with their subtle creases and the backlite helps visibility at a time when every large car seems to be going fastback ... also, can you sort of feel the humidity? Really nice clustering and sculpting on the dashboard and a rotating dial for the automatic transmission; the finishes and many features are high grade and make for a nice space to occupy There are the unusual bezels in the dashboard and the blue illumination ... and there is the steering wheel with the transition in its coverings. I love that analog clock at the top of the center stack. This car successfully blends retro and modern. There are the bucket seats with perforated leather, sporty enough patterning, and offering plenty of support ... if only they were in cloth, but you'd never see than in Chrysler's flagship passenger car. As far as color choices go, I think that the basic white with the very pale beige leather seats is the best color combination for this car. End of review

I had to take a look. Yes, I've seen it on the showroom floors. However, because it was so new then, I was more taken by the first-gen Acadia. Looking at it, I think the new version is a little too sculpted. I liked the cleaner look of the last one, especially the light assemblies and grille up front. I remember that the first-gen was nice to sit in and nicely finished. Back then, it came in at around the low $30s. I recall that it featured a 3.6 VVT V6 and a 6 speed. Is that what the current ones run with? Cool name in Acadia. What a stunning place. Seems like GMC has a thing with national parks and territories of the north ... Denali, Yukon, Acadia.

This is definitely funny. I got one of these about a year or two ago. It was for a day. It was at a Budget in the suburbs. I actually had a compact reserved and I was given the keys to a Passat. I've never liked Volkswagen. This car changed my mind. Sort of. First, I could not believe how long it was, or appeared to be. Jettas and Passats have been much shorter in the past. This new Passat was bland, but in a good way. Everything was so logical (German car) in how it is placed and the simple round clock at the top of the center stack was a refreshing thing to see (I was thinking Chrysler 300). About its deportment, what I remember is how flatly and surefootedly it handled. In short, I liked it much more than I disliked it. It was dark metallic blue Passat with a black cloth interior. The gas mileage was good but not great. I also can't believe how reasonably priced they are. I priced out a base model on the VW site in the metallic light tan color with a beige cloth interior (alloy wheels were included) and it came up to about $23 K MSRP. If these are indeed reliable, that's a good value.

And, so is the gas mileage. I looked at a spreadsheet I keep that tabulates how much I spend on a particular trip. And, next to fuel purchases, I record the fuel mileage, since it's so easy to do. On 4 fill ups, the Cruze got: (1) 35.21 mpg, (2) 38.56 mpg, (3) 33.19 mpg, and (4) 45.02 mpg (exclusively highway, cruise on, a/c off). It sips fuel. Also, on that last tank, I passed right by the very plant where the Cruze is assembled in Lordstown along I-80 where it's a turnpike. Going west, the plant was on the same side of the highway. I debated whether to pull over and take a photo of it, but that damn road is filled with highway trooper types. Had I done that, I would have posted it!

Bagged another one without much of a fuss. One got to select from the line. There was a silver one there. It was a Premier, so it had the nice steering wheel, stitching, and finishes. It also had a leather interior. I didn't like that. However, overall, I loved this car. Side view 1 Side view 2 The rear lamps and rear styling in general trumps that of the previous first iteration of the Cruze. These look svelte. Ford has a commendable dash in its Focus and Fiesta, but I like this a little more. Its really simple and, if you need more info, you can "drill down" to get it. I also like how easy the speedometer is to read. I also set the speed alert so I wouldn't ever exceed 70 mph. Grommets at left side of steering wheel for cruise control ... easy to use. This makes for only one stalk and its only function is to work the lights and signals ... the steering wheel feels great and this stitched one should be standard on the LT, but it isn't. Grommets at right side of steering wheel for displaying the info on the dash ... easy to get used to for "drilling down" through the information you want (battery, tire pressure, etc.) Wow ... what's wrong with this picture? Everything makes too much sense. I like how everything is close together, but also separate. And I also like where they placed the button to open the trunk. On my M.Y. LaCrosse, it's the exact same switch as the door locks ... you just keep pushing it longer ... I don't like that design. I love this center stack. It's easy on the eyes. Not as nice as that in a Buick Verano, but close. You can see to the left that the Premier had the push button ignition switch. Also, look at the stitching on the passenger seat. Nicely finished front part of the cabin perfectly suited for longer jaunts. The same is true of the rear part of the car. I'm guessing it would be better to be less than 6'-0" tall, though. Chevrolet has a winner in this new Cruze. It's impressive all the way around. I'm hoping it will grab some buyers who might be looking at the foreign equivalents. This car kicks ass on any Corolla or Sentra if my memory serves me correctly.

And here are some photos of another jaunt in this type of car ... a different color, a totally different place ... Side view 1 Side view 2 Not a bad color, overall ... better than silver. It had a black cloth interior. It would have been nicer with a gray or light beige cloth interior. It gets hot here. As for the seats, I was noticing they have a thin profile. It's analogous to how airlines are slimming down the seats in the economy section of the plane.

The gas mileage in the Cruze is bound to be impressive (I recently had a sedan for a few days) and its road manners are way up there for being as small as it is. I've sat in the Buick you were considering and, while it's cool that Buick has these, along with its typical build quality, I'm a stickler for good visibility. I think you made a good choice. Had it been a Verano, had they carried over the Verano, I probably would have been voting for the Verano.

Haha ... different cameras put different file numbers on jpgs, so my photos of the Traverse weren't in chronological order. I found some. Front quarter view - underwhelming grille Rear quarter view - the upward cant of the rearmost window might be a bit much and does intrude on the amount of greenhouse The instrument cluster as seen from the driver's door - standard issue GM/Chevy and easy to get used to The instrument cluster as seen from the passenger door - some curves are better than none and these are o.k. Maybe I didn't remember but these look like (partly) fabric seats to me The seats are comfortable and I like a headrest that can be brought down low like that ... in some cars, they impede visibility, especially over the rear seats What are these? The pillars of Hercules? Not my cup of tea. It was fun to drive for a few days, but it confirmed I'm a car person.

I like the dash. It has the swoops and curves, much like the Focus, that give it personality, which is sorely lacking in so many European and Japanese dashboards these days. I think the entertainment zone in the center stack might take some getting used to. I don't like it when I get into a rental vehicle and the commands aren't that intuitive, and taking too much time to learn them. Ditto for the Focus ... there's a cubby hole down at the base of the center stack, but it doesn't accommodate a phone that well. I recently had a Fusion. I've already reviewed a rented one once before. It, too, has the center meeting wipers. They had gone away from that and now they're coming back to it. The new Cruze has them as well. I remember that my '92 Regal coupe had them. I liked them because I had never seen them before. What sort of mileage did you get? I don't remember what powers these vehicles. Cool street view there! Will you look at that ... an entire street dominated by hip roofed homes. Nice. The norm in so many CLE neighborhoods seems to be gable roofed homes. I believe that Ford has an engine plant near CLE and that GM has a metal fabrication plant further to the east of there. That would make for some loyal customers of Detroit iron. You certainly see more of it in that area than you do out West. I'm hoping those plants are operative and humming along at a good clip.

More info: L 99 - displaced 263 c.i. - born of the Chevy 5.0 L / 305 c.i. - no change in bore but change in stroke - 200 h.p., even, and very good torque - over 25 mpg on highway EPA rating - only produced for 3 years and for the sedan (not the wagon), so not an omnipresent engine in the Chevrolet stable. Very interesting, at least to me.

It's funny that this thread recently woke up again. A B-O-P service adviser told me about this engine. It was in a Chevy they sold on their used car lot and they then had to service it. He couldn't believe it either. At any rate, I then became interested in these 4.3 units, seeing how much I liked the Olds spin on their V8 (theirs was a debored Rocket 350 back in the day). That one was known for its quiet operation and longevity. So, I found a few on used Caprices of '94 to '96 vintage on used car lots with this engine. Upon turning the key, this engine has a beautiful purr (nicer than any 5.0 or 5.7 I can remember) but I didn't want to drive it because I knew I wouldn't be buying it. With a serpentine belt and electric fan(s), this thing set up as RWD is a mechanic's dream. I've even talked to a few owners. They love their Caprices of these years. One was a Kentuckian who had taken it down to Florida for vacation. It had about 300,000 original miles on it and he told me he can break past 25 mpg on the open road. I don't think I'll ever do the second car thing again. However, if I did, this would be it. I've looked at EBay and other sites. It's hard to find one in a nice color, in good shape, with cloth seats (leather has all these cracks after all this time), and reasonable mileage. I know that their 80's 4.4 displaced 267 cubes. I think cubic inches had fallen out of favor by the time this engine rolled around. It would be interesting to know how many c.i.s it displaced.

O.k., so I reviewed the Chevy Traverse which I could have kept for the extent of the rental but didn't want to. I'm not used to that size of vehicle. And so I decided to go to Enterprise at the airport to try my luck at getting a regular ole car. Surprisingly, there wasn't much to pick from. I did see a new Chevy Cruze up by the rental station and thought it might be up there for a peculiar reason or some kind of issue. I was really looking forward to driving one of those. I went into this small office on the lot and told them that the Traverse obtained from a suburban location was just too big and hard to see out of - both true - and to see if I could get a car, and that the little Cruze parked there, actually below the standard category I rented, would work just fine. They hemmed and hawed and then gave it to me. Luck was on my side. I had seen the new model around and found it attractive. The styling and proportions are nice all the way around. In fact, this is the only Chevy refresh that I like among its larger 3 sedans. I checked and saw that the last Cruze I rented and reviewed here was a 2015 model carried over into 2016. If that Cruze was a big step up from the Cavalier and the Cobalt, this new Cruze (probably an LT) is yet another respectable step up from the first-gen Cruze. If you've driven the last Cruze, or any smaller to medium-sized GM car, getting used to this car and its controls is almost immediate. The coolest thing is that the annoying pushing on the stalk to get engine and car functions is gone. It is now on rubberized grommets on both sides of the steering wheel. It's much easier to toggle through battery levels, tire pressure, fuel economy, and the like this way. I remember when turbochargers dominated an engine compartment. I'm thinking of the first turbocharger heaped onto an even firing 3.8 liter (231 c.i.) V6 engine and which was a big deal back in the day. What a monstrosity! In the Cruze, it's an unobtrusive cylindrical contraption that isn't too big and sits behind the radiator but in front of the transversely laid Ecotec 1.4 L engine. The engine and the turbocharger work together in harmony. There's no kick, whoosh, graininess, or anything that tells you it's kicking into action. At least, I couldn't detect anything. Similarly, the 6 speed transaxle works seamlessly, with clean lower shift points. It works like the transmission in a much larger and more expensive car. Thus far, I was impressed by the powertrain. Other great things about the Cruze are the seats suitable for long distance jaunts, an appealing instrument panel, good build quality, a silent enough cabin, and its being planted on the road nicely. The latter is noticeably better than in the outgoing Cruze. I had the opportunity to take the car into mildly hilly terrain with curves and it handled flatly, predictably, and with the engine and transmission working quietly at almost all times unless getting into the gas to pass someone or pick up some speed, at which point a muted but pleasing engine note came through. From what I've seen of the reviews of the 2017 Cruze, they are largely favorable. I agree with what I read, for the most part. Here, you have a car that looks good, feels good, drives well, and doesn't consume much fuel. I believe that on a tank with mostly highway driving and some city driving, I was able to pull in about 37 or 38 mpg. This sounds like the makings of a winner to me.

I was going somewhere and needed a rental car. Since it fell out of the Thurs.-Mon. time frame, the rates were a little high at the airport. I looked at neighborhood locations. I found a good rate at Enterprise, albeit in the suburbs. As it turns out, I could take rapid transit train service and then walk, yes walk, some 15 minutes from a rail station through an established neighborhood to get to Enterprise. Wheeled luggage is great! So I got up to Enterprise and saw nothing like the intermediate I selected. I saw few cars to begin with ... either much larger or much smaller. When I got up to the counter, they were super nice and the agent told me he would be putting me in a Chevy Traverse. I looked out the windows and though, "Gulp." I asked if I could have it switched at the airport location. He said I could try once I was on my way, but that they can't guarantee what they'll have. So I got on my way after making all the necessary adjustments to the mirrors and whatnot. As I pulled out of the lot in this unit, the first thing that was apparent was the build quality. This Chevy Traverse was solid, with no squeaks and rattles at about 21,000 miles, and was more surefooted than I was expecting. Rarely have I driven vehicles of this genre, unless you're talking U-Haul trucks. Just kidding. It had a 3.6 V6 mated to a 6 speed transaxle. It was a recent model and I don't believe there are 8 gears in those. The shifts were imperceptible. I like imperceptible shift points during normal throttle driving. It was very quiet and nothing on the road, be they pot holes or pavement gaps, caused this thing to become unsettled. It also cornered very flatly. It took a little while to warm up to its size and height, but I began to enjoy driving it. The interior also exhibits very good build quality. The dashboard is classic in its styling in that it's not particularly memorable. This isn't like the days of the 2004-2007 Grand Prix which has a dash that was uniquely its own and like no other. Auto makers have gone more flat than anything else and there isn't much sculpting on dashboards. What you do notice is that the bits on the dash such as stalks, radio knobs, and the like are now GM standard issue ... from Cruze to Cadillac. That's obviously to control costs. But, aside from this, the build quality in the cabin, with its stitching and aligned pieces befit a vehicle costing in excess of $40,000. Well, that's just it. I didn't like driving around a rented vehicle costing in excess of $40,000, so I decided that I'd enjoy it for a day or two and then try to exchange it at the airport location. Obviously, the Traverse had leather seats. I will choose cloth seats over leather any day of the week and twice on Sundays. I like them much better but then, I grew up on them, including the loose cushion look ones. Also, the thick last pillar makes it slightly difficult to see outside when making lane changes. The rear camera, however, helps when maneuvering to park. As far as the styling goes, it looks o.k. from some vantage points. For as big as the vehicle is, the front grille is sort of underwhelming. The rear of the car has some extra character with the backlite in the hatch door canting away from the center on both sides. This sort of works, since the belt line from the side windows then cants upward to meet it. Overall, it's a decent looking vehicle, but not one that grabbed me in any way. Lastly, I tanked up twice in two days to see how much fuel it used. Because I tanked up twice, I didn't have to put in much fuel in terms of gallons. However, the gas mileage in combined driving came in at around 20 or 21 m.p.g. That did and doesn't work for me. So, it was literally a cheap thrill to driver this Chevy Traverse for two days and discover how competent and surefooted it is. However, I was looking forward to getting into a regular car and one that consumed less fuel. That will be the "part deux" review that I will write under separate cover. - - - - - - - - - - Note: I was looking for photos of this vehicle. I took some. When I find them, I will upload them.

@dfelt - I'd change it to look more like the variant that only police departments get. I don't even know its name. Would it be a Caprice or just the fleet police unit? The grilles on those are sportier and more defined, along with the tail lamps. I'd also "dechunk" it a little bit, with that rear pillar being way too thick and ungainly. The rake of the rear windows is fine. I'm not liking the trend to fastback anything and everything to the point that there's almost no trunk lid. I like how the cowl of the dash feels wide and the top of it is not overpowering relative to where you sit, though I don't think that spread out bucket seats like that would be in demand today. They'd need to be more cupped. I still prefer the flatter look. @ocnblu - yes, it's weird to see the jump to 300 hp in the 3.6 from 211 hp in the 3.5. I'm guessing that, independent of other major components, 3.5s have held up fairly well. GM service advisors seem to say these engines have gone the long haul.