mobile-menu-icon
GM Authority

2018 Chevrolet Traverse RS Priced At $42,995 With 2.0L Turbocharged Four-Cylinder Engine

Chevrolet has, somewhat strangely, kept official photos and details surrounding the 2018 Traverse RS locked up. We say that because the RS trim was announced at the vehicle’s debut this year, however, it’s still missing in action. For that reason, the Traverse Redline Edition is pictured above.

But, all of this didn’t stop Cars Direct from sourcing official pricing and fuel economy numbers.

Ahead of its official launch—we’re not sure when that will be—the report states the 2018 Traverse will arrive with a $42,995 price, which includes a $995 destination charge. For the money, the full-size crossover comes equipped with a 2.0-liter turbocharged four-cylinder engine, front-wheel drive and various sporting touches.

Overall, the Traverse RS is sort of an oddball within the CUV’s lineup. It’s supposedly sportier, but the turbocharged four-cylinder engine makes less power than the standard 3.6-liter V6 engine—257 horsepower and 295 pound-feet of torque with the four-cylinder turbo compared to 310 hp and 266 lb-ft of torque in the V6. We suppose the additional torque is the differentiator here.

Additionally, fuel economy isn’t much better than the V6, either. In the city, the 2.0L turbo is estimated to return 20 mpg, versus 18 mpg with the V6 engine paired sans all-wheel drive. Highway fuel economy for the four-cylinder engine is actually worse than the V6 at 25 mpg compared to 27 mpg. All-wheel drive Traverses match the RS with 25 mpg on the highway.

Outside, the sporty CUV will come with black bowties, 20-inch black wheels, black roof rails, gloss black window trim and a black ice grille and foglamp bezels.

When it joins the Traverse lineup, Chevrolet will position the RS between the LT Leather and Premier trims.

Former GM Authority staff writer.

Subscribe to GM Authority

For around-the-clock GM news coverage

We'll send you one email per day with the latest GM news. It's totally free.

Comments

  1. This car is an answer to a question nobody asked. This is Malibu Maxx SS territory of lame.

    Reply
  2. why not a turbo V6 and AWD????

    Reply
    1. The question is what kind of drugs were they on when thinking that downgrading the engine to a 255 horsepower 4 cylinder engine, making it FWD only and calling it a sporty model, as well as making it more expensive? Seriously! 42k for a downgraded engine? That’s beyond sacrilege. We can only hope that they go on rehab and give the RS model a Twin Turbo V6, AWD and a sport tuned suspension so that the price and claim that it’s the sporty model is justifiable.

      Reply
      1. I hope that there’s a 2.2L or 2.3L turbo — with more HP and torque — coming down the pike to replace this shortly. Then it makes sense. Anyone know?

        Reply
        1. No, and if they are, then that could be a good base engine or better yet, an engine used for a fuel efficient and inexpensive Eco trim that gets better fuel economy in both the city and highway.

          Reply
      2. This is Gm. Little they do seems to make any kind of sense these days.

        Reply
  3. I think what many miss here is this is not a Camaro.

    This is a FWD based minivan even in AWD would not be a real performance vehicle.

    This is a for profit venture as it give a sporting appearance with very very low investment that will make money even at low volumes.

    No EPA testing needed. No Crash Testing needed. Change some colors and print money.

    Putting in a Turbo V6 while fun would not be a very good addition here with this set up. It would be very expensive and move the price up and profits out.

    The other issue is higher CAFE issues coming and to add this engine will leave you stuck with auto shut off and even a more expensive e assist system that would drive the prive up and the profits out even more.

    Folks building fun cars are key but when little to no money is made it is a path to bankruptcy. At the end of the day you have to maximize the profits to survive today.

    It is not just by chance the most profitable companies are often the most boring.

    Note I am not a fan of this either but that is how the market and world today work.

    The money spent here on a sport model would be better spent on making a better Camaro or Impala SS. Even a sport truck at a better price would be nice. How about a Rapto competitor that makes money?

    Reply
  4. There are so many problems with your point. First of all, we never said this was a Camaro. Secondly, a Twin Turbo V6 not being a good addition? How drunk are you? Of course it’s a good addition. Why the hell do you think the Explorer is the best selling mid-sized crossover and sells more than ANY minivan? Because you can get it in so many ways, from sporty quick models to fuel efficient ones. And so what if adding a Twin Turbo V6 makes it more expensive? People will buy it anyway. If Ford and FCA can sell a bunch of Twin Turbo V6 Explorers and V8 Dodge Durangos, then GM can sell a bunch of Twin Turbo V6 Traverses so yeah, it’s definitely worth it for GM to add a Twin Turbo V6 to the RS and High Country models.

    Reply
    1. If you have not noticed GM has no cheap TT V6 at 5his point. They do have two at Cadillac but they are not cheap as they are not tossed in over a million trucks that lower their cost.

      The reality is most Explorers even police editions are not TT. Second most Durango’s which are not great sellers are not V8’s either.

      If and when GM goes to a TT V6 in the truck at a higher take rate then cost come down.

      Sorry you need to consider so much more as to why some mfg can do things others can’t.

      It is not just about making money anymore. It is about getting max return on investments and spreading cost out.

      Also you need to consider Cadillac is trying to get engines that are all theirs and not shared.

      The last thing a TT Cadillac owners wants is to see a $55 k Chevy family truckster get the same engine his $75k Cadillac has.

      The reality is the NA V6 has all the power this kind of vehicl3 needs and the simple trim will make much more money than a limited volume engine.

      Would I love to see a TTV6 yes but a lot more things need to happen first and by then the CAFE will kill it.

      Do we really need a 500 Hp minivan that is top heavy and cost close to $60k?

      If you are going to use a Turbo V6 it should be in a Buick long before a Chevy anyways.

      Reply
  5. General Motors has said they will be introducing 20 electric and/or fuel cell vehicles by 2023 which is just 5 years away meaning nearly all engineering work for all existing GM vehicles in current production is essentially over, Chevrolet’s reason for offering a 255 hp LTG 2.0L DOHC-4v 4-cyl turbo in their Traverse suggest this was something someone had considered and they’re doing it because the engineering work had been completed. We won’t see a Traverse PHEV that borrows from the hybrid module of Cadillac XT5 or mild hybrid borrowing from the Malibu hybrid unless the work has already been completed or started.

    Reply
    1. If this is true it will be their undoing. Nobody is pounding down the doors to buy these expensive small low range electric vehicles as it is and I highly doubt that will change all that much in just 5 years. I know I will not be looking for a fully electric vehicle in 5 years and neither will anybody in my family, any of my many friends nor any car enthusiasts I know.

      Reply
  6. Has GM gone crazy?!!! Less efficient, less powerful, FWD-only and more expensive? Where exactly is the sporty appeal? I know the SUV segment is hot right now, but this is ridiculous!!! The simple fact that this fickled market of ours may actually see buyers of such mediocrity is frustrating!

    Reply
    1. Nah, I’d say the guys who thought of that were on drugs like LCD, crack or something. Don’t get me wrong. I love GMs new stuff but come the hell on! GM should know that people would MUCH rather pay more money to get a Twin Turbo V6 than a underpowered 4 cylinder. With that said, we can only hope those guys go on rehab and actually give it a sporty appeal by tuning the suspension, giving it a Twin Turbo V6 and making it AWD. I know I said it before but come on, people would much rather pay more money for more horsepower than pay more for less.

      Reply
      1. You appear to have a substance issue. Lol!

        Here is your problem. Yes people will pay more fo4 it but the problem comes back that they will not make the added income from the investment back or make enough to make it worth while.

        This deal here is not a volume engine that would be a Bolt in. The AWD is not the strongest either.

        Sure I would love to pay more for HP but the real telling truth is at what price would GM charge to make it worth while.

        Also you get to $55k on a Chevy other than a Corvette, Camaro or truck and it becomes a no sell.

        Just because other make valid does not make others substance abusers. That is just a sign you have a weak argument and know it.

        Reply
      2. May also note stock prices at Ford. They have been struggling at $11 till the announced the Edison EV program and it went up a few bucks. While across town GM hit $44 and has been given buys from many major investment firms.

        The even more boring companies are higher in price.

        Reply
  7. This is approaching Audi Q7 2.0T but with quarto AWD. Even the new Atlas 2.0T is much less than the RS.

    Reply
  8. GM is so out of touch with customer wants it’s just sad. This vehicle is an answer to a question never asked. Instead of developing a less powerful and efficient and pricier Traverse trim why not instead mate this engine where it belongs- in the Cruze Sport and Sport hatch?

    Reply
    1. What’s really sad is that they have engines such the 3.0L LGX Twin-Turbo V6 to use for the RS model and the pricey High Country but they decided not to go for what people want which is more for more power. I mean, Ford and Dodge sell so many Twin Turbo V6 equipped Explorers and V8 Durangos so why shouldn’t GM use one of their more powerful engines, such as the LGX, I mentioned?

      Reply
  9. Being an owner of a 2018 Traverse RS Cajun Red Tintcoat, I have to say it is plenty fast, and the slight improvement on fuel economy in city traffic is a good thing. So shoving in a twin turbo V6 3.6L LF3 or 3.0L LGW would kill that. I easily passed some cars on the highway in FL(yes it’s flat), while cruising upwards of 80mph (I accidentally hit 93 before backing down). and the FWD is a non issue. You have to remember, this is a crossover, the size of a Tahoe, and quite a bit more efficient, for hauling families in comfort, not racing down the track. I didn’t mind paying the premium for the awesome looking blacked out grill and bowties, and 20″ gunmetal rims. So to each there own, but I think GM/ Chevy nailed this vehicle, and the 2.0L has been fun so far. Not to mention the cool hidden storage behind the touchscreen.

    Reply
  10. Good news on the 2.0T!

    Reply

Leave a comment

Cancel