mobile-menu-icon
GM Authority

2024 Chevy Traverse vs. Tahoe And Suburban: Dimensions Compared

The all-new 2024 Chevy Traverse introduces the crossover’s latest third generation, bringing with it a variety of updates and changes, including new styling, an overhauled interior, and a new engine. What’s more, the 2024 Traverse introduces new dimensions inside and out. Now, we’re comparing the large, three-row 2024 Chevy Traverse to Chevy’s full-size SUVs, the Chevy Tahoe and Chevy Suburban, focusing on exterior dimensions, passenger room, and cargo room.

Exterior Dimensions

First up are the exterior dimensions, where we find the 2024 Chevy Traverse actually has a slightly longer wheelbase than that of the Chevy Tahoe, measuring in at 121 inches versus the 120.9-inch wheelbase of the Tahoe. In every other dimension, however, the new Traverse shows the smallest measurements of the three utility models. Overall length is particularly notable, with the Tahoe measuring in with an extra 6.2 inches compared to the Traverse, and the Suburban measuring in with an extra 21.2 inches compared to the Traverse.

2024 Chevy Traverse vs. 2024 Chevy Tahoe And Suburban - Exterior
2024 Chevy Traverse 2024 Chevy Tahoe 2024 Chevy Suburban
Wheelbase (in. / mm) 121.0 / 3,072 120.9 / 3,071 134.1 / 3,406
Length (in. / mm) 204.5 / 5,194 210.7 / 5,352 225.7 / 5,733
Width (in. / mm) 79.6 / 2,021 81.0 / 2,057 81.1 / 2,060
Height (in. / mm) 69.9 / 1,776 75.8 / 1,925 75.7 / 1,923
Front Track (in. / mm) 67.3 / 1,709 68.5 / 1,740 68.5 / 1,740
Rear Track (in. / mm) 67.0 / 1,703 68.3 / 1,735 68.3 / 1,735
Ground Clearance (in. / mm) 6.8 to 7.8 / 172 to 197 8.0 to 10.0 / 203 to 254 8.0 to 10.0 / 203 to 254

Passenger Room

With regard to passenger room, the 2024 Chevy Traverse is surprisingly spacious inside the cabin, showing interior measurements that approach those of the 2024 Chevy Tahoe and 2024 Chevy Suburban when it comes to the first and second rows. In fact, the Traverse offers the most second-row headroom in this comparison.

That said, The Traverse loses some ground to the two full-size SUVs when it comes to third-row shoulder room.

2024 Chevy Traverse vs. 2024 Chevy Tahoe And Suburban - Passenger Room
2024 Chevy Traverse 2024 Chevy Tahoe 2024 Chevy Suburban
First-Row Headroom (in. / mm) 40.7 to 42.6 / 1,033 to 1,082 40.4 to 42.3 / 1,026 to 1,044 40.4 to 42.3 / 1,026 to 1,044
First-Row Legroom (in. / mm) 44.3 / 1,125 44.5 / 1,130 44.5 / 1,130
First-Row Shoulder Room (in. / mm) 62.3 / 1,582 66.0 / 1,676 66.0 / 1,676
First-Row Hip Room (in. / mm) 58.7 / 1,491 61.5 / 1,562 61.5 / 1,562
Second-Row Headroom (in. / mm) 38.2 to 40.0 / 970 to 1,015 37.5 to 38.9 / 952 to 988 37.5 to 38.9 / 952 to 988
Second-Row Legroom (in. / mm) 41.5 / 1,053 42.0 / 1,067 42.0 / 1,067
Second-Row Shoulder Room (in. / mm) 62.2 / 1,579 64.7 / 1,643 64.8 / 1,646
Second-Row Hip Room (in. / mm) 58.6 / 1,488 61.3 / 1,557 61.3 / 1,557
Third-Row Headroom (in. / mm) 38.3 to 38.5 / 972 to 979 38.2 / 970 38.2 / 970
Third-Row Legroom (in. / mm) 32.1 / 816 34.9 / 886 36.7 / 932
Third-Row Shoulder Room (in. / mm) 57.8 / 1,466 62.7 / 1,593 62.8 / 1,595
Third-Row Hip Room (in. / mm) 48.6 / 1,235 49.4 / 1,255 49.4 / 1,255

Cargo Room

Finally, we have cargo room, where the extra length of the Chevy Tahoe and Chevy Suburban really bears fruit. Notably, the Suburban offers more than 47 additional cubic feet behind the first row compared to the 2024 Traverse

2024 Chevy Traverse vs. 2024 Chevy Tahoe And Suburban - Cargo Room
2024 Chevy Traverse 2024 Chevy Tahoe 2024 Chevy Suburban
Cargo Volume Behind First Row (cu. ft. / L) 97.6 / 2,764 122.9 / 3,480 144.7 / 4,098
Cargo Volume Behind Second Row (cu. ft. / L) 56.6 / 1,603 72.6 / 2,056 93.8 / 2,656
Cargo Volume Behind Third Row (cu. ft. / L) 22.9 / 649 25.5 / 722 41.5 / 1,175

Subscribe to GM Authority for more Chevy Traverse news, Chevy Tahoe news, Chevy Suburban news, Chevy news, and around-the-clock GM news coverage.

[nggallery id=1276]

Jonathan is an automotive journalist based out of Southern California. He loves anything and everything on four wheels.

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. How come they don’t give us the weight so we know ???????????????????

    Reply
  2. Great info on these popular cross-shopped vehicles. Thanks for the easy-to-read comparison.
    Traverse 4362 lbs
    Tahoe 5661 lbs
    Suburban 5824 lbs
    Weight will vary depending on configuration.

    Reply
    1. Are people really cross shopping a Traverse and a Tahoe? The 2023 Tahoe LS 4WD is $59,095 and the 2023 Traverse LT AWD is $37,915. That is a $21,000 difference. You can almost buy a 2023 Traverse and 2024 Trax LS (at $21,495) for the same as a Tahoe, with a combined price of $59,410 or just $315 more, basically the same price. I’m not saying people are not cross shopping these 2, but it seems really crazy with the price difference if they are. Honestly don’t understand why the Tahoe is so much more expensive. Not blaming GM, people love them and are will to pay, so they do and to be fair, I think the Tahoe holds value better (maybe not).

      Reply
  3. This was a good article but doesn’t focus on the 4 cylinder in the 2024 Traverse. This vehicle with the size and weight should never be equipped with a 4 cylinder engine! The 6 cylinder 3.6 liter is a powerful engine for that size vehicle. There is no 4 cylinder on the Tahoe or the Suburban or sales would drop. One of my vehicles is a Traverse and the engine runs smooth and this is the second one I have owned. I have no interest in a 4 cylinder Traverse!

    Reply
    1. I mean, the 2.5 is putting out 328 HP (18 more than the 3.6 at 310) and 326 lb-ft of torque (60 more than the 3.6 at 266). We have a 2021 Acadia with the 3.6 (LGX), similar output to the Traverse LFY, and we do like it, but I’d have to drive the new one to be convinced the lower rated V6 is somehow better. I can say the 3.6 is somewhat noisy under moderate acceleration, more of a less satisfying experience than annoying, but still. Honestly think the loss of 1 gear might be a little better with a bit less shifting. As far as size and weigh in a vehicle that size, the 4 cylinder Colorado Trail Boss weighs more than the new Traverse.

      Reply
    2. Blame the government. This is exactly why the government should stay out of our lives…. But on the other hand, if you had done your due-diligence, you would have found out that the 2.5L Turbo has more hp and torque ratings than the 3.6L…..

      Reply
      1. Due-dilligence aside—has this engine been in existance and thus proven for any length of time?

        Reply
        1. The 2.7 has which it is based on and that hasn’t had any issues of concern. In torture testing the 2.7 was one of the hardest motors to kill, no quibbles that this won’t be reliable for long term. People have this misconception that it is the 80’s, turbo motors are reliable and make good power, and with the power band they produce much better suited to a heavier vehicle as well. Speaking of 80’s, Toyota isn’t as reliable as they once were…

          Reply
    3. Man, tell us you did zero homework before commenting without actually telling us.

      First, the turbo 4 puts out a good amount more power than the V6, especially down low where it is most important in this size.

      Second, they use a turbo 4 in the Silverado, sales have done the opposite from dropping. That 2.7 is well received.

      Third, it is based off the 2.7 in the Silverado which has been proven to be reliable and was built stout, so much so it was one of the hardest to kill in torture testing. Reliabilty will not be a problem. This motor should be fantastic in these. With all that torque, it won’t have to down shift to go up a hill and won’t need to be revved to pull from a stop light with a load of people.

      Don’t get me wrong, the 3.6 is pretty good, but these should be even better and more aligned with its uses.

      Reply
      1. Yep, saying that what I know, which may fit inside a thimble is very old school. That’s where these conversations sre a big help. I do lean on and learn lots from reading these comments.
        There you have it!

        Reply
    4. You have obviously no understanding of how turbocharging works. Thank you for your service installing lug nuts on Impalas for 45 years in your overpaid job and taking an even larger overpaid retirement Terry

      Reply
      1. Whomever you are speaking too about the lug nuts—maybe try a bit of diplomacy rather than electronic bravado. We’re not all experts that read these threads.

        Reply
  4. Loving the dimensional specifications. GM almost did their homework on this vehicle. They dropped the ball on the 4 cylinder engine. Will deter a lot of customers including me who was anxiously awaiting the arrival of this vehicle. GM let’s go the other way with engine
    Options. How about a small block V8 offering like the 4.8 or 5.3? If so, is an H.O. Would be awesome.

    Reply
    1. Wow, ok, so you speak for most people when you obviously are uneducated on these.

      They listened. People wanted A, better mpg, and B, better power. They are tired of it down shifting on a slight grade or having to rev the motor out to get moving with a load of people. So what did GM do you ask? They put in a motor that has 18 more HP and 60 more foot pounds all down low, which is exactly what this needs. It can get moving with out having to rev over 2k with traffic from stop lamps. It can stay in high gear when coming to a hill. They sure enough did do their homework. It will get better mpg in most cases and will be as reliable if not more since it is based off the 2.7 in the silverado.

      Finally, most people shopping these have zero idea on the specs of the motor and couldn’t care less if it is a v6 or a turbo four. All that will matter is if it accelerates fine and gets good mpg on regular based on the window sticker. So no, it won’t deter many customers, and those few that are near sighted and they do lose because they have dated misconceptions, they will gain more from those that test drive it and see how effortlessly they drive day to day with the added power.

      The V8 is dying, come to date with your ideas…

      Reply
      1. Whoa my friend, take a breath here. I’m guessing most of us out here aren’t mechanical aces so please be kind on your answers.
        Here’s something to ponder from this old jungle war vet: Say what you mean, mean what you say, but don’t be mean when you say it. God Bless.

        Reply
      2. I thought this was a forum to express our opinions and not be verbally attacked for it. Keep in mind that the new Acadia is no longer a mid size SUV no matter how it may be marketed. Refer to the article a week or so ago that dimensionally compared the new Acadia to the Yukon and Tahoe. Dimensionally it is a full size SUV. Need to keep that in mind when discussing engines for the new Acadia.

        You can see from the posts there are a lot of different opinions. We all spend our money on a vehicle as we see fit. The issue is GM is only offering one engine selection on the new Acadia. No V6, V8 or Diesel offering. That would appeal to a broader group of customers without doubt.

        Talk about gas mileage, my son-in-law has a Silverado with a 5.3. He gets 22 mpg on the highway. What more could you ask for?

        Reply
        1. Thank you, a voice of reason in a a virtual world.Appreciate it.

          Reply
  5. I just can’t get past the awful rear side windows. It only cheapens the look. And why the need to make the front clip look like a powerful full-size pickup? It’s a mid-size SUV with a 2.5 L engine for God’s sake! Fashion the rear side window more in line with the outgoing generation Traverse and smooth out the front clip. Then, I’ll purchase one.

    Reply
    1. Personal preference, of course, but the Z71 is the first Traverse I actually like. However, not for everyone, as noted, but the other trim levels have a less aggressive looking grill. Really looks a bit too much like the previous generation for my taste, but should appeal more to those who liked the previous generation.

      Reply
    2. Take a look at the next gen enlarged 24 Acadia. Sounds a lot like what you’re describing.

      Reply
  6. I like it. The style and the engine! I live in the mountains and I would much rather have a boosted engine, especially in higher altitudes, than the naturally aspirated v6 it replaces! That added low and mid range torque that the naturally aspirated V6 lacks will be nice
    . Now to see what the fuel economy difference will be..? Probably not any better in the Z71 but maybe in the standard version.

    Reply
  7. I can deal with the new exterior look. I continue to have a problem with a 4 banger in this size vehicle. Some long term testing and towing may change my tune. We’ll see.

    Reply
    1. The 2.7 Silverado which this is based on should give solid insight.

      Reply
      1. Seriously. This engine does duty in a full-size truck and yet the olds still have turbophobia of it in a mall crawler. Engine design and performance improves over time!

        Reply
  8. Traverse had the 4banger in the RS config few years back, lasted only about 6 months, underpowered and turbo whine. The 3.6 is a great engine for that platform…many clients are already poo-pooing the new 4. Trying to use smaller engines that work harder instead of the 6. either 3.6 or 4.3 would be still a good choice but alas…no more.

    Reply
    1. Yeah, maybe a brand new concept here—listen to the buying public. What a novel idea.

      Reply
      1. GM stopped doing that over a decade ago with the Camaro re-release … and look where it is now, in the graveyard again! Designers and engineers liked what they created and didn’t want to listen to the buying public. And let’s not forget that ugliness on the front of every model except the ZL1 starting in 2019. The ‘19 RS wasn’t bad though. GM knows full well what happens when egos are more important than sales in the U.S. market at least.

        Reply
    2. That was a different animal, but lets shed some facts on your statements.

      The 2.0 overlapped the 3.6 quite a bit. It was down on HP but up on TQ. No complaints on how it drove, the added torque was a pleasure. It was a little lacking on the highway. It did offer a couple mpg better. Despite the power difference was just over a half second slower than the V6. So, this new motor is much more powerful and built on an even more reliable base. It will outperform the V6 while being better to drive.

      If you build it stout enough, it doesn’t matter how small it is. I would actually prefer an overbuilt smaller motor than a more relaxed but less built larger motor (ie forged versus now forged components).

      Hey, people like to live in the past in some things, this is not one of them. The 2.7 does very well in the full size trucks for what it is, nearly making the 5.3 unnecessary

      Reply
  9. Leave the 4 cylinder but make it a hybrid, so I don’t have to buy a hybrid Highlander

    Reply
  10. If a diesel was an option, I would be interested, but a 4cyl gas engine, no thanks

    Reply
    1. I had a diesel Equinox … and even using it as my commuter vehicle (120 mile round trip) for work every day, I STILL had DPF issues. When/if they get that figured out, I’ll be more than happy to buy another diesel, but until then, it’s back to gas and my Bolt EUV for work commute now.

      Reply
  11. The extra cargo room behind the third row in the tahoe is mostly vertical and really not as usedul as I’d like. I don’t like filling the back to the ceiling as I prefer to be able to see, old fashioned in guess, but it’s what I like.

    Reply
  12. Everyone is bashing a 4 cylinder saying it is under powered. A turbo 4 cyl will eat a 6cyl naturally aspirated engines lunch. Don’t knock it til u try it!

    Reply
  13. Look at the HP/tourqe specs on the silverado/ Colorado fours. Worked at as a GM parts manager for thirty five plus years. The 3.6 engine was a major problem child. Timing chains etc.

    Reply
  14. The 4 cylinder engine seems to be a mistake.

    Reply
  15. How long before those engines start to fail? It is a very large SUV for such a small engine. Whose great idea was that?

    Reply
  16. I own a 2019 Traverse with the 3.6 and also own a 2023 Canyon with the 4 cylinder High output 2.7 . Both vehicles weigh about the same.
    I wouldn’t discount the 2.7 just yet. It’s a very impressive engine in the Canyon. May surprise you!

    Reply
    1. My concern is long term reliabilty, towing (actual towing not just stats on paper), reasonable mtce. costs—all those things that are important to the average buying, using consumer.

      Reply
  17. what about the powertrain?

    Reply
  18. The Tahoe and Suburban dash looks sooooooooo dated neither SUV have a nice looking interior at all I can’t believe that Chevy hasn’t done anything about that horrible looking interior yetthe new Traverse interior and most of the new Chevy models all have decent looking interiors the interior of a vehicle should be a PRIORITY to a customer because they will spend most of their time in the inside of the vehicle if i owned either the Suburban or the Tahoe that ugly and old looking dash would drive me crazy and i would spend a lot of time second guessing and questioning why did i buy that vehicle

    Reply
    1. I guess that is why there is a redesign for the Tahoe/ Suburban for 2025.

      Reply
  19. Everyone is complaining about the turbo 4 cylinder here, yet the 3.6 V6 is considered trash by almost all mechanics because it burns oil, leading to timing chain issues and the PCV system malfunctions. I have a 2013 Impala with this engine and asside from the battery getting drained if it isn’t started every 5 days, I have never had an issue with the engine. The only turbo 4 cylinder I have driven was a Mini Cooper S with a manual and very short gearing, could put it in 6th and it would keep up with typical traffic. Yet almost every vehicle in this class uses a 4cylinder turbo. I would prefer it be hybrid or diesel since you aren’t after speed in a people mover, but efficiency, smoothness and reliability, the extra torque can bring smoothness and efficiency in a lot of circumstances, reliability is getting better.

    As for the point of the article, GM clearly has the sizing down, still weird the 1st-gen Traverse had about as much cargo capacity as the current Tahoe, despite the Tahoe being much bigger. The Traverse is an attractive vehicle because of the expected price and comparable room. I would prefer a Suburban LS 4wd diesel with the bench front seat and a HD tow package, or really a 9 passenger Express Explorer package with the 3.0TD for the ultimate road trip vehicle short of an RV, but GM will never put that engine in the Express.

    Reply

Leave a comment

Cancel