GM Discontinues 2.0L Turbo Engine In Chevrolet Traverse
33
Sponsored Links
General Motors has stopped offering the turbo-charged 2.0-liter I-4 LTG engine in the Chevrolet Traverse, GM Authority has discovered. The move leaves the full-size, three-row crossover SUV with a single engine offering – the naturally-aspirated 3.6L V-6 LFY. The change took place for the mid-2019 model year, and dealers can no longer place orders for the Traverse with the 2.0L turbo engine as of this writing.
The turbo-charged 2.0L LTG engine was introduced in the second-generation Traverse for the 2018 model year. It made 257 horsepower and 295 pound-feet of torque and was offered exclusively on the Traverse RS trim level, which added a few sporty styling bits to the crossover. All other Traverse models were powered by the naturally-aspirated 3.6L V6 LFY making 310 horses and 266 pound-feet of torque. With the discontinuation of the 2.0 turbo, all Traverse models going forward will be powered by the atmospheric six-banger.
Both engines were mated to the new GM 9-speed automatic transmission, and the 3.6L V6 continues to be paired with the same gearbox.
The GM Authority Take
It appears that the move to discontinue the 2.0L turbo in the Chevrolet Traverse is meant to simplify the lineup, both for the consumer and on the production line. Having spent a good amount of time with Chevy’s full-size crossover with both engines, we can say that the boosted four-banger is not really necessary: it doesn’t deliver any notable improvements in performance or fuel economy while being less smooth as the 3.6L V6.
As such, the decision to drop the 2.0L turbo LTG engine from the Traverse lineup is welcome. However, we must wonder whether GM will end up replacing the 2.0L LTG with its successor – the all-new TriPower 2.0L LSY – in the near future. After all, The General did announce that the LSY will launch on the 2020 GMC Acadia refresh as a third engine option; it’s also expected to make an appearance in the 2020 Cadillac XT5 facelift.
Subscribe to GM Authority for the latest Chevrolet Traverse news, Chevy news, and ongoing GM news coverage.
- Sweepstakes Of The Month: Win a 2023 Corvette Z06 Convertible. Details here.
Sponsored Links
This engine made no sense ever.
The engine performed way better at higher altitude then the V6
ANYTHING turbo/supercharged always will as it forces more air into the engine vs NA when air density is lowered. Not sure what your point is as this is pretty much universally known….
Just trying to say it made sense for people who lived in high altitude markets… chill
Chill??? IF that is what you were “trying to say”, then just say it. Wonder how many buyers live in “higher altitude markets”. Do you and what do you drive?
Well that escalated quickly lol
Lol, yes, it did, for no good reason. Defensivness, and I’m the bad guy, lol… Logic or the blatantly understood seems to have no bearing if you “step on someones toes”, errr, feelings. Hence the the down votes which I really don’t give a rats @$$ about.
The LTG (like any other turbo-charged engine) did perform better in very high altitudes… but I’m not sure if it performed so much “better” over the NA V6 that the average driver would have noticed. Even for someone very much attuned to the details, I think I would still take the NA six in a high-altitude area like Colorado. The few times (5 percent) that the four would breathe better than the six are outweighed by the much smoother power delivery of the six the other 95 percent of time.
Besides, to get the 2.0L in the Traverse, one had to get the RS trim… so the engine was far from available to everyone.
I certainly agree with you and there is one other fact to consider. The turbo runs on premium fuel while the NA V6 runs on regular and there’s quite a bit of difference in cost.
The LTG can run on regular gas. I have an LTG and it can run on any octane but GM recommends running it on premium for better performance. And I would agree with them on that. Higher octane seems to improve power, if only marginally, and reduce engine knock.
Oh, it may run on it but is not recommended and may void your warranty from what I’ve read. Higher octane always inproves power and reduces/eliminates pings and is why they tell you to use premium. The only work around that I’ve found is to use an E85 mix to increase octane levels. Most modern cars can do this easily. It’s the older vehicles designed before ethanol that have trouble. I’ve modified and adjusted so it works for me, There are calculators online that will help you acheive the desired octane with minimal E85.
Oh, BTW, if your engine is knocking at all, your already F’d. And if your still using regular, your F’d. Ignore the manufactures recomendations and simple mechanics regarding “ping” at your own peril…..
GM needs a 2.5 4cylinder/hybrid combo for all their crossovers. (See new highlander hybrid)
The most efficient Highlander Hybrid on fuelly is getting 26 mpg. That is what the RS 2.0T EPA rating is and also what our 2017 Acadia Limited 3.6l gets at 65 mph on vacation.
Next version promises 34 MPG combined fuel economy…
Again the AWD version is also going to get 33/34 as e-awd is used. Its a must to have hybrid/Plugin versions without sacrificing the space and functionality for traverse to be appealing to modern Eco-consious families. Again Toyota offers safety package from base trim on. Something GM has to look too
I never get a 2,0 in a vehicle this size this is a no no ,,v6 is the best choice,,
Our 4,000 lbs Envision 2.0T with AWD could see 32.5 mph at 65 mph so the 4,300 lbs RS FWD shouldn’t be far behind.
The 2.8L Duramax now produces 200 horsepower @ 3600 rpm and 368 pound-feet of torque @ 2,000 rpm might be a good fit as it offers low end power and good mileage.
Since the Blazer have the 2.0t GM just drop it from the Traverse. However the 2.8d and 5.3 needs to be options.
Wow, no turbo diesel and V8 option available along with the standard 3.6?, must be a bunch of Highlander owners….
Transversely mounted 5.3? Gross.
It won’t happen, there will be no 5.3 V-8 transversely mounted in any these type SUV’s. They will leave the 5.3 V-8 and the 6.2 V-8’s for the bigger boys.
Guess you never heard of the 5.3 in the W-cars in the 00s…
No Guestt I can honestly say I not heard of W-cars and I have had lots of GM vehicles since my first new 2014 Malibu Classic 5.7 V-8. Over the years lots of GM’s with a variety of engine sizes including a 4.4 V-8 that a lot of people have never heard of. Off course most people knew of the 289, 302, 305, 307, 327, 350, 362, 396, 400, 442, 454 which were all V-8’s and maybe a bunch more I can’t remember right now. Probably the most popular engine that pretty well made it into every vehicle in their lineups except for only two if I remember correctly.
What?, a 2014 Malibu 5.7?. Anyways, the 5.3 was offered fwd cars so in short the 5.3 can fit in a full-sized/fwd CUV, it’s needed in the Traverse (and Enclave) to give buyers a buyers a choice without getting a Tahoe.
GM has another turbo 4cyl engine to use. The 2.7L turbo!
Did you see they did the same with the CT6 and it looks like they made AWD standard.
The less powerful LSY would make no sense in these heavy vehicles, especially with it’s reduced torque output of 258 vs 295.
If anything GM should be upgrading to the newer LGX 3.6 using the tune that the LaCrosse and Regal have with 310HP and 282 torque. That would upgrade smoothness ans quietness, give these still heavy vehicles more torque 282 vs 266 and slightly improve MPG. A triple win for both Chevy and the consumer
There is much more to the story than on-paper power. The LSY actually performs better than the LTG in the real world, despite having less power and torque on paper. Story incoming. Stay tuned.
This Motor Trend article was interesting but conforms my fears that the new engine is slower overall but does benefit from smoother and quieter operation and better highway fuel economy. It also operates on regular unleaded so there is that too.
https://www.motortrend.com/cars/cadillac/ct6/2019/2019-cadillac-ct6-20-first-test-review/
Note the 3930 curbweight of the RWD Ct6 that they said had the LSY feeling and sounding labored and barely adequate which re-enforces my theory that this engine would be a huge mistake in the far heavier Traverse.
The 2L Turbo in my AWD Caddy ATS was the worst engine I owned since the Chrysler 360 lean burn in the 70s. It was rough, sounded terrible, didn’t win any economy awards and burned oil for no apparent reason. It’s kind of the nature of the beast to be a little shaky, but that thing was terrible. My 2L T Volvo is way more civilized, and other brands are even better. There is an art to designing great 4 bangers, and GM isn’t there yet….IMHO
GM is, in fact, “there” when it comes to making great four-bangers. You’re talking about a last-generation 2.0L turbo (LTG) that’s on its way out, while the new GM 2.0L turbo LSY is a whole different beast that will put the Volvo motor to shame.
These 4 cylinder engines are just too small, lack of power and has shown no improved fuel economy worth while talking about over the 3.6 liter C-6. Maybe it’s a great little motor for the Chevy Trax, Buick Encore and any other vehicle in the that body size. As for the Traverse and similar size SUV’s they need to have six and eight cylinder engines offered only. PERIOD.