The Rising Popularity Of GM Turbo Gasoline Engines
76
Sponsored Links
Much like other automakers, General Motors is increasingly moving to turbocharged gasoline engines from naturally aspirated ones. An analysis by GM Authority found that the number of models sold with GM turbo gasoline engines has risen from 19 in the 2016 model year to 23 in 2021, which represents an increase of 21 percent in the span of five years.
This increase has happened despite the discontinuation of several model lines fitted with GM turbo gasoline engines in the intervening period such as the Chevy Cruze and Sonic, Buick Regal and Verano, and Cadillac CT6. However, the loss of those models was more than compensated for by the introduction of new models fitted with boosted motors, or the introduction of turbocharged engines in existing models.
| 2016 | 2021 | |
|---|---|---|
| Buick Cascada | 1.6L I4 LWC | - |
| Buick Encore | 1.4L I4 LUV | 1.4L I4 LUV |
| Buick Encore | 1.4L I4 LE2 | 1.4L I4 LE2 |
| Buick Encore GX | - | 1.2L I3 LIH |
| Buick Encore GX | - | 1.3L I3 L3T |
| Buick Envision | 2.0L I4 LTG | 2.0L I4 LSY |
| Buick Regal | 2.0L I4 LTG | - |
| Buick Verano | 2.0L I4 LTG | - |
| Cadillac ATS | 2.0L I4 LTG | - |
| Cadillac ATS-V | 3.6L V6 LF4 | - |
| Cadillac CT4 | - | 2.0L I4 LSY |
| Cadillac CT4/CT4-V | - | 2.7L I4 L3B |
| Cadillac CT5 | - | 2.0L I4 LSY |
| Cadillac CT5/CT5-V | - | 3.0L V6 LGY |
| Cadillac CT6 | 2.0L I4 LTG | - |
| Cadillac CT6 | 3.0L V6 LGW | - |
| Cadillac CTS | 2.0L I4 LTG | - |
| Cadillac CTS | 3.6L V6 LF3 | - |
| Cadillac XTS | 3.6L V6 LF3 | - |
| Cadillac XT4 | - | 2.0L I4 LSY |
| Cadillac XT5 | - | 2.0L I4 LSY |
| Cadillac XT6 | - | 2.0L I4 LSY |
| Chevrolet Blazer | - | 2.0L I4 LSY |
| Chevrolet Camaro | 2.0L I4 LTG | 2.0L I4 LTG |
| Chevrolet Cruze | 1.4L I4 LE2 | - |
| Chevrolet Equinox | - | 1.5L I4 LYX |
| Chevrolet Malibu | 1.5L I4 LFV | 1.5L I4 LFV |
| Chevrolet Malibu | 2.0L I4 LTG | 2.0L I4 LTG |
| Chevrolet Silverado 1500 | - | 2.7L I4 L3B |
| Chevrolet Sonic | 1.4L I4 LUV | - |
| Chevrolet Trailblazer | - | 1.2L I3 LIH |
| Chevrolet Trailblazer | - | 1.3L I3 L3T |
| Chevrolet Trax | 1.4L I4 LUV | 1.4L I4 LUV |
| Chevrolet Trax | - | 1.4L I4 LE2 |
| GMC Acadia | - | 2.0L I4 LSY |
| GMC Sierra 1500 | - | 2.7L I4 L3B |
| GMC Terrain | - | 1.5L I4 LYX |
| Total | 19 | 23 |
GM turbo gasoline engines fitted to cars in the 2021 model year range from the little 1.2L I3 LIH to the 3.0L V6 LGY. These engines, plus their power and torque figures (including variations), are shown in the table below:
| Engine | Power | Torque |
|---|---|---|
| 1.2L I3 LIH | 137 horsepower | 162 pound-feet |
| 1.3L I3 L3T | 155 horsepower | 174 pound-feet |
| 1.4L I4 LE2 | 148 / 153 horsepower | 173 / 177 pound-feet |
| 1.4L I4 LUV | 138 horsepower | 148 pound-feet |
| 1.5L I4 LFV | 163 horsepower | 184 pound-feet |
| 1.5L I4 LYX | 170 horsepower | 203 pound-feet |
| 2.0L I4 LSY | 230 / 235 / 237 horsepower | 258 pound-feet |
| 2.0L I4 LTG | 259 / 272 horsepower | 260 / 295 pound-feet |
| 2.7L I4 L3B | 310 / 325 horsepower | 348 / 350 / 380 pound-feet |
| 3.0L V6 LGY | 335 / 360 horsepower | 400 / 405 pound-feet |
Although the LGY motor is the strongest on this list, it is not as powerful as the discontinued twin turbo 3.6L V6 LF3, which produced up to 420 horsepower and 430 pound-feet of torque in the Cadillac XTS V-Sport, or the 3.6L V6 LF4, rated at 455 horsepower and 445 pound-feet of torque in the ATS-V.
Turbocharging is a form of supercharging, in which a compressor packs more fuel and air into an engine’s cylinders than they could draw in unaided. The advantage of turbocharging over other forms of supercharging is that the compressor is driven by exhaust gases and not directly by the engine, resulting in reduced power losses.
The disadvantage is that, because the exhaust gases move sufficiently quickly when the engine is under load, there can be a delay between an application of the throttle by the driver and the turbocharger reaching operating speed, but this has been largely reduced or eradicated in modern vehicles.
1962 Chevrolet Corvair Monza
The first GM turbo gasoline engines were fitted to the Chevrolet Corvair Monza and Oldsmobile Jetfire in the early 1960s, but turbocharging did not become popular until more than a decade later. In those days, it was always used to increase engine power, but a new emphasis – improvements in fuel economy – was added during the first decade of the 21st century.
Automakers realized that a small turbocharged engine could produce the same power as a large, naturally aspirated one while achieving better fuel economy and lower exhaust emissions in official tests. This is because the engine uses very little fuel and emits only minimal exhaust when the turbocharger is not operating.
It’s also worth noting that since 2016, GM has doubled the amount of vehicles with turbo-diesel engines, as outlined in a recent GM Authority report. However, the Detroit-based automaker is aggressively moving in the direction of electric vehicles, and plans to introduce 30 new EVs by 2025.
Subscribe to GM Authority for more around-the-clock GM news coverage of turbocharged, supercharged, naturally aspirated and electric models.
- Sweepstakes Of The Month: Win a Corvette Z06 and 2024 Silverado. Details here.
Sponsored Links
General Motors is using turbochargers to replace the need of a larger engine, a turbocharged 3-cylinder engine to replace as much as a naturally aspirated V6 as we’re not seeing any monster performance engines like a twin-turbocharged small-block V8.
Nothing wrong with turbos if they are not replacing displacement. I like to have both.
The author omitted the 2.0L turbo LHU variant that was offered in the 2013-2016 Buick Verano Premium, making 250hp/260tq. The Buick Regal offered it too, until 2013 – 220 hp/258tq for the CXL Turbo and 270hp/295tq for the GS.
I have a 2014 Buick Regal with the 2.0L LTG and I will say it’s very efficient and has awesome power but it also currently has a #1 cylinder blowby issue and I am fighting with the extended warranty people…. I definitely would say this engine is a great one but would be nice if I could get it replaced or repaired.
How many miles? How can blowby be linked to one cylinder, wouldn’t the extra pressure in the crankcase be hard to attribute to one cylinder unless you did sometype compression test? Are you sure it’s not a vacuum line or something like that? I don’t have a ton of experience with the LTG so I’m curious. Does it throw a code?
Genuinely just trying to help here. I hope you don’t need new top end. Sometimes the dealer will use scary words like blowby when you’re out of warranty, but it’s just a $500 fix from your local respectable mechanic.
I was considering buying a new Ford EcoBoost truck. I like the idea of a turbo charged truck for pulling my camper. Maybe GM has finally woke up to what people want. Try a 6.2 with a turbo in a pickup and maybe I’d buy it.
NA 6.2 Silverado with a small tune will run with the eco boost
You are talking about 6.2 chevy… they don’t make it 2020 is a 6.6l gas and diesel… Ford also stopped making the 6.2l and now habe a 7.3l gas and the 6.7l diesel. If everyone hasn’t notice no car manufacturer has put a turbo on a v8 yet for mass production. Chevy is going down hill very fast, as you said chevy uses a 6.6l big block that doesn’t put out the hp or torque of the eco boost v6 let alone the 7.3 Godzilla!.
My BMW has a V8 turbo….and it’s has been optional for years.
I don’t know why GM would mark my 2020 Silverado having a 6.2 engine if they didn’t make one. I’ll check again
The 6.6 gas job is the new motor for 3/4 tons… I don’t think they’re in 1/2 tons, think that’s still the 5.3 or 6.2… but I’m not a truck guy so I might be wrong.
You’re severely confused. The Silverado HD has 6.6l gas and 6.6l diesel options. The Silverado half-ton has 2.7l, 4.3l, 5.3l, and 6.2l gas options along with the 3.0l diesel.
The Cadillac CT5V Blackwing is a V8 Twin Turbo…
And with a tune on the EcoBoost, the tuned 6.2 will never touch it. Turbos are where it’s at.
I don’t know a lot about the newer turbo engines but I have the 2.0 turbo in my 09 cobalt. Runs like a race car and 30 mpg. I can’t complain about the engine or little car. It has 62k on it now and I still run it on auto cross and drag races only real problem I have is with the front tires. About every 10k they wear out. Lol
Lmfao those an you all idiots are still praying them for combustion engin in stead of dumping more money in SO THERE AROUND IN THE NEXT 5-10. Lmfao new turbo charge engin stupid dinosaur can read the single everywhere.
@John:
“Lmfao those an you all idiots are still praying them for combustion engin in stead of dumping more money in SO THERE AROUND IN THE NEXT 5-10. Lmfao new turbo charge engin stupid dinosaur can read the single everywhere.”…….
….. WE’RE idiots ?!?!
GM should never have been bailed out. Only because of Tesla did GM decide to get into new tech, otherwise they would’ve kept selling us crap cars for too much money for as long as their business model held out. They scrapped the ev1 to sell us more wasteful gasoline engines, now they wanna be cool by going efficient and electric? Up yours GM. You had your chance and you screwed the world for profit
Eric, a therapist might do wonders for you. I go to one, no shame!
GM invested in BEV cars bigtime and now they sell dozens of Bolts a month… Seems like their aren’t a lot of people who want to spend the premium for that tech right now. Meanwhile, Tesla barely sells 200K units and owns <2% of market share. To be honest they aren't much of a player in my book.
Actually Ford was bailed out also. They took monies through TALF which was low cost loans and they borrowed bigger than GM to save Ford credit all to prevent bankruptcy.
I’ve been driving new generation turbos for 4 years now. It’s truly the best of both worlds if you want performance and economy. If you want a dedicated hauling vehicle I’d go with displacement or economical only a regular 4 pot would do. Me I’d love to have an high output N/A engine before forced induction takes over.
Funny how much message from people taking about turbo engines blowing up……
Maybe if they would learn how to use them properly… It would most likely last longer….. Dont you think
I also do not understand this urge of having more and more power … When price of fuel keeps going up…
And what about speed limit…….
I think it would be nice if people would grow up a little
I think you are the guy that I was behind that took a minute to get up to the speed limit and then you just made the next light and I had to stop. thanks I had too piss like a race horse.
I think a Prius is in your future. There is nothing more dissatisfying than driving a car with no power, imo.
Funny because my 2016 Malibu had its oil changed regularly by the dealer as the automakers scream people must do.
Didn’t stop the pistons from cracking.
Last GM glassoline car I will ever own.
Since they discontinued the Cruze Diesel its goodbye Government Motors.
I bought a 2020 siverado custom with a 2.7 turbo – 310 hp and 348lb tourque. It’s early but I love it. Why – because its ” fun ” to drive. It kicks butt when you need it – especially off the line. I leave most dead in their tracks. I admitt , I didn’t by it for towing and for those who dis believe – car and driver said you need to drive it or shut up! Its got everything I need – nice options – auto easy release tail gate, 120 volt outlets in and out in bed, 20 in tires and chrome rims, led bed lights, 12 tie down hooks, running boards, option shut off to start and stop technology, on the fly easy 4 wheel and more. I’m excited 😁 because it’s so fun to drive!!
Ya, this truck is a great value. I hope it is great for you.
If you think that’s fun, you should drive a 2.7 F-150. They have way more power.
Turbo cars most often require premium gas. The price difference between reg. vs. premium gas vs. diesel would pretty much offset the mpg advantage of smaller boosted engine vs. n.a. larger engine, on a budget. Just my opinion.
I think my 1.4t gets substantially better gas mileage then most n.a. 2.0’s in my opinion. Most turbo’s don’t “require” premium, but it is highly recommended because of the additives, which is what I mean to say by “cleaner” burning. Personally I’d run premium in n.a. cars, too. My wife has a 2.0 n.a. running regular gas (cringe) and I think my 1.4t is cheaper to fill monthly even using premium. On the highway at cruising speed is really where the fuel saving of a turbo are noticeable, they just barely sip gas.
On the highway at cruising speed the turbo is essentially doing nothing, only under substantial throttle opening does the turbo affect the power. Premium fuel is used to prevent detonation under boost, so unless you drive wide open throttle a LOT, you are wasting a lot of money. The sipping gas comes from the tiny 1.4 displacement, not the turbo.
“under substantial throttle opening” is not how modern turbos work. Modern turbo systems respond to load. So, if a turbo car encounters a hill on highway, or is towing, or there’s a lot of drag, if there is enough exhaust flow, the computer will call for some boost. Basically, what I’m trying to say is that it may or may not use boost on the highway, depending on the scenario, but my turbo is definitely calling for boost going up some hills. I don’t have an Ultra Gauge so I couldn’t tell you how much.
Premium fuel does help with knock, but modern cars have knock sensors, the main advantage of premium fuel, IMO, is that it better for the vehicle long term. The premium fuels often feature better additives and detergents that should theoretically increase the life of the moving parts on the hotside, like the turbine and wastegate. Under most driving conditions I prefer a turbo, but there are definitely less moving parts in most NA motors, so I do see the appeal. Good talk, but I think you’re a little misinformed on some stuff.
I have been driving a ’89 Dodge Spirit turbo for over 30 years. That little 4-banger with multi-port injection has been foolproof, even without an intercooler (except for 5 head gaskets). Same wastegate, same turbo, same injectors, same everything. Your statement about extra parts is moot. There were only 2, and they were not noted for failure. Chrysler had the right idea throughout the ’80’s and the design and build quality of the motors was very good. Drive-ability was excellent at any load and speed. Fuel economy was great for the day (32 mpg ave). And by the way, these engines will run happily on 87 octane, but boost will be limited to about 4 psi. Today, they are no longer a car company, but just a cash cow for whoever happens to own them at any point in time. I suspect GM’s only motive for going this route is for CAFE purposes.
I agree with it being kind of being a loophole for GM to produce more V8s, but I do prefer turbo 4’s as a daily driver to just about any motor. Anyways there are more parts then just 2. There are obliviously a couple moving parts on the hot side. There’s also a blowoff or bypass on the cold side. And I would think there are also a few extra vacuum lines and to help balance pressures in the crankcase and intake, etc…
Exactly the opposite. Modern engines are direct-injection turbocharged. GM calls them SIDI. They’re very similar to diesels in that they are stratified charge. The point of the turbocharger is to recover energy from the large amounts of insulating hot air in the cylinder, and use that energy to reduce losses used to pump in air into the cylinders.
Highway cruising speed is where they work best. WOT is where turbochargers hurt because they have to spin up, and where the engines switch to stoich burn mode, so they’re pretty useless.
I love the efficiency of direct injection, but I’ve heard there can be in increase of carbon build up. You sound like you know what your talking about, what’s your take? Probably no big deal and worth the gains.
Intake valve carbon buildup comes from EGR and PCV particularly because there’s no fuel and detergents going past the valves anymore. Some engines do in-cylinder EGR (“Atkinson cycle”) which makes it worse. Modern engine oils, with proper change intervals, help a little. Also, reducing the amount of cold starts and runtime help since cold valves make it worse. New cooling systems like electronic thermostats help a lot here.
There’s official procedures where cleaning solvents are injected into the intake that will dissolve a large amount of this stuff. That’s really the answer if it gets bad.
Exhaust valve deposits can be increased because, like a diesel, direct injection engines do make more soot. (There’s talk about EU regulation and gasoline engines being fitted with a particulate filter, like diesels)
The answer here is to always use a fuel with high quality detergents (Top Tier). Again there’s official cleaning solvents that are injected into the fuel system that can be used to clean the exhaust valves if it becomes bad.
Generally, this is considered an emissions item and by EPA regulations, it’s supposed to last 150k mi/15 years without any work, so a good design should last at least that long. As you say, the gains due to engine efficiency and the weight you save from a smaller engine are simply too big to pass up.
Premium fuel is also another tool to improve performance by the engine’s ability to increase ignition timing. Engines that require premium fuel or can adjust for it will be more efficient. Engine controls can also trim fuel to optimize economy and emissions in a wider range running premium. However, the added cost per gallon likely will not offset that efficiency, therefore you might shop for a regular grade vehicle if that is most important to your requirements. Turbocharged engines can gain even more boost output on premium of course by controlling air fuel ratios and timing as mentioned. Another factor no one seems to talk about is ethanol content used to boost octane content. E 10 can reduce mileage by 3%. E10 is commonly present in most pump fuels. E85 can give you a noticable increase in performance due to its octane rating (provided your engine is flex fuel and likely will advance engine timing to take full advantage) but you will see a 30% decrease in mileage
Modern turbocharged engines work fine on regular. The trick is highly efficient intercooling and direct injection, which lower temperatures and reduce time time the fuel is exposed to heat, plus knock sensors.
If you don’t trust that, consider the regular gas boat sailed 15-20 years ago when NA engines went from 8:1 to 10:1 compression ratio, so they’re “supposed” to use mid-grade minimum.
40 years ago
Exactly. Diesel is cheaper than Premium Gas.
Plus you don’t hear about Diesels cracking pistons or destroying rings under 100,000 miles.
Is GM “offering” these turbocharged engines because of consumer demand, belief that they are a superior technology, or just to offset all of the Tahoes and Suburbans they make a killing on?
You’re welcome GM, sincerely SAAB Automobiles. Killed by GM in 2011.
Chad Rousseau
SABB had 2 vehicles when it was discontinued, and one of them was a rebadged Cadillac.
SAAB should thank GM for putting it out of its misery.
The only misery that took place was Saab being exploited by GM for its engineering without sufficient investment in new model production. Saab had 3 vehicles in production going into 2012, the 9-5, the 9-4X and the 9-3, not two as you wrote. GM has been poorly operated for the past 40+years, the recent 2 billion dollar Nikola purchase is just the latest example.
Chad r
Your really proud of that Swedish engineering . Does that extend to buying all your furniture at IKEA?
Also stole some turbo tech from Opel.
h4cksaw
GM owned Opel for 90 years. GM approved and paid for all the tech Opel developed.
I know, just wanted to say it in a funny way. GM purchased Opel a little while after WWI when Germany’s economy was in shambles because of sanctions. GM along with many other ally nations and companies exploited Germany after WWI and that sort of indirectly started WWII… at least the way I understand it.
Nope. The modern SIDI technology was developed in collaboration with Opel.
SAAB’s obsolete turbo technology has nothing to do with it.
There was an expression about roads and Rome.
Not really. SIDI engines are much closer to diesels, from the injectors to piston design. That’s why the European manufacturers got on it, from their small diesel experience.
GM owes a debt of gratitude to all the subsidiary brands past and well past.
I have an LSY equipped XT4.
Power, a flat torque curve and mileage are very good BUT it is frustrating to pay $0.60 – $1.00 more per gallon for fuel. Math shows that while I certainly use less fuel I don’t really save any $ compared to a normally aspirated 3.6L.
Using less fuel = less pollution, but I think we are getting RIPPED by the oil companies.
lol, put on your tinfoil hats… it all works out in the wash. The ltg, lsy, and new 2.7t L3B are lightyears better motors than the old V6s.
I have a ’16 Malibu with the 1.5T and it has plenty of power, does 0-60 in just over 8 sec. about the same as the ’06 model with the V6. EPA combined for the ’16 is 27.3 mpg and for the ’06, 20.4 mpg. Easy to see why turbos are so popular.
Please refer to the comment to h4cksaw.
I’ll stick with my 08 corvette LS3. No lag in acceleration, (after the tires grab), 0-60 in 4.5 seconds and 1/4 mile in just under 13 seconds, (Top speed 186 mph). Some of the new v6 engines are very impressive but a 4 cylinder will never beat that and none of them sound as good as a V8.
I owned a 2007 Malibu with the 3.5 V6 that made 217 HP and did 0-60 in under 7 seconds and averaged 26 to 27 MPG so I think those 2006 figures are off a bit on both mileage and 0-60 times. Note that the 2006 version of the 3.5 was non VVT and made 200 horses but versions I rented averaged 25-26 combined and were quicker to 60 than 8.2 seconds.
Do they come with GM’s new Lifetime Warranty – 24 Months or 18,000 Miles?
GM warranties are a joke rn 🤣
My wife drove a Volvo 850 with a turbocharged I4, and it was a hassle to get servicing at the only Volvo dealer here. I prefer the hybrid car which can get much better economy, and still get as much power as a turbocharged engine, but the engine works much less, last longer, and reduces engine maintenance. And you do recover the gasoline energy by regenerative braking into the battery, while the turbo car loses all of its energy into heat.
Saab may have had 3 models in 2011 but one was a Subaru WRX none was a “rebadged” Cadillac. The Chevy Malibu did share the 93’s chassis….
I owned two GM-ish Saabs, a 97 900S and a 2003 9-3. Although I loved the cars, particularly the 900S, they in all honestly were lackluster compared to the earlier Saabs that I fell in love with in high school. There was a lot of cheapness built into those cars too, particularly the 9-3. It also feels as if they rushed production out the door before working out all of the kinks – the amount of warranty work was astronomical – and was the reason why I gave up on Saab. By contrast, when I replaced the 900S with a 2006 Volvo S60 the difference was night and day. With the exception of a plastic exhaust hose that literally crumbled due to engine heat, for the most part, Volvo didn’t skimp on assembly or materials quality. But fortunately, GM learned its lessons by the time the final Saabs came out pre-bankruptcy. Although I avoided buying the last generation 9-5, I instead purchased its sister vehicle, the Buick LaCrosse, which without a doubt is the best car I have ever owned, Flawlessly put together and runs like a dream. Too bad that, other than Cadillac, GM appears to have surrendered the sedan market.
With the lackluster Trailblazer and Encore GX it seems like Mary and GM are surrendering the whole B/C segment. It’s a bold move that I don’t think will payoff.
there is NO popularity in these 4 cyl turbo s it is what the auto companies are ramming down our throats . Driving a xt5 3.6 getting 33 highway on reg gas and the engine is not straining .
Well the EPA doesn’t list the XT5 at anywhere close to what you claim, so you must always have a strong tailwind. I’m not trying to put down the venerable v6, but an inline 4 with a turbo can give you similar power and better fuel economy while being easier to service.
I like keeping an NA car in the driveway for the wife, but my current daily is a turbo and my next daily will probably be a turbo, maybe a BEV depending ont the price, features, AND appearance of the Bolt EUV. The driving experience of a fine tuned modern turbo is just nearly impossible to beat, but I’ll admit that from traffic light to traffic light electric cars are impressive.
EPA ratings or not 2018 XT5 3.6 from NJ to Orlando 65-70 mph 33.2 mpg . 2020 XT5 3.6 from North New Jersey via Garden state parkway mile post#159 to exit # 63 65-70 mph 29.8 mpg , I don’t think a tailwind is involved.