GM unveiled the 2024 Chevy Trax last October, debuting a brand-new entry-level crossover for the Bow Tie brand. While the next-gen crossover’s official fuel economy estimates have yet to be released in the U.S., fuel economy numbers for the 2024 Chevy Trax have been released in Canada, giving us a good idea of what to expect.
For those readers who may be unaware, the 2024 Chevy Trax features the turbocharged 1.2L I3 LIH gasoline engine, which is rated at 137 horsepower and 162 pound-feet of torque. Output is routed exclusively to the front wheels through GM’s six-speed automatic transmission, while under the skin, the crossover rides on the GM VSS-F vehicle set. All-wheel drive is not available for the 2024 Chevy Trax.
According to Natural Resources Canada, the governmental department responsible for natural resources, energy, minerals and metals, forests, and mapping in Canada, the 2024 Chevy Trax is estimated to consumer 8.3 L/100 km in the city, 7.4 L/100 km on the highway, and 7.9 L/100 km combined. This should equate to roughly 28 mpg in the city, 32 mpg on the highway, and 30 mpg combined.
These figures can be compared to the previous-generation 2022 Chevy Trax, which is equipped with the turbocharged 1.4L I4 LE2 gasoline engine, rated at 155 horsepower and 177 pound-feet of torque. The 2022 Chevy Trax returns 24 mpg in the city, 32 mpg on the highway, and 27 mpg combined. It’s also worth noting that the new Trax is longer, lower, and wider than the model which preceded it.
Further comparisons can be made to the 2023 Chevy Trailblazer, which, like the new 2024 Chevy Trax, is also equipped with the turbocharged 1.2L I3 LIH gasoline engine, returning 29 mpg in the city, 31 mpg on the highway, and 30 mpg combined. The 2023 Chevy Trailblazer also offers the turbocharged 1.3L I3 L3T gasoline engine, which returns 29 mpg in the city, 33 mpg on the highway, and 31 mpg combined.
Check out the table below for a comparison breakdown:
| 2024 Chevy Trax | 2022 Chevy Trax | 2023 Chevy Trailblazer | 2023 Chevy Trailblazer | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Engine | Turbo 1.2L I3 LIH | Turbo 1.4L I4 LE2 | Turbo 1.2L I3 LIH | Turbo 1.3L I3 L3T |
| Transmission | 6-speed automatic | 6-speed automatic | CVT | CVT |
| Drivetrain | FWD | FWD | FWD | FWD |
| Power (hp @ rpm) | 137 @ 5,000 | 155 @ 5,600 | 137 @ 5,000 | 155 @ 5,600 |
| Torque (lb-ft @ rpm) | 162 @ 2,500 | 177 @ 2,000 to 4,000 | 162 @ 2,500 | 174 @ 1,600 |
| City (mpg) | 28 (est.) | 24 | 29 | 29 |
| Highway (mpg) | 32 (est.) | 32 | 31 | 33 |
| Combined (mpg) | 30 (est.) | 27 | 30 | 31 |
Subscribe to GM Authority for more Chevy Trax news, Chevy news, and around-the-clock GM news coverage.
Comments
I wish I could recall who on here said something about the (not that good) mpg on with these 3 cyl engines. Although I have read where people are getting better than the rating in real life, we still need to work with the numbers they give us. With that said, these numbers are just not very impressive on paper.
This brings me to where some on here like to say that SUV/CUV’s get as good of MPG’s as cars (sedans) do any more. That is total BS. The Malibu I had with a larger 1.5L turbo 4, with great room and comfort was rated higher and would get around 40 mpg highway if I drove nicely. These CUV’s aren’t doing very good in that department IMO.
My little trip computer in my dash says my 2017 Cruze can get 40MPG on long drives too, but when I actually take real numbers at the pump, it’s nowhere near that, 34mpg on good drives, I’m averaging 30mpg most times with real fill up calculations, which is inline with the sales sheet on from my window. These small engine crossovers are beating sedans or coming in a few mpg. And if you want to compare cars prior to 2016, they’re surpassing them. It’d actually prefer a 1.3T in my Cruze. I’m sure the Trax’s trip computer will also say 40mpg just like your Malibu does too.. going 70 on cruise.
@What: I understand. But I was checking my Malibu (actually check all my cars all my life) by hand at fill ups. Yes, I do watch the little trip computer as well, but my numbers are real and based on real calculations. On my 2018 Encore with the 1.4L and 6 speed auto, when I drove round trip from Los Angeles to Chicago (over 4,200 miles), I checked it by hand every time I filled up. Best was 35 mpg. If I made that same trip with the Malibu I had, I guarantee it would have averaged 38.
Any SUV/CUV just can’t pull the numbers that a sedan will. Heck, my parents owned Buick Park Avenues with 4 speed auto/3800 V6’s and could get 34 back in the 80’s. Bigger, heavier, way more plush and comfortable. Where’s the progress?
Umm. SUVs use to get 14mpg combined, even smaller ones, not even 20 years ago. I’d say that’s plenty of progress. Particularly when you’re comparing a 3mpg difference in the mid-30s.
What?: Now that’s what I call total deflection. Who the heck said anything about SUV’s today vs. 20 years ago? I sure didn’t.
What I brought up is, quote: “This brings me to where some on here like to say that SUV/CUV’s get as good of MPG’s as cars (sedans) do any more.”
What I said is true and is 100% talking about now, not 20 years ago. If you wish to deflect, then I can do that too. Cars today get a little better than most cars did 20 years ago. Happy now? So let’s get back to reality. There are ZERO SUV/CUV’s today that are beating sedans. In fact, these companies get a CUV to 30 MPG combined and they act like they won the lotto. Yet the sedan’s still get 5+ MPG better overall. Bottom line is that a brand new (in 2023) CUV product, with front drive only, CVT and a 3 cyl engine that can’t even hit 35 MPG is pathetic.
Deflection? You asked where’s the progress. Clearly there is progress in SUV fuel economy. You’re arguing over semantics when you say your Trax only got ~3mpg less than you Sedan, and it’s a difference between 35mpg vs 38mpg. That would have been unheard of even a decade ago. Two decades to double fuel economy is no short feat of engineering, particularly when you have to factor in decent performance out of small displacement engines and transmissions.
I’m not going even to bother reading the rest of your silly tangent. SUVs have made considerably large gains, and are either on par, or very near their sedan counterparts.
Also, the Trax doesn’t use a CVT. And I guarantee if you hypermile one (as you’re clearly doing with your heavy boat of a car Malibu) you get 40mpg out of it too.
Deflection. Yeah. Okay. Lol. Maybe get a dictionary. That’s not deflection. Your question was asked and answered. Twice now. Next.
Don’t waste your time with Dan B, he’s one of those never wrong types that won’t ever admit it, hence his deflection stance he is going with. Typical know it all.
He seems to think there’s going to be a second coming of sedans. Fat chance. Not when they’re close to sedan figures for economy and certainly blow away sedans for cargo space and comforts. We aren’t going to see a Cruze. Or a Sonic. Or whatever other cars are still kicking around in other markets.
Your premise about how SUVs have been steadily improving in economy is solid. Apparently Dan thinks that getting 35mpg in a Trax happened night and day, and those old clunkers just one day had a complete turn around in the last 5 years and got 30 mpg easy peazy. There’s progress a plenty. I look forward to seeing Dan’s next feat of mental gymnastics to try and not look wrong again (even though he is)
Other than this isn’t an SUV…. It’s a car with a slighter more upright siting position.
All this proves to me is that engineering has become to publicized. Turbos aren’t more efficient, fords ecoboosts suck gas, and it’s all a gimmick. Let me propose my first car. A 2004 Pontiac sunfire, 2.2L 4 cylinder….. made more power and better fuel economy than all the cars listed above. Also, has the same interior room despite being only 4” shorter.
If they wanted this car to get great power and economy, they should have used the 2.5 I4, add the cylinder deactivation from the 2.7 turbo. 200HP, MPG 42/31/36. What’s not to love.
Splitting hairs, if you want to get nitty gritty, the only SUV in GM’s lineup is the Tahoe/Yukon/Escalade trio, otherwise everything else is a car with a slightly more upright sitting position.
There’s also an emission factor as well, there’s a reason why GM is opting for small displacement turbo 3 and 4s and phasing out nearly every NA 4 cylinder. They put out similar power to NA counterparts, and they meet regulations. The 3.6L isn’t long for their line up, and honestly surprised the 2.7L hasn’t replaced it yet, I mean it has on their small trucks at least.
Say what you will, but you are comparing heavy (mostly BOF) SUV’s of 20 years ago with front drive, 3 cyl smaller crossovers. Your comparison is just way off. Of course a 2023 or 2024 3 cyl small crossover will get much better than a Chevy Trailblazer from 2004. Stop being silly and start being real. Bottom line is that you are looking at a 2024 model, 3 cyl front drive crossover that is rated at 30 combined and trying to tell us that is progress. From a heavy 5 cyl 4wd Trailblazer from 2004? Yes it would be progress, but totally wrong. So how about if you compare that 2004 Trailblazer to a 2023 Blazer with a V6? I continue to argue a point because in this case you are all wet and you know it, so you continue to use examples that fit what you want. Compare apples to apples. From the start my point was that you can get a nicer CAR with more room and comfort, bigger engine and better MPG. Fairly simple. Lastly, to address your theory that I “hypermile”. Wrong, but if you call driving at a steady 70 MPH with A/C on and achieving 40 MPG to be hyper-miling, then you got me.
We’re with you: If you don’t like me or what I comment, then don’t read it. Fairly simple concept.
what? So, if I’m understanding you correctly, the Geo Metro never got 53 Mpg?
Correct. Anyone can hypermile and get weird mpg bragging rights, although I wouldn’t be surprised if a metro could. Wow. One car. Probably one of the slowest cars sold, gets 50mpg. These new suvs are inline with the sedans on the market today. Simple as that.
Duh, I was responding to (what?)s statement that autos are getting better mpg today compared to the past. His criterion for his statement said nothing about speed, only mpg’s. Yes the Metro was slow! But there was more cars of that era that got 50mpg’s not just one as you said. These cars were created to be city cars where speed didn’t matter. People who bought these cars wanted cheap transportation with no frills attached, no a/c, crank windows, Am/FM radio very basic. Duh.
Interesting that the 1.3 Trailblazer gets better mileage than the 1.2. Also the Chinese Trax called Seeker gets a 1.5 engine.
The Seeker with the 1.5T gets combined mpg of 36.2. That’s significantly better than the crappy little 3 cylinder in the US version.
Seeker’s powertrain is also built and tuned to China’s emissions standards (if there even are emissions standards in China).
China’s vehicle emission standards are far more stringent than US standards, including those of California.
No more CUT for 2024? That’s cool.
No more CVT? That’s good.
The AWD 1.3 Trailblazer does not have a CVT as indicated in the data table. It has a 9 speed transmission.
There is NO AWD in the table. Look again.
Trailblazer does offer AWD. This article is about the TRAX, not the TB. The TRAX is not offered with AWD.
That is another error in the data table! It should indicate that the 1.3 Trailblazer is AWD only. Thanks for pointing that out.
Isn’t interesting that the Trax gets the 1.2 engine only. The 2L was dropped from the Equinox & Malibu. The Cruze & Sonic are dropped, gas drilling has stopped & taxpayer subsidies fund EV’s. Interesting pattern here!
Isn’t interesting that the Trax gets the 1.2 engine only. The 2L was dropped from the Equinox & Malibu. The Cruze & Sonic are dropped, gas drilling has stopped & taxpayer subsidies fund EV’s. Interesting pattern here!