The all-new 2024 Chevy Trax got its big reveal back in October, with GM pulling the sheets on a fresh entry-level crossover offering slick styling, a roomier cabin, and more tech in the cabin. Now, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has released official 2024 Chevy Trax fuel economy estimates.
According to the EPA, the 2024 Chevy Trax returns 28 mpg in the city, 32 mpg on the highway, and 30 mpg combined. To note, these figures match GM Authority estimates published last week based on the Natural Resources Canada fuel economy estimates released previously.
Check out the table below for a more thorough breakdown of the 2024 Chevy Trax fuel economy numbers, as well as how they compare to the previous-generation Chevy Trax and the Chevy Trailblazer:
| 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 | 24 | 29 | 29 |
| Highway (mpg) | 32 | 32 | 31 | 33 |
| Combined (mpg) | 30 | 27 | 30 | 31 |
Notably, the 2024 Chevy Trax bests the 2022 Chevy Trax when it comes to fuel efficiency, returning an extra 4 mpg in the city and an extra 3 mpg combined. Highway fuel economy is estimated at 32 mpg for both generations.
As a reminder, the 2024 Chevy Trax is equipped with the turbocharged 1.2L I3 LIH gasoline engine, which is rated at 137 horsepower at 5,000 rpm and 162 pound-feet of torque at 2,500 rpm. Meanwhile, the previous-generation Chevy Trax is equipped with the turbocharged 1.4L I4 LE2 gasoline engine, which is rated at 155 horsepower at 5,600 rpm and 177 pound-feet of torque at 2,000 rpm.
The Chevy Trailblazer also serves as a good comparison point for the 2024 Chevy Trax. Under the hood, the 2023 Chevy Trailblazer is equipped as standard with the turbocharged 1.2L I3 LIH gasoline engine, the same engine cradled by the new Trax, while the Trailblazer also offers the turbocharged 1.3L I3 L3T as optional.
As a reminder, the 2024 Chevy Trax is equipped with front-wheel drive, while all-wheel drive is not an option. Under the body panels, the new Trax rides on the GM VSS-F vehicle set.
Subscribe to GM Authority for more Chevy Trax news, Chevy news, GM technology news, and around-the-clock GM news coverage.
Comments
Can’t wait for the next generation of small block to come out to prove how much turbos guzzle gas. 32/24/30 is pretty poor for a vehicle this size. All these advancements in aerodynamics, lighter materials and power and we opt for a small turbo guzzler???? I know ford made a gimmick of it, lied and got sued for misleading MPG claims, but that doesn’t mean GM needs to follow. Drop in a 2.0L NA 4 cylinder and get mid 40’s mpg please
the Ford truck EcoBoost motors do well on MPG’s if you avoid using the turbo, based on personal experience. For commuting to work in town, you don’t need the turbo, and will get MUCH better MPG’s in town vs the V8. The turbo is there for when you need the power, but use the turbo and you’ll pay. In comparison, the V8 will be thirstier as a daily driver, but won’t drop as much as the turbo under load. So, for the average person, the small motor with a turbo will do fine, but if you’re trailering or working the motor hard all the time, a larger non-turbo will get better mileage.
So, to bring that logic to these small vehicles with tiny turbo motors: there’s a point where if you go too small, the turbo is needed all the time, and kills the mpg’s. That’s why the 1.2 does better in the city, but is just too small to push these cars on the highway w/o the turbo constantly ramming more fuel down than a much larger non-turbo. Perfect example – the previous gen Equinox, with 2.4L 4 cyl, 22 city 31 highway; same hwy mpg’s on a much larger vehicle on a non-turbo nearly 2x the size of these new 3 cyl’s.
I am so glad that GM is not allowing the computers to keep the cars from down shifting because of gas mileage. I rather have that when I pass and not trying to save another 2 miles per gallon. You are right the purpose of forced induction is to have torque vehicles to limit our foot from draining the gas. Unfortunately, some of us have heavy feet.
The new Trax is 29/31/30, but yeah pretty incredible a 1.2L only gets rated 31 MPG on the highway.
It’s gotta boost just go get out of it’s own way. 1.3T should have be the bare minimum for anything in GMs US lineup.
A 2.0L NA rated at 150HP wpuld get out of its own way faster and with better economy
GM doesn’t have a 2.0 NA. You guys just pull engine options out of thin air. The only NA four cylinder left in production in the US is the 2.5L, which would probably be a good option, but I’m betting there’s an emissions consideration in the mix too.
That engine died with the Current Colorado here in the US. The Blazer went to a standard 2.0L turbo 4cyl. Malibus dropped the engine in 2016 with the new body that they are currently using for a 1.5 turbo engine. I believe the company is getting a lot more endurance from these small 3cyl and 4 cyl engines compare to the 2.5 cyl and 2.4cyl that was powering the last generation Equinox.
The 2.4 and 2.5 are different animals. Most people with the 2.5 find it mostly trouble free compared the 2.4, at least the earlier ones that had an egr problem. It would be interesting to see the data comparing the tiny turbos vs the 2.5’s longevity.
Didn’t they just run this same article the other day? Anyhow…..
Before I’d buy this box with a 3 cyl to only get 30 mpg combined, I’d buy a much nicer Malibu for less money (better deals), better comfort, better performance, more room and better MPG’s. Heck, maybe I’d be better picking up a really nice and clean older Buick Park Ave with the bulletproof 3800 and have a fantastic car with better highway MPG.
Don’t tell me these boxes get the MPG a car does. Just doesn’t happen.
The phrase better performance doesn’t belong anywhere near the same sentence when talking about a 1.5L Malibu. They’re 0-60 times will probably be the same. 9-10 seconds.
Malibu’s with the current 1.5T and CVT do 0-60 in 7.8 second
not so sure about your Park Ave – I just googled it with the 3.8 V6 — 17 city/27 hwy/21 combined — 17 city eeesssccchhh!!!! The “box” gets better city mileage than the Park Ave’s hwy mileage.
But it’s not a fair comparison as the two vehicles are vastly different. The Trx is meant to be entry-level where as the PA was a premium top-of-the-line model geared at a much different consumer/driver.
I don’t see you driving a Spark or Sonic or Cruz for that matter based on what you’ve shared in your posts.
Those numbers you quote for the 3800 are the more stringent 2008 onward figures which don’t match reality with most any 3800 equipped GM FWD sedan. The window stickers had these cars at 19/29 and 19/30 for some of the mid size W-body sedans. I owned a loaded 2000 Impala with the 3800 and that car could easily crest 32 on the open road if you kept speeds under 80 MPH with the highway friendly 3.05 gear ratio. Many of the full sized LeSabres, Delta 88’s and Bonnevilles used an even lower 2.86 ratio so 32 on the open road was not a problem. Where these older heavier cars fell down with these larger sized V6’s was city and suburban driving. 17-19 was about the norm depending on how many stop lights you get caught on.
That’s where these new tiny turbo engines shine. City mileage is very good usually in the high 20’s. It’s the highway MPG that falls down because the turbo is spooling up to make these tiny engines move these high riding rather heavy utility vehicles against the wind.
thanks for the clarification. We had a friend that had the last gen Park Avenue back in the day – it was a great riding car. Again googling – it came up 17/26/21.
tmw: I’ve sold a ton of large Buick’s with the 3800 V6 and 4 speed. My parents had numerous. I’ve owned some. Between me, my parents and many customers, it was quite common to get the 30 to 34 mpg highway. You are correct in what they were rated at, but I’m referring to real world driving experiences. And maybe these boxes will do better than the 30 combined. For gawd sake, let’s hope so.
Umm: I owned a 2021 Malibu with the 1.5 turbo and CVT. It was a fantastic car that had more than enough performance. It did the job and then some.
4 speed automatics aren’t good at staying locked up in city driving. The true GM analog to the Trax motor wasn’t the 3.8 anyway, it was the 2.2 L4.
I had a 2016 Malibu Limited with a NA 2.5L engine, I repeatedly would get 38-39 mpg at 70 mph. These 3 cylinder plastic Econoboxes can barely crest 30? Doubtful they’ll reach 200k trouble free miles either like my ‘bu, when those turbos are constantly ramming air into the tiny aluminum block.
Honestly it’s a pathetic offering, but the female 25-55 crowd will buy these up.
Nathan B: I had a 2014 Malibu LS with the 2.5 engine too. Just like yours, I would constantly get 34 to 38 highway. The thing I hated about that car was it had the engine start/stop that was forced on me (no way to shut off). It was terrible. Then fast forward 7 years and I had the 2021 Malibu LT with 1.5 turbo and CVT. The 2021 was a much better car overall IMO and it would get me 40 highway under ideal conditions and 35 to 38 all day long driving more normal. This one also had the engine start/stop, but it was light years better and it had the button to turn it off.
Do you actually like the CVT? It’s almost the polar opposite of the old autos. I have the impression a new Malibu or follow up should move on.
Keep an open mind about the Envista. It looks more aero, and might do better on gas. Generally, 3’s will mostly just bother people expecting more than an econobox.
I’ve railed against both the 1.2 and 1.3 especially for Buick – not the right engine for a car company that’s supposed to be a step up “premium” automaker. But I think the 1.2 is a good fit for the Trax being an entry-level vehicle. The new 1.5 should be the upgrade in the Trx and standard in Buick.
Buick lost that status when it’s warranties to me became mainstream. When they went to 3 year 36,000 mile warranty. It is a mainstream vehicle even with a nice interior.
My new Accord Sport is rated at 29/35, and I just saw 37 mpg on the highway. I really like this Trax, but what is the point of these three-cylinders if they don’t get 40 mpg?
They are smaller and cheaper to build, but that’s about it. The fuel economy benefit is non-existent for this size vehicle.