General Motors revealed the all-new 2024 Chevy Traverse this past July, debuting the crossover’s latest third generation. As expected, the 2024 Chevy Traverse introduces a wide range of updates and changes, not the least of which is a new turbocharged engine. Now, GM Authority has learned that the 2024 Chevy Traverse will in fact offer more power and torque than was initially announced in July.
During an interview with GM Authority Executive Editor Alex Luft, Chevy engineers confirmed that the 2024 Chevy Traverse would in fact develop a maximum of 328 horsepower and 326 pound-feet of torque. GM previously estimated peak output figures of 315 horsepower and 317 pound-feet of torque.
For those readers who may be unaware, the 2024 Chevy Traverse is available with a single powerplant, namely the turbocharged 2.5L I4 LK0 gasoline engine, as GM Authority was the first to report. Prior to introduction of the new third generation, the second-gen Chevy Traverse was equipped with the naturally aspirated 3.6L V6 LFY gasoline engine, rated at a maximum of 310 horsepower at 6,800 rpm and 266 pound-feet of torque at 2,800 rpm. As such, the third-gen Traverse’s new turbocharged 2.5L I4 LK0 gasoline engine doles out a hefty 22.5-percent increase in peak torque compared to the outgoing 3.6L V6 LFY.
To note, the all-new third-generation 2024 GMC Acadia, which just debuted at the 2023 Detroit Auto Show, is also equipped with the new turbocharged 2.5L I4 LK0 gasoline engine, and like the 2024 Chevy Traverse, produces a maximum of 328 horsepower and 326 pound-feet of torque.
The 2024 Chevy Traverse is equipped with the GM eight-speed automatic transmission as standard, with front-wheel drive and all-wheel drive offered to put the power down. The new Traverse also has a maximum trailering rating of 5,000 pounds, matching that of the previous generation.
Under the skin, the 2024 Chevy Traverse rides on the long-wheelbase variant of the GM C1 platform. Production will kick off later this year at the GM Lansing Delta Township plant in Michigan.
Subscribe to GM Authority for more Chevy Traverse news, Chevy news, GM technology news, and around-the-clock GM news coverage.
Comments
Very excited for the new Z71 Traverse. I like the exterior styling of the new AT4 Acadia, but I’m not a fan of the vertical infotainment system.
Imo i think the vertical set up works in the acadia. Something about the sierra ev interior just doesn’t look all that impressive yet the Acadia interior looks nice and modern.
Agreed. I prefer the infotainment system on the Traverse but I don’t like its C-pillar fin design/potential blindspot.
Agree. I’m not a huge fan of the C-Pillar fin either, but I can look past that when considering the great options, updated tech, and better price of the Traverse over the Acadia (current Acadia AT4 owner here).
I also don’t care for the interior seating colors! Was hoping for something other than red on the dash/seats for the RS trim.
It’ a shame they didn’t put that new potent 2.5T into the smaller suvs like the envision and the xt4. That would be very impressive in those. Or maybe a new tiny trailblazer ss?
I hope fuel efficiency doesn’t suffer too bad with the updated engine.
That might soon be coming. The key really is the transmissions. The LK0 exists because the L3B would rip the guts out of the 9T60 transmission. Any car equipped with the 9T60 will likely get the LK0 and 4th gear delete.
I bet fuel economy increases slightly. Im guessing the Colorado’s poor epa rating is because the EPA was raking their sweet time rolling it out, so GM made a deal to take a hit and start sales. If you look on fuelly, the new colorado is performing way better than the last gen despite more lifted models and no diesel. I personally would have preferred GM adding their trick VVL to the 3.6, or better yet, the 4.3
GM is also shrinking the gas tank from the 2023. They are also putting AFM into the turbo 4’s which will help with MPG’s [albeit not by much]. Whilst that may assist the MPG’s, AFM is not good for the engine, especially a turbo-4 propelling such a heavy vehicle.
“I hope fuel efficiency doesn’t suffer too bad with the updated engine.”
I hope there isn’t a major reliability debacle in the waiting (i.e. 2.0 burnt pistons).
I sure hope they can at least match last year’s V6 mileage ratings but I’m having doubts. I’m sure they will spin it like the Colorado and crow about all the torque and not indicate why highway mileage went down so much
Going to miss the 3.6. I think the 4 cyl will struggle with this Big SUV. Toyota put a 4cyl in there SIENNA VAN. GREAT GAS MILAGE (38 CITY AND HWY), BUT STRUGGLES NOW OFF THE LINE, AND WHEN PASSING OTHER VEHICLES STRUGGLES. I WAIT AND SEE HOW TRAVERSE DOES , MY LEASE IS UP IN 2024, EITHER I BUY WHAT I GOT OR WAIT AND SEE HOW IT GOING WITH NEW ENGINE.
Chris is correct, the way to go is updated V6, supercharge v6, or leave what works alone. Mary keeps making mistakes by doing this silly change.
This turbo 4 has a lot more torque at a lower rpm. It will do better off the line over the outgoing model.
Totally…this is gonna feel much more powerful than the high winding (and whining) V6. If we had the torque curves I’m guessing we’d see the 4 produces 20-25% more power at 2000-2500rpm…so punchier at lows speeds, more relaxed at highway speed with fewer kick-downs.
Tell us you don’t know what you are talking about without actually telling us. Lets address your concerns.
1) It has more power and a ton more torque than the outgoing V6, how is this going to struggle?
2) the Sienna gets off the line fine, electric motors make all their torque at 0 RPM, so downlow it helps a bunch.
3) the new Sienna is less than a second slower while getting a ton better mpg. A great tradeoff for a vehicle where speed doesn’t matter so long as it has plenty around town and on the highway
Any other concerns you want to make up?
It has the potential to struggle much more so than the V6 and the AFM will only increase the chances of failure.
Do NOT with the self-righteous attitude.
I’ll decide how important my concerns are with a vehicle, not you and your incorrectness. Same goes for what makes a great trade-off.
Technically, no vehicle should enter a new generation being slower, or getting less MPGs. Both should always increase with each redesign. Though, ultimately, performance is more important.
There is no vehicle in which speed doesn’t matter unless it’s the only vehicle on the road. Nobody reasonable will expect a minivan to keep up with a Camaro, but the reality is, everyone else drives their vehicles like maniacs. So it’s the obligation of every automaker to give every vehicle they offer a certain baseline of speed for the driver and passengers’ own safety. You have to be able to keep up with the traffic regardless of the kind of vehicle you have. A lot of people out there shouldn’t have licenses, but they do. You can’t just count on everyone else to drive right.
Toyota made a bad decision there, as does anyone else who does what they did. No exceptions. I realize the Sienna is far from being the worst example of it, but it was not okay no matter how highly you misperceive your own opinion.
The engine that struggled in GM trucks was the 3.6 V6 which was not only low on torque but needed to be wrung out to high rpm for power. My memories of my Colorado all involve waiting on the engine to reach a full boil past 4000 rpm.
The 2.5T/2.7T finally give the power and torque of V8 engines from 20 years ago with the same low end torque of such V8s. The V6 was a sweet sounding engine but it always reminded you it was a V6. These new turbo fours never leave you waiting, the power is just there on demand.
It’s too bad GM doesn’t have any small sport coupes because a 2.5T Solstice with a manual would absolutely rock.
agreed, they keep shrinking the engines, saying the turbocharger helps. Not when you ve got to keep the gas pedal mashed to the floor…Had a XT6 2.0 as a loaner….i sounds horrible when outside the vehicle, but at least inside you dont have to listen to a cement mixer sounding 4 cylinder…Not the quickest off the line…gas mileage is only 1.5 mpg more, in the city, than on my CTS 3.6.. if your paying a premium, for a premium vehicle, give me a dam V6. .if the future is more ugly suv boxes with crap turbo charged 4 cylinders, ill keep my CTS 3.6, especially now that the prices of these suvs has been released..
Why is GM not updating the XT6? The new 2.5L + 33-inch curved screen would have been perfect.
The 2.0L is horrible in my experience. Noisy, unrefined engine. Why does GM persist in using it? Agree with @cdnsolman above. The 2.5T should be an option in the XT4 and Envision.
Interesting that GM seems to be moving away from two-row, midsize CUV’s with the Acadia returning to the LWB C1XX platform where the Traverse has been.
At around 204” OAL and 120” WB these are large CUV’s. The only GM two-row midsize left is the Blazer which is more about styling than good packaging. It’s interior package is only slightly larger than the compact and less expensive Equinox. The aging XT5 is a two row but it’s going away soon.
I dunno, maybe I’m the only one that see’s plenty of newer midsize CUV’s cruising around with Asian badges on them.
I’d love to see an ICE Blazer with the same upgrades as the Traverse. Would be the perfect mid sized SUV.
I like your idea.
I figured this was going to happen at some point
4 cyl turbo garbage should have put a 3.6 L with a supercharger in it.
And tank the mpg even more? It is a family CUV, not needed. This motor has performed great in the trucks and is incredibly reliable, same should go here. It has a ton more power and in better parts of the rev range (down low) to move this big vehicle. It is far from garbage, just uninformed people speak in such a manner…
Was checking out some of the new GMC Acadia videos and noticed the bump in hp numbers from the 2.5L turbo. I was thinking how come GMC gets a power increase while Chevrolet does not. Good to see the Traverse also gets the increase in power output.
Will the 2.5 require premium?
2.7 doesn’t and it would be a fail of Chrysler proportions if it did.
commonsense has no sense. watching to much television car shows.
Doesn’t the 23 have a 9 spd ? Stay away from the 8 spd.
The 1.3L , the 2.7 L run on 87 octane why does the 2L suggest premium if theses are based on the same engine design. What gas does the 2.5 need? I know the European cars run on premium but I prefer not to waste my money on fuel.