Originally introduced for the 2013 model year in the Cadillac ATS and Chevy Malibu, the turbocharged 2.0L I4 LTG gasoline engine has been offered in a wide variety of vehicles spanning across all four of General Motors’ U.S. market brands. Now, after more than a decade of service, the LTG engine is no longer available to be ordered with any GM vehicles.
Last offered in the 2023 Chevy Camaro and 2022 Chevy Malibu, the LTG engine has officially been discontinued. During its lifespan, the four-banger was offered in nine GM vehicles, with the full breakdown below.
| Year | Make | Model | Power (hp / kW @ RPM) | Torque (lb-ft / Nm @ RPM) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2016 – 2018 | Buick | Envision | 252 / 188 @ 5,500 | 260 / 352 @ 2,000 |
| 2019 | Buick | Envision | 252 / 185 @ 5,500 | 295 / 400 @ 3,000 |
| 2014 – 2017 | Buick | Regal | 259 / 193 @ 5,300 | 295 / 400 @ 3,000-4,000 |
| 2018 – 2020 | Buick | Regal FWD | 250 / 186 @ 5,400 | 260 / 353 @ 2,000-5,200 |
| 2018 – 2020 | Buick | Regal AWD | 250 / 186 @ 5,500 | 295 / 400 @ 3,000-4,000 |
| 2013 – 2014 | Cadillac | ATS | 272 / 203 @ 5,500 | 260 / 353 @ 1,700-5,500 |
| 2015 – 2019 | Cadillac | ATS | 272 / 203 @ 5,500 | 295 / 400 @ 3,000-4,600 |
| 2014 – 2015 | Cadillac | CTS | 272 / 203 @ 5,500 | 295 / 400 @ 1,700-5,500 |
| 2016 – 2019 | Cadillac | CTS | 268 / 200 @ 5,600 | 295 / 400 @ 3,000-4,500 |
| 2013 | Chevrolet | Malibu | 259 / 193 @ 5,500 | 260 / 353 @ 1,700-5,500 |
| 2014 – 2015 | Chevrolet | Malibu | 259 / 193 @ 5,300 | 295 / 400 @ 3,000-4,000 |
| 2016 | Chevrolet | Malibu | 250 / 186 @ 5,300 | 258 / 350 @ 1,700 |
| 2017 – 2022 | Chevrolet | Malibu | 250 / 186 @ 5,300 | 260 / 353 @ 2,000-5,000 |
| 2016 – 2023 | Chevrolet | Camaro | 275 / 205 @ 5,600 | 295 / 400 @ 3,000-4,500 |
| 2018 – 2020 | Chevrolet | Equinox | 252 / 188 @ 5,500 | 260 / 353 @ 2,500-4,500 |
| 2018 – 2019 | Chevrolet | Traverse | 257 / 192 @ 5,500 | 295 / 400 @ 3,000 |
| 2018 – 2020 | GMC | Terrain | 252 / 188 @ 5,500 | 260 / 353 @ 2,500-4,500 |
In its least powerful variant, the LTG produced 250 horsepower and 258 pound-feet of torque in the Chevy Malibu, while the most powerful version developed 275 horsepower and 295 pound-feet of torque in the Chevy Camaro.
Turbocharged 2.0L I4 LTG Gasoline Engine.
Of course, the turbocharged 2.0L I4 LSY gasoline engine has succeeded the LTG across a wide berth of General Motors’ crossovers. When directly compared to one another, the two four-bangers make notably different power figures.
| Turbo 2.0I I4 LTG | Turbo 2.0L I4 LSY | |
|---|---|---|
| Power (hp / kW @ rpm) | 275 / 205 @ 5,600 | 237 / 177 @ 5,000 |
| Torque (lb-ft / Nm @ rpm) | 295 / 400 @ 3,000-4,500 | 258 / 350 @ 1,500-4,000 |
The reasoning behind this is that the LSY has sacrificed horsepower for fuel economy. In fact, a 2018 Cadillac CT6 equipped with the LTG boasted EPA city/highway/combined ratings of 22/30/25 mpg, while a 2019 Cadillac CT6 equipped with the LSY had ratings of 24/34/28 mpg.
Turbocharged 2.0L I4 LSY Gasoline Engine
In regard to the LSY specifically, the newer powerplant is found in many North American GM vehicles, including:
- Buick Envision
- Cadillac CT4
- Cadillac CT5
- Cadillac XT4
- Cadillac XT5
- Cadillac XT6
- Chevy Blazer
- GMC Acadia
Be sure to subscribe to GM Authority for more GM business news, GM-related powertrain news, and 24/7 GM news coverage.
Comments
Do we know yet if it’s going in the new Equinox and Malibu?
Doubtful the big ponies are reserved for cars with real price tags- GM thinks if it is not 50k it is a beater.
Whatever burns oil the best!
I read in some publication it would be offered in the 25 Equinox. Ain’t heard nothing on the Malibu for sure.
I wanted a 2.0l Turbo for a long while, Got Mine, just bought a New Camaro 2023 at the End of production. Have other Camaros with 302, 327, 350’s, & a 468″. & 1 with an empty engine bay, might put a LS in that 68.
Gm has no clue how many sales this has cost them. After buying 3 cadillacs with the LTG, I ran away screaming from the sorry LSY in the ct4/5. When shopping for cars for my kids, I was interested in a Malibu but walked away when they stopped offering the 2.0t. A close friend paid ungodly money for a 2.0t equinox. When he wanted a refresh after a couple of years, he walked out of the dealer when they explained it wasn’t available anymore. Recently I was issued a blazer with the new 2.0 and 9speed. Been driving it a couple weeks and it is incredibly weak sauce. Made sure to share my opinion with several folks who are currently shopping. I frequently wonder if GM’s self-harm of their offerings is intentional to drive us into trucks and electrics or if they really are so unaware of what constitutes “good” that they just believe their own hype. For sure the average gm company car drivers I’ve met have zero clue about the competition and very low standards around automobile design, fit, function, and performance. They all seem enamored with the FREE aspect of their assigned ride and blind to just how badly the competition is drubbing them on product. Of course, a solidly loyal customer base that just keeps overpaying for such mediocrity is doing wonders to bury gm in cash and blunt any reason for them to do better. Sad.
This sounds like hyperbole, modest decreases in HP and torque from the LTG to the LSY can’t make anywhere close the performance difference you are claiming. How about some acceleration numbers from a reputable source to back up your claims? The LSY is probably a few tenths of a second slower to 60 and in the quarter mile than the LTG, hardly “incredibly weak sauce”. The number of sales this engine change has cost GM is probably so small it is not even measurable.
I agree and the vehicles are incrementally lighter. I would hazard a guess that ONSTAR gathers engine data as a matter of record and after review the engineers determined that 95% of drivers never really used 210hp let alone 270. Also the upcoming 35mpg requirement has to be met.
2016 CTS awd 0-60 5.9 (car&driver)
2023 CT5 awd 0-69 6.9 (Cadillac)
It’s a very noticeable difference when you experience it 1st hand.
There are definite differences in many subjective areas as well. Sound, feel, throttle response, transmission behavior, linearity etc have all been degraded by the move.
What is important is 60-100mph acceleration, who needs 0-60?
Blunt is correct.
On paper it doesn’t seem like a big deal, but in the real world the difference is very noticeable. If you drive a CTS with the LTG then drive a CT5 with the LSY you will wonder if there is something wrong with the CT5. I had a CTS with the LTG and had a loaner CT5 with the LSY once, it was bad the engine just made a lot of noise with little acceleration. When I bought my CT5 i chose the V6 Twin Turbo, because the performance of the LSY is unacceptable.
I was selling Caddy’s when they had the LTG and I owned a 2020 CT4 with the LSY. That CT4 was not underpowered at all and it got fantastic MPG. Not everyone needs to race cars like they just stole them.
Not everyone is a discriminating consumer, hence Toyota sells plenty. But, many who bought the LTG were skeptical of a 4 cylinder and were won over by its performance. The LSY doesn’t hold a candle to it in real world driving. It is unimpressive and joyless. For folks who found the LTG a satisfactory compromise, the LSY has gone back below the minimum threshold for the level of performance and refinement. We have thusly moved on to better choices.
No fun if you don’t drive it like you stole it.
It needed detuned as it over lapped the V6 too much. The V6 couldn’t be pushing 40 mpg like my 2018 CT6 2.0E plug-in.
The only explanation is no car guys work at GM anymore. The LTG was barely passable. It should have been put to pasture for something better about 10 years ago.
Absolutely same experience. Have the old turbo 4 in my 2013 malibu with 6 spd tranny luv it very refined. Drove several ct5s with new engine with 10 spd …horrible experience. Agree that GM is prioritizing mpg (whether dictated by feds or not) and it is ruining the cars and will cost sales for those that are use to driving a refined vehicle, especially a Caddy.
I know exactly what you mean, back when the Trailblazer was offered in an extended 3’rd row seat version with small v8 option a buddy went to look at a used one & he noticed an engine in a pallet around by the service bay entrance so he
Went home & googled some info on problems with that model turns out the engines where failing after 50,000 miles my first thought is why would you make a vehicle these days that you knew would fail in 50k miles & I read a test drive on the Equinox with the turbo 4 banger /CVT trans they said it rev’d up when they stepped on it sounded like it would fly apart at some point 😆
We purchased a 2019 Equinox with the 2.0L to occasionally dtive on I-40 between Southern CA and Arizona. The engine performs magnificently at interstate speeds and gets 33 mpg (vs. EPA est 29 hwy). When it comes time to replace the vehicle we will not buy another Equinox as the only engine is the underpowered 1.5 which is unacceptable. GM loses another sale.
Engine(s) for next generation Equinox are not yet known. We will find out some time in early 2024 what engine is in the 2025 Equinox. The 1.5 has a great Torque curve and is probably fine for over 90% of potential Equinox buyers. GM’s data obviously shows they don’t lose enough customers to make offering the 2.0 worth the cost. Chevy sales teams probably just upsell many customers like you to the Blazer.
Bought a 2021 Equinox over 2 years ago. Can’t miss what I never had, 1.5 turbo is just fine.
Amen!
From the comments, sounds like the replacement engine / engines are inferior. Not surprising from gm, ford or dodge. Changing stuff to be changing.
We owned 3 Regals between 2014 and 17. 259hp, 295lbs of torque. Great engine and we appreciated the acceleration. But I’m inclined to agree with Bruce’s comment above that a modest reduction in HP and torque isn’t likely to change many minds or become a critical factor in buying decisions.
Hello, I’m looking to buy a used Regal for my son, I have read several comments regarding fuel. Do you use regular gas or premium gas in your Regals?
I have a 2023 Equinox Premier with the 1.5 Turbo. It has sufficient power for over 90% of my driving. I bought the vehicle for size, comfort and mileage. It does a decent job for the price. In today’s world of fluctuating gas prices, mpg should be a concern for everyone. If you want power, then go buy a GT Mustang and drift your way to work and the grocery store.
GM should spend a little more time on interior design and colors. Their cloth seats are unbearable, and their leather seats are a joke compared to the old vinyl stuff from the 70’s. I don’t even want to address some of the exterior colors. What shad of gray do you want?
Loved my 2017 Malibu with the 2.0 Turbo, would buy another one if equipped with the same engine. I still have my 2017 Camaro with the same engine, and will be keeping it much longer.
While I agree with many of the comments above regarding the downsizing/”depowering” of these engines by GM, I wonder to what extent these changes are being forced by GM having to meet increasingly strict EPA fuel economy requirements. I’ve owned many GM cars over the years beginning in the 1960’s and most of them have been V-8’s, coupled with a handful of V-6’s. My biggest complaint with GM has been the infamous 8-speed automatic transmission used in the early 6th Gen Camaros and Gen7 Corvettes. Having owned three of those, I traded the last one for a Mercedes-Benz E-series Cabriolet and it is amazingly refined.
What’s the point of putting a turbo on a 4 banger???? If you want HP go 6 or 8?? The American turbos have issues with pistons having holes in them. Plus a turbo motor is under more stress and needs more maintenance. They should just make a solid new version 4 and 6 and let buyers choose which modrl they want. That’s why we have issues gm just keeps making and discontinuing models left and right. Who owns a Cimarron ya know the Cady that zings.
CAFE is forcing many of these changes. Have to put 4 and even 3 cylinders in many modles to offset mpg in full size pickups, suv’s and the few remaining v8 sports cars. Was getting my wife’s 2020 Equinox (1.5 turbo 4 which is a first for us but I have found to have plenty of power and great mpg), serviced and while looking at some Trail Blazers and the salesman that came to talk to us didn’t even know they along with the Trax even had a 3 cylinder. Thought they had a 4! Majority of buyers are not car people like those who post here and on other enthusiast sites. Most have no idea where the vehicle has been built much less anything about the powertrain. They are looking at price, payments, style, utility, & mpg. I have owned Chevys with 327 4v, 283 2v, 350 2v, 350 4v, 396, 305 HO, 3800 v6, 3.5 v6 and the 1.5 Equinox. Needless to say 396 4 speed SS Chevelle was my favorite and still regret selling it in 1987. Never checked its mpg! LOL.
4 cylinders have always been associated with fuel saving and NEVER horsepower whether in gas or diesel forms.
Pour one out, have an LTG in my ’14 ATS 6MT. Been a great engine for me, tuned since day one 300hp/300ft lbs in a 3300lb alpha chassis car. I will be sad when I say goodbye to her.
We bought a 19 Equinox with the 2.0 and with that came the 9 sp transmission. Didn’t necessarily need the 2.0, but really like the 9 sp driving in mountains. Get over 30 mpg with the 2.0 on regular interstate driving. Really like the Equinox. 2nd one we have had.
I average 30 mpg tank after tank in my 2018 equinox 2. Lt with mid grade gas, how much is the 1.5 getting and was that really worth the down grade, epa and all.
The 2.0 offered mediocre performance and a need for premium fuel. 3.6 is better in every regard as it has more hp, comparable to and runs 87. Hopefully the 2.5 in the Traverse does better than the 2.0 did.
2.0 does NOT require premium fuel. Can benefit from higher octane, but runs fine at 87 and above. Read the owners manual.
GM screwed up getting rid of the 3.6 V6 these got way better mileage than these 4 bangers. My Dad achieved 34mpg Hwy In his 15’ Impala. 303hp However GM needs to get rid of that direct injection ( it’s carboning the intake valves ) and that 4-8 cylinder crap needs to go bye bye.
Get 33-35mpg in 2.0 LTG and has more torque than 3.6. Can run 87 octane around town, and 91+ on the track.
Maybe GM could purchase some of those new inline 6 cylinder engines from Mazda and see if those work in GM cars
I own three GM cars. One is a 2012 Chevy Cruze blowed engine one is a 2010 Chevy Malibu. The brake lights won’t go off and it’s too dangerous to drive and I have a 1999 Chevy Camaro blown motor I have to pay taxes every time I go get tags. Every time I turn around it’s getting a ticket. I haven’t really bad luck with Chevy. I don’t have nothing to do with this post probably but I’m upset with it to the cars almost has a 2.0 one has the turbo
GM is again missing the boat. I drove a Chevy equinox and a g m c terrain with that underpowered three cylinder engine. The 2.0 was so much better and powerful. You could get out and cruise all day. Hell put the 2.7 and give some people something fun to drive for a change.
I think you left out the up level kappas (Solstice gxp and Sky redline) and the SS turbo deltas (Cruze and HHR). I would double check but my Google seems to be broken.
Those could be LNF’s. I dunno.
Why does this GM Engine have Audi Coolant in it and not Dex-Cool?
Mr mike the 2 lt does not have to have premium. I’ve never put in premium. No engine nose, nothing. U might get a few more hp with premium but it’s not needed. I wish people would stop telling this lie. I also have a 22 3.6 ltr. And that 2 ltr will whip the 6 cylinder. U don’t know what your talking about. It has better torque numbers where u need them, down low in the rev band. The 6 u have to wind it up. 6 cylinder even down shifts on little highway inclines/8spd going 75 mph because it has no torque, not the equinox. Case closed.
Get 33-35mpg in 2.0 LTG and has more torque than 3.6. Can run 87 octane around town, and 91+ on the track.
I owned a 2019 Camaro LS (Riverside Blue Metallic)with the 2.0 liter LTG and and 6-speed manual transmission. That was a lot of fun to drive,especially on winding roads (the Alpha platform certainly worked wonders)-just “point and shoot” and the engine had excellent torque throughout the powerband. Fuel economy was excellent-even though EPA ratings were 20 city 30 highway I would average around 31-32 mpg driving(keeping on a steady diet of 93 octane helped). Unfortunately my Camaro suffered an untimely death (lost in a fire) and I’ve been looking for an ideal replacement ever since. With production of the Camaro ending in a month and a half that’s going to be easier said than done,especially now that the LTG is consigned to the history books.
Iam looking at a 2019 camaro convertible that has the 2 litre turbo engine ,price is right ,did you have any problems with this engine or this car in general …
Way too many “hold my beer” people commenting. I am betting these will all be hybrids in the near future.