mobile-menu-icon
GM Authority

2024 Chevy Traverse Fuel Economy Ratings Released In Canada

General Motors unveiled the 2024 Chevy Traverse in July of the 2023 calendar year, debuting the three-row crossover’s all-new third generation. Among the highlights is a new exterior, an overhauled interior, and a new engine as well. Notably, the EPA has yet to release fuel economy ratings for the 2024 Chevy Traverse, but that said, Natural Resources Canada just published fuel economy estimates for the third-gen crossover.

The rear end of the 2024 Chevy Traverse.

Natural Resources Canada is the Canadian governmental department that is responsible for providing fuel economy estimates for new vehicles, among other things. The Natural Resources Canada fuel economy estimates for the 2024 Chevy Traverse provide a possible preview of forthcoming fuel economy estimates for U.S.-spec models from the EPA.

2024 Chevy Traverse Fuel Economy Ratings
2024 Traverse FWD 2024 Traverse AWD 2024 Traverse Limited FWD 2024 Traverse Limited AWD
Engine Turbo 2.5L I4 LK0 Turbo 2.5L I4 LK0 3.6L V6 LFY 3.6L V6 LFY
Transmission 8-speed auto 8-speed auto 9-speed auto 9-speed auto
EPA city/highway/combined ratings (mpg) TBD TBD 18 / 26 / 21 17 / 25 / 20
NRCan city/highway/combined ratings (L/100 km) - 12.4 / 9.9 / 11.3 - 13.8 / 9.6 / 11.9
NRCan city/highway/combined ratings (mpg) - 19.0 / 23.8 / 20.8 - 17.0 / 24.5 / 19.8

Looking over the table above, we find a comparison between 2024 Chevy Traverse fuel economy ratings from Natural Resources Canada and fuel economy ratings for the outgoing 2024 Chevy Traverse Limited. For readers who may be unaware, the 2024 Traverse Limited is essentially a continuation of the previous second-generation crossover, offered as a stop-gap model to the all-new third-generation 2024 Chevy Traverse.

The outgoing 2024 Traverse Limited is equipped with the naturally aspirated 3.6L V6 LFY gasoline engine. It’s also worth noting that all-wheel drive is standard on the Canadian-spec Chevy Traverse, hence the lack of ratings for front-wheel drive models.

Interestingly, the numbers align perfectly between the EPA and NRCan ratings for the Chevy Traverse Limited AWD. As such, it bears to reason that EPA and NRCan ratings for the next-gen 2024 Chevy Traverse should align as well.

The numbers also indicate that the next-gen 2024 Traverse is more efficient around town, but less efficient on the highway, when compared to the outgoing second-gen model.

The next-generation 2024 Traverse cradles the turbocharged 2.5L I4 LK0 gasoline engine, rated at 328 horsepower and 326 pound-feet of torque, providing a 19-percent boost to peak torque compared to the naturally aspirated 3.6L V6 LFY gasoline engine cradled by the second-generation Traverse.

The Chevy Traverse rides on the GM C1 platform, while production takes place 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.

[nggallery id=1276]

Jonathan is an automotive journalist based out of Southern California. He loves anything and everything on four wheels.

Subscribe to GM Authority

For around-the-clock GM news coverage

We'll send you one email per day with the latest GM news. It's totally free.

Comments

  1. The fact that the V6 Traverse is more efficient on the highway tells me the 4 cylinder is too small for the intended vehicle.

    Reply
    1. This isn’t apples to apples.
      The new 2024 is larger and heavier; so a MARGINAL reduction in fuel efficiency is expected. The new Traverse is the same size as the previous generation Tahoe.

      I will also mention that a turbo engine has more low end efficiency and torque, which provides better drivability at cruising highway speeds.

      Reply
      1. I understand now. I saw the table and thought the Limited was a trim. I’m completely baffled why GM would release two 2024 Traverses and one is actually a 2023.

        Reply
      2. Not really the new body style is the same or maybe a bit smaller than the current gen traverse

        Reply
      3. BS. The dimensions are almost exactly the same, and it’s also similar or less curb weight. At most, the redesign is under an inch wider, but very slightly less length. Wheelbase is such a a negligible difference that it doesn’t matter. Just look at the published specs on the 2024(5) vs. a 2023. It’s all basically a wash.

        So your bigger vehicle comment is asinine and uniformed.

        Also, the Lambda platform SUVs always had more cargo room than the Tahoe/Yukon (non-extended versions). My 2014 GMC Acadia has more cargo volume than my father’s 2015 Chevy Tahoe.

        So really, your whole comment is just absolutely useless.

        To get back on topic, it is EMBARRASSING that the turbo-4 is getting less MPG on the highway compared to the outgoing V6. And there is no way real-world drivers are going to hit that city MPG with the way people spool these turbos off the line. This is a major whiff from the General.

        Reply
        1. Many people with the 2.7 are exceeding their epa ratings… This gets better combined than the outgoing model, not sure some of y’all realize how that works. Yes, on a road trip it may do a little worse, but if your road trip means going in to any elevation it will be better and the regular drive will be better and quieter with less downshifting for the slightest grade or wind direction change.

          It is laughable the mounting you people make out of this mole hill and focus on one item that fits your narrative. It beats the old motor by 1mpg combined with more power and better driving dynamics (tons more torque and much lower rpm). So no, this isn’t a MAJOR EMBARRASSING WHIF, it is an improvement from the previous generation with all around better driving dynamics. It will be nice to be in this thing going up to the Eisenhower tower at 2800 rpms with a full family in the car rather than screaming at 5800 rpms yelling “I get 1mpg better on the highway at sea level”.

          Reply
          1. 5,800 RPM for an LLT, LFX, or LFY needed to scoot even a fully-loaded Traverse/Acadia/Enclave? You’re out of your GD mind. Get out of here with that $#!%. I towed a trailer for three years and was at my max GCVWR and most of my payload on a 2014 Acadia and never even saw anything over 5,000 RPM, with cruising generally at 2,500-3,500 RPM.

            Stop spewing your LIES.

            The driving dynamics may — MAY — be better depending on how responsive the turbo is along with throttle input; and yes, more torque and horsepower is nice…

            … but in a world where a Ford Explorer ST exists at 400 HP / 415 lb-ft that still gets 18/26 MPG then yes, this is a MAJOR, EMBARRASSING miss for GM with both the 2.7L and 2.5L.

            Reply
            1. You obviously did not read TMI post. He was talking about in the mountains or driving higher elevations. The Non-boosted engines run a lot higher RPM’s than turbo do. GM is losing nothing here. Its about emmisons not mpg, 4T more power almost as good MPG but a lot less emmisions.

              Reply
              1. I read it just fine. I’ve towed in the mountains with a Lambda vehicle. I know exactly how it operates, especially if one is using the ERS properly. Anyone who is spiking more than 5,000 RPM doesn’t know what they’re doing, and, also didn’t read the GD manual.

                Sick of people commenting on things with which they have no real-world experience.

                Reply
      4. Why didn’t Chevrolet / GM consider or place a Turbocharged V6 Engine in instead of Turbocharged V4 Engine? Does anyone know?

        Reply
    2. Good Evening, Everyone,

      I read even after orders are placed, some may not receive their vehicle until November 2024.

      I really think they should shave some of the pricing off this 2024 New Redesigned Model (without taking away or diluting quality and originally announced features of the vehicle). Because the year will be almost over by the time most people get their hands on the vehicle. At best, it will be June or after June, which is not reflective of the high sticker price consumers will be paying and immediate drastic decrease in value compared to competitors with their 2024 line-up already released and on the roads.

      Reply
  2. Don’t forget 2024 using 8speed auto while 2023/2024 limited uses 9 speed auto highway should be a bit better has a extra gear to keep rpm low

    Reply
  3. Total crap! If you are going to discontinue a truly reliable 3.6L V6 that achieved very good gas mileage. (My premier will achieve 27 mpgs at 70 mph on highway). Then this new engine should get better mpgs highway and city! Otherwise, GM and Mary, why not retune the 3.6L and give it the added 25 hp that the Camaro has?? That seems like a better option instead of creating a whole new engine to the Traverse, Acadia, and Enclave that doesn’t achieve better MPGs and will be stressed more because of the larger suv size and smaller engine displacement. SMFH!!

    Reply
    1. Ok, so they tune the 3.6 to 325hp, congrats, you made the rpm range less useful as you just moved the torque down and higher in the rpm. Some people just have zero clue on how the different power ratings and rpm ranges work on different vehicles. To put it simply for you, you want more torque and lower in the rpm for larger heavier vehicles. More torque down low also means less down shifting, so where the 3.6 would downshift at the slightest 1% grade or 2mph change in wind speed direction, this little torque monster will continue to stay in gear and low rpms which means it will be quieter too.

      Also, again, the clueless don’t understand that engine size isn’t the key figure in reliability. Where as the 3.6 won’t have fully forged internals for example, something like the 2.5 should (I haven’t looked up the details but it has been akin to being built like a diesel) and can easily be stronger and more durable. The only time larger is better is at the same power levels with the same build materials. Otherwise a larger weakly built engine can be less durable than a smaller over built engine.

      I really wish people did some basic research before spouting off, it isn’t hard to comprehend, especially when most commentors are car people…

      BTW, you do realize the combine rating is higher right? This does get better mpg than your car engine. Not to mention, many people with the 2.7 on the forums are exceeding their epa ratings and this 2.5 will probably be no different.

      Reply
      1. The 2.7T has been often reported as underperforming on the highway on the Silverado/Sierra on the forums and from people I have spoken to that own them. Some say they get exactly what is on the sticker and some say they slightly exceed it. This is obviously a function of being a turbo engine and very dependant on many factors such as how heavy their throttle foot is, outside temperature, how loaded the vehicle in question is affecting the curb weight, the bed being loaded or unloaded, tire sizes and how many break in miles the vehicle has. Even the gas used can affect MPG bu up to 2 in many cases.

        So with that in mind the guy who ordered a base WT regular cab with the 2.7T and 17′ tires is not going to achieve the same MPG as the guy with the loaded 4 door LT with 20″ rubber and plenty of options despite both being rated the same. It’s basic common sense.

        As far as both the 2.5 and 2.7T go it is a trend for these engines to get slightly higher city MPG and lower highway comparing old body to new as seen in the Colorado/Canyon and even the 3 cylinder tiny turbo engines compared to the old 1.4T 4 cylinder where city improves but highway does not. Again real world driving may vary and some will easily exceed the posted numbers

        Reply
        1. It would have made more sense to me to beef up the naturally aspirational V-6, instead of putting in smaller, much more expensive turbo 4 that is yet to proven for longevity!

          Reply
        2. I just read a comment from a guy on Facebook who said he rented a Silverado with the 2.7l turbo. He said it sounded like a 4 cylinder Kia! He hated it and said that he would never buy one unless it had a V8.

          Reply
          1. “I just read a comment from a guy on Facebook who said ”

            I stopped reading after that.

            Reply
        3. Why didn’t Chevrolet / GM consider or place a Turbocharged V6 Engine in instead of Turbocharged V4 Engine? Does anyone know?

          There seems to be several mentions that Turbo is expensive for Consumers to replace, if need be ($3000 – $4000)

          Reply
      2. @TMI

        Father was a mechanic for 30 years, I have been around cars for 42 years. You spew this nonsense on a engine that hasn’t even PROVEN itself yet. I KNOW, and others know who have owned a vehicle with a 3.6L in it and it’s AWESOME! It has great power, almost always exceeds MPGs when driving, and it isn’t strained when towing!! I have a #3500lb ski boat, and I achieved 14 mpgs pulling it home from the dealership.

        That little 2.5L and its TURBO will be screaming bloody murder when someone tries to hook up something to it and pull with it. Smaller displacement with a turbo, isn’t always the answer. Especially when the car manufacturers are making each vehicle ALOT heavier then they were before.

        But you go ahead and copy, cut, paste stuff from the internet and “sound” like you know what you’re talking about!!! Good job!!

        Reply
      3. Why didn’t Chevrolet / GM consider or place a Turbocharged V6 Engine in instead of Turbocharged V4 Engine? Does anyone know?

        There seems to be several mentions that Turbo is expensive for Consumers to replace, if need be ($3000 – $4000)

        Reply
    2. I’ve heard its not about getting better gas mileage as much as it is the turbo is less expensive to produce. 🤷‍♂️

      Reply
      1. Isn’t Turbo more expensive for Consumers however, if something goes wrong?

        Reply
  4. The TRUTH, whole truth and nothing but the truth. GM can build the smaller 2.5 engine at less cost than the 3.6 engine. When you build millions of the new engines over the future years at a lower cost per engine. Now you got it!!!!

    Reply
    1. This makes sense to me. And it boosts their CAFE rating.

      Reply
  5. Ugly, bad engine, no choice of wheels or interior, and worse MPG on the highway. A winning combination … NOT!

    Reply
  6. Another case of Mary and the General pushing Biden’s assault on the internal combustion engine. Big difference from when Biden was driving his C2 corvette around.

    Reply
    1. Dumbest comment I’ve read in a long time.

      Reply
    2. I take it you prefer those old cast iron big block V8s that sucked up the gas and put out little HP. Those days are gone my friend. Sounds like you’re giving Biden credit for that.

      Reply
  7. I wouldn’t consider it unless it had a hybrid option, to boost power (as needed) and mostly fuel economy. I suspect and hope it will be offered as a hybrid in the future. I’m just not sure when that might be.

    Reply
  8. I’ve seen these on the street. They look as big as a Tahoe. I don’t care what the dimensions say. They are just to big. The 24 was just right, and the v-6 had all of the kinks worked out. Now they want to start over with tons of new problems. It won’t be right for at least 3 years. G M needs to look at Toyota, keep making the same thing and keep refining.

    Reply
    1. I haven’t seen one on the street yet to confirm how they look, but they are about an inch shorter in both length and height and an inch wider than the outgoing model. I can’t imagine they look as big as a Tahoe compared to the 2nd gen. The old version was aged. Toyota should not be the benchmark.

      Reply
      1. why shouldn’t Toyota be benchmark when it comes to Longevity, Durability, and Reliability ?

        Reply
    2. the 4cyc turbo has been successfully used in the silverado for years. Many other car manufacturers are using the 4cyc turbo as well,, (in comparable sized cars), so I don’t see any issues. The 2024 Traverse is being sold as a 3 row seating family SUV,,, NOT a work truck. If you want GM to look at Toyota, they are using the 4cyc turbo as well, now in the Lexus TX models.

      Reply
  9. Where have you seen these on the street Gary? To my knowledge they haven’t been delivered to a single customer yet.

    Reply
  10. That engine is going to self-destruct in less than two years.

    Reply
  11. Bottom line if you like buy it.

    Reply
  12. Nothing but low-optioned mass produced junk.

    Reply
  13. WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO RELEASE THE NEW 2024 3rd GENERATION TRAVERSES FOR SALE TO THE GENERAL PYUBLI????

    Reply
  14. Its almost comical to read some of these replies. Full of GM haters, old farts who still want large V-8’s, armchair car experts who spew misleading facts, some who just want some kind of conversation, etc. Most comments I’ve read seem to miss the “big picture” though. The 2024 Traverse is a, Mid size, 3 row, family SUV. It’s for soccer moms, dad to drive to work, het groceries, couples going out to eat, etc. Its NOT a work truck and I’ll bet 95% of the people good give a crap about 1 more MGP or 1 less MGP . If you want to haul 4,5,6 thousand pound trailers, boats, whatever through the mountains,,,GET A truck or Tahoe. And BTW, the 2.7 turbo has been in the Chevy Silverado for years now,,, and successful.

    Reply
  15. You wont find a better looking 3 row SUV in the market right now. With how popular he 2.7 is in the Silverado and Colorado, its not surprising they decided on going to a turbo 4 for the Traverse. just don’t get why they didn’t just use the same 2.7 they already have. They are suing the same engine in the Trax, Trailblazer and Equinox. Why not use the same 2.7 for the Blazer, Traverse, Colorado and Silverado?
    They could had the same 3 different engine tunes for the different trims like they did for the Colorado. I’m sure it comes down to how much the engines cost to produce.

    Reply
  16. Wow! It’s nearing mid-April and the only 24 Traverse’s built are collecting dust on some lot somewhere. I it was me who placed an order for one of these, I’d cancell it and wait for the 25 model. At least then you’d have a choice of a Premier or High Country trim. Not some low optioned lower trim like the 24.

    Reply
    1. I’m really get disappointed in GM! waiting for the 2024 Traverse RS or the GMC Acadia Denali is getting frustrating. I’m going to move forward and look at other comparable vehicles. Hyundai Palisade is comparable or the Lexus TX. Shame on GM management for looking so out of touch and confused!!

      Reply
  17. Why didn’t Chevrolet / GM consider or place a Turbocharged V6 Engine in instead of Turbocharged V4 Engine? Does anyone know?

    There seems to be several mentions that Turbo is expensive for Consumers to replace, if need be ($3000 – $4000)

    Reply
  18. Put a small 2.4 liter engine in a heavy vehicle like a Traverse, then stress it with a turbo to get some power out of it? What are these GM engineers smoking? If I wanted a 4 banger, I’d of bought a Toyota.

    Reply
    1. The 2.5L turbo has been successfully used in GM trucks, GMC vehicles, and many other auto manufacturers for years. I can’t find any factual reviews or feedback that its a bad engine?

      Reply
  19. Comment from owners with the 2.5L ARE NOT GOOD ON THE LONGEVENTY OF THIS ENGINE, The v6 we own does very good and the 9 speed transmission also. Pickup owners are reporting problems at 40000 miles with the 8 speed transmission. GM IS ALL ABOUT THE BOTTOM LINE. I WOULD BE Wry of the first year of these changes.

    Reply
    1. Do you have facts & Data or links to the owners comments? URL’s for your feedback? My company has 12 Silverado W/T models with the 2.5l turbo. They are used for light duty, mainly driving around checking on customer sites. They range from 2020-2023 models. 3 of those have 95k plus miles, one has 125k,,,not one problem with the 4cyc turbo engine. The other vehicles have 60k miles or less. Sounds more like a Ford troll??

      Reply

Leave a comment

Cancel