Officially breaking cover last July, the 2024 Chevy Traverse debuts the crossover’s all-new third generation, bringing with it a long list of updates and changes. One of the most important updates is the introduction of a new turbocharged engine. Now, the EPA has released official fuel economy estimates for the 2024 Chevy Traverse, providing insight into how efficient the new Traverse is compared to the preceding generation.
Looking over the latest figures, we find that 2024 Chevy Traverse models equipped with front-wheel drive return 20 mpg in the city, 27 mpg on the highway, and 23 mpg combined. Meanwhile, 2024 Chevy Traverse models equipped with all-wheel drive return 19 mpg in the city, 24 mpg on the highway, and 21 mpg combined. Interestingly, each of these mpg estimates is slightly higher than those of the preceding second-generation Traverse, with the exception of highway fuel estimates for all-wheel drive models, where the preceding second-generation Traverse posts a 1-mpg improvement.
| Model | 2024 Traverse | 2024 Traverse | 2024 Traverse Limited | 2024 Traverse Limited |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 |
| Drivetrain | FWD | AWD | FWD | AWD |
| City MPG | 20 | 19 | 18 | 17 |
| Highway MPG | 27 | 24 | 26 | 25 |
| Combined MPG | 23 | 21 | 21 | 20 |
Notably, the EPA’s official 2024 Chevy Traverse AWD fuel estimates align with the figures that GM Authority reported on April 1st, 2024. For those readers who may have missed it, Natural Resources Canada, the governmental department in Canada responsible for providing fuel economy estimates for new vehicles, published fuel economy estimates for the 2024 Traverse ahead of the EPA. However, the Canadian-spec Traverse is only available with all-wheel drive, and as such, estimates for front-wheel-drive models were unavailable. Nevertheless, the estimates for all-wheel-drive models align between Canadian- and U.S.-spec models.
Under the hood, the 2024 Chevy Traverse cradles the turbocharged 2.5L I4 LK0 gasoline engine, rated at 328 horsepower and 326 pound-feet of torque. Compared to the naturally aspirated 3.6L V6 LFY gasoline engine found under the hood of the second-generation Traverse, the new LK0 produces 19 percent more peak torque.
Under the skin, the Traverse rides on the GM C1 platform, with production taking place at the GM Lansing Delta Township plant in Michigan. Shipments are underway now.
Subscribe to GM Authority for more Chevy Traverse news, Chevy news, GM production news, GM business news, and around-the-clock GM news coverage.
Comments
So for all the R/D put into a brand new engine….it gets 1 mpg better? I’ll put money on it, that when you start towing, or putting that little turbo on a “load”/”stress”, that engine is going to SUCK the gas.
My step-dad had the EcoBust in the F150 and it NEVER achieved MPGs. Especially when towing. My 2016 SLT 5.3L got 3 mpgs better towing, and almost 5 driving. He could barley crack 18 on daily driving. And he isn’t a speedster when driving.
Gm should have reworked /reflashed the 3.6L for a TQ and HP bump. SMFH!
That 2.5 is going to tow so much better. The R&D wasn’t just focused on mpg, it has more power across the board. a 1mpg bump overall with a ton more torque and power with better driving and towing/hauling dynamics, seems you need to align your expectations a little more…
Tuning that 3.6 would have been a mistake. It is a good thing you aren’t running GM.
@TMI
Do you currently own a vehicle with a 3.6L? I fo and it’s fantastic!
Do you own a vehicle with a 2.5L turbo? NO because they aren’t out yet, but you seem to know ALOT about it……you are just spouting %#@% out of your mouth! You make yourself look rather foolish
If I was running GM. I definitely wouldn’t have laid my entire cards on EV’s. And I definitely would have used the 3.6L with a HP/TQ bump, along with a turbo 3.6L SS model to compete in the sport suv market. GM had nothing in their portfolio!
Good day.
Yes we do, a Canyon CCLB. It does ok on MPG but how it drives stinks with it lacking all the low end torque. Is seems to bog in light throttle and likes to downshift on a slight incline or slight roll on the throttle at highway speeds. So no, it isn’t “fantastic” but rather mediocre.
No one has the 2.5, but it is based off the 2.7 which is well reviewed and people like how it pulls down low compared to the V8’s even. I have test driven one of those and after a very slight hint of turbo lag, once a few hundred revs above idle picks up very well with tons of torque means I can be light on the throttle and keep up with traffic some stop lights as opposed to the 3.6 needing to rev to nearly 3k to move well enough.
I think the foolish title goes to the one who thinks the 3.6 is a “fantastic” engine and would go the route of the lower mpg rated 3.6 tuned versus a smaller displacement turbo that would make a ton more torque down low with better mpg. But don’t just listen to me, check out all the numbers yourself…
I will give you credit on the sport suv idea, that I think would bode pretty well this day in age. The Explorer ST seems to do well as long as they don’t make it ride too rough for the families.
Yeah, well when little turbo 4 is towing, I am pretty certain it will be well below 20 mpg and working a lot harder..
I like how GM (and most manufacturers) provides pictures of their vehicles on hilly ridges, fording water 3″ deep…when we all know 90% of these vehicles are mall-crawlers.
Just a matter of time till GM slaps a ZR1, or heaven forbid, a ZR2 sticker on one of these. Mmm, hey now, with those fancy MMSV shocks and front sway bar disconnect…
I’m not defending TMI, I think what he posts is a lot of nonsense and misinformation, and I’ve fought with him in the past, but I feel the need to point out that towing anything will torpedo gas mileage.
As someone who actually did tow a 22′ RV (3,660 lb / 382 tongue dry weights) with a 2014 GMC Acadia LLT V6 FWD, for reference, I got ~10.5 MPG on average for overall mileage and with keeping highway speeds @ 65 MPH.
I would expect the mileage to be about the same when towing with the 2.5L. TMI is actually right that the actual towing experience should be smoother due to the increased torque at lower RPM. With the LLT V6 and 6T75 transmission, you had to get into 3,500-4,000 RPM off the line to get things moving — but that’s fine because the engine is designed for it and where it makes peak torque. And, as long as the oil is kept fresh and temps are monitored, the LLT holds up well (156,000 miles on the Acadia and still going). Time will tell if spooling up a turbo constantly under heavy load will lead to longevity.
Realistically, if you look it up, most gasoline RVers get ~10 MPG, regardless of their tow vehicle. Towing the same smaller camper with my 2024 2500 HD gasser, I get 10 MPG @ 65 MPH and 9 MPG @ 70 MPH — except now I do it at 1,700 RPM instead of 3,000 RPM. Wind resistance is really the MPG killer irrespective of engine.
Question, how much torque management occurs in the lower gears??? It doesn’t tow better till it goes better. Last I saw, Ecoboost only tow 13000lbs when stripped down to single cab RWD, and have an asterisk where for every 1000ft of elevation, you drop the rating by 2%. Least the 6.2 can tow 13000lbs in crew cab 4X4 configuration over a mountain. Why would a turbo engine tow better? Sure you have some more low end torque, but if your transmission is holding the gears higher already, and your turbo engine is reving for those extra ponies, why would it tow any different, besides the extra heat, fuel and wear.
Steve, they tow better because they make a ton more torque at a much lower rpm than most equivalent motors of same power range. Unlike naturally aspirated motors they aren’t impacted nearly as much at higher elevations as they effectively make their own atmosphere. GM, Ford and Dodge all rate their trucks the same way. The higher optioned crew cab models tow and haul less than the stripped down regular cab versions. So not sure why you think it is turbo only thing. I promise, a 3.5 ecoboost I am sorry to say would drag a 6.2 up the mountain with a load on the hitch 10k feet…
Hmmm. Last I saw, ford made a 7.3L V8, not ecoboosting the 5.0 when they wanted a better HD engine. Would have been cheaper to kept the same design….. would have saving millions of tooling costs……
Problem with turbos is, yes you get a great on paper torque number, but it’s really peaky curve. Turbos are most efficient at a certain flow, IE, past that RPM torque drops off insanely.
Silverado example, 2.7 vs 5.3. Those 430 frogs are only available at 3000rpm. If it continued out to 4-5000 rpm, it would be a 400-430HP motor, not a 310 HP motor. You have a clog like drop off of the torque (you you claim is so nessesary for towing) small blocks on the other had, make 90/90 (90% of their torque over 90% of their RPM range. The 5.3 has the 2.7 beat on torque below 1800 rpm and over 3500 rpm, and ties from 1800-2500. It also does so with less gas or turbo lag.
Option 2 is go with a massive turbo like in RAM new 3.0, and deal with a 2 second obvious lag, and max torque isn’t achieved till 5, almost 6 seconds later.
There’s also a reason why turbo diesels aren’t as popular till gas prices skyrocket. GM in the 60’s made the twin 6 HD engine, the 7.4 and 8.1’s in the Regan era, and ford now makes the Godzilla. All three of the HD engines, PS/DMAX/Cummins all have very peaky torque curbs and are lumbering cows next to their gas brothers of the same class, desite all that torque.
I towed with a Ford Escape 2013 2.0 turbo for years with 3500lbs. It performed admirably, but it’s weakness was the transmission. Ford said it had a “tow package”. Yeah, a fake one. No tranny cooling or 7 pin. Engine was great, no turbo issues ever.
Wow. 3500 lbs. I tow livestock with a 5.3 LS up and down the appalachians. Trailer is 10-11000 lbs fully loaded. I’m about halfway in the throttle most the time. Big inclines has to rev a bit, but the iron block LMG handles heat very well.
I can’t respond to all that nonsense, but variable rate turbo’s have entered the chat. Have you even looked at the dyno spreads of these engines. Torque is hugely necessary for towing first of all, not a claim, just common sense. Second, that 2.7 makes peak at 1500 all the way to 4000 and drops off which is where the HP picks up.
I am not talking about the 7.3, you were comparing the ecoboost versus the 6.2 in the mountains. That ecoboost will make better power at elevation and at better rpm’s. You have obviously not done any research or followed any of this stuff, I just can’t. Was doing a little research on the traverse and came across this old post and just went wow. Enjoy that incorrect way of thinking when towing with an NA up the mountain and wonder why a turbo motor goes trucking on past at the speed limit…
How big is the tank?
Well it’s 205 inches long, 80 inches wide and about 71 inches tall. I hope that helps.
Not one bit when they asked how big the fuel tank is lol
Tank on an 18-24 is an 19 gallon tank. Chassis hasn’t changed much for the new model. Tank should be identical size and even PN. You’ll get great range without a trailer, acceptable range with a trailer.
I just don’t know how people can continue to drive these things with averages like 21 and 23 in the year 2024!! All I can say is I’m glad it’s someone else and not me paying for all that gas. And for what? To say that you drive an SUV? Pure nuts.
Those are some pathetic MPG numbers. What I think is even worse is the Trax and Envista that have 3 cyl engines and are much lighter and smaller and yet they only average just over 30 mpg. All gas hogs.
At least still have a chance to recoup your vehicle costs over time. That’s something you will never get from your electric vehicle! Let alone the fact that your so called green vehicle, was produced using that dirty energy and you will still be using it, every time you plug it in.
Creig: Best you learn a bit more before making more silly comments that are easily proven wrong. But I’m sure you and all the goobs will smash the down vote button because it will make you feel better about what you say.
I can’t wait till the day the entire country sits at $7.00 per gallon and never comes back down. Then let’s see how many soccer mom and dad’s continue to purchase these over-rated gas hog SUV’s and how many goobs drive a full sized truck to and from work and never use it as a real truck.
News flash: in Canada we already pay that much for years and we still love our big comfortable vehicles.
Well, I may not be the most educated person on the planet. But I do that your EV wasn’t produced with clean energy and doesn’t run on totally clean energy. Also, just because you hate what GOD gave us on this planet to survive by, doesn’t mean that everyone should be driving a vehicle that is supposedly green. I do agree there is a place for electric vehicles, but under no circumstances, will this country, let alone the world, save the planet from what is referred to as climate change. We as people have most likely sped up the process, but climate change has been ongoing, ever since the last ICE AGE. That much, I do know!
Right on!
I will keep my 1/2 ton with the 3.0 diesel at 30+ on the highway and you can keep that false advertisement green EV. It cost a good bit more upfront the start with, let alone battery and the extra cost of tires to make it 300,000 miles
All EPA, now there’s the problem
As long as I have what I want, that’s all that matters.
Hi CIM88 working for Toyota. The TRAX gets far better millage than anything in its class. This car gets far better than the grand highlander AWD with turbo. So your basically making your car company look bad. If you compare to a hybrid then bad idea as Hybrids cost you far more in the end with the 8k battery replacement cost. So just go BEV as the larger packs fail less and guess what Toyota does not make BEV !
Hahaha. Boy, you obviously know NOTHING about me. I hate Toyota’s and there will never be one in my driveway. So I’m not sure who you are confusing me with, but I proudly drive a 2023 Bolt EV as well as two older Caddy’s (just not daily). My Bolt EV averages 4.6 miles per KWH which translates to the equivalent of 184 miles per gallon of gas.
Anyhow, I just went and pulled up an actual window sticker for a base Trax at about $23,900 MSRP. The highway is rated at 32 MPG and the average is 30 MPG. For a smaller 3 cyl??? Come on. Don’t tell me that is good in 2024. My 1999 and then 2003 Buick Century’s with V6’s would do that all day long with 2 people inside, luggage and doing 75 mph with the A/C on.
You people can have your SUV’s and CUV’s. They all get terrible MPG.
If you drive your hybrid to 150,000 miles you pretty much cover the cost of that battery (this figures a hybrid grand highlander versus a regular ICE version), that is not including the fact those batteries last much longer than 150k miles. So you aren’t coming out on the wrong end, rather saving money. Hybrid > ICE > BEV
I typically go 300,000 in my vehicle, so by that time, you will have gone through twice as many tires and 2 batteries, plus the initial cost of the vehicle!
Listen to Fox News much?
Those batteries are lasting to 300k no problem in a hybrid. You aren’t replacing 1, let along 2 batteries in 300k.
Batteries might, might , last that long, in California. Try driving in areas that have -30 as a temperature. No battery will last as you say. If it does, it needs recharging daily after 100 miles.
Trying to decide on AWD or FWD on the 2024 Traverse RS…. Hate the Black wheels I’m seeing!!!
Surprisingly bad MPG for a 2.5L 4-cylinder in 2024!
Just be glad it’s not the infamous 2.5L 4-cylinder Iron Duke!
The Duke was one tough engine, bucco.
Having had a 1981 Citation, I knew it all too well.
2.5L 4 Cylinder To Me Was A Mistake!…Give Me The Blazer 6 Cylinder!
I seem to recall when I got my 18 traverse the ratings were 27/22/25 for FWD and 25/20/23 for AWD. In that aspect, all these ratings are worse!!!
If I had to guess, the EPA is down rating all ICE engines, and while this is rated at less, if I had to guess it will actually net slightly higher, like the new Colorado, which on fully is averaging identically with the years they were selling tons of 2.8 diesels, despite all the new lifted models and the 2.7 “rating” lower than the 3.6.
My guess is a 10% increase in daily, 10% decrease in towing, which in this class of vehicle, isn’t a make or break it thing.
EPA changes the way it does ratings sometimes. Not sure the last time. Part of the lower numbers may be a change as you suggest.
I know if you get a suburban from 01 or equivalent, which is almost the same size as this, just longer, and not much heavier, it gets mid teens. Part of it might be ethanol blends these days. Maybe part of it is the EPA is taking into consideration that highways in Texas now let you go 85, and everyone in California drives 85-90 regardless.
You must compare apples to apples, they changed how things were rated over the years. So in terms of identical ways of rating them, these new ones get better mpg. Like you pointed out, they will probably exceed their ratings in the real world, you are seeing it with some of the other GM turbo vehicles.
Who cares what the MPG is, how finding out when the hell they are going to release these units to dealers! Flint is full of units, with GM not communicating anything to the dealers as what is going on. The wait isn’t solely on the EPA either, they are shipping units from Flint to freaking Texas right now! And no one knows why, mind you these unit’s final destination is Ohio not Texas! GM is either wasting money for no reason or there is a major issue going on that is hush hush…smdh
Lousy MPG, no change in over 15 years. Lousy all black and plastic interior. Even the Cadillac brand is falling in quality. Good luck GM without better quality interiors and overpriced products it’s only a matter of time when you’ll be in familiar declining North American sales territory. When China repos GM factories the nail will be in the coffin.
Um, better mpg, more HP and a bunch more torque in a better spot, that is a solid trade off. They easily could have lowered the power and made them drive in a similar power band to the V6 and got a few mpg better out of them, but they went with the proper balance. These will probably exceed their ratings in regular driving anyways…
SUMTING TERRIBLY WONG!!!!!
heh heh, he said freaking Texas
I will be buying this for its size, power, styling and functionality. I’m not going to go by some ugly turd because it gets 1or 2 miles per gallon better on the highway. Someone has to buy those hideous things. It just won’t be me! If you can’t stand this car and hate everything about it what are you doing on here?
Does anyone have an ETA? Or know an estimate of how long it takes to ship them, now that they’re being shipped??
These should do fairly well if they can actually get them to owners and dealers. The only spot where mileage dropped was one on the highway but only for the AWD version. FWD models kept the 27 rating and improved city and combined. A few changes I would like to see is machine faced wheels on the RS with the overly massive 22’s in all black a separate option, some interior color choices on more models and a real range topping model with a Premier or High Country like we had all along before! Other than that these seem pretty solid and look nice
How did they lose a highway mile? The most efficient part of driving, with an engine that makes more power.
i see absolutely no reason to buy a new traverse with a mere 4 cylinder engine,,, you should have spent money on the 6 cyliner, made it a little more efficient ,and you’d have a best seller,, with the 4 cyl,, toyota and honda will eat you alive on sales,, it’s a shame , this isn’t a bad looking traverse but with a terrible engine