The 2024 Chevy Traverse introduces the third generation for the crossover nameplate, debuting a variety of updates and changes compared to the preceding second-gen model. Among these is a new four-cylinder gasoline engine, with all 2024 Chevy Traverse configurations equipped with the turbocharged 2.5L I4 LK0. To some, the decision to equip the third-generation Traverse with a turbocharged four-cylinder engine rather than an atmospheric V6 might seem a bit odd. GM Authority, however, is here to explain why the 2024 Chevy Traverse uses a 2.5L turbo engine and not a V6.
In an interview with GM Authority Executive Editor Alex Luft, Chevrolet’s engineering team explained that the decision not to equip the 2024 Chevy Traverse with a V6 came down to emissions and efficiency considerations, in particular CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards set by the NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration).
For reference, the turbocharged 2.5L I4 LK0 makes a bit more power and a bucketload more torque than the naturally aspirated 3.6L V6 LFY equipped by the previous-generation Traverse. In addition, the LK0 also produces lower emissions than the 3.6L LFY.
2.5L I-4 LK0 | 3.6L V-6 LFY | + / – LK0 | |
---|---|---|---|
Aspiration: | Turbocharged | Atmospheric | |
Power (hp / kW @ RPM): | 328 | 310 | +18 |
Torque (lb-ft / Nm @ RPM): | 326 | 266 | +60 |
Nevertheless, some critics might argue that GM’s competitors, such as Toyota, Honda, and Ford, offer a V6 in models that rival the Traverse. However, it’s essential to consider the broader context here, as CAFE calculates the average fuel economy for the entire fleet of vehicles, thus impacting each automaker differently.
Specifically, Toyota and Honda do not need to factor in huge full-size pickup trucks and full-size SUVs as a major part of their CAFE formula, as both sell very few (if any) of these types of vehicles. Hence, both Toyota and Honda can offer naturally aspirated V6 engines in their Traverse rivals, at least for now.
Additionally, Toyota and Honda have been famously behind GM in developing smaller-displacement, turbocharged engines. If Toyota and Honda had these engines, they would be using them, however, they don’t have them because they’re behind in developing them. As such, those Toyota and Honda models that currently use an atmospheric V6 will be using turbocharged four-cylinders within a decade.
As for Ford, the standard engine under the hood of the Ford Explorer is a 2.3L I4 EcoBoost, which makes up the lion’s share of Explorer sales. Meanwhile, the 3.0L EcoBoost V6 (400 horsepower, 415 pound-feet of torque) is standard only on ST and optional on Platinum trims. As such, while Ford does offer a V6 in the Explorer, it isn’t making up the lion’s share of sales.
Meanwhile, GM’s atmospheric V6 engine is almost extinct, as GM Authority covered previously.
The bottom line is that the lack of a V6 in the Traverse isn’t so much a GM problem as it is a government regulation problem that’s impacting GM in a unique way. That said, the issue will impact GM’s competitors as well, at least in the near future.
Subscribe to GM Authority for more Chevy Traverse news, Chevy news, GM technology news, GM business news, GM-related political news, and around-the-clock GM news coverage.
Comments
Duh. Tougher emissions standards.
Probably minimal differences there. You do realize that under boost they’re almost the same volume of air/fuel mixture, but that the turbo will be a richer mixture. The turbo might even be slightly worse.
Correct. If you compare the 2024 Limited fuel consumption to the 2024 – no difference. Dissapointing.
For CAFE standards real world or “under boost” fuel economy is irrelevant. With how CAFE is calculated, I am sure the 2.5 Turbo is significantly better than the 3.6 for CAFE purposes.
In the real world, with all that low end torque, the 2.5 Turbo is better in every way than the old 3.6L. Especially in Colorado where turbo engines run circles around atmospheric engines at higher altitudes.
CAFE, sure, but real life towing a travel trailer and the mileage will suck. That’s important when you’re in the middle of nowhere and the next station is 50 miles away. But I’d note the comment you’re responding to was about emissions.
And it’s not like a 3.6 wouldn’t have the power to pull, although the RPMs will probably drive you nuts with either engine.
Driven with my family and a 18’ Jayco from Louisville to Florida with a 2013. We’re talking 5 people, 4500 lb trailer not including accessories. Averaged just over the speed limit, 13mpg, 5th gear on the interstate. Got a little wheezy when needing to pass, but not terrible. Managed Tennessee hills only dropping to 4th. I’d espect even the newer 3.6 with the 9 speed to blow that away. With this new setup, shouldn’t balk at what load it’s given. For reference, my work truck is a Nissan XD titan cummins (got a steal. Nobody wants them, and I needed to get my Silverado farm truck off the road) and it only makes 310 ponies, yet hauls its 8K fat @@@ around + the 12K horse trailer.
Better in every way? 4 cylinder is noisy, power has a lag before kicks in, and produces vibration! Non of which you got with the 3.6!
Yup, I have a 2009 G-6 with a non-turbo 2.4L 4-spd. and a 2019 Equinox with a 1.5T 6-spd. and both get about 30 mpg on the road.
Bet it gets the same or lower real world, day to day fuel economy. Like the rest of the smaller displacement turbos. What a fallacy. I have a 1.5L T4 and it gets about the same as my former V-6.
And what about emissions? You haven’t addressed that there…
1, the EPA plays games with emissions to favor turbo engines
2, the 3.6 “high feature” engine is expensive and on its way out. So the real reason here is costs.
What is really needed is another “high value” small block engine like the 4.3 LV3 engine for the traverse. The 4.3 with a corvette can grind and DFM would get 330/330 hp/tq and better fuel economy. Than the 3.6.
my current 2.7 turbo Silverado gets the same milage as my old 4.3 …no difference.
As far as the new turbo in the traverse…How is a turbo spinning at what 8grand jamming air into the engine better for the environment then a naturally aspirated 3.6 …sounds like the logic in the 70’s with the air pumps (thurmactors) that would take clean air and push it into the exhaust manifolds so epa would get a cleaner reading out the tail pipe stupid!!
It’s all about incomplete combustion and NOX. The problem is at idle and cruising. The EPA hits hard on any inkling of soot or partially burnt gas. A big engine cruising will sip fuel, and pull a vacuume. That means you have a lot of piston/ head space for not a lot of combustion, keeping the charge colder. To overcome the vacuum losses, the 5th gen small blocks run really lean cruising as well as using cylinder deactivation. In the case of the L83 v8, as lean as 22.5:1 AFR. For the current CAFE regs, however, they are no longer allowed to run lean. That’s why you say the K2XX 5.3 rated 23mpg highway while the current DFM + 10 speed + more aerodynamic T1XX trucks only get 21mpg highway.
A small turbo engine will idle hotter, will cruise hotter promoting combustion of that 1/2PPM of soot CAFE is demanding despite the air we breathe in a national park having way higher PPM of junk from wildfires, dust devils and just Mother Nature doing her thing.
Holy mother of God someone with a brain here
A very big part is emissions, another very big part is that the traverse is a minivan with hinged doors. I have nothing against building what sells and both this and the equinox are great examples of that. What gm forgets for this is that it’s selling a minivan for the folks who don’t want to admit to themselves that they drive a minivan. It needs to be big fairly plush, with all wheel drive. As long as there is an optional top drive train that can be ordered, everyone is fine with you making 800,000 in the base drivetrain and 5000 with the top drivetrain. That top drivetrain can be stupidly priced. Sell the z71, zr2 badges at AutoZone.
Top interior package available with the base engine and all is well.
Stop competing with yourself in cross overs. The Trax and the Trailblazer fight for the same buyers and neither can really the attention it deserves. The Blazer and Equinox do the same. The simple solution to this is make the next gen of both the Blazer and the Trailblazer small SUVS based on a small truck platform. Have them be different sizes similar to the Tahoe and Suburban with an base frame/skateboard, and unibody upper. This will allow for both an electric and a combustion version and even a hybrid if the engineering costs make sense. Put the small truck between the two in size. I suggest calling the Chevy version the S-100. If you feel like having a cross over version with a bed bring in the Montana it’s a nice little ute, and the engineering costs are 0. Sell it for the conversion cost from Mexico +$500. I seriously doubt you eat the market share of the Colorado and if you do so be it, you’re selling a profitable reliable vechile. If folks have a good experience with the entry car they stay brand loyal.
Toyota does have large vehicles including trucks and SUV’s. Also, Toyota has and is using a small displacement 4cyl engine. They are putting their 2.4L Turbo in their new Tacoma, Land Cruiser, and soon to be 4 runner. So this article is a little off.
Alex is just being ignorant about Toyota. Per usual
Doesnt the highlander have the 2.4L turbo???
Someone is but hurt about that 1.5 in the Equinox/Terrain… So the 2.5 makes more power than the 1.5 huh? Someone is trying to spin the numbers incorrectly. Lets look at the stats shall we? The 2.5 in Hybrid form makes 189hp at 6000 rpm and 176ftlbs at 4200rpm. The 1.5 makes 175hp at 5600rpm and 203ftlbs at 2000-4000rpm. Which motor do you think drives better? The one with 14 more HP or the one with 27 more ftlbs at 2000 lower rpm? Hmm…
Come one, stop trying to share one small piece of evidence to fit your incorrect narrative. This has been covered so much it is getting tiring, they even did a whole article on the engine compared to its competitors, the 1.5 is far from a pipsqueak as you so elegantly put it engine. The torque makes it much better to drive than any of the NA motors and power is on par in terms of HP and above par on TQ. You just need to drop it instead of sounding like a broken record constantly saying the same old incorrect thing that has been proven false.
I mean when in doubt just ls swap the damn thing. 6 liter equinox would eat the rav4s entire bloodline and still be hungry
Not to mention that both vehicles Toyota would consider rivals to the Traverse, namely the Highlander and Grand Highlander, are both using turbo 4 cylinders and had actually beaten Chevrolet to doing so. This author is either willfully ignoring that fact or needs to do some homework. The V6 is no longer available in the Highlander lineup since the 2023 model year started.
The 2.4L Toyota Turbo is new, the 2.5 GM Turbo is a version of the 2.7 Turbo which has been around since 2018.
Which is very similar to the 2.5 ecotec NA, which was built off the original ecotec’s from the late 90’s. I’m positive everyone here has owned at least 1 car with the 2.2/2.4 ecotec, and remembers how good that engine was. This engine has a good long pedigree.
Same can’t be said about the new Cummins gas engine 😬
Another great comment Steve, thanks for being a light in a sky of darkness that is this comment section
Spewing ignorance is not being a light in the dark tunnel of this comment section. The GM 2.7/2.5 Turbo is nothing like the 2.2 ecotecs which ironically had plenty of timing chain & oil burning issues.
The 2.2’s were 150-200K engines, so a copy paste wouldn’t be a bad issue. These engines have the LS/LT engine relationship. Side by side they look very similar as the bones are almost identical, but has minute improvements, particularly to oil for the timing chain. The 2.2/2.4 had 2 oil issues, both easily fixed, no PCV valve, so add a catch can, and carbon on rings after 150K, fixed with a can of Seafoam. The current generation of 4 clinkers (2.5, 2.7T,2.5T) are 250-300K engines bait likely will need a turbo replacement before then.
I love your username here!! I had a 1981 Turbo Trans-am with that option!!
But, look at the sales numbers! GM sales many more trucks and suv’s than Toyota! In trucks, they sell about 4 to 5 times the number!
We have a 2017 and a 2020 Equinox in the family. The 2020 turbo is around seven mpg better than the non turbo.
1; 6 speed vs 9
2; 2L is enough for a car like the equinox. So 2.0 vs 2.5 might help. But the newer, wider Nox is powered by a 1.5 😬
3, in terms of this traverse, it also has VVL now, which when VVL was introduced on the Malibu in 13, economy improved by 15%, now the turbo part means a lower compression ratio. This engine might be 10% more efficient, or 10% less efficient. Question is how well this engine fits it. If it sits in low valve lift at 75mph on a flat interstate, you will see great fuel savings. If it’s using turbo boost, you will see a drop in economy. It is 100% guaranteed however to have worse towing economy, or with a roof rack system, will suffer over the last generation.
For this vehicle it makes sense. AFAIK, no one hauls a travel trailer with this model. For the Colorado/Canyon it doesn’t make sense to not offer a V6. Fuel economy goes out the window hauling a travel trailer with too small of a gas powered turbo engine. I wouldn’t buy one for towing a travel trailer with less than a 3.6 liter turbo engine.
Also, for this model only offering one engine cuts costs.
Kary I never see Explorers, Traverses, Enclaves, GMC ACADIA, Highlander, Pilot, Telluride….ever hauling anything expect for people seriously if your going to do serious towing you need a full size pickup or SUV NOT CUV! I remember when the new Camaro and mustang came out with the turbo 4 cylinder everyone was afraid of it until it could smoke a 90s and early 2000s GT AND SS V8 and they turned out to be very reliable engines. I was also afraid of the turbo 4 in my Equinox when I bought it I can say it’s a very reliable engine.
I was afraid of the reliability of turbos about 20 years ago. I was also afraid of the reliability of fuel injection 35 years ago. It’s natural to want to let a technology prove itself.
If 1% of the time a vehicle is used is spent towing a trailer, is the fact that it’s mileage is 85% of a naturally aspirated engine really important, when 99% of the time it is not towing at getting 115% the mileage?
My calculator says no.
That’s rather obvious, rather than insightful. If you don’t tow much you don’t need to worry about towing MPG.
My truck spends about 20% of its miles towing, and I’d like it to be more. But for 20% towing I consider it somewhat of a tossup between say an F-150 with a 3.6 turbo or a 5.0 NA engine. For a midsize pickup or smaller SUB I’d only want a V6 (or V8 or diesel if anyone still offered those.) And it’s not just about cost of fuel, it’s also about range. With a small turbo engine you’d be getting gas very frequently.
We have the 2024 Z71. Just got back from a road trip of about 5 hours roundtrip. Mileage was way better than the 2012 LTZ that we replaced.
My sister’s 2021 1500 Silverado gets better fuel mileage than my 2004 silverado. But my Truck gets more WOW!s from the public. Which tells me that the 27,000 dollar investment was wiser than her 60,000 investment 20 years later.
Can you share some real numbers please?
Toyota has moved onto turbo 4-cylinder and gas/electric hybrids for their large crossover vehicles (Highlander and Grand Highlander). They did this before the updated Traverse hit the market.
If general motors in the 40s 50s 60s and 70s brought us classic cars still cherished by owners today, what is GM doing for you now. It’s the supply and demand factor O suppose. They only have to sell 10,000 of these units a month at $50,000, as opposed to 20,000 units of the V6 considering the added costs per unit. The other factor is they are losing the numbers game with Acura, Toyota, Ford, and Honda. GM will continue to shrink the options offered in their cars and continue to raise prices as long as there are deep pocket customers willing to buy them.
Bruh it’s a Chevy traverse it’s not that deep
Have a friend who works as an “A” mechanic at a GMC dealer. They have some stock of the new, enlarged Acadia and his comments went like this : “I took it out and it has some pep, but I was the only one in it- don’t think there’s enough in reserve for it loaded with a family of five or six and all their stuff- especially when have to make a lane change or merge onto a highway.
Seems a little off. This is a 4000lb vehicle empty. Is he and his wife weight 600lbs combined with 4 200lb kids??? I remember this being an issue with say…. The Chevy Aveo, but never a larger sedan and definitely not my suburban growing up. And the suburban wasn’t exactly peppy.
Haha- real cute.
The 2.5 Turbo has more HP and way more Torque than the 3.6. It should do better in all situations, including fully loaded or towing. Your mechanic friend and most of the senior citizens in this comments section have an irrational bias against smaller turbo engines, facts be damned.
Other than we expect to see at least a 20% drop in fuel economy like the F150 did going from the 5.0 to the 2.7 while towing. That’s a lot more gas station stops on your way down to Florida.
Bruce your key word is should do better, so not sure?
What about engine reliability in the long run ? It is very common to read on auto forums that turbocharged engines can’t match naturally aspirated ones in that sector.
Being a spark plug changer doesn’t make him an expert on vehicle performance.
I have a 2020 Acadia Denali with the V-6, love it. Usually GM has always put a larger engine in the upscale SUV’s.
I won’t be purchasing an I-4 turbo junk or electric junk, turbos put more strain on all the components, so you will probably say everything is beefed up, ok. How about all the people that do not change oil when they should? Turbo is less friendly to oil with latent head while running and shut down. Hope the japs still make a V-6 in a couple years
Exactly. I had an Explorer with the 2.3L inline 4 turbo. The turbo started having problems around 75k miles…wastegate solenoid replacement, then later, needed a new turbo. Luckily the first was under warranty, or I’d have been out several thousand dollars. The second repair happened out of warranty so I was out a couple grand. Turbo failure (for whatever reason) out of warranty is going to cost people a lot of money. The more components there are, the more complicated it is, the more it costs to fix.
I’m happy towing with my ’23 Traverse 3.6. I’m yet to be convinced that the turbo 4 will outperform it over time. An Ev for towing?? Out of the question.
I will say one thing about long term use, if you do basic car maintenance, GM’s 4 cylinders are stupid easy to work ok, and especially with stuffing a 4 cylinder in the space designed for a 6, youll be able to swap turbos, intakes, any upper head work, and have extra arm room to boot.
The consumer is the real loser for daily expenses with the 4 cylinder. If this engine is similar to the other boosted 4 cylinder engines you will need to burn premium fuel instead of regular. Where I am at that’s another buck a gallon.
The owner’s manual doesn’t even recommend anything higher than 87.
“Regular unleaded gasoline meeting ASTM
specification D4814 with a posted octane rating
(R+M)/2 of 87 or greater is recommended.
Do not use gasoline with a posted octane
rating of less than 87, as this will result in
reduced performance and driveability. If heavy
knocking is heard when using gasoline rated at
87 or greater, the engine needs service.
Do not use any fuel labeled E85 or FlexFuel.
Do not use gasoline with ethanol levels greater
than 15% by volume”
Oooh, imagine if the 2.5T had a factory flexfuel tune. Then again, I think it’s the transmission limiting this thing out, but maybe it could hold power at high RPMs.
8 speed handles the LT5. I think it can handle a e85 tune.
I do think this would have been the engine for GM to rate on 89 octane. Just like ram did with the hemi. Minimal power loss on regular, little extra MPG driving light and extra HP when you need it. Have a better response to ethanol as well.
My bad. Forgot your talking about the 8T60, not 8 L90. For the record. The transverse transmission is maxed out. That’s probably why they moved it from 2.7l to 2.5l.
This turd isn’t even flex fuel rated?
This is classic bias reporting and more lies from GM Authority. Toyota Grand Highlander is 3 row and came out with 4cyl engine before the 3rd gen Travesty. The Toyota GH comes with 4cyl 2.5l engine and instead of turbo has Hybrid which gives you excellent 37/34 mpg at $45K or you can pick the Hybrid MAX with 4cyl turbo with 362hp and 26/27 MGP and that’s better hp and mpg than the Traverse.
Hi everyone. I currently own a 2020 Chevy Equinox 2.0T and I can say that it’s much better on fuel then my old 2010 Equinox with 3.0 V6… however there are a number of factors here to consider: the old Equinox was AWD all of the time, the 2020 has a selectable AWD which does help save fuel, the 9 speed automatic in the 2020 Equinox is light years ahead of the old 6 speed automatic in the 2010 which also helps fuel economy, the 2010 equinox was a heavier CUV then my 2020, three is less engine weight with the 2.0T, and finally it’s also how you drive if you have a lesd foot either engine the 2.0T or V6 will suck down gas i have noticed if I drive my 2.0T within the speed limits and don’t mash the gas pedal like I see a lot of people do after the light turns green then my fuel mileage is better. This article leaves the part about fuel economy out that it’s also how the person drives that equals good or bad fuel economy.
Also….
The 3.6 V6 we are talking about is light years ahead of the 3.0 V6.
The 3.0 V6 which is still used in the Cadillac V series is based on the 3.6 V6 it’s basically the same engine just smaller displacement. Anyway did you read my whole comment about different transmissions, weight, and driving habits?
GM can do it, they just won’t. Penny pinching at its finest. After all, they are putting V6s in the CT4/5 SEDANS. GM used to be best in segment in all powertrain aspects. Now they are boring mediocre me too products.
ct4 only has 4 cylinder engines, the 2.0t and the 2.7t
Scott I just looked online the CT4 does come with a V6.
From $47,295
MPG
Up to 20 city / 29 highway
Engine
2.7 L 4-cylinder,
3.6 L V6
Horsepower
325 to 472 hp
Transmission
10-speed automatic,
6-speed manual
Even the XT5 has the 3.6 available.
I believe the only V6 in the CT4 is in the V Blackwing.
The CT5 does have the 3.0 V6 TT as an option on all models.
Richard. Just look at Boeing, faster, cheaper better, not!
My “take” on the subject of a puny 4cyl. in the new/2024 traverse is… “fooey-fooey”… or in other words “pure b.s.” I’m a car guy, plain and simple… I have a 1st year of the 2nd gen..2018 traverse; 73k miles…runs like when I got it in May 2018…still has “ummph” when you press the pedal. I also have a 2023 ct5-v blackwing caddy….which anyone who knows cars…has significantly more than just plain “ummph”… I have a resto-mod, fully redone 71 mustang boss 429 Mach one..pushing 1200hp….and a handful of other “rods” of days past…’70 AAR Plymouth Cuda..alll original with chrome tipped side exhaust….’67 dodge coronet with a modified 426 hemi, ’55 chevy fully blown 572 c.i. gasser..full front end lifted.. with open headers on each side… and also a 2012 Toyota prius…!!..that runs excellently… and seclveral other gasoline conscientious vehicles in the family. I “wazz” going to partake in getting the 2024 traverse…but back around the end of last year when word came out this thing was “downgraded” to a “4-banger”… all bets were iff…for me and at least 35 or more folks I’ve talked too as well that were going to get one. GM engineers, and all you “rocket scientists” in this forum and everywhere else that’s trying to support this ludicrously ridiculous move by mary Barrett (GM ceo)…and her crew of gasoline conscious autos gurus…. 100% blew it…with this move. Anyone with simple, basic car knowledge…of cars that want a SUV.. that won’t start talking back to ya…if you strain it too much on a hill, pass on a 65mph highway…and need to quickly accelerate to 80 to do so…and this 4-banger…spits back at ya…. will not want a puny 4 banger in their heavy SUV… no matter what the “science says” on why a 4 banger was used….the buying public that knows cars will NOT like GM’s decision. Yes, our planet is about to blow us all up…because of the irreversible toxic damage we’ve done to it… but…at some point everything is going to die…no matter what… so while our immediate and far planetary future is at stake… we also can have a bit of automobile fun here and there anyway…until time stops for everything. Buying electric cars… hmmmm… pay an avg $60k…yet…the batteries melt in 90÷ degrees days…freeze up below 10 degrees…take “40 years” to get a recharge…and…there’s only…in laymens terms 10 electric stations to 5000 gas stations…. and the average person making a $30k /year income can’t afford one..??? Do they make sense right now…? So…that’s my take on a 4 banger traverse… GM nneds to offer that 4.3l engine…that someon mentioned above..! (Sorry for any typos)…
Jemjr. I agree with you to a point. We have not devistated our planet burning not fossil fuel. Fossil fuel supposedly refers to dinosaurs, oil is a derivative of decayed plant life. If you think we have check the stats, .04 carbon dioxide currently in atmosphere. Yes point zero four. All plant life does at point zero two. The earth naturally warms and cools after thousands of years. We know of two ice ages. Think they had model “T”s when Christ was around??
No such thing as fossil fuels. There is no such thing as fossil fuels. There are only hydrocarbon fuels. Billions of barrels of oil have been processed over the past 100+ years – and you still think that was from fossils? The insinuation alone is offensive. Fossils are hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon. Hydrocarbon fuels lack oxygen. Where did the oxygen go? Fossils are not found below 16,000 feet. But hydrocarbon fuel is found as deep as 45,000 feet. How is that possible? It’s not – because hydrocarbon fuels are not derivatives of fossils. Yet another “theory” – like global warming/climate change – that is easily dispelled.
Good point – there cannot possibly be fossil fuels
And someone agreeing with a pointless post. No wonder there are so many downvotes that can only be explained by complete ignorance.
You must be a rocket scientist, much smarter than everyone hummm
I am much smarter than most the people here down-voting facts, but that’s a very low bar. Presumably a lot of people who believe Donald.
La Dee da!
Boeing needs you for rockets and planes
This is complete spin for the 4 cylinder traverse, enclave and Acadia. I have owned 2 Chevy Traverses with the 3.6 and still have a 2017. When Ford puts the 4 cylinder in Explorer you can buy the bigger V-6 if you choose. I will not be replacing my v-6 Traverse and if I do will have to look at Explorer with a v-6. What a shame I have only bought Chevrolets for over 40 years as a GM employee and now a retiree. Gm will continue to lose market share like the 80’s putting product out consumers are not wowed by!
Terry I agree, been GM since 70’s. Like my Vette 2022, they will screw that up probably too and wonder why!
Jim,
Like me you have been with GM since the 70’s so you know where GM was when they were king of the auto industry until they gave it away. Today they have a hard time competing in most areas. They have always did what they wanted regardless of employees and consumers!
Terry you are absolutely correct. Too bad Wall Street backs the electric sh…
The times are a changing. I’ll take my 4 cyl 300+ hp engine any day over any V- config out there. There are some really good I-sixes too but the V arrangement was taken way too far in the U.S., especially with diesels. My first car was a TransAm with big block V8, very crude even by y-2000 standards. Leave the past in the past, thank you.
You never had a Trans Am with a big block. Such architecture never existed for Pontiac engines. You most likely had a low compression Pontiac 400-455 station wagon engine that most Trans Ams were saddled with after 1974. So I’m not sure you’re the best judge of what engine configuration is best.
Allen , some of us live in the past, why because o f a lot of stuff, American made beat every one. Don’t believe me, think of history World War 2. I bet your 4 banger won’t make it as long as the “V “ engines. Why a matter of physics. Ways to increase horse power, forced induction, bigger displacement, spin faster. I rest
After reading all these comments, it is apparent that you have 4 cylinder turbo fans and V6 fans. What the problem has become is that the auto industry has stopped giving us OPTIONS to buy what we want and started one size fits all,……. take it or leave it !!
Maybe eventually all our cars/ trucks will come in only black again to save costs.
I Hope It Flops ,can’t be done without the infamous live saving Turbo for whopping 18hp more.Another thing to fail and kissing up to New green deal.Give us what we want.I have 3.6 now love it one GMs better ones.ahhh let’s get rid of it.Not even an option for customers to decide.Hating GM…Turbo Turbo Turbo death to the V8,death to the V6.RIP General Motors and the New wave Engineers.If you Lease No Worry’s Shows GMs sales.But if you own cross your fingers after 3yr /36 ends.
Rrod while GM is giving up the V6 the V8 is still alive and well GM is currently working on a next generation small block V8. Plenty of people I know drive modern turbo 4 cylinders with well over 100,000 miles on them, this isn’t 1985, they aren’t high revving engines like say a WRX or S2000, I know I own a 2.0T that is miles ahead of the old V6 I owned all you have to is oil changes regularly mechanic suggested every 5000 miles I also use premium fuel in the long run it’s worth it. But if you want an updated outdated V6 with less power good luck all manufacturers are working on getting rid of the V6.
It true to say Toyota and Honda do not sell many low mpg trucks but Chevrolet gave up on passenger cars. Every Sonic the sold helped the average. Toyota also has a lot of hybrids in there product line . Every Prius they sell helps the average a lot. Honda as a product line has many high mpg cars. Chevrolet should bite the bullet and make a HIGH QUALITY low price car.That would sure help
Yeah they need a decent affordable sedan. The Malibu is okay. It needs another generation before they go full EV.
It’s a good strategy if the 2.5 is reliable AF. The 2.7 is very good, but I’d be worried about the additional costs of periodically dealing with carbon build up with a turbo DI engine. Turbo problems and general serviceability with the weird packaging under the hood may also be worrisome.
It took them at least 7-10 years to make the 3.6 acceptably sturdy. It had timing issues. The newer ones are okay though.
EPA. All other answers/theories are wrong.
I predict that these highly-stressed turbo fours are not going to hold up well over time. After people spin them into the stratosphere and make those turbos glow a few too many times there will be plenty of dramatic meltdowns. Meanwhile, my minimally stressed 3.5 L Toyota V6 will keep ticking along reliably over the years.
Turbo-charged Chevy four bangers powering big, heavy vehicles. What could possibly go wrong?
Smaller gas tanks in the 2024. Pretending for a second that the MPG does improve with the T4’s, a tank of gas will not go nearly as far.
Camps, you are right on. Let the people that believe that stuff give the government money to stop natural global warming!
The only 4 cylinder I’d own would be an old Offenhauser Indy engine. Lots of torque and horse power, run it on alcohol. Rebuild every 500 miles though. Wonder when GM rebuild kits will be available for the 4 banger.
Hope you know I’m being foolish, but still no 4 bang for me
Both Toyota and Honda do in fact have turbo 4 cylinders available for almost every vechile. While they may be later to the game, their turbo 4’s wipe the floor with GM in terms of reliability and performance. An example being the Accord 2.0t versuses the Malibu 2.0t. Not even a contest. Honda cushes it by every metric. Comparing Honda’s venerable Vtech v6 vs GM’s comparable v6 and the gap is even wider. Such a bad analogy. Gm vechiles are some of the worst manufactured, least reliable vechiles ever produced. You simply cannot compare anything they build to Honda and Toyota who are in a completely different realm in terms of vechile quality.
Save that the Tahoe, Suburban siblings are some of the longest last most reliable vechiles on the road, by all reports. GM can make good quality vechiles when they want to just mostly they get to bean counting and profit maxing over stupid stuff
For a 6,000 lbs. vehicle, the HP and torque ratings are well within my requirements for driving something with a little bit of meat. Lot’s of good information from you guys in respect to cafe standards and how the engines perform, I learned a lot. My only concern, when you have to bake in the replacement (or major work) on a turbo engine after 80,000 to 100,000 miles compared to a reliable naturally aspirated engine which is proved to get 150,000 – 200,000 miles on average, is this product really ahead of the EPA /NHTSA curve? 3 year 36,000 basic coverage and 5 year/60,000 on the powertrain. These are 1980’s warranty numbers that I am not willing to hedge. Otherwise, great product and great price point considering. This product should move.
Wish they would give the OPTION. Turbo’s have lag and many of us want instant power, not wait for it power. Lag is dangerous.
Why can’t I find one in stock at any dealerships, and there are thousands sitting in storage lots in Flint, MI?!!!! GM is losing out on 100’s of millions in sales!
No problem with an increase in power but Chevy, like most manufacturers, doesn’t know how to build a turbo that lasts. So while you may have 328HP with turbo, you have nothing when that turbo fails in 2-3 years. Get replaced under warranty, fails again in another 2-3 years and you are out $4K. There are a lot of Chevys and Fords driving around thinking they have the extra power but in fact do not. Let’s get back to the V6 and V8.
No problem with an increase in power but Chevy, like most manufacturers, doesn’t know how to build a turbo that lasts. So while you may have 328HP with turbo, you have nothing when that turbo fails in 2-3 years. Get replaced under warranty, fails again in another 2-3 years and you are out $4K. There are a lot of Chevys and Fords driving around thinking they have the extra power but in fact do not. Let’s get back to the V6 and V8.
Seems a bit like PR word salad safe answer. Let’s grant them that what they’ve conveyed is 100% the truth and not mostly cost-saving / profit increase focused, they could have offered the option for V6 in higher trims (Z71 and RS) like Ford Explorer does.
So as to not alienate their V6 consumer base. I test drove the Traverse, it has a weak engine start and engine struggles a bit upon driving off.
Too bad. Would love to buy a 2024 Traverse but completely turned off by the 4-cylinder engine. I’m sure the power is fine – it’s the noisy whiney 4-cylinder noise and vibration when you accelerate that’s a complete turn-off for me. Gonna go with the 2025 Explorer V-6.
I test drove the 2024 Chevy Traverse as well. It whines and sounds like it’s struggling. Idk why Chevrolet and GM are playing around and underestimating their competitors. They definitely could’ve offered a V6 option in Z71 and RS, like Ford Explorer. 2025 Ford Explorer is definitely a strong competitor when it comes to feeling like and driving like an SUV
I was just exploring the 2025 Ford Explorer. Considering the improved size of the Traverse, if they offered a V6, they wouldn’t be able to keep it on the shelf. It probably would be selling more than the KIA Telluride, the Ford Explorer, and provably contend neck to neck with the Toyota Grand Highlander and Honda Pilot.
They dropped the ball on this one. Seriously missed opportunity.
I test drove the 2024 Chevy Traverse 2 weeks ago. Good looking vehicle and sits well, but it whines and feels like it’s struggling. I also read nightmares of Turbo not being able to support the overall load, eventually leading to Turbo failures some few 1000s of miles in and gently used.
Search for * Chevy Traverse Problems * group on Facebook.
When we search 2024 in the group’s search bar, the 2024 reported consumer issues are concerning. Some quite alarming for a new vehicle.
I’m wondering if they should’ve bothered with a new engine. Highly Concerned.
why does my 2024 traverse ls model awd have a 6cyl engine in it maufa date jan 2024