mobile-menu-icon
GM Authority

Here’s Why The 2024 Chevy Traverse Doesn’t Use The Turbo 2.7L Engine

The 2024 Chevy Traverse got its big reveal last July, debuting an all-new third generation for the crossover. As expected, the 2024 Chevy Traverse introduces a long list of updates and changes over the preceding second-gen Traverse, including a new powerplant, specifically the turbocharged 2.5L I4 LK0 gasoline engine. However, some might wonder why GM opted for the 2.5L LK0, rather than, say, a slightly larger 2.7L four-cylinder, such as the L3B. Now, GM Authority has an answer.

The 2.5L engine in the 2024 Chevy Traverse.

Simply put, a turbocharged 2.7L I4 engine won’t fit in the 2024 Chevy Traverse. GM Authority Executive Editor Alex Luft recently spoke with Vehicle Program Engineering Manager for the Traverse, Joel Hofman, who provided some additional insight into the matter. Hofman explained that the decision was based on finding the right balance between size, power, and the vehicle’s requirements:

“The long answer goes along the lines of sort of right sizes in the power trim of the vehicle that it’s in and how much power and torque you actually need,” Hofman told GM Authority. “We’ve got zero-to-60 times in a seven-passenger large crossover that is under seven seconds. So we really don’t need more power. Yeah, so we think it’s the right size for what we need. Its power, torque, drivability are more than adequate.”

Hofman also elaborated on the structural limitations that influenced the decision:

“So I mentioned that the front structure here, if I were to lift the hood, there’s a couple structural rails that sit here and there’s a cradle underneath. That basic architecture of those pieces, because there’s a tremendous amount of engineering and nose for barrier and all that kind of stuff. If we can kind of stay with that and evolve it over time, it’s much more efficient than starting over, right? We have certain limits and this engine is all-new just for [the GM C1 platform]. So when we said we’re gonna do it, let’s get one in here that fits. We’re using some of the technology from the 2.7 because they’re brother and sister, so we took that and learned it, we applied those learnings here and we think it’s the right size.”

For reference, the turbocharged 2.5L I4 LK0 gasoline engine is rated at 328 horsepower and 326 pound-feet of torque, with the latter figure representing a 22.5-percent boost in peak torque compared to output from the naturally aspirated 3.6L V6 LFY cradled by the second-generation Traverse.

Under the skin, the 2024 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 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. Mary should have put the 3.0L diesel in it.

    Reply
    1. How About Offering A Hybrid With Excellent Gas Mileage?

      Reply
      1. My Toyota sienna hybrid provides near 40 mpg gas mileage, There people are not understanding the soil under their feet is going fast …..

        Reply
        1. [correction] GM people are not understanding the soil under their feet is going fast …..

          Reply
  2. I would’ve preferred the 2.7. The torque means it would’ve made great power down low instead of needing to rev higher so it can get out of its own way. I diesel would’ve been great for fuel economy since there isn’t a hybrid. What this article pointed out is GM created a 2.5 because it was easier than applying good engineering to fit the 2.7. Lazy, lazy, lazy. Good engineering is simply a matter of finding the right hammer that pounds a square peg through a round hole. My wife and I have been driving GM for about 20 years, but when her 2017 Traverse needs replacing there won’t be another GM in the driveway to replace it. She’s looking elsewhere right now.

    Reply
    1. Where you looking? Toyotas are exspensive and fugly, does dodge inspire reliability? Ford is a 2L turbo.

      Reply
    2. Sure, just apply “good engineering” and do it and forget about cost and timelines and everything else. Changing the front end architecture drives a ton of engineering and cost including things like crash testing. Sounds like you’ve never worked in the real world.

      Reply
      1. And you must have forgot that this was redesigned several years ago and could have been planned as it should have. This would have not required anymore designers, engineers or any additional testing that the 2.5 went through after the switch from 3.6 v6. You are thinking in present time and going back to redo what has already been done.

        Reply
      2. In the real world, car makers who don’t respond to consumer preferences face threats to their existence.

        Reply
    3. Wow. You obviously know what you’re talking about….

      Reply
  3. BS.

    Same “size” as it’s the same block. You put the two side by side, can’t tell a difference until you get close to it to see the EIN. The LK0 does have 1 small tell, and that’s an electronic phaser on the intake cam vs a hydraulic unit.

    The reason for the difference is the L3B makes 430ft lbs of torque. It’s mated to the same transmission as the LT4 super motor. That much torque would twist the guts out of a transaxle. They need less torque but still need good power. Either they redesign the turbo assembly for less torque and all the associated parts to keep torque lag down, or the “destroke” the L3B from 2.7L down to 2.5, effectively reducing low end air flow, and volume thus the torque band is moved up the RPM range with more power, less torque. It also helps they already have a crankshaft for 2.5L engines already designed with 20years of proven performance.

    Reply
    1. Correct! The reason for the 2.5 vs 2.7 is simply cost savings. Smaller is cheaper. That’s why there is no more V6’s and V8’s are being reduced. It’s not about fuel economy clearly and it’s not about the environment but they will lie to you to get you on board.

      Reply
      1. It’s literally the same block. The 2.5 is “destroked” to make less torque so that a transaxle can support it. GM doesn’t have a transaxle that can support the 2.7 turbo at 430fl-lbs or torque.

        Reply
      2. The 4 cylinder turbo vs NA V6 and NA V8s is more about emissions. You can build more power with better emissions with a turbo while also keeping it reliable(hard vs easy start). NA engines need high compress ratios to help make power and lean fuel air ratios to make good emissions figures. These to qualities don’t mix well in a NA engine. It makes a hot running and unreliable engine. With a turbo you can keep the compression low, which makes the engine more reliable (easy starting), then you build power as the rpms increase and the turbo builds pressure. You still would need to keep the fuel air ratios lean for emissions but GM addresses this with a robust cooling system that cools the turbo, engine and transmission. It uses a 3 way diverse valve to cool the hottest system first. It also has an electric water pump so it can flow faster regardless of rpm or if the engine is shut off at a stop light. Once you look at everything they are doing its obvious GM is looking at building power at the current acceptable emission standards pushed by state and federal laws.

        Reply
    2. 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.

      Reply
  4. I’d have preferred it retaining the 3.6L naturally aspirated engine. I hated the thought of a dinky 4 cylinder turbo that I bought a new 2023 Traverse. The 3.6L provided sufficient power to move my 2011 and 2016 GMC Acadia’s including pulling a 6×12 tandem axle U-Haul several times helping my kids move. I didn’t need more torque or more horsepower; what I had worked. The fuel economy is essentially unchanged between the two engines. GM could have better spent engineering and design dollars coming up with a more pleasing exterior design on all three vehicles; the Traverse, Acadia and Enclave. Sadly 5-6 years from now my replacement to the 2023 Traverse may be a non GM product.

    Reply
    1. We actually purchased 2 2023 Traverse LT Cloth AWD SUV’s, one 7 passenger and the other 8. We will be holding onto them for way longer than 5-6 years.

      Reply
  5. So GM put a loud 4cyc 2.5l lawn mower engine in the Traverse, Acadia and Buick for apparently emissions standards but won’t put it in the 2025 Cadillac XT6 because the loud cabin noise from the 2.5 would upset the luxury buyers Now they want me to believe they could not put the 2.7 in as its too big and the 3.6 v6 is too small lol. Tell me lies tell me sweet little lies. Mean while toyota grand highlander Max has 362 horsepower and 400 lb-ft of torque. GM could have done it right and now hindsight they should have engineered it right.

    Reply
  6. 2,000 Mile Review: The new 2.5L in the RS has surprisingly exceeded early expectations. The Turbo lag is non-existent and with FWD (we leave it in FWF vs AWD) it moves relatively quickly without much hassle. Do I wish they came with the 2.7L to inspire long term reliability and a little more playful power (yes 100%). My only concern is long term reliability…

    Reply
  7. The 3.6 i had in my GMC Acadia was great. Didn’t burn a drop of oil at 130k. But tranny started having issues (changed fluid twice at 75k) so now GMC is now gone. Driving a Ford product now. With a v6.

    Reply
  8. The 2.7L engine is rear wheel drive based engine available on the Cadillac CT4 and CT5 , and the Chevrolet Silverado 1500 and the GMC Sierra 1500 too

    Reply
  9. What did they file that .02 litres of metal off the block?

    Thats a dumb anwser….it won’t fit…..jeez.

    Reply
    1. Seams like GMA didn’t understand. Spokesperson said “better fit” and then proceeded to talk about engine displacement, not physical size.

      Reply
  10. You need to drive one. Yes I wish it had the 2.7 in it also but then they would need SS badges on it and probably need to beef up some other stuff thus adding weight. The lack of turbo lag is a big accomplishment from gm with their turbo design having two valves. I drove a 2.7 and was impressed for a four banger. This isn’t the early 2000s any more 4 banger tech. I haven’t driven the new traverse yet so I will hold other judgment till one is available.

    Reply
  11. The 2024 traverse RS is noisy and loud in the cabin and my wife is NOT happy with it
    For a $57K SUV This is unacceptable for her extremely unhappy

    Reply
    1. All of these four cylinder turbo engines are noisy, put out more environmental heat, and require more expensive higher octane gas costing $8-10 more per tank, are less powerful, and less desirable.

      Reply
      1. The 2.5T takes 87 octane.

        Reply
    2. For $57,000 the buyer has a right to expect refinement. Something that four cylinder engines are not noted for. I am staying with V8 engines as long as someone is selling them. No electric for me. I know car owners who own them.

      Reply
  12. 3900 lbs vs 4600 lbs Now which of these should carry the 2.7 truck engine. Colorado or Traverse. At 4600 lbs the traverse should come with a V6 as standard equipment for a smoother and more reliable engine. 1.2 liter three banger in the trax and trailblazer. And now a four banger on this monstrous “family of six” vehicle. Imagine loaded and towing a trailer. Did General Motors and or Mary test this vehicle at full capacity. Fuel mileage always suffers. They still can’t get this through their thick head. They are just overworking these engines which make them consume extra fuel, produces more heat on the transmission, and in turn will lead to premature wear and breakdown.

    Reply
    1. My colorado with the 2.7 turbo weights over 5k lbs. Your comment makes no sense.

      Reply
  13. It seems like most people on here would prefer the older, less powerful V6.
    If you’re living in the past anyway, then go ahead and wish for an 80s-era throttle body V8 with about 140hp.

    Reply
  14. what a crock…totally new redesigned vehicle and the best answer gm has it that ” we had no room to fit anything else??? ”
    Go back to rear wheel drive and you can fit a blown 427 in there. More bs from the general to fit the narrative.
    It’s Not about living in the past, it’s about getting some real performance out of a SUV. ..0-60 in 7 secs? and that is acceptable because its adequate? hope you have A MILE LONG ENTRANCE RAMP when you try to merge into traffic doing 75+

    Reply
  15. Four cylinders and turbo and the required high octane gas equates to not only more noise, but less long term reliability due to the overworked engine, as well as more environmental heat generated by the vehicle and the fuel production, all for a few more miles per gallon, which gains are lost due to the extra ten dollars to fill up. Are the inmates running the asylum?

    Reply
    1. Neither the 2.5 nor the 2.7 requires premium fuel. You are all worked up over something you know nothing about.

      Reply
      1. It may not be “required” but is certainly appreciated by a boosted engine (ANY boosted engine). I had a 2012 Cruze Eco 6m, and I obtained 3-5 mpg better on 91 octane vs 87 octane, even though it didn’t require 91. Depending upon the price difference in fuel, the mpg gains may not be worth the cost.

        Reply
    2. Wrong

      Reply
  16. what a stupid comment. GM has nothing to do with this site.

    Reply
  17. I find it hard to believe the 2.7 would not fit. Regardless, I got an OUTSTANDING price on a new 2024 Buick Avatar 3.6…. I’m amazed at the gas mileage, Over 30mpg @ 70 mph.

    Reply
    1. Would not fit because the 2.7 turbo is designed to work in a rear wheel drive set up and the torque requires a truck transmission. The 2.5 is the same black but it’s “destroked” to make less torque so it can work in a transaxle for FWD/AWD vehicles.

      Reply
  18. Since 2020 I’ve had
    2.0 from an ats and Camaro 1.5 from an equinox
    2.0 blazer 2.7 Silverado
    I’ve found although they all provide “enough” power 4cly turbos are loud,strained,and provide poor gas mileage unless paired with a 6 speed transmission

    Reply
    1. So it took you 5, 4 cylinder purchases to learn what you should have in 1 purchase? I hit my finger with a hammer once but I did pound the crap out it 4 more times before I came to the realization that perhaps I should move my finger!

      Reply
  19. Dear Mary,
    Do not piss in the rain and tell me it’s raining
    Regards,
    Customer

    Reply
  20. I would’ve like to have seen them switch to a RWD based architecture like ford did with the explore a few years ago. Surely then there would’ve been more room for the 2.7 and a stronger transmission. Maybe even the 3.0 diesel would’ve fit too. Ah well, one can only dream.

    Reply
  21. Currently have a Impala Ltz V6 304hp. Love driving it! My wife drives a 4 cly turbo Volvo. Very under welming compared to the Impala. I would have purchased another one if they kept making them. Was very excited about the redesigned Traverse, but the intant deal breaker was no v6. Going to test drive the new explorer with a v6.

    Reply
    1. NA V6 are dead. I wouldn’t touch it with a stick. If it doesn’t have a dual Volute turbos like my colorado trailboss then I don’t want it.

      Reply
  22. I don’t think “It wouldn’t fit” is a good answer, as the 2.5 and 2.7 are probably the same size on the outside, which is where “fit” comes into play. I think it’s more of a choice by GM brass … and the fact that other changes would have to be made to handle the extra torque the 2.7 offers over the 2.5. Then again, the new Colorado has but 1 engine choice, yet offers 2 different power/torque ratings last time I checked. So WHY couldn’t they reduce power/torque on the 2.7 for use in the C1 quadruplets (don’t forget the Cadillac XT6)? The higher power version has less horsepower than the 2.5, but far more torque, so that’s most likely why the 2.5 was used.

    Reply
  23. I am sorry, a 2.5 liter turbo is to small for a big suv like this. It is definitely not an adequate replacement for the 3.6 liter V6, which offered damn near class leading acceleration 0-60. I believe about 6.4 -6.5 range without overstressing the engine in the slightest. One could argue that a 2.5 liter is to small for a mid size car let alone a big suv like this one is. That entire drivetrain is going to have major reloability problems, mark my words. I am not sure if he realizes it or not but his trying to justify the decision to use a small displacement engine by saying we feel this and we feel that, using all of these technical terms, customers are going to see right through that and shop elsewhere. Especially the repeat Chevy customers who have been fond of the big v6. He goes out and says that the 2.7 liter is to big and powerful for this vechile so we put in a 2.5 liter instead. What he does not realize is that the customers who are not as versed in vechiles and who currently drive the 3.6 liter are going to think, I have a 3.6 liter now and this guy is saying that a smaller 2.7 liter is to big and powerful for this vechile so we put in an even smaller 2.5 liter. This will lead them to think that this new vechile is an inferior vechile to their current vechile and they will look elsewhere. For those that know about vechiles like some of the previous commenters, their feelings are similiar only they know they are being fed a bunch of garbage. At the end of the day, many of their competitors are offering better and more powerful options with the correct size motor to power these large suv’s. Basic physics tells us that small, overwrought motors do not stay reliable for very long when powering big heavy vechiles beyond their intended capabilities Problems start to creep in because not only is the system wound to tightly trying to derive every last bit of power it can from a small motor, but the increased weight of the vechile also adds strain to the motor. When these things co-occur, things break. Unfortunately, the increasing emmisions regulations are forcing manufacturers into trying to fit a square peg in a round whole and then use jedi- mind tricks to try and convince the customer that they are getting a better product. Sad world we live in. Gone are the days of having any fun behind the wheel and it will only get worse.

    Reply
  24. We’ve sold quite a few new Traverse and customers all love it with the exception of the noisy 4 cylinder. Plenty of power, but extremely noisy.

    Reply
    1. Gee … who’d have thought a tiny four banger that’s got the same displacement as my 1993 Mazda MX-6 (which weighs a mere 3,400 pounds) would be noisy in a large “crossover” SUV that weighs nearly 5,000 pounds? I’ll be amazed to see the first one of these vehicles that makes it to 200,000 miles without any engine/transmission issues while actually being used to tow anything on a regular basis. My biggest reason for not buying one is the towing capacity … or lack there of. 5,000 pounds… really GM? Pretty sad when BMW and Mercedes Benz can tow more than a C1 platform based suv.

      Reply
  25. Having now driven the 2024 Traverse LT over 3000 miles, I can promise you it is not as good as previous years. It drives more like a truck than a car and has a fat steering wheel so harder to maneuver. The engine is embarrassing and can’t imagine towing with it, although I plan to try. I would steer clear of this vehicle. The driver’s door is misaligned,
    it came with hail damage, was dirty, and the front passenger seat is manual. Hate all the controls being assocated with the screen. Positive: auto headlight dimming and ride more comfortable. Full disclosure: it is leased through work and I didn’t pay $43,000 thank goodness. It is at least my 8th Traverse and the worst. Wait until next year if you have to have one and hope for improvement.

    Reply
  26. It will remain unchanged for many years. Four cylinder turbos are NOT suitable except for small vehicles. I sure will NOT be buying one.

    Reply
  27. GM authority needs new writers. Ffs it’s not physical size they’re talking about. The 2.7 will fit physically. It’s the power and torque output “size” doesn’t “fit” with the platform

    Reply
    1. Sooo I’m the one who conducted the interview, and Mr. Hofman is, indeed, referring to the physical size of the engine in saying that it wouldn’t fit.

      Thanks for your opinion though, I just sent a carrier pigeon to your address with an employment application form.

      Reply
  28. 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.

    Reply

Leave a comment

Cancel