The 2024 GMC Acadia introduces an all-new third generation for the crossover, dropping cover in September of last year with a new design, new tech features, and more. Under the hood, the 2024 GMC Acadia is powered exclusively by the turbocharged 2.5L I4 LK0 gasoline engine, which may prompt some to question why the next-gen Acadia doesn’t offer a V6. Now, GM Authority is explaining the reasoning behind the decision.
GM Authority Executive Editor Alex Luft spoke with GM’s engineering team to discover why the 2024 Acadia is exclusively offered with a turbocharged four-cylinder engine and not a V6. Essentially, the decision is the result of emissions and efficiency considerations in light of the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards set forth by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).
Interestingly, the new turbocharged 2.5L I4 LK0 gasoline engine produces more power and a good deal more torque than the naturally aspirated 3.6L V6 LGX gasoline engine equipped in the previous-generation GMC Acadia. The turbo four-cylinder is rated at 328 horsepower and 326 pound-feet of torque, which represents an 18-horsepower and 55-pound-feet increase over the old V6.
| 2.5L I-4 LK0 | 3.6L V6 LGX | + / – LK0 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aspiration: | Turbocharged | Atmospheric | |
| Power (hp / kW @ RPM): | 328 | 310 | +18 |
| Torque (lb-ft / Nm @ RPM): | 326 | 271 | +55 |
Additionally, the popularity of GM’s full-size pickups and SUVs means that The General must consider the broader implications of equipping a V6 in the third-gen Acadia over the more-efficient four-cylinder. This is in contrast to the competition, which can potentially offer a naturally aspirated V6 in their Acadia rivals due to a different lineup without the same collection of full-size models.
It’s also noteworthy that GM’s atmospheric V6 engine is practically extinct at this point, as GM Authority covered previously. Notably, all of this mirrors the reasoning behind the use of the 2.5L I4 LK0 in the 2024 Chevy Traverse. Ultimately, it comes down to government regulation that seems to be impacting GM in a unique way, although GM’s competitors will likely feel a similar impact soon.
Subscribe to GM Authority for more GMC Acadia news, GMC news, GM business news, and around-the-clock GM news coverage
Comments
Makes a lot more sense in this vehicle than the Colorado/Canyon, since the latter are used more for travel trailer towing.
Wrong, it’s costs. They could revamp the 3.6 to get better CAFE numbers than the 2.5, but already it’s an expensive engine to make. Slapping a turbo on a cheap 4 banger saves them a ton of money. Originally the 3.6 “high feature” v6 was an expensive engine that was going to use economies of scale to keep prices down, going into the Camaro, Colorado, traverse, Acadia, impala, CTS, ATS and lacrosse. With half of those discontinued, it’s just become an expensive engine.
FYI, reason ford is floundering right now while GM is thriving is while both sell lots of profitable trucks, gm’s margins are way higher with pushrod engines and steel bodies.
On the topic of Ford floundering, the Ranger is not doing well at all. Nor is the Gladiator. GM is basically the only challenge to Toyota in the midsize market.
Ford isn’t loosing money on the ranger however, and the ranger is spread over multiple markets. They aren’t making enough profits on the F series and Explorer police sales to offset EV’s. Contrast that with GM who is also loosing money on EV’s, but is making massive profits on their other vehicles.
Compare the ford 2.7 Ecoboost to the Chevy 2.7 turbo max
Ford:
6 cylinders,
4 cams
4phasers
6 direct injector
6 port injectors
2 heads
2 turbos
3 timing chains
CCGI block like in expensive diesels.
Chevy
4 cylinders
2 cams
2 phasers
4direct injectors
1 turbo
1 head
1 timing chain
Cheaper aluminum block
Which one do you think is cheaper to produce?
Yet Ironically that Ford 2.7 is 15% more fuel efficient than the GM 2.7 Turbomax.
Thats what consumers care about.
Chevy truck has
3.43 rear axles vs 3.21 on ford
8 speed vs 10
Almost 2” wider body
No active air damn.
You could definitely beat the ford with an XFE package on the Chevy 2.7.
But all that ads up to cost savings. I’ve seen as much as a 10K difference for identically equipped trucks. That’s a lot of fuel.
Umm….The Chevy
I don’t care for government regulations and wish they would focus more on getting homeless off the streets, fixing our infrastructure, and fixing our healthcare system the lefties ruined with their Unaffordable Care Act. But I will say, I have never seen GM SUVs become so fuel efficient and yet still have decent pep. My XT5 2.0 Turbo is an excellent vehicle and I get 500 miles of range on one tank (lets see your EV do that). It gets better gas mileage than my Rav4 and its a larger and more powerful vehicle. So like I said before. When GM tries, they can actually make leading innovative vehicles.
Depending on the year, your XT5 may have a 22 gallon tank or a 19 gallon tank. If a 22, with a 10% capacity reserve, you’ve used 20 gallons to go 500 miles. 25 mpg. OK but not incredible. If a 19 gallon, using the same reserve of 2 gallons, you’re getting about 29mpg. pretty good for a midsize crossover. Most importantly, if you’re happy, all is good!
I really do not care about gas mileage. I have owned a 64 GTO, a 72 Pontiac with a manual and four barrel, and a 92 ram air Trans Am with a manual. Now I have a 2010 SS Camaro with a manual. I also owned a 75 4 wheel Blazer with a 350 4 barrel. I am waiting for President Trump to take away any reason to own an EV.
Halfway agree. I care in the case of similar vehicles where one makes almost double the gas mileage (tundra 5.7 vs Silverado) but most vehicles are +-10% and in that case it’s awash. I go for the vehicle that’s cheaper or fits me better.
GM should continue to make the V6 as well as V8 vehicles, because that is what their customers want. Take the regulatory agencies to court based on the recent Chevron Deference ruling.
I leased a 2024 Buick Enclave ST only because of the availability of the V6. The 2024 seems to have more Buick style than the upcoming 2025. Of course, some of the changes are related to the Wildcat concept. The only EV I would ever drive would be a Buick (cannot buy a new Oldsmobile, but I have ten classic ones!). I have been watching the Enclave since 2008. I have owned two Terraza minivans and three Lucernes (CXS, Super, CXL). I convert every Lucerne into a WILDCAT, with three steel emblems from 1964. I am restoring a 1984 Buick Le Sabre Limited Coupe and a 1975 Buick Riviera.
One more example of the Government getting into areas they know zero about. A lower stressed V6 operating under less load delivers better mileage than a Turbo 4, almost always. The CAFE testing regimen is easy to beat, accelerate gently enough to the low speeds the CAFE test utilizes keeps that Turbo 4 out of boost. There, it can deliver better economy and emissions. But in the real world, you accelerate to manage and merge into traffic, real world speeds are higher and driver habits are widely varying. There the Turbo 4 is into boost frequently if not near always. Once on boost, the fuel enrichment circuits have to engage to prevent detonation and to feed the engine the fuel it needs to produce the power requested. There goes the fuel economy. My own experience with EcoBoost Ford’s, both a 4 (Focus ST) and V6 (Bronco) demonstrates this point. At moderate speed, the engine doesn’t need boost to propel the vehicle, the Focus will get 30+ and the Bronco 22+ at those speeds. Get on the Interstate however, the reactively aerodynamic Focus can maintain about 75 mph with getting into boost too much and deliver 28 mpg. Above that economy plummets as the boost gauge moves up into 3-5 psi or above when accelerating. The Bronco, being a heavy brick, is much worse. Set the cruise at 60, and it will get 22 mpg. Raise that to 70 and you’re into boost on hills or overpasses and the average is 19.5. Push it to 80, the boost is near constant and 16 or less is the result. It’s purely a result of the amount of energy that needs to be expended to develop power. The CAFE test fails to consider those most basic real-world operating conditions and is therefore fraudulent.
Waiting on the transmission fix ….. Also wondering if the third row will fold down flat…
Just sold my 2019 Camaro 1SS Convertible, 7900 miles. The 6.2l LT1 is a fantastic engine. Hwy cruising, about 28 MPG according to the DCI.
No diesel?
Exactly. A larger displacement naturally aspirated engine, lightly stressed and rarely under load, given today’s efficient multi-speed transmissions almost always delivers better economy than a small displacement engine operating under boost and therefore fuel enrichment most of the time. One of the best combinations of engine and vehicle was the GM full-size cars that used the 3800 Series II V6 and a 4-speed OD transmission. I had both a Bonneville LE and a LeSabre Limited with this engine, they always delivered 30+ mpg highway along with fantastic reliability and overall comfort. And that was 30 years ago! The EPA and CAFE devised a test that bears zero resemblance to real world conditions.
Was an Amazing setup! Plenty of power and econo.
Pure and simple..I tell all available buyers to forgo the 4cyl for the 5.3 or 6.2 ..People are the sheep here..most people buying this class of vehicle are clueless as to the engine…it starts, runs, turns off… .I tell them to buy the yukon or tahoe with the std 5.3, smoothness, non turbo lag effortless towing. They can keep their gov regulated crap.
Trump hopefully will scale back some of those Regulations, especially with the EPA as he did in his First Term. Also further stretching out the deadline for an All Electric future, something that the current Administration is finally realizing that a good percentage of American buyers are still not willing to transition to.
I have a 5.3, driven a few 2.7’s. Give me a 2.7 in most cases, it outperforms i 95% of the time. It is only a little slower too and drives daily around town and the highway better, especially in the hills, less downshifting than the 5.3.
I’d rarely ever recommend the 6.2. It is only a little faster than the 5.3, is a little worse on mpg and you need premium. The 5.3 can run on E85 and get a solid power bump putting it with in spitting distance of the 6.2. So hopefully your buyers aren’t listening to you with your skewed view. Hopefully you actually listen to what they say they do with their vehicles before guiding them, but it doesn’t sound like it, probably just some dated ideas spouting V8 or nothing even though they just need a real light duty suburban vehicle for a max 3k town twice a year.
@TMI
Most of the nonsense you spew is comical. The 2.7L is no where near the 5.3L with the new 10 speed. The 2.7L is a gas hog under a load. My step dad’s 5.3L get 24 mpgs all day long running 70 mph down interstate to work. And he came from a Furd Ecoboost 3.5L that barley gor 17 mpgs. My tuned 2018 6.2L destroys that turbo 4 banger and still gets 20 mpgs all day long and can run 0 to 60 in about 5 secs. Those smaller displacement engines in larger trucks are stressed too much compared to the V8 engines.
I mean look at the Colorados and Canyons. In all the magazine article reviews they are not achieving their mpgs. Most are getting worse mpgs than the previous V6 engine. FACTS!!!
The Chevy 5.3 is pretty decent on fuel I can give you that but there’s no way your dad had a ford 3.5 ecoboost and was getting 7 mpg less than the 5.3. I hate ford but I had the 3.5 as a rental for almost a month and that powertrain is just amazing on fuel, I averaged 24 mpg with about 50/50 split of both city and highway. My budy has a 5.3 Chevy and he was impressed with the ford aswell. You’re spouting absolute nonsense when it comes to the ford. I hate that brand but they made an amazing powertrain for the truck, it would probably still get more than 17mpg as you stated just doing city.
@JABM
His ecoboost was a 2013 and yes he averaged 17 mpgs with it. Not 7??? Like u put. His 2020 Sierra 5.3L with 10 speed is rock solid and loves it over his ford. I have quite a few die hard Ford family members that even they say the ecoboost doesn’t get its claimed mpgs. I’m not spouting nonsense. Look it up. They are rockets when going 0 to 60. But put loads behind them and watch the gas gauge go down!!!
The Effing Government is going to destroy this Great Nation.
I normally drive cars “forever” – I have a 2003 Tahoe with 500K miles and it still runs fine – a little tired but that 5.3 LS is a Great engine … I doubt very seriously if a 4 cyl turbo will go half a million miles without spending serious money – at least replacing the turbo … maybe twice ????
The V6 in my Buick LaCross should outlast the little 4 cyl available in those cars – Chevy Impala, etc
IF short term is all you are after, then maybe a tiny turbo or even an EV is the way to go… but if you want a car that will last for a while, get a Naturally aspirated bigger engine and take care of it … It will serve you quite well !!!!
I wasn’t gonna jump on the 2.7 bandwagon, but I do sometimes wonder what developing a front drive version would have cost compared to developing the 2.5. And PLEASE stop trying to sell us the whole “it has a lot more power than the old V6” This new Acadia is both bigger, and especially HEAVIER so the horsepower increase is entirely consumed by the additional weight. The current 2.7 has less HP but a LOT more torque than the 2.5, but that’s just tuning and camshafts. And a slightly less stressed, larger engine might potentially get better MPG. I know when introduced they led us to believe the new Acadia would get better MPG than the previous one. (it doesn’t) Recently, I visited a friend who also happens to be a GMC salesman and we took a new Acadia Denali out for a test drive. Even he had to admit, he was UNimpressed.
I was considering a 2024 Acadia until I found out it’s only available with a turbo I-4 , currently, I own a 2020 SLT Acadia with a 6 cylinder and love it. And yes I saw the comparison charts, can’t help but feeling there is something missing,
Increased fuel efficiency at the cost of disposable vehicles. Your fuel savings will never save you anything when your replacing parts or trashing your car sooner or paying for expensive services to clean your carbon covered valves or fix your insanely pressurized fuel systems.
It’s not just about MPG, it is the EPA carbon footprint standards that’s the toughest part to meet.
Test drove the new Acadia yesterday, we drive a 2018 Regal TourX, and my wife described the Acadia as “gutless.” it’s a really big car, it needs at least a V6.
No surprise. It’s what I expected.
Gutless really? The engine is getting dinged for sound in the reviews, but power it isn’t. Most reviews say it feels just as fast as the V6 (which it should if not faster due to the power bump, especially the torque) flat out but around town feels more powerful with the large torque bump. Anyone can say anything on the internet though. I rode in one and it kept up with a V8 2023 Camaro. See how that works? reviews have debunked your wifes thoughts though…
I’d guess that opinion might have been based on how far you have to push the pedal to get a reaction. Some people don’t factor that in–like those who buy the devices to change the throttle response–Pedal Commander or some such thing?
@TMI – You said rode in one but didn’t actually drive one? Is that what you’re saying? Well I drove two 2024 Acadia’s, and everything about the drive was pathetic, all because of that stupid four cylinder engine! I’m not the only one commenting how horrendous that engine is in the car, despite the touted horsepower increase GM and others are raving about. I don’t see any on the road because that four cylinder engine is a loser, struggling to move the car and nobody wants it. About time you got real with your assessment about four cylinder turbo engines that GM is putting in these cars!
I doubt the 4 will get the mileage of the V6. I suspect the V6 will be quieter especially if you’re pushing it passing or with a load. A V6 is always a smoother running engine then a 4 cylinder.
Turbo 4’s are whiney/noisy and have lag, then a pop. They are no smooth. They also WILL break down for costly repairs. No thanks, I’ll wait till they bring a real engine back.
Really, so they all break down even if they are overbuilt like a diesel? Huh, thanks for letting us know that how an engine is made doesn’t determine how long it last but rather its size. So by your thought process, a 6.5 liter NA V12 will last the longest?
BTW, you do know there is something called variable vane turbo chargers right? That whole turbo lag from the 80’s that you seem to be stuck living in those days, is long gone today. Hence, the torque peaks at 1500rpm and stays flat in many turbo vehicles which is where you want it hitting at, not at all the same…
I recently purchased a 2024 GMC Acadia Denali…EVERY TIME i accelerate…I can hear the engine screaming “HELP ME”!
The engine is getting dinged for sound in the reviews, but power it isn’t. Most reviews say it feels just as fast as the V6 (which it should) flat out but around town feels more powerful with the large torque bump.
If you don’t need to tow anything the turbo 4 is not a bad engine in the terrain. Don’t know how it pulls the weight of the Acadia around.
It is a different, larger motor with much more power….
V6 in my XTS, Impala, and Mustang. If my wife wants to trade her Impala, it would most likely be for a v6 Blazer.
The engineers explanation does not bare out in real world. I have driven both and the turbo four is minimal in engine response versus a 6 cylinder unless the six cylinder is smaller cubic inch motor than than the comparative four cylinder with turbo.
The engineer says it best as the factory chooses the turbo four only because it needs to meet CAFE fuel regs for average fleet numbers or that manufacturer has to pay a $$$ fine per car to federal government.
This isn’t about what consumers necessarily want or need but which costs manufacturer least when encumbered by restrictive federal law.
Now here is an opinion from the customer that buys and drives the vehicle on street for many years.
With a turbo four at low speed and multi speed trans speeds up the turbo kicks in and uses more gas with a small four and even with the “free hp of turbocharger bs supercharger that takes up to make power). In contrast the six cylinder has the torque manipulation to increase speed from low speed situations without side shift in multiple “gears” as in a turbo four in acceleration situations.
When combined with “drive by wire” for the gas pedal your acceleration pace can be interrupted or debated, as in “delayed acceleration.” Thus is dangerous and unexpected result with no apparent fix because if the limited torque or acceleration of the small four cylinder w/turbo vs. a larger 6 cylinder motor.
“There is no excuse for cubic inches” or in this case extra cylinders.
CAFE numbers and their gorilla math regard vehicle “footprint” are the reason to blame for the forced adoption of small displacement turbos. The YouTube channel, All Cars with Jon, does a thorough job of explaining the scam that is CAFE.
Currently driving a 2018 Acadia Denali…was looking forward to the new redesigned Acadia until I found out it only has a 4 cylinder engine. Not interested…will go with the Nissan Pathfinder.
I got stung when the GMC Terrain went to a turbo from the inline 6. The turbo pulled my boat but worked so hard and fuel economy so bad. I then went to the Acadia v6 which worked fine and now their doing the same thing by turbo charging a four cylinder and replacing the v6. I won’t make the same mistake as I did with the Terrain. I like the v6 and am going to have to look elsewhere.
I wish the v6 was optional, screw the emission stds.
It’s why GM sells more trucks and full size SUV’s, most are V6 or V8. The 4 cylinder turbo in the Silverado is a good engine, smooth, quiet, with enough torque for light towing but they’re not flying off the lot.
I was interested in purchasing another GMC Adadia. Upon test driving the 2024 vehicle, I heard the engine “screaming for help”. As the owner of many GM products it is apparent that the engine is too amall for the size and weight of the 2024 Acadia.
I for one, may have to look elsewhere for that new vehicle. “Sad”
Exactly what I expected.
Everyone talks about fuel mileage and efficiency but no one looks at cost of ownership.
Reliability issues can cost you an arm and a leg. If expensive repairs are needed over the life of the vehicle than I would rather have the lower fuel mileage.
Look at all the engine failures ford is having with there 3 cyl 1.5. Fact all there small EcoBoost engines are so bad that they now have a nickname ECOBOOM……
Reliability over efficiency pls.