Traverse Forum banner

1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,282 Posts
Not surprised at all. And worse the 4 banger needed premium gasoline .And the mileage was about the same and sometimes worse than the 6 cylinders.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
480 Posts
Good riddance... I don't care for the trend of smaller boosted engines in place of NA engines... they will always be more stressed (and are more complicated) to provide the same amount of performance and mileage, just doesn't sound like a recipe for reliability to me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,700 Posts
Good riddance... I don't care for the trend of smaller boosted engines in place of NA engines... they will always be more stressed (and are more complicated) to provide the same amount of performance and mileage, just doesn't sound like a recipe for reliability to me.

X2 on performance and reliability



They had no business putting an I4 in there in the first place.....owners paying another .50+ cents a gal for the honor of having less hp than the stock V6 ....those purchasing the RS for a sporty look were better off spending a few more bucks to get the Redline package on a Premiere.



My '16 Malibu had that 2.0T hamster on crack powered engine which is designed to operate for performance on premium gas......it will operate on regular but then runs like a turtle....operating both on regular the 1.5T in my replacement '18 Malibu is just as quick was my 2.0T running detuned on regular.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1 Posts
I was curious as too why my wife's RS we bought had the V6 and not the IL4 turbo. When we where at the dealership the sales man seemed stumped when I asked him why this RS has the V6.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
471 Posts
There's reasonable applications for a T4 in place of a V6, particularly as they have better low speed torque curves, but it never made sense in a 4800lb Traverse when the performance and EPA rated gas mileage was worse than the 3.6 while hitting the wallet with the need for premium. Always baffled me why they offered it on the FWD only RS trim.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
480 Posts
There's reasonable applications for a T4 in place of a V6, particularly as they have better low speed torque curves, but it never made sense in a 4800lb Traverse when the performance and EPA rated gas mileage was worse than the 3.6 while hitting the wallet with the need for premium. Always baffled me why they offered it on the FWD only RS trim.
Exactly... so you put the engine that produces more torque in the FWD model only... THAT's gotta be good for the front tires...

I tend to think the 2.7 in the Silverado would be a better T4 for the Traverse, I know the torque of the smaller T4 can help off the line but they just run out of steam too much on the top end, get something with comparable HP to the V6 and better torque and market it as a performance upgrade and it will sell better...

Honestly, it's pretty hard to beat the 6 cylinders that come in most 3 row crossovers, they move way better than they have any reason to and the T4 versions I've driven (CX-9 and Ascent) felt weak after the initial launch...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
471 Posts
Exactly... so you put the engine that produces more torque in the FWD model only... THAT's gotta be good for the front tires...

I tend to think the 2.7 in the Silverado would be a better T4 for the Traverse, I know the torque of the smaller T4 can help off the line but they just run out of steam too much on the top end, get something with comparable HP to the V6 and better torque and market it as a performance upgrade and it will sell better...

Honestly, it's pretty hard to beat the 6 cylinders that come in most 3 row crossovers, they move way better than they have any reason to and the T4 versions I've driven (CX-9 and Ascent) felt weak after the initial launch...
Yeah problem is to make beefier torque down low on such small displacement is you then need a smaller turbo to spool quickly, which is why it runs out of breath up top. You also kill your gas mileage since it's always in boost, negating the efficiency benefit. You are right the larger 2.7 (now apparently also showing up in the Caddy CT4) might be a good choice for larger SUVs. Ford's 2.3 Ecoboost makes good torque is not bad in the midsizes. I have the older LLT 281hp 1G Traverse and it's wheezy in my book, the peak torque up in the 4k range really isn't ideal compared to a properly sized boosted 4, but admittedly I am more used to generous power.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
480 Posts
L

Yeah problem is to make beefier torque down low on such small displacement is you then need a smaller turbo to spool quickly, which is why it runs out of breath up top. You also kill your gas mileage since it's always in boost, negating the efficiency benefit. You are right the larger 2.7 (now apparently also showing up in the Caddy CT4) might be a good choice for larger SUVs. Ford's 2.3 Ecoboost makes good torque is not bad in the midsizes. I have the older LLT 281hp 1G Traverse and it's wheezy in my book, the peak torque up in the 4k range really isn't ideal compared to a properly sized boosted 4, but admittedly I am more used to generous power.
Yea I think you have been spoiled... I'm used to a lot of 4 cylinder compact SUVs or 4 cylinder cars (ok, the Si with the K20 screaming at 8,700 RPM wasn't slow) so our Pilot and Traverse feel more than powerful enough to get out of their own way... when I drive my dad's YXLD w/ the 6.2 it feels incredible that something that big and heavy can move that quickly.

I do agree that the Traverse's high torque peak does mean you have to give it some revs but it's also an engine that likes to rev, is smooth and refined while doing it. The Pilot has a stronger low end, the mid range feels about equal and the Traverse has a better top end.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,700 Posts
.02



The 2.0T twin scroll was the optional engine in my '16 dual exhaust Malibu LTZ. A premium gas sucking piece of crap.....zippy with lots of torque, but when fully loaded running on regular behaved more like the gas saving 1.5T in my '18 LT, i.e., turned into a dog when fully loaded. So I suspect when you shove overweight Moe Larry and Curly into the back with their luggage the RS turbo will behave like a dog compared to lower line aspirated L/LS/LT w/3.6ls. And Chevys less for more logic is likely why it was discontinued! A race is not judged by who's the first off the line, but the first across the finish.


So Chevy smartens up by the dumping the 4 cyl turbo in the Traverse and then dumbs down with adding a 4 cyl turbo to the new Silverado , worse with AFM mode. And it will likely get good reviews when a featherweight test driver does the performance testing. Holy CAFE! When under load it will switch from 2 cylinders to 4 cylinders for max power. And no GM turbo will ever reach the endpoint on the tach, I tried, because the cutout limiter is set below the max 8K reading on the tach, so it hesitates and then upshifts



Substituting torque for hp may work well in a small city scooter or grocery getter, but load up a full sized work oriented vehicle with 5 full size workers and 2 tons of manure and it will drive just like it smells!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
480 Posts
.02



The 2.0T twin scroll was the optional engine in my '16 dual exhaust Malibu LTZ. A premium gas sucking piece of crap.....zippy with lots of torque, but when fully loaded running on regular behaved more like the gas saving 1.5T in my '18 LT, i.e., turned into a dog when fully loaded. So I suspect when you shove overweight Moe Larry and Curly into the back with their luggage the RS turbo will behave like a dog compared to lower line aspirated L/LS/LT w/3.6ls. And Chevys less for more logic is likely why it was discontinued! A race is not judged by who's the first off the line, but the first across the finish.


So Chevy smartens up by the dumping the 4 cyl turbo in the Traverse and then dumbs down with adding a 4 cyl turbo to the new Silverado , worse with AFM mode. And it will likely get good reviews when a featherweight test driver does the performance testing. Holy CAFE! When under load it will switch from 2 cylinders to 4 cylinders for max power. And no GM turbo will ever reach the endpoint on the tach, I tried, because the cutout limiter is set below the max 8K reading on the tach, so it hesitates and then upshifts



Substituting torque for hp may work well in a small city scooter or grocery getter, but load up a full sized work oriented vehicle with 5 full size workers and 2 tons of manure and it will drive just like it smells!
I'm still interested in longevity as well... I know a lot of the 3.5 Ecoboosts were incredible off the lot but most people I know with them have moved on, even if they weren't throwing codes or breaking parts the mileage was abysmal and power was lacking.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
471 Posts
The early 3.5 Ecoboosts had a lot of problems and were particularly susceptible to sludging the intake valves IIRC. They've improved quite a bit, the 2.7 Eco is a pretty darn good motor from a power and economy standpoint, probably what GM was targeting (but missed) with their new 2.7 I4. As mentioned the revised LT-based 5.3 gets almost the exact same mileage with more power and better prospects for longevity.

I had a Regal GS with the 270hp 2.0T, with a GM supported performance tune would do about 300hp, reasonably quick but would knock down 32-34 on the highway, which is 10-12mpg better than my ~450hp LS3 SS will do at a similar curb weight. T4's have their place and can be fun.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,700 Posts
Every time I start my hamster wheel 1.5T, I hear my uncle cursing out the day he went with the new Olds diesel!
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Top