Has anybody purchased the new 24 Traverse? I am interested in opinions on the 2.5 Turbo. Is the mileage better than the 6 cylinder and how is the performance?
Dizzy Duck
You would think a 4 cylinder would get better mileage. I have a 2020 with a 6 cylinder and I get 28 on the interstate. So much for Chevy's bright idea for a fuel economy engine.
My 2024 gets much better mileage than my retired 2012 Traverse.
With super cruise I was able to go about 5.5 hours / 350 miles and still had over a quarter tank closer to 1/3rd.
In the 2012 I could go like 6-6.5 hours max to empty. I'd guess to say I could get 7.5+ hours from full to empty. I think it's the same size tank. And I haven't tracked actual mileage just going off opinion after one long road trip.
With super cruise I was able to go about 5.5 hours / 350 miles and still had over a quarter tank closer to 1/3rd.
In the 2012 I could go like 6-6.5 hours max to empty. I'd guess to say I could get 7.5+ hours from full to empty. I think it's the same size tank. And I haven't tracked actual mileage just going off opinion after one long road trip.
I just did a 1000 mile trip this weekend in my brother-in-law's 2023 Ford Escape with a 1.5 liter, 3 cylinder, turbo, 181 hp, AWD, 8 spd tranny. Four people and luggage. I was expecting to be underwhelmed, but I was pleasantly surprised. 36mpg on the interstate at 75mph. Much lighter than a Traverse, of course.
Smaller hole being punched in the wind, also. Aerodynamics are probably a greater factor than mass once the load is moving at a steady state.
@PoManTraverse pretty much hit it on the head. This move is often not about fuel economy as much as it is about the actual emissions measured.
Example - the 4th gen Honda Pilot was released a few years ago now. It has Honda's first DOHC V6 engine in something not named NSX and is based on the previous generation J series V6. It makes barely any more power or torque, so why the reengineering of an already available platform for absolutely no MPG gain and unnoticeable power and torque gains? They came out and said it was all about reducing the tailpipe emissions.
Example - the 4th gen Honda Pilot was released a few years ago now. It has Honda's first DOHC V6 engine in something not named NSX and is based on the previous generation J series V6. It makes barely any more power or torque, so why the reengineering of an already available platform for absolutely no MPG gain and unnoticeable power and torque gains? They came out and said it was all about reducing the tailpipe emissions.
Hi. I currently have 3400 miles on my 2024 LT with AWD and the sport package. I never reset my first trip odometer and have a lifetime average of 25.8 mpg. I have done several long trips, which may have skewed it a bit higher. I consistently see 28-29 mpg on the highway and low 20s around town. I also got 33.1 on a 100 miles trip on back highways doing 61 mph. My worst mpg on a highway trip was doing 76-77 mph into a headwind, and I still got 24.8. I have owned a 2018 Lt and a 2019 premier with awd and saw similar highway mpg, but around town, the V6 was about 3 mpg less. The new 2.5 liter has a less aggressive throttle tip-in, so it feels a little slower off the line, but it has never felt underpowered, and actually seems to be quicker when passing. I did an informal 0-60 with a stopwatch in AWD to limit wheelspin and clocked it at 6.78 seconds. We also did a trip to Chicago with 6 adults and didn't feel the weight at all and still saw over 28 mpg. The engine does have a raspy growl when you get on it, but it doesn't bother me. My brother has a V6 Telluride and a 2.0 liter Atlas, and the new Traverse is nicer overall. I have no problems recommending it, but I must say that I do have the dreaded defective 3rd row headrests on order. They told me it will be early September before the parts come.
Anecdotal MPG claims ignore the fact that different people have different driving habits and live in different areas with different speed limits, elevations, terrain, etc.
Right now on Fuelly using real world data the 2.5 is doing about 1.5-2 MPG better than the 3.6, which is significant. However, there are currently only 9 vehicles reporting so I wouldn't read too far into that yet.
Point being, it's too early to make definitive claims about the 2.5. Unless somebody has owned both, like Hawkeye1, trying to make comparisons is pointless. Their claim lines up with what I have experienced with my F-150s, with the turbos being significantly more efficient in city driving, provided they are driven conservatively.
Right now on Fuelly using real world data the 2.5 is doing about 1.5-2 MPG better than the 3.6, which is significant. However, there are currently only 9 vehicles reporting so I wouldn't read too far into that yet.
Chevrolet Traverse MPG - Actual MPG from 921 Chevrolet Traverse owners
The most accurate Chevrolet Traverse MPG estimates based on real world results of 25.1 million miles driven in 921 Chevrolet Traverses
www.fuelly.com
Point being, it's too early to make definitive claims about the 2.5. Unless somebody has owned both, like Hawkeye1, trying to make comparisons is pointless. Their claim lines up with what I have experienced with my F-150s, with the turbos being significantly more efficient in city driving, provided they are driven conservatively.
Dont know about the 2.5 but given GM's reliability eventually that expensive turbo is going to fail and that is big bucks . It is the main reason I bought my 2023 LT because I knew they were going to a 4 cylinder with a turbo in 2024 .If you get the 4 cylinder do not neglect oil changes . Do not go by the OLM and change it at 5000 miles or sooner no matter what if you want that turbo to last .
Like 4cyl turbos or not, get used to them. Manufacturers aren't going back to naturally aspirated V6s.
One decent thing about a 4cyl is a single catalytic converter vs 2 or 4 with a V6. CARB compliant CCs are $1500/ea these days if not more.
One decent thing about a 4cyl is a single catalytic converter vs 2 or 4 with a V6. CARB compliant CCs are $1500/ea these days if not more.
You guys are overanaylized things. 1 gallon of gas has a specific amount of energy in it. ( 114,000 btu). Those BTU's will do a specific amount of work like pushing a Mini Van 26 miles at 60 mph. Modern engines are all about as efficient as one another.... with variable valve timing, start-stop , and other tricks.
There are small frictional loss's to factor in.... but for a given vehicle, weight, and drag coifficient..... it dosn't really matter if it has 4-5-6 or 8 cylinders. Work is Work
There are small frictional loss's to factor in.... but for a given vehicle, weight, and drag coifficient..... it dosn't really matter if it has 4-5-6 or 8 cylinders. Work is Work
I have just over 5k mi on my RS. On my daily 9.5mi round trip commute to work via city streets, I get about 16mpg. This is about 1-2 mpg better than the 2015 Acadia I was using (with the V-6). It's only if i add in a bunch of freeway driving can I get even close to the rated (EPA estimated) 19mpg city. I'm not sure what the EPA considers city driving but I've never come close and I drive it with fuel economy in mind (very easy to and from stop lights and signs). Freeway mileage I get in the mid 20's @ around 75-80mph which isn't too bad for punching a large hole in the air (drafting helps). In general, I don't like they way the GM engineers mapped the engine and trans. I think they could've dropped the shift points and added a bit more boost down low. The engine feels to me like it hangs at 2500-3k rpm waiting to shift under light throttle and relatively low load. I think the low end grunt is there to let it short shift and pull under light throttle but it just doesn't. I'm sure this was done to benefit emissions or mpg but mpg isn't that great anyway. Under freeway cruise, the power is good.
Good feedback for sure... I'd be interested if the Colorado and Silverado with the 2.7T have similar characteristics... GM advertised the engine as a replacement for the diesel and what you are describing doesn't sound very diesel-like - it should be happy to load boost at low RPMS.
A friend of mine has a new Canyon with the 2.7. It sounds worse than a diesel. I've heard better sounding John Deeres.
He just stepped out of a leased 3.6 Canyon into the new leased Canyon, said it runs good but the sound of it is horrible.
He just stepped out of a leased 3.6 Canyon into the new leased Canyon, said it runs good but the sound of it is horrible.
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
