I bet the real world fuel economy of the 4cyl is not that much better than the V6 in this type of a vehicle.
2017 GMC Acadia rental
- Thread starter Quattro Pete
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
We did a quick weekend gateway recently. I reserved a full size car. They gave me an Acadia instead, in a refrigerator white rental special. We put close to 400 miles on it during the 2 days we had it. Mix of hwy and city driving and around some national parks. It had the 2.5 liter I4 engine and AWD. We averaged about 22 MPG according to onboard data.
Wow, 22mpg overall is terrible for a 2.5 I4 AWD, even in mixed driving. That is just bad. I am kinda shocked that GM got highway cruising "wrong". GM has had faults but it normally at least gets highway cruising right in most vehicles.
As for folks saying more power... really? You do not always need more "power". Granted, if spending $35K+ I can see some of the complaints about an I4 revving to much to do anything but it is still serviceable (although not at this pricepoint). This I4 is still pumping out more than the initial Cologne V6 in the heavier Gen1 Explorers. Still, at 80 in that vehicle you will not have a lot left in an I4.
We did a quick weekend gateway recently. I reserved a full size car. They gave me an Acadia instead, in a refrigerator white rental special. We put close to 400 miles on it during the 2 days we had it. Mix of hwy and city driving and around some national parks. It had the 2.5 liter I4 engine and AWD. We averaged about 22 MPG according to onboard data.
Wow, 22mpg overall is terrible for a 2.5 I4 AWD, even in mixed driving. That is just bad. I am kinda shocked that GM got highway cruising "wrong". GM has had faults but it normally at least gets highway cruising right in most vehicles.
As for folks saying more power... really? You do not always need more "power". Granted, if spending $35K+ I can see some of the complaints about an I4 revving to much to do anything but it is still serviceable (although not at this pricepoint). This I4 is still pumping out more than the initial Cologne V6 in the heavier Gen1 Explorers. Still, at 80 in that vehicle you will not have a lot left in an I4.
Originally Posted By: FutureDoc
Wow, 22mpg overall is terrible for a 2.5 I4 AWD, even in mixed driving. That is just bad.
It's EPA rated at 21 mpg city, 25 mpg hwy, and 23 mpg combined, so I got pretty close to it.
It's a 4,000 lb brick that sits high off the ground, so mpg is really going to take a hit when driving at a good pace on the hwy, IMO.
For driving around town, this I4 would have been fine. But for hwy and hilly terrain, I would have preferred a V6. Wife's Q5 with a supercharged V6 would get similar MPG in this type of driving.
Wow, 22mpg overall is terrible for a 2.5 I4 AWD, even in mixed driving. That is just bad.
It's EPA rated at 21 mpg city, 25 mpg hwy, and 23 mpg combined, so I got pretty close to it.
It's a 4,000 lb brick that sits high off the ground, so mpg is really going to take a hit when driving at a good pace on the hwy, IMO.
For driving around town, this I4 would have been fine. But for hwy and hilly terrain, I would have preferred a V6. Wife's Q5 with a supercharged V6 would get similar MPG in this type of driving.
Originally Posted By: FutureDoc
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
We did a quick weekend gateway recently. I reserved a full size car. They gave me an Acadia instead, in a refrigerator white rental special. We put close to 400 miles on it during the 2 days we had it. Mix of hwy and city driving and around some national parks. It had the 2.5 liter I4 engine and AWD. We averaged about 22 MPG according to onboard data.
Wow, 22mpg overall is terrible for a 2.5 I4 AWD, even in mixed driving. That is just bad. I am kinda shocked that GM got highway cruising "wrong". GM has had faults but it normally at least gets highway cruising right in most vehicles.
As for folks saying more power... really? You do not always need more "power". Granted, if spending $35K+ I can see some of the complaints about an I4 revving to much to do anything but it is still serviceable (although not at this pricepoint). This I4 is still pumping out more than the initial Cologne V6 in the heavier Gen1 Explorers. Still, at 80 in that vehicle you will not have a lot left in an I4.
There is only so much one can do with an underpowered engine, no matter what they were know for in the past.
As for more power, yes there are applications, usually involving heavier vehicles, like SUVs and minivans, where a small I4 engines only make sense on paper. In real world the fuel savings are dismal and you have to live with an underpowered dog.
A more powerful V6 in this type of application is not for 0-60 times, but for a more relaxed feeling drivetrain that doesn't have to rev over 3k rpm to maintain speed.
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
We did a quick weekend gateway recently. I reserved a full size car. They gave me an Acadia instead, in a refrigerator white rental special. We put close to 400 miles on it during the 2 days we had it. Mix of hwy and city driving and around some national parks. It had the 2.5 liter I4 engine and AWD. We averaged about 22 MPG according to onboard data.
Wow, 22mpg overall is terrible for a 2.5 I4 AWD, even in mixed driving. That is just bad. I am kinda shocked that GM got highway cruising "wrong". GM has had faults but it normally at least gets highway cruising right in most vehicles.
As for folks saying more power... really? You do not always need more "power". Granted, if spending $35K+ I can see some of the complaints about an I4 revving to much to do anything but it is still serviceable (although not at this pricepoint). This I4 is still pumping out more than the initial Cologne V6 in the heavier Gen1 Explorers. Still, at 80 in that vehicle you will not have a lot left in an I4.
There is only so much one can do with an underpowered engine, no matter what they were know for in the past.
As for more power, yes there are applications, usually involving heavier vehicles, like SUVs and minivans, where a small I4 engines only make sense on paper. In real world the fuel savings are dismal and you have to live with an underpowered dog.
A more powerful V6 in this type of application is not for 0-60 times, but for a more relaxed feeling drivetrain that doesn't have to rev over 3k rpm to maintain speed.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: FutureDoc
This I4 is still pumping out more than the initial Cologne V6 in the heavier Gen1 Explorers.
The difference is that max torque for this I4 engine is 190 ft-lbs and it's not reached until 4,400 rpm. The 4.0 Cologne V6 had 225 ft-lbs of torque which was available at 2,400 rpm. Very different torque curves.
Also, a gen1 Explorer 4WD was actually over 100 lbs lighter than this Acadia.
This I4 is still pumping out more than the initial Cologne V6 in the heavier Gen1 Explorers.
The difference is that max torque for this I4 engine is 190 ft-lbs and it's not reached until 4,400 rpm. The 4.0 Cologne V6 had 225 ft-lbs of torque which was available at 2,400 rpm. Very different torque curves.
Also, a gen1 Explorer 4WD was actually over 100 lbs lighter than this Acadia.
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: FutureDoc
This I4 is still pumping out more than the initial Cologne V6 in the heavier Gen1 Explorers.
The difference is that max torque for this I4 engine is 190 ft-lbs and it's not reached until 4,400 rpm. The 4.0 Cologne V6 had 225 ft-lbs of torque which was available at 2,400 rpm. Very different torque curves.
Also, a gen1 Explorer 4WD was actually over 100 lbs lighter than this Acadia.
Ok, granted the torque is less low (especially lowdown).... but that old Cologne would hit a rev limiter at 4,500ish RPM and really lose power after 3,800 or 4,000 (Wife had a 94 and a 98 Cologne powered Explorer). Yeah, it had more at a lower engine speed but you would run out of power within a 1,500-2,000. The I4 hit power at 4,400 but can maintain that to nearly 7,000. Runs out of puff at around 6,500. It is a trade-off. I keep coming up with the AWD 2.5 version at being about 4000lbs and the V6 Explorer at 4,100lbs.
The HP gain should help of-set that a bit on the highway. Yes, it will have to rev the engine... and you will not be tripping in power. It will not pull in low-revs. It just drives differently and you can't really lug it like other larger displacement vehicles. Kinda odd to think of the 2.5 Acadia as a momentum vehicle... could be that
Still, it really is not "underpowered". The V6 is more "over-powered". Dang, it's 1/4 mile time is about that of my MR2. You just have to drive I4s like the Italians... thrash it until the valves start dancing on top of the hood.
Yeah, 22mpg is just BAD. My 3,500 Outback ([censored] 2.5) can atleast pull low 33s highway and mid 20s around town. Granted, it is 500lbs lighter.
Now, lets be honest about what this vehicle really is: a minivan. Compare that with old Caravans and the like and all of a sudden that 200hp/190lbs makes a lot of sense. No one is towing of dragging at lights in these vehicles. So they will be slow, no big deal. If it does 0-60 in 10 seconds, and a 1/4 in eventually...that is plenty. Momma does not want to spill her kids Cheerios.
Originally Posted By: FutureDoc
This I4 is still pumping out more than the initial Cologne V6 in the heavier Gen1 Explorers.
The difference is that max torque for this I4 engine is 190 ft-lbs and it's not reached until 4,400 rpm. The 4.0 Cologne V6 had 225 ft-lbs of torque which was available at 2,400 rpm. Very different torque curves.
Also, a gen1 Explorer 4WD was actually over 100 lbs lighter than this Acadia.
Ok, granted the torque is less low (especially lowdown).... but that old Cologne would hit a rev limiter at 4,500ish RPM and really lose power after 3,800 or 4,000 (Wife had a 94 and a 98 Cologne powered Explorer). Yeah, it had more at a lower engine speed but you would run out of power within a 1,500-2,000. The I4 hit power at 4,400 but can maintain that to nearly 7,000. Runs out of puff at around 6,500. It is a trade-off. I keep coming up with the AWD 2.5 version at being about 4000lbs and the V6 Explorer at 4,100lbs.
The HP gain should help of-set that a bit on the highway. Yes, it will have to rev the engine... and you will not be tripping in power. It will not pull in low-revs. It just drives differently and you can't really lug it like other larger displacement vehicles. Kinda odd to think of the 2.5 Acadia as a momentum vehicle... could be that
Still, it really is not "underpowered". The V6 is more "over-powered". Dang, it's 1/4 mile time is about that of my MR2. You just have to drive I4s like the Italians... thrash it until the valves start dancing on top of the hood.
Yeah, 22mpg is just BAD. My 3,500 Outback ([censored] 2.5) can atleast pull low 33s highway and mid 20s around town. Granted, it is 500lbs lighter.
Now, lets be honest about what this vehicle really is: a minivan. Compare that with old Caravans and the like and all of a sudden that 200hp/190lbs makes a lot of sense. No one is towing of dragging at lights in these vehicles. So they will be slow, no big deal. If it does 0-60 in 10 seconds, and a 1/4 in eventually...that is plenty. Momma does not want to spill her kids Cheerios.
Last edited by a moderator:
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
As for more power, yes there are applications, usually involving heavier vehicles, like SUVs and minivans, where a small I4 engines only make sense on paper. In real world the fuel savings are dismal and you have to live with an underpowered dog.
A more powerful V6 in this type of application is not for 0-60 times, but for a more relaxed feeling drivetrain that doesn't have to rev over 3k rpm to maintain speed.
I disagree... the smaller displacement engines make more sense that just on paper (although how they are applied makes a great deal of difference). Downsizing from the V8 to V6 (and a few I4) makes be a "go as small as you can" if you are dealing with economy.
An I4 can make a lot difference in fuel economy depending on the driving conditions. Lugging that V6 around in congested traffic will tank the fuel economy quickly compared to the I4. The I4 and V6 might not be that different on the highway especially considering the V6 will deactivate 3 cylinders. Still, I bet, if carefully hypermiling, the I4 will be better. The ceiling is better in the I4 than the V6.
It is also dependent on how much power you are asking the V6 vs the I4 to commit at any one time. If you are not ever really flooring the V6, then it will be unused capacity that the I4.
As you put it, it is a convenience factor: more relaxed feeling drivetrain that doesn't have to rev over 3k rpm to maintain speed or convenience for "lazy" driving, however, unless you are towing or unable to maintain speed, then is isn't "underpowered".
Now, at the 40Kish price-point, then the V6 make sense economy might not be the biggest factor.
As for more power, yes there are applications, usually involving heavier vehicles, like SUVs and minivans, where a small I4 engines only make sense on paper. In real world the fuel savings are dismal and you have to live with an underpowered dog.
A more powerful V6 in this type of application is not for 0-60 times, but for a more relaxed feeling drivetrain that doesn't have to rev over 3k rpm to maintain speed.
I disagree... the smaller displacement engines make more sense that just on paper (although how they are applied makes a great deal of difference). Downsizing from the V8 to V6 (and a few I4) makes be a "go as small as you can" if you are dealing with economy.
An I4 can make a lot difference in fuel economy depending on the driving conditions. Lugging that V6 around in congested traffic will tank the fuel economy quickly compared to the I4. The I4 and V6 might not be that different on the highway especially considering the V6 will deactivate 3 cylinders. Still, I bet, if carefully hypermiling, the I4 will be better. The ceiling is better in the I4 than the V6.
It is also dependent on how much power you are asking the V6 vs the I4 to commit at any one time. If you are not ever really flooring the V6, then it will be unused capacity that the I4.
As you put it, it is a convenience factor: more relaxed feeling drivetrain that doesn't have to rev over 3k rpm to maintain speed or convenience for "lazy" driving, however, unless you are towing or unable to maintain speed, then is isn't "underpowered".
Now, at the 40Kish price-point, then the V6 make sense economy might not be the biggest factor.
According to GM both the I4 and V6 get 21MPG in city and 26MPG highway for I4 and 25mpg highway for V6.
Where is the big difference in fuel economy?
What you describe is very true in the mid size segment, where the I4s are more than adequate and the V6 is a major overkill.
But in a 4,000lb SUV, the NA I4 is subpar, not even close to adequate and will work hard to pull all that weight, a V6 option makes it adequate, hence minimal difference in fuel economy. A V8 in that application would be similar to a V6 option in the midsize segment, i.e. overkill.
I can't even imagine an I4 in my minivan, but Toyota did offer their Sienna with one and it's long gone. Going smaller is not the answer when the weight and vehicle type (a minivan/SUV is more likely to be used to transport more than one person or cargo, than a sedan) demands a bigger engine.
Where is the big difference in fuel economy?
What you describe is very true in the mid size segment, where the I4s are more than adequate and the V6 is a major overkill.
But in a 4,000lb SUV, the NA I4 is subpar, not even close to adequate and will work hard to pull all that weight, a V6 option makes it adequate, hence minimal difference in fuel economy. A V8 in that application would be similar to a V6 option in the midsize segment, i.e. overkill.
I can't even imagine an I4 in my minivan, but Toyota did offer their Sienna with one and it's long gone. Going smaller is not the answer when the weight and vehicle type (a minivan/SUV is more likely to be used to transport more than one person or cargo, than a sedan) demands a bigger engine.
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
According to GM both the I4 and V6 get 21MPG in city and 26MPG highway for I4 and 25mpg highway for V6.
Where is the big difference in fuel economy?
Based on what I saw...
The 2.5 AWD is rated 21/25.
The 3.6 AWD is rated 18/25.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=37407&id=37408
According to GM both the I4 and V6 get 21MPG in city and 26MPG highway for I4 and 25mpg highway for V6.
Where is the big difference in fuel economy?
Based on what I saw...
The 2.5 AWD is rated 21/25.
The 3.6 AWD is rated 18/25.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=37407&id=37408
OK, I probably didn't select the proper trim level, even so, at 15k miles annually it's a 120 gallon difference a year under the worst conditions. I'd rather spent $300 to $400 extra in fuel a year and enjoy a vehicle that will use all 6 forward gears, than listen to the I4 struggle even under moderate loads.
Lets not forget that this is supposed to be a luxury SUV, not some economy CUV special.
Lets not forget that this is supposed to be a luxury SUV, not some economy CUV special.
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
According to GM both the I4 and V6 get 21MPG in city and 26MPG highway for I4 and 25mpg highway for V6.
Where is the big difference in fuel economy?
What you describe is very true in the mid size segment, where the I4s are more than adequate and the V6 is a major overkill.
But in a 4,000lb SUV, the NA I4 is subpar, not even close to adequate and will work hard to pull all that weight, a V6 option makes it adequate, hence minimal difference in fuel economy. A V8 in that application would be similar to a V6 option in the midsize segment, i.e. overkill.
I can't even imagine an I4 in my minivan, but Toyota did offer their Sienna with one and it's long gone. Going smaller is not the answer when the weight and vehicle type (a minivan/SUV is more likely to be used to transport more than one person or cargo, than a sedan) demands a bigger engine.
Ford Transit Connect. Minivan with an I4. Slow but adequate. My minivan fleet has mostly the 3.6 Pentastar and there really is no real reason for about 300bhp in that vehicle. 200bhp would be fine (if Chrysler could be bothered to make a decent four-banger).
An I4 is not subpar... it is par if not more. We have been "spoiled" in some ways as we have had less power and torque in a lot heavier vehicles. The I4 moves the vehicle (abet a bit harshly, which is a legitimate complaint for the pricepoint). To say it needs a V6 or even a V8 is bonkers as modern four-bangers make more power than a lot of malaise engines.
I am now using the V6 options to run transit vehicles that used to require V8s or the diesel. It is more than "adequate" for a vehicle weight 5,500lbs plus another 2,000-3,000 of passengers... 2/3s the power in a vehicle that is 1/2 the weight is fine. Fuel economy is better in the smaller displacement vehicles and even the "hypermiling" drivers can't match the lead-footed drivers in the smaller displacement vehicles (yes, I track drivers and fuel economy). I max out at about 8.5-9.4mpg in the larger displacement vehicles and a sub 10mpg is about as bad as I can get for the smaller displacement vehicles. This is hauling folks. Sure, it is a V6 vs V8 example but the power/weight ratios are equal.
Again, we get back to what is "adequate". If it can move and keep up with traffic, although slowly, it is fine. The I4 is crass but acceptable in this use. It is not unreasonable. It is not "underpowered" as I bet it would still outperform other larger displacement vehicles of decade past.
Now, that 3mpg gain in the city is a 16.6% gain. I will take those gains if I was running a fleet every day of the week. Realistically, I bet the I4 would get a bigger perk in application too. You thrash a rental car's engine: I4 or a V6... and thus you wouldn't lightfoot the V6. Heavy foot a V6 and you will get no-where close to a heavyfooted I4's economy.
Smaller is fine if the output is there. The output for this engine for the weight and application is not that bad. Really, GM should have tossed the 2.0T into this vehicle. At least the torque at lower RPM would help.
According to GM both the I4 and V6 get 21MPG in city and 26MPG highway for I4 and 25mpg highway for V6.
Where is the big difference in fuel economy?
What you describe is very true in the mid size segment, where the I4s are more than adequate and the V6 is a major overkill.
But in a 4,000lb SUV, the NA I4 is subpar, not even close to adequate and will work hard to pull all that weight, a V6 option makes it adequate, hence minimal difference in fuel economy. A V8 in that application would be similar to a V6 option in the midsize segment, i.e. overkill.
I can't even imagine an I4 in my minivan, but Toyota did offer their Sienna with one and it's long gone. Going smaller is not the answer when the weight and vehicle type (a minivan/SUV is more likely to be used to transport more than one person or cargo, than a sedan) demands a bigger engine.
Ford Transit Connect. Minivan with an I4. Slow but adequate. My minivan fleet has mostly the 3.6 Pentastar and there really is no real reason for about 300bhp in that vehicle. 200bhp would be fine (if Chrysler could be bothered to make a decent four-banger).
An I4 is not subpar... it is par if not more. We have been "spoiled" in some ways as we have had less power and torque in a lot heavier vehicles. The I4 moves the vehicle (abet a bit harshly, which is a legitimate complaint for the pricepoint). To say it needs a V6 or even a V8 is bonkers as modern four-bangers make more power than a lot of malaise engines.
I am now using the V6 options to run transit vehicles that used to require V8s or the diesel. It is more than "adequate" for a vehicle weight 5,500lbs plus another 2,000-3,000 of passengers... 2/3s the power in a vehicle that is 1/2 the weight is fine. Fuel economy is better in the smaller displacement vehicles and even the "hypermiling" drivers can't match the lead-footed drivers in the smaller displacement vehicles (yes, I track drivers and fuel economy). I max out at about 8.5-9.4mpg in the larger displacement vehicles and a sub 10mpg is about as bad as I can get for the smaller displacement vehicles. This is hauling folks. Sure, it is a V6 vs V8 example but the power/weight ratios are equal.
Again, we get back to what is "adequate". If it can move and keep up with traffic, although slowly, it is fine. The I4 is crass but acceptable in this use. It is not unreasonable. It is not "underpowered" as I bet it would still outperform other larger displacement vehicles of decade past.
Now, that 3mpg gain in the city is a 16.6% gain. I will take those gains if I was running a fleet every day of the week. Realistically, I bet the I4 would get a bigger perk in application too. You thrash a rental car's engine: I4 or a V6... and thus you wouldn't lightfoot the V6. Heavy foot a V6 and you will get no-where close to a heavyfooted I4's economy.
Smaller is fine if the output is there. The output for this engine for the weight and application is not that bad. Really, GM should have tossed the 2.0T into this vehicle. At least the torque at lower RPM would help.
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
OK, I probably didn't select the proper trim level, even so, at 15k miles annually it's a 120 gallon difference a year under the worst conditions. I'd rather spent $300 to $400 extra in fuel a year and enjoy a vehicle that will use all 6 forward gears, than listen to the I4 struggle even under moderate loads.
I tend to agree with this philosophy.
The I4 is probably more attractive to rental car companies because it can be ordered with a more stripped down trim, making it less expensive to acquire.
OK, I probably didn't select the proper trim level, even so, at 15k miles annually it's a 120 gallon difference a year under the worst conditions. I'd rather spent $300 to $400 extra in fuel a year and enjoy a vehicle that will use all 6 forward gears, than listen to the I4 struggle even under moderate loads.
I tend to agree with this philosophy.
The I4 is probably more attractive to rental car companies because it can be ordered with a more stripped down trim, making it less expensive to acquire.
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
I can't even imagine an I4 in my minivan, but Toyota did offer their Sienna with one and it's long gone. Going smaller is not the answer when the weight and vehicle type (a minivan/SUV is more likely to be used to transport more than one person or cargo, than a sedan) demands a bigger engine.
Chrysler launched the Caravan with their [censored] 2.2L I4. Put that bad boy behind a 3 speed and load it up with people and it was a great driving experience. A friend had one and I drove it a bit when he didn't want to - floor it, listen to that POS wind up and shift and maybe a minute or 2 later you were doing 60. Hills - just put that thing to the floor and hit the slow lane.... The AC on his was broke but I imagine with that on you'd be lucky to not go in reverse up hills with a load of people. Scary thing is that you could get an I4 in a Caravan up until 2007....
Not that Ford was much better - the 2.3L OHC made it into the Aerostar. Never drove one but I imagine it would have sucked as bad.
I'd imagine the Imports - Toyota with it's Flat 4 and Mitsubishi were equally bad.
I can't even imagine an I4 in my minivan, but Toyota did offer their Sienna with one and it's long gone. Going smaller is not the answer when the weight and vehicle type (a minivan/SUV is more likely to be used to transport more than one person or cargo, than a sedan) demands a bigger engine.
Chrysler launched the Caravan with their [censored] 2.2L I4. Put that bad boy behind a 3 speed and load it up with people and it was a great driving experience. A friend had one and I drove it a bit when he didn't want to - floor it, listen to that POS wind up and shift and maybe a minute or 2 later you were doing 60. Hills - just put that thing to the floor and hit the slow lane.... The AC on his was broke but I imagine with that on you'd be lucky to not go in reverse up hills with a load of people. Scary thing is that you could get an I4 in a Caravan up until 2007....
Not that Ford was much better - the 2.3L OHC made it into the Aerostar. Never drove one but I imagine it would have sucked as bad.
I'd imagine the Imports - Toyota with it's Flat 4 and Mitsubishi were equally bad.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: gabriel9766
Originally Posted By: KingCake
Does it still have the ecotec engine that needs a new chain every 60,000 miles?
no your thinking the 2.4L ecotec, this is the new updated 2.5L ecotec.
But the optional 3.6 V6 DOES have all the timing chain problems the 2.4 had.
Originally Posted By: KingCake
Does it still have the ecotec engine that needs a new chain every 60,000 miles?
no your thinking the 2.4L ecotec, this is the new updated 2.5L ecotec.
But the optional 3.6 V6 DOES have all the timing chain problems the 2.4 had.
Originally Posted By: exranger06
Originally Posted By: gabriel9766
Originally Posted By: KingCake
Does it still have the ecotec engine that needs a new chain every 60,000 miles?
no your thinking the 2.4L ecotec, this is the new updated 2.5L ecotec.
But the optional 3.6 V6 DOES have all the timing chain problems the 2.4 had.
The 2.4 never had timing chain issues, the really early 2.2 did - we're going back to engines installed in Cavaliers. The 3.6 timing chain issue was fixed years ago. And neither issue was widespread.
Originally Posted By: gabriel9766
Originally Posted By: KingCake
Does it still have the ecotec engine that needs a new chain every 60,000 miles?
no your thinking the 2.4L ecotec, this is the new updated 2.5L ecotec.
But the optional 3.6 V6 DOES have all the timing chain problems the 2.4 had.
The 2.4 never had timing chain issues, the really early 2.2 did - we're going back to engines installed in Cavaliers. The 3.6 timing chain issue was fixed years ago. And neither issue was widespread.
Originally Posted By: Mr Nice
No way I would buy that type of vehicle without a V6.
No way would I buy that type of vehicle without a turbo diesel.
No way I would buy that type of vehicle without a V6.
No way would I buy that type of vehicle without a turbo diesel.
Originally Posted By: dishdude
Originally Posted By: exranger06
Originally Posted By: gabriel9766
Originally Posted By: KingCake
Does it still have the ecotec engine that needs a new chain every 60,000 miles?
no your thinking the 2.4L ecotec, this is the new updated 2.5L ecotec.
But the optional 3.6 V6 DOES have all the timing chain problems the 2.4 had.
The 2.4 never had timing chain issues, the really early 2.2 did - we're going back to engines installed in Cavaliers. The 3.6 timing chain issue was fixed years ago. And neither issue was widespread.
The 2.4 used in the Equinoxes and Terrains most certainly DID have timing chain issues. My sister in law used to have a 2010 Terrain with the 2.4 and it went back to the dealer multiple times for timing chain issues and oil consumption issues (another widespread problem on those piece of garbage engines). GM has a TSB for timing chain issues on the 2.4. Google search and you'll find that IS a widespread issue.
Originally Posted By: exranger06
Originally Posted By: gabriel9766
Originally Posted By: KingCake
Does it still have the ecotec engine that needs a new chain every 60,000 miles?
no your thinking the 2.4L ecotec, this is the new updated 2.5L ecotec.
But the optional 3.6 V6 DOES have all the timing chain problems the 2.4 had.
The 2.4 never had timing chain issues, the really early 2.2 did - we're going back to engines installed in Cavaliers. The 3.6 timing chain issue was fixed years ago. And neither issue was widespread.
The 2.4 used in the Equinoxes and Terrains most certainly DID have timing chain issues. My sister in law used to have a 2010 Terrain with the 2.4 and it went back to the dealer multiple times for timing chain issues and oil consumption issues (another widespread problem on those piece of garbage engines). GM has a TSB for timing chain issues on the 2.4. Google search and you'll find that IS a widespread issue.
The issue with the 2.4 timing chain was going too long on the oil. The OLM was recalibrated on my wife's Equinox, but I always did 3,500 mile oil changes anyways with 10W-30.
Originally Posted By: exranger06
Originally Posted By: gabriel9766
Originally Posted By: KingCake
Does it still have the ecotec engine that needs a new chain every 60,000 miles?
no your thinking the 2.4L ecotec, this is the new updated 2.5L ecotec.
But the optional 3.6 V6 DOES have all the timing chain problems the 2.4 had.
Depends on the place of manufacture of the engine installed in that particular vehicle. The HF V6's are, or at least were, sourced from all over the world. Two otherwise identical vehicles can have HF V6's from different engine plants.
The HF V6 in our Torrent GXP was a Japanese ( Suzuki ) sourced engine. No timing chain issues. The HF V6 in my G8 has an Australian ( Holden - Fisherman's Bend ) engine. No timing chain issues.
But yeah, an I4 in a vehicle as large and heavy as these CUV's makes little sense to me, if it is to be used for any purpose other than a grocery getter. With all the hills around here, four bangers are a cruel way to go through life.
Originally Posted By: gabriel9766
Originally Posted By: KingCake
Does it still have the ecotec engine that needs a new chain every 60,000 miles?
no your thinking the 2.4L ecotec, this is the new updated 2.5L ecotec.
But the optional 3.6 V6 DOES have all the timing chain problems the 2.4 had.
Depends on the place of manufacture of the engine installed in that particular vehicle. The HF V6's are, or at least were, sourced from all over the world. Two otherwise identical vehicles can have HF V6's from different engine plants.
The HF V6 in our Torrent GXP was a Japanese ( Suzuki ) sourced engine. No timing chain issues. The HF V6 in my G8 has an Australian ( Holden - Fisherman's Bend ) engine. No timing chain issues.
But yeah, an I4 in a vehicle as large and heavy as these CUV's makes little sense to me, if it is to be used for any purpose other than a grocery getter. With all the hills around here, four bangers are a cruel way to go through life.
- Status
