I'm having a hard time trying to accept the 2.4 turbo engines in today's automobiles. Always been a cubic inch type of guy. Can I get some opinions on effeciency and strength of the 2.4. Looking to have it in a small SUV, mainly city traffic and highway on occasion. Also, has anyone had experience with these engines/combo's and how do they fare?

Like I said in your thread, we have a 2011 Acadia that has the 3.6 v6 and six speed transmission. Rides good power is good. The biggest complaint is if riding the interstate @ 75/80 mph. If traffic slows to 55/60, it downshifts into fourth gear and shoots the engine to over 4500 rpm’s to get the speed back. You can’t just ease into the throttle and get it going you have to stab it hard. Problem is it has plenty of hp but no torque below 4000 rpm. Again it’s a maintenance pig. Not counting tires and brakes, I’ve spent more on it for maintenance in the seven or eight years we’ve owned it than I’ve spent on my 98 c1500 that I bought new in 98. Last new vehicle I’ve bought btw.

Woolley is right. Wife has a 09 Acadia and all the points made were legitimate. It has no low end torque, you have to plant your foot to the floor to make it go. This is where turbocharged engines really shine. They have torque down low due to forced induction. I know we all have a hard time trying to wrap our heads around that but that's what it is.

I test drove (with my old boss when he was truck shopping) 2 identical pickups. 2018 Ford F-150 crew Lariat 4x4. One was a 3.5 the other a 5.0. I'm here to tell you, the 3.5 was the clear winner until you start running some RPM-and the 5.0 likes the RPM. That 3.5 will out-pull the 5.0 when you load it down, which we did pretty often (shop truck-delivered tractors with it) and when you learn to drive the turbocharged vehicles, and they are different, they can knock down some great MPG. My mustang is a 2.3 Eco, I'm pretty happy with it. Will do 50mpg if I baby it at 50-57mph on the highways. Once you get over 60 it is back into the 40's. 75+ mph freeway I'm steadily at upper 30's. In town it can suck or it can be good. Again turbocharged engine you have to drive it a little differently to get that MPG. When I get to work or wherever I'm going, I let it idle a minute or two while everything is cooling down. Wife has to check her facebook and stuff anyway before we get out so it's fine.

There is a replacement for displacement--forced induction. I know a lot of folks is scared of it but it works, and if the maintenance is done 'properly' (which is rare), they'll last a LONG time. If book says change oil every 10,000 miles, do it at 5000-7500. The hot and quick-spinning turbocharger is a little hard on the oil. Transmissions need to be serviced more often than the manuals say too but few do that and shops will turn you away if you show up for a flush at 50,000 miles when the book says 100,000. It's ridiculous. At 100,000 miles go ahead and plan on putting a new transmission in as it's "first service"--especially GM vehicles.

I had a 2019 Acadia 3.6 and I loved it. It was a lease so I only had it for 3 years & 36k miles so I can't really speak to longevity but I had zero issues in that time, the truck was fairly quick & the fuel mileage was surprisingly good. I had a 6 cylinder Trailblazer that was a pig, the Acadia was far better, I want to say 22-24mpg. I still regret not buying it when the lease was up.

You work those little turbo engines to death just to drive "normal".

It's smoke and mirrors. They DO NOT get better mileage, and they certainly don't outlast the NA options.

Physics dictates that it takes X amount of power to move Z amount of load, and chemistry tells us that you need Y amount of fuel, to produce X amount of torque and HP.

I have a 2024 Buick Envista with a 1.2 liter 3 cylinder with turbo and a 6 speed, 30 plus miles per gallon. Granted it’s just over a year old but it has been great. Prior to this car I had a 18 GMC Terrain with 2.0 turbo and a 8 speed that was also a trouble free car and 30 miles per gallon.

quote:

Originally posted by Goob:
You work those little turbo engines to death just to drive "normal".

It's smoke and mirrors. They DO NOT get better mileage, and they certainly don't outlast the NA options.

Physics dictates that it takes X amount of power to move Z amount of load, and chemistry tells us that you need Y amount of fuel, to produce X amount of torque and HP.

Are you saying engine choice is irrelevant to fuel mileage in a given vehicle?

quote:

Originally posted by Lenny5160:

quote:

Originally posted by Goob:
You work those little turbo engines to death just to drive "normal".

It's smoke and mirrors. They DO NOT get better mileage, and they certainly don't outlast the NA options.

Physics dictates that it takes X amount of power to move Z amount of load, and chemistry tells us that you need Y amount of fuel, to produce X amount of torque and HP.

Are you saying engine choice is irrelevant to fuel mileage in a given vehicle?

Not at all.
But, to perform exactly the same is going to require the same amount of energy, so for general purposes the larger NA engine will be a better choice, in my opinion. Talking in general terms for normal use.

All forced induction does is increase the CFM, or displacement of the engine.
Now the efficiency of converting the fuel charge into work produced is the key.

In short, in my daily driving style, I'd be WOT most of the time with a 4-banger.