GMC Terrain, Equinox, and SRX Forum banner

1 - 19 of 19 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
285 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
The 2.0L Turbo engine will be back for the 2022 model year in the Equinox and Terrain. For anyone lamenting the 2.0LT being dropped for 2021, just try to hang on until 2022 and you will once again be able to opt for a 2.0L Turbo.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,285 Posts
Preproduction information has a tendency to change with sales and how the wind blows.
I remember a few years ago the 2015 Equinox was to be the last year of that body style.
Then the 2016-2017 appears with a light refresh.

BTW thanks for the info, good find.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
76 Posts
The 2.0L Turbo engine will be back for the 2022 model year in the Equinox and Terrain. For anyone lamenting the 2.0LT being dropped for 2021, just try to hang on until 2022 and you will once again be able to opt for a 2.0L Turbo.

I'm glad, that's the only way I would buy another one. I have to have the engine upgrade. Would be nice if they put a stop/start disable button on the thing, that would make it perfect.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,417 Posts
The 2022 Equinox/Terrain will likely have a S/S "Off" button. The 2020 Acadia and some other GM vehicles have it. Ford has had it for awhile.
The only caveat is you must turn it "Off" after every start up. It doesn't stay set to the "Off" position.
 

·
Registered
2019 Holden Equinox LT
Joined
·
21 Posts
I'm so sad they pulled Holden (chevy) out of Australia :( The new Nox looked amazing!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
43 Posts
Compared to the previous LTG gas engine, the turbocharged 2.0L I4 LSY slated for the 2022 Chevy Equinox and 2022 GMC Terrain produces lower peak output, but provides greater refinement in terms of power delivery, while also producing fewer emissions.

The chart in the article shows 15 HP less but 500 RPM sooner and a tad less torque at a tad less RPM. The LSY has Active Fuel Management meaning it can shut down cylinders for between 5% and 7% better MPG's.

My 2020 with the 2.0L gets in the 28-29.7 MPG range on the 50-mile average and in the low 20's overall so far.

The early release pictures of the 2021 did show the button to disable start/stop.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
683 Posts
AFM is more problematic than useful. Don't think of it as a plus. 5.3 motors have had cam / lifter issues with it since '08.
Money saved on gas needs to be invested up front to pay for repairs.
I'm running a AFM eliminator in my Tahoe, 111k miles on it so far, losing 1 mpg highway is cheap insurance IMO.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
76 Posts
AFM is more problematic than useful. Don't think of it as a plus. 5.3 motors have had cam / lifter issues with it since '08.
Money saved on gas needs to be invested up front to pay for repairs.
I'm running a AFM eliminator in my Tahoe, 111k miles on it so far, losing 1 mpg highway is cheap insurance IMO.
Same thing with stop/start. My sons 2015 malibu has had over $2000 in starter and battery costs now, second time for BOTH batteries. Unlike paying at the pump those costs have to be paid in one big bill AND leave you or a loved one stranded on the highway, and I mean ON the highway, one time in a center lane.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
977 Posts
The chart in the article shows 15 HP less but 500 RPM sooner and a tad less torque at a tad less RPM. The LSY has Active Fuel Management meaning it can shut down cylinders for between 5% and 7% better MPG's.
I wonder if the recommended fuel will drop to 87 AKI?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
43 Posts
According to folks over at Cadillac forums, 93 octane is recommended, with 87 being the minimum, in the 2020 XT6 that uses the LSY.
So the same as the current 2.0L. When I got my 2020 I ran a few tanks at 93 and just completed a tank of 87. I did not notice any performance difference or any real mileage difference. If I begin towing then I will use 93 octane.

Ray
 

·
Registered
2019 Holden Equinox LT
Joined
·
21 Posts
So the same as the current 2.0L. When I got my 2020 I ran a few tanks at 93 and just completed a tank of 87. I did not notice any performance difference or any real mileage difference. If I begin towing then I will use 93 octane.

Ray

Sorry for what may sound like a ridiculous question :p and somewhat off topic

But, ours are recommended to run premium (95) and I currently run 98 in it, how come the octane is so low in US? :S I am running BP Ultimate (have used this for the 2 turbo cars I've owned) and found it to run a lot smoother than 95. My old Lancer is currently running 95 instead of 91.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25 Posts
Sorry for what may sound like a ridiculous question :p and somewhat off topic

But, ours are recommended to run premium (95) and I currently run 98 in it, how come the octane is so low in US? :S I am running BP Ultimate (have used this for the 2 turbo cars I've owned) and found it to run a lot smoother than 95. My old Lancer is currently running 95 instead of 91.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
43 Posts
So it's apparently a kind of "metric" versus "imperial" measurement system again, or 1 does not equal 1. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
683 Posts
Here in the US 93 octane is commonly sold at lower altitude elevations and 91 at the higher elevations is my observations. In the US vehicles are required to run on 87 octane at minimum, your country may have different requirements and engines may also have higher compression and turbo boost levels so higher octanes are available
Race fuels here are 101 and 104 octane..
ROM and RON calculations are different also.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11 Posts
The chart in the article shows 15 HP less but 500 RPM sooner and a tad less torque at a tad less RPM. The LSY has Active Fuel Management meaning it can shut down cylinders for between 5% and 7% better MPG's.
If I wanted to cruise around on two cylinders I'd have bought a Harley!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
266 Posts
I had AFM on a 6 liter V8 in my 08' Silverado. I sold the truck with less than 70,000mi. The engine did not sound healthy. I can't for sure blame it on AFM but I would not want AFM on any engine after that experience.. So 15 HP less and AFM but still needs premium fuel? Unless MPG is significantly improved, where's the win?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
683 Posts
My '11 Tahoe has AFM, I put the Range eliminator in when I got it a 35k miles. At 111k now and engine sounds great, only uses 1/2 qt. of oil between changes via the OLM which is around 6-7k miles depending on temp. and towing.
I read about cam/lifter issues with the 5.3 AFM so IMO eliminator has paid for itself. Only lost 1 mpg on the highway.
AFM gives me the the flash back of the old Caddy 4-6-8 motors that never ran right and folks actually did motor swaps on cars just out of warranty back then.
 
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
Top