What is the actual fuel consumption of the Buick GL8 Classic 2.4?
2 Answers
The official combined fuel consumption of the 2.4L model of the Buick GL8 is 10L per 100 kilometers. The Buick GL8 business vehicle is equipped with a 2.4L naturally aspirated engine, with a maximum power of 123kW (167PS) and a maximum torque of 225Nm, paired with the Aisin S6 six-speed automatic transmission, delivering excellent performance in both comfort and fuel economy. More information about the Buick GL8 is as follows: 1. Interior: The wraparound dashboard still features the familiar Buick style, but the burgundy faux leather material replaces the wood trim in the older GL8, and the design of the air vents has been adjusted to match the curved stitching of the faux leather panels. 2. Powertrain: The GL8 continues to be powered by a 2.4L four-cylinder engine and a 3.0L V6 SIDI direct-injection engine, both paired with a 6-speed automatic transmission.
As the owner of a car, I previously drove the classic version of the Buick GL8 with a 2.4-liter engine. During that time, I often took my family on outings, and the actual fuel consumption I experienced averaged between 14 to 16 liters per 100 kilometers. During peak hours in the city with heavy traffic, fuel consumption could rise to around 18 liters due to the vehicle's weight and the slow engine response, leading to frequent stops and starts that consumed more fuel. However, on the highway, it could drop to about 12 liters, thanks to lower wind resistance. Keep in mind that driving habits also affect fuel consumption—sudden acceleration and hard braking can significantly increase it. I recommend regularly checking tire pressure, as maintaining proper pressure can help save some fuel. Additionally, using the air conditioning in summer can add one or two liters to the fuel consumption, which is why I feel the actual values are higher than the official data. Overall, this car isn’t particularly fuel-efficient, but it’s well-suited for family trips. If you frequently drive long distances, it can still be cost-effective.
