Here we go GM thinking well the Buick encore wasa good Idea lets throw one Chevy way like we don't have enough small like suv if they're going to give one to Chevy make it a performance package better yet give it to GMC divison and make it a denali version
So essentially, it's a more expensive Subaru Crosstrek with less power (despite being turbocharged), less ground clearance, a worse interior, a worse AWD system, worse MPG, uglier looks, no manual transmission, and worse handling. Why would anyone buy this?
That's going to be the major market, along with other fleets. On the plus side, you'll be able to find these on fleet sale lots after a year or two for a pretty decent buy. Would not advise anyone to buy new - the depreciation on this is going to be massively higher than normal.
The trax might not be the most stylish in the Chevy line up plus it's a new crossover but I'm sure after the first model year if it does well Chevy will give it a major overhaul don't forget when the equinox first came out it wasn't attractive but than they made it beautiful
My 2014 Subaru Forester 2.5 Touring with EyeSight gets the same gas mileage as the 4WD Trax, but 32 MPG on the highway. That's a little disappointing, considering many compact crossovers FWD, AWD, or 4WD only give up 1 to 2 MPG overall compared to the sub-compact crossovers. That's not much difference. Chevy ought to put a CVT instead of a six-speed automatic transmission, since the engine is a small 4 cylinder turbocharged engine. I do recommend CVTs for smaller engines, but not V6, unless it's a hybrid with e-CVT.
That motor is relatively small though, and most of its output comes early in the power band in the form of torque and it tops out at around 4900 RPM; meaning that it would probably make the car feel more sluggish and underpowered than it already is. With Subaru's Forester power comes later on both the XT and 2.5i models; with the turbo model obviously having a lot more power than the Trax. The main sources for its relatively poor fuel economy are weight, aerodynamics, and its relatively boxy shape; with the main culprit being increased air resistance resulting from customer demands for an upright seating position, increased ground clearance, and generally chunky styling. SUV/Crossovers are just physically capped somewhat in terms of fuel efficiency by this. I mean just look at your Forester compared to the Outback. Both vehicles have the exact same engine, transmission, and ground clearance, but the Outback is much larger vehicle (9.6" longer, 2" wider, and about 200 lbs heavier) and actually has a slightly higher drag coefficient than the Forester (.34 vs .33). However despite this the Outback gets slightly better fuel economy (only 1MPG, but still it is a difference) than a Forester and offers about the same performance in terms of acceleration. Why? Well I am sure CVT tuning has something to do with that, but really most of it is just due to the fact that the Forester sits a lot more upright and is more squared off up front and the Outback is more car like in terms of its design; with a more angled and tapering nose, smaller grill cross section, a more raked windshield, and slightly more squat. (This is why CDa is more important than CD.) You just can't beat the laws of physics really. Now cutting weight would obviously help (but that would mean losing the AWD option), but overall he best way to improve and SUVs fuel efficiency is basically to make it into a car. Or just do what VW does with their vehicles: which is offer a diesel engine as an option; as basically the Trax is just a Golf on stilts. By the way I don't mean to pick on your Forester. My girflriend has a 2014 2.5i limited and she loves it, and for a SUV (really it is a wagon) it is not a bad vehicle. However, I would not own the thing just due to that infernal CVT. I have a Golf TDI, and in comparison her car just feels so much more less responsive. (Of course its fuel economy is better than a standard Golf; so clearly what was an purposeful engineering decision.)
Andrew Price Good news or bad news is that almost every brand new popular family sedan, compact car, crossover, mini car, and micro car already have CVTs or in the future will have CVTs just to improve fuel economy. Some people like it, and some people hate it. Certain automakers are against offering their vehicles with CVTs, and many are for it. It depends on a person's preference. Take Honda Civic, CR-V, and 4 cylinder Accord as examples of the most popular vehicles with the CVT. Different automakers engineer the CVT with different components and different functions, whether to have artificial automatic transmission shifts or manual shifting with paddles. In certain cases, the CVT can make the vehicle faster than a traditional automatic transmission, but still slower than a manual transmission.
Tim Joseph You are right about there being differences between different companies and how they engineer their CVTs. Subaru I do believe uses a system they call Lineartronic that has a metal chain/pulley configuration, whereas most other manufacturers just use a rubber belt I do believe. Subaru's is probably the best out there because, like with everything else, they decide to do things one way and don't vary much in terms of technology from one vehicle to the next. (Which is why their AWD system is much better than most manufacturers; since they put it on almost vehicle they manufacture.) However, in terms of speed and industry adoption: that is not really accurate. Most American made cars don't offer a CVT option, and none of the German brands have made a move towards them either. I mean the BMW i8 uses a 6 speed auto for the gas engine, and all of VW/Audi/Porsche products use a dual clutch box. To increase effeciency they are just adding more gears; hence VW has already announced a forthcoming 10 speed DSG for the Golf. And the DSGs are always faster than the manuals. (Which is why they favor them.)
That's kind of the point. The buick is the dressed up model and if you are willing to pay the extra $4,000 for it than that's where you would probably end up spending your money. Many dealerships have all GM models on them so you are likely to find the Encore and the Trax on the same lot. It all boils down to how much money you want to spend. If you don't care much about the extra bling the Encore brings to the table, the Trax will work just fine. Also, the LTZ awd model of the Trax in certain colors looks equally good as the Encore in my opinion. Just my two cents.
I hope John Davis hosts this show forever. I remember watching motor week on PBS growing up in the late 80's and 90's
damn. you're like me son. I watched this on pbs before I had internet and cable tv. those were the good old days.
they should start a program to clone him, but i wonder, do they freeze him everyday and wake him up for the reviews?
Cute little thing. Perfect for a lot of people.
I really like the cluster, especially the way the fuel gauge continues the sweep.
I rented a Chevy sonic once that had the same gauge. its great. everything is layed out perfectly. I love the blue.
Here we go GM thinking well the Buick encore wasa good Idea lets throw one Chevy way like we don't have enough small like suv if they're going to give one to Chevy make it a performance package better yet give it to GMC divison and make it a denali version
So essentially, it's a more expensive Subaru Crosstrek with less power (despite being turbocharged), less ground clearance, a worse interior, a worse AWD system, worse MPG, uglier looks, no manual transmission, and worse handling. Why would anyone buy this?
*****
Yup, without realizing it's actually manufactured in Mexico and China. :D
In 2018 Trax is $8,000 off MSRP and much less than a CrossTrek.
They should've put a plastic cover over the Styrofoam on the rear seats to keep cargo from damaging it.
My goodness that thing is so ugly! GM needs to get away from the rental car look. Seriously.
what? I think it looks amazing! I love the compact, yet tall, shape. this is honestly my favorite vehicle right now.
Reminds me of old GM. It's so bland and reeks rental car.
That's going to be the major market, along with other fleets. On the plus side, you'll be able to find these on fleet sale lots after a year or two for a pretty decent buy. Would not advise anyone to buy new - the depreciation on this is going to be massively higher than normal.
The trax might not be the most stylish in the Chevy line up plus it's a new crossover but I'm sure after the first model year if it does well Chevy will give it a major overhaul don't forget when the equinox first came out it wasn't attractive but than they made it beautiful
Trax is $8,000 off MSRP..
What depreciation?
My 2014 Subaru Forester 2.5 Touring with EyeSight gets the same gas mileage as the 4WD Trax, but 32 MPG on the highway. That's a little disappointing, considering many compact crossovers FWD, AWD, or 4WD only give up 1 to 2 MPG overall compared to the sub-compact crossovers. That's not much difference. Chevy ought to put a CVT instead of a six-speed automatic transmission, since the engine is a small 4 cylinder turbocharged engine. I do recommend CVTs for smaller engines, but not V6, unless it's a hybrid with e-CVT.
That motor is relatively small though, and most of its output comes early in the power band in the form of torque and it tops out at around 4900 RPM; meaning that it would probably make the car feel more sluggish and underpowered than it already is. With Subaru's Forester power comes later on both the XT and 2.5i models; with the turbo model obviously having a lot more power than the Trax.
The main sources for its relatively poor fuel economy are weight, aerodynamics, and its relatively boxy shape; with the main culprit being increased air resistance resulting from customer demands for an upright seating position, increased ground clearance, and generally chunky styling. SUV/Crossovers are just physically capped somewhat in terms of fuel efficiency by this. I mean just look at your Forester compared to the Outback. Both vehicles have the exact same engine, transmission, and ground clearance, but the Outback is much larger vehicle (9.6" longer, 2" wider, and about 200 lbs heavier) and actually has a slightly higher drag coefficient than the Forester (.34 vs .33). However despite this the Outback gets slightly better fuel economy (only 1MPG, but still it is a difference) than a Forester and offers about the same performance in terms of acceleration.
Why? Well I am sure CVT tuning has something to do with that, but really most of it is just due to the fact that the Forester sits a lot more upright and is more squared off up front and the Outback is more car like in terms of its design; with a more angled and tapering nose, smaller grill cross section, a more raked windshield, and slightly more squat. (This is why CDa is more important than CD.) You just can't beat the laws of physics really. Now cutting weight would obviously help (but that would mean losing the AWD option), but overall he best way to improve and SUVs fuel efficiency is basically to make it into a car. Or just do what VW does with their vehicles: which is offer a diesel engine as an option; as basically the Trax is just a Golf on stilts.
By the way I don't mean to pick on your Forester. My girflriend has a 2014 2.5i limited and she loves it, and for a SUV (really it is a wagon) it is not a bad vehicle. However, I would not own the thing just due to that infernal CVT. I have a Golf TDI, and in comparison her car just feels so much more less responsive. (Of course its fuel economy is better than a standard Golf; so clearly what was an purposeful engineering decision.)
Andrew Price Good news or bad news is that almost every brand new popular family sedan, compact car, crossover, mini car, and micro car already have CVTs or in the future will have CVTs just to improve fuel economy. Some people like it, and some people hate it. Certain automakers are against offering their vehicles with CVTs, and many are for it. It depends on a person's preference. Take Honda Civic, CR-V, and 4 cylinder Accord as examples of the most popular vehicles with the CVT. Different automakers engineer the CVT with different components and different functions, whether to have artificial automatic transmission shifts or manual shifting with paddles. In certain cases, the CVT can make the vehicle faster than a traditional automatic transmission, but still slower than a manual transmission.
Tim Joseph You are right about there being differences between different companies and how they engineer their CVTs. Subaru I do believe uses a system they call Lineartronic that has a metal chain/pulley configuration, whereas most other manufacturers just use a rubber belt I do believe. Subaru's is probably the best out there because, like with everything else, they decide to do things one way and don't vary much in terms of technology from one vehicle to the next. (Which is why their AWD system is much better than most manufacturers; since they put it on almost vehicle they manufacture.)
However, in terms of speed and industry adoption: that is not really accurate. Most American made cars don't offer a CVT option, and none of the German brands have made a move towards them either. I mean the BMW i8 uses a 6 speed auto for the gas engine, and all of VW/Audi/Porsche products use a dual clutch box. To increase effeciency they are just adding more gears; hence VW has already announced a forthcoming 10 speed DSG for the Golf.
And the DSGs are always faster than the manuals. (Which is why they favor them.)
It looks better than the buick, when not in base form
6" of clearance? thats ridiculous. All that cladding looks cheap too
Its heavy.
opel mokka/buick encore better
Wow. This model is SO underwhelming and forgettable. Nothing about it stands out. The Buick Encore looks better IMO.
That's kind of the point. The buick is the dressed up model and if you are willing to pay the extra $4,000 for it than that's where you would probably end up spending your money. Many dealerships have all GM models on them so you are likely to find the Encore and the Trax on the same lot. It all boils down to how much money you want to spend. If you don't care much about the extra bling the Encore brings to the table, the Trax will work just fine. Also, the LTZ awd model of the Trax in certain colors looks equally good as the Encore in my opinion. Just my two cents.
What is this music.
Great review as always but it is ugly and overpriced and underpowered
This is just bland looking, why couldn't they make it look like the 2015 chevy niva sold in russia and will it be available with a diesel?
Another ugly car on the road
Buick encore is much better
just another stupid crossover, truck based suv's ftw!!!
Maximiliano Luera The new just Tahoe appears in the beginning, this is a review of the Trax, completely different vehicle.
Disappointed
Interior looks cheap!
it's a Chevy so yeah it's going to look cheap
Its chevy main rule, cheap interior!
Feels cheaper than it looks.