Gasoline cars will not end with a six-figure, high horsepower Dodge bang, but with a Buick whimper. This is the 2024 Buick Envista, and it starts under $24,000 (pre-delivery, tax, et cetera), looks the business, and has a 1.2-liter turbo motor that only powers the front wheels. It could be the future of gas-powered commuters cars under tightening regulations.
Think of the new, strict U.S. emissions regulations not as a wall that keeps gas-powered cars out (that’s what Europe is getting), but rather as a see-saw. On one side of the seesaw are EVs, and in this metaphor each one weighs as much as a dime. One the other side of the seesaw are ICE cars, and they weigh, well, as much as cars. You can build whatever you want, but the heavier (i.e. more polluting) a gas-powered car is, the more of those dime-heavy electric cars you have to build. (Assuming you want a roughly-balanced seesaw, which you should, otherwise someone’s getting launched).
As the transition to our electric future happens, automakers have to find more cars they can sell to normal people that also don’t create a lot of emissions. The Buick plan, clearly, is to take its gas-powered subcompact cars and make them as miserly as possible.
The new Buick Envista is a subcompact, coupe-like crossover and it will be the entry-point for anyone hoping to get into a car without spending much money. In fact, it’s somehow about $3,000 cheaper than the also subcompact Buick Encore which, frankly, can best be described as a car you wouldn’t hate if you got it as a rental.
The Envista is powered by a similar 1.2-liter turbocharged three-cylinder that also powers the Encore, putting out a paltry 136 horsepower and 162 lb-ft of torque. It’s only available in front-wheel-drive flavor, meaning you can’t get the slightly larger and more powerful motor (155 hp!) that the Encore gets in its AWD variant. It’s also only available with a pretty basic six-speed automatic, compared to the Encore GX’s nine-speed automatic.
How slow is it? Unclear, C/D puts the “hot rod” Encore GX’s 0-60 mph time at 9.3 seconds, but this is bigger and only FWD, so a fair guess is something in the 10-second range (or higher).
So, what do you get for not that many 2023 dollars? First, a shape that looks less like the Buicks we’ve gotten used to over the years (in a good way). While it’s slightly anonymous, the crispy Envista features a lot of nice little touches that don’t make this look like an entry-level car. I also dig the new Buick logo.
The same goes for the interior, which sports both an 8.0-inch gauge cluster and 11.0-inch infotainment screen across all trims, as well as lane-keep assist and auto high-beams. That’s a lot of stuff for a bargain basement car. Toss in another $1,700 and Buick will add black 18-inch wheels, LED-accented taillights, and other creature comforts. An Avenir-trimmed Envista tops out at $31,285 (pre-delivery) with most of the options checked.
It’s not a big vehicle, but it’s not small, either. The whole car has a 106.3-inch wheelbase and stretches out to 182.6 inches in length, both of which outreach the Encore GX. As C/D also points out, the slanted rear means the cargo area is slightly smaller, but only slightly. To put all this in comparison, a 1992 Ford Taurus also has a 106-inch wheelbase; same with a Mazda CX-5 crossover, which is just slightly shorter overall.
Ultimately, this is a gamble that assumes most people don’t care if a car is fast, they just want it to be nice enough. This is definitely nice enough. I’m guessing the car isn’t amazing efficient, given the Encore GX barely squeezes out a combined 30 mpg, but fuel economy numbers haven’t been listed yet.
This is barely a vehicle The Autopian, an enthusiast-site, would write about, but I like well-designed cheap cars and I think it’s worth thinking about what it means to keep building gasoline-powered commuter cars in 2023.
I don’t love it that people I don’t think are good drivers all seem to have 4,000-lb, 300 horsepower crossovers with mediocre visibility. In 10 years will all these people be in small EV crossovers? Perhaps. In the interim, a super nice and kinda slow car is maybe what more commuters should have if they lack the infrastructure for, or desire to own, an EV.
My immediate thought is that for a little more you could get a Civic, Corolla, or Mazda3 hatchback that will be superior to this thing in every way. That’s irrelevant though because I’m not the target market. Old people who want something cheap with a slightly higher entry/exit height will gladly buy the whatever this thing is called. Not joking, I have already forgotten the name of this vehicle between the time it took to read the article and start typing my comment.
Hot take…
When you started this site, I’m betting most of the folks who follow you over were…. not young (I find the old site to be a bit too young for my tastes these days). As such, old people like Buicks. Despite this being a slow POS, I bet it will be well received here.
Nope…looks like hot garbage and get off my grass!
136 hp CUV. Just get out.
Yeah I followed them over and I’m definitely what you would call young. Also not interested in Buick crossovers.
Tail lights look very Acura to me.
More on GM’s new small crossover pricing;
Envista Avenir (no Chevy equivalent) $29,695
Envista Sport Touring $25,195 / Trax 2RS / Trax Activ $24,995
Envista Preferred (base) $23,495 / Trax LT $23,395
(no Buick equivalent) / Trax 1RS $23,195
(no Buick equivalent) / Trax LS $21,495
All models FWD only. Destination charge on a Trax is $1095 and an Encore GX is $1295.
The take home is that the premium for a Buick, assuming I got the trim level equivalents right, is a hundred bucks (possibly $300 if you count the difference in destination charges).
These prices do seem to include the destination charges as well, just to add a bit of clarification (and the write-up says pre-delivery so that isn’t correct) – so a Trax LS is $21,495 including $20,400 MSRP + $1095 destination and so on. Buick’s media site says “includes DFC” for the price, aka destination freight charge. So $23,495 including destination, just plus dealer fees and taxes that all vary.
Feature wise (for what Buick has on their site so far) they seem pretty close although the Envista offers a power liftgate and the Trax doesn’t. But even a Trax Activ seems well-equipped at $25k. Yeah, they’re dullish crossovers, but the amount of conversation over the lack of cheap/affordable cars out there now, it is nice to see something well-equipped in the mid-20s.
It’s fine.
The mileage should be better for what it is, but it will be a fine car for lots of people. It’s very similar to the 4 cylinder late-90s Toyota Camry.
There is no need to drive the horsepower hype factory
I bet it’s faster than my VW Fox was. I’m not sure I ever drove that car with anything less than WOT.
I had a ’78 Rabbit Diesel that was slammed on coilovers. It was so slow that one time a Model T honked at me in frustration, but it looked cool and thanks to the suspension and tires handled like it was on rails. They say driving a slow car fast is more fun, and if so this was it – it took forever to build momentum, but I could go around a corner without slowing down. You can still have a good time in a car without much power.
I remember those. A girlfriend’s mom had one and when there were 4 of us in the car it took about 30 seconds to reach just 55. Good times.
I had a couple of early ’80s Subarus that were a blast and could be driven at full throttle much of the time. I doubt this is a fun slow car, though.
I didn’t realize this was as much of a fastback as it is. Certainly continues the trend of more tall crossovery sedans – like the new Toyota Crown.
Interestingly, this is about the same exterior dimensions as the Citroën C4 X as covered in an article here a couple months ago.
2020 Encore GX owner here. 3cyl Turbo AWD with 9speed Auto. I keep the MPG screen open for every drive ’cause it’s fun to watch and challenge myself to get the best mileage possible (I like beating scores man, Gamer forever!)
I’ve never averaged less than 30, ever. For every trip it gets 32/34. If I adjust my acceleration habits on my commute I can get it up to a tick over 38 mpg with maximum effort. The 3Cyl Turbo engine is actually what sold me. It’s no slouch and has plenty of get up and go taking my svelte 210lbs of girth to and from work.
On the downside, throw in a full load of 4 human meatbags and the engine starts to work harder. Not terrible but you feel it and see the MPG suffer.
All in all, not a bad car. I’m quite enjoying it.
Oof. I saw the hp number and thought “that’s pretty good for 1.2L if fuel economy is the goal.” If you have to struggle to get 38 it sounds like they under-engined it. Probably needed 1.5-1.6L with the same peak hp but more torque.
Good take. This is me too… I wouldnt mind a slow mpg oriented suv in the future.
Screw the Envista, I want the Avista!!!
This is the Buick version of the new 2024 Chevy Trax, as such it replaces the Encore (and they likely make the 2WD versions of the Trailblazer and Encore GX surplus to requirements). Of the group I like the new Trax best on styling alone since it’s a fine example of CUVs morphing back into station wagons and is the only one with actual side windows in the cargo area.
Me too re the Trax. If I squint and do a little wishful thinking, it seems almost carlike to me.
The Chinese-market Ford Evos is right along these lines too…it’s almost but not quite a 4 door hatchback sedan.
Honestly, it’s a perfectly fine commuter car with the added benefit of a real automatic transmission. I’m in my 50’s and my first car (1988 1/2 Ford Escort) achieved 60 mph in 12.5seconds. Anything under that is fast to me. I also rather see more entry level cars with a low price point.
They should put that drivetrain in an actual subcompact. 136 hp is plenty for something under 2500 lb. On the other hand, a 10s 0-60 time is fine for a commuter. In the ’70s and early ’80s that would have been considered quick. Auto-journos are spoiled, and it’s comments like this that drive the push to expensive cars, i.e. everything needs to be powerful and lux.
136 hp is right in the ballpark of what the 1.4 turbo they put in the Chevy Cruze back in the day – nice cars! I recall at the time that the talk was about the turbo-downsize trend in engines had gone too far, causing real-world fuel economy to be worse, even though the performance on regulatory cycles for CAFE certification was better. Now they’ve knocked off 200 CC’s and one cylinder and upped the boost for the same performance.
I owned a 2014 Fiesta SFE with the 1.0 EcoBoost – fun car! But it never even sniffed the 40+ MPG claimed on the window sticker in real driving, even when I was actively trying to maximize efficiency. A little while later I got a $200 check in the mail from Ford as a settlement of a class action lawsuit re: inflated fuel economy claims. Hmm…
I don’t see this as an auto-journo problem. I wasn’t driving back in the ’70s, but to my eyes traffic behavior and expectations have changed over the past 20 years as the average car can accelerate better. People drive on-ramps a bit faster, they merge differently, they go for lane-changing gaps differently, and so other drives plan accordingly now. A car that is really sluggish in accelerating is increasingly out of step with modern traffic.
And that was without Tesla’s and other high-power EVs in the equation. I’ve learned to be completely recalibrate my judgement of distance and space around me for driving defensively when I see a Tesla behind me, especially where lanes are merging, because they can practically teleport into the gap in front of me.
I am ok with this being slow, Florida old people do not need things that go fast.
Not just in Florida…
Jeez, all that performance cutting and they can’t get much better than 30 MPG? My Fit had that beat 14 years ago.
That’s Honda for you tho.
Surprised Buick doesn’t offer a manual; manuals are more efficient. If they want the best MPG they should offer more stickshifts.
As much as I like my old manual hatchback, I’m not sure manuals are still more efficient. A dual-clutch automatic or a CVT can usually beat a manual transmission – at least on the EPA tests.
That said, I can handily beat the EPA rating in town with a manual. I don’t know how much of that is my car’s mpg’s being underrated, how much of it is my driving, and how much of it is due to the nature of a stick shift.
To your and ADDvanced’s comments, I wonder if an actual manual is more efficient if you know how to do it and do it regularly but for most people, a modern auto is probably more consistent more of the time, hence the data.
I’m old enough to remember fuel economy stick shift enthusiasts…the only performance they cared about was MPG-related, and they’d know exactly when to shift to maximize that while keeping things otherwise safe for the situation. Impressive.
It’s not just Honda. My 2023 Subaru Crosstrek Limited has 46hp more than this Buick, yet gets 29mpg combined (27city/34hwy), does 0-60mph in 7.5 seconds, and it has AWD. The Envista gets only 1mpg (combined) better, but is going to be much slower and doesn’t even have AWD. That is unimpressive.
Manuals are no longer the efficient option that they once were. If you compare EPA mileage ratings on modern cars that offer both manual and auto trannys (you may have to go back a decade or more), you will find that, more often than not, the slushbox is the more efficient option. At worst, they are comparable.
Sadly, it’s another reason why manuals have fallen out of favor. They no longer enjoy the superior fuel efficiency status, and economy of scale means they are no longer the cheaper option either.
This is very true. At least for Subarus, the cars equipped with a CVT get significantly better mileage than the manual trans versions.
That’s only true because they’ve invested into more modern autos with more gears. Automatics will always be less efficient, if you compare the same # of gears/ratios, because they just are not as efficient. There are more losses.
Also the EPA test can’t be gamed with the manual the way it can be with the auto. With the manual, they mandate that the shifting has to be done at a certain RPM… an RPM level (which I can’t remember… but higher than what I shift at when I take it easy) that puts manuals at a disadvantage.
Thus with most manual cars, I find I can easily match or beat the EPA numbers… unlike with most automatics.
It seems like nowadays, with the smaller/budget priced vehicles, the focus is less on efficiency – if you really want that you need to step up a class in size or price, and/or go hybrid.
Looking at Honda, the HR-V (compared to other small CUVs, it and the Envista seem sized closer) has the basic NA 2.0/CVT powertrain but only 26/32 city/highway with FWD – less than the larger, more powerful 1.5T CR-V at 28/34 respectively, and the CR-V has the option for a hybrid too.
I like the HR-V, but its performance will probably keep me from buying one. I don’t mind slow and a lack of power if I get good fuel economy. However, the HR-V’s fuel economy isn’t great, and some of the 0-60 tests I’ve seen for it are around 11 seconds. What exactly was Honda thinking?
It does seem like Honda is quietly saying “you should have bought a CR-V.” The extra size over its competitors is nice and Honda’s interior design language has gotten consistent praise, but then they cheaped out on some content – it’s bigger inside than most competitors, yet there’s no A/C vents or center armrest for rear passengers for example.
Even ignoring the turbo options out there like Hyundai/Kia/Mazda offer, a standard Corolla Cross or Crosstrek also have slow 2.0/CVT combos but get better mileage and have more powerful options available, with the same (2.5 Crosstrek) or vastly better (hybrid Cross) fuel economy. Maybe Honda will offer the 1.5T once more hybrid CR-Vs are out there or a hybrid version once the Civic hybrid is out.
Your Fit was half the size.
Outside.
I passed one of this this weekend and thought it looked pretty nice in person. Similar to the Encore GX, these are nice looking and comfortable cars for the money, but the powertrain is where the letdown is. I haven’t driven the Invista, but if it’s anything like the Encore, they are too slow and I won’t buy a CVT. These really need a higher output powertrain option. Nothing crazy, but another 20-30hp would make a world of difference. Get the 0-60 into the 7.5-8 second range at least.
I mean… it is a turbo engine. Probably only a software tune away from 40+hp, really.
This has a 6AT, not a CVT.
I hope so. The Encore was a CVT. A traditional automatic would be a step in the right direction.
I’ve had a Buick squishmobile…er….Encore as a rental, and yes, you would hate it. Literally the worst vehicle I have ever driven, and my first car was a beat to hell Grand Prix with only first and second remaining on a trashed transmission that consistently fell out of gear. So that’s saying something….
Buick: from the makers of Monster energy drinks.
I’m glad I’m not the only one who thought that.
It’s handsome but why is this a Buick? It doesn’t really look like a Buick – say what you will about the chrome waterfall grilles but it was at least distinctive, this could be from any brand. Buick is supposed to be mildly posh but this is a cut-priced, dog-slow crossover. That feels like it should be a Chevy thing.
How can this be considered subcompact if it has a wheelbase like an original Taurus or a CX-5?
Also, it’s the Envista, the article has “Invista” in several paragraphs.
Whoof, thank you.
Can’t wait for the rush of commenters (and maybe some of the writers?) who will gush over a 10 second time as being “plenty fast” and anything quicker is just wasteful.
“Why, if it was fast enough back in 1978, it must be OK now too!”
I mean, I drive a 60hp slow ass car most of the time, and it’s fine. I also pass like 99% of the traffic on the freeway.
Personally I am fine driving a slow car; it’s a lot less stressful than just driving somethign fast, wanting to go fast, and the constant stress of being rolled and extracted for $3-400 to racist dickhead gang.
Sorry driving something with more horsepower than an ATV gives you constant stress???
Kinda. I have “forcibly donated” thousands and thousands of dollars to the boys in blue over the years, and not once was it for doing anything dangerous. I live in the midwest, we don’t have a lot of crime, and cops are extremely bored. I still like going fast but it’s admittedly just a constant source of stress at the same time.
Last ticket I got was for 68 in a 55, deserted 2 lane road in the countryside. Cop told me I was being reckless and endangering everyone. It was 11pm and nobody was around, and my car has Z rated tires, upgraded brakes, H&Rs/Bilsteins, but yup, I’m “dangerous”. I hate cops.
It sounds to me more like you have a problem with speeding than you do with cars that are not underpowered.
Stop driving 68 in a 55 and you’ll be fine no matter how much horsepower you have. It’s called self-control.
Indeed, that is plenty fast. We also don’t need supersized fries or wifi-enabled toasters or a whole slew of other nonsense people have come to expect. It’d be faster if it didn’t have to pretend at off-roading capabilities.
No. It’s the children who are wrong
Uh, it is perfectly fast enough to be useable as an everyday car, actually still more than fast enough for that. Nobody’s going drag racing in their FWD crossover
Also, I just counted, accelerating between red lights on a moderately busy stroad, 0-45 in 22 seconds is at pace with surrounding traffic, that’s the daily reality in the real world
For the driver who cares more about internet connectivity than performance, a 12 second 0-60 time is adequate. If anything, the slow acceleration gives them more time to spend on Tiktac or Instabook or whatever it is the kids are using these days.
This is not an enthusiasts car. It is a car for those who would rather have a self-driving car than a Lamborghini. So in that sense, it is “plenty fast” for the target market, and any extra performance would be wasteful.
My car only has 100hp, does 0-60 in 9.2 (at least magazine testing). There are few onramps where I can’t get up to highway speed before merging, most people in faster cars aren’t driving any faster than I do. For that matter, most small crossovers seem to be settling into that level of performance as adequate. The bigger disappointment is that for how low powered it is, it doesn’t appear the fuel economy is going to be up to the standard of similarly slow competition.
My current car does 0-60 in 8.8 seconds (Porsche 944 did it in 9). I love my car, but I would never replace it with anything as slow as it is.
Yeah, what’s the response off the line? What’s the 0-30? The thing is that 0-60 with these slug kind of cars don’t reflect the feel in daily driving. My early ’80s Subarus were slower to 60 (a little over 13 secs. on a good day), but they jumped off the line and had punchy torque in traffic so they never felt as slow in regular driving as that number suggests. These newer gutless cars might be faster on paper, but the power tends to be all top end so the OEM can advertise a somewhat adequate hp as opposed to the lower number they’d have to state if they tuned it for the low and mid range that people actually use, making these “faster” cars feel frighteningly slow when having to pull away from a stop or hit a gap with authority. Add in typical modern e-throttle response lag and the greater isolation that removes whatever sense of acceleration there might have been and, no, I imagine for anyone with a sense of awareness, it wouldn’t feel good enough for today’s much greater traffic (in terms of both volume of vehicles and extended peak hours) made up of bigger, faster vehicles driven by generally more aggressive drivers.
I recall getting a rental Chevy HHR ‘back in the day’ with the 2.2 and an automatic. I’ll bet the 0-60 stat doesn’t say that it is slow, but they really screwed the pooch on transmission torque converter matching / lockup clutch and pedal map tuning, because I can never remember driving a more dangerously slow and unresponsive car off the line. I was turning left out of a parking lot when a car came around the bend quickly – I gave the accelerator a poke to get out of his way and NOTHING HAPPENED. My heart skipped a beat and I laid it on the wood and eventually it downshifted and went, but by then I think the whole incident was already over. What was otherwise a nice little car was rendered miserable to drive by (I think) overzealous tuning for fuel economy cycle beating… So yes, 0-30, and maybe even more importantly rolling 5-30 is arguably a more important ‘real world’ metric.
GM loves to shoot themselves in the foot. I can get a pretty sweet deal on a new Encore GX thru a GM Family discount but I refuse to get something that’s somehow both slower and less efficient than our 2009 Fit we’re trying to replace. If it got 40+ mpg, I’d deal with the slowness but what the fuck, GM?
If you’re going to make a basic crossover econobox that’s slow as hell, at least make a hybrid with great gas mileage.
And maybe even offer AWD for those that think they need it but don’t. As a selling point, of course.
Wow I bet you could fit at least 1 Costco pack of toilet paper back there. Crossovers are amazing.
That’s an intriguing question – might the EV era usher in a wave of fun-to-drive small ICE cars that prioritize a more immediate driving experience over other attributes? If only b/c cheap means less performance but also less superfluous gadgetry?
If this were available with a manual (Envista Sport?), I have a feeling our views might go from meh to all right.
I think the EV era is ultimately going to mean the end of all small, affordable, fun to drive ICE cars, automakers are going to prioritize building the easiest to sell, highest profit margin models to offset losses and high R&D costs from their electric ventures, so you’re going to see lineups even more disproportionately skewed to big trucks and SUVs than they already are, as automakers won’t even need to keep smaller, efficient ICEs around for CAFE reasons, electrics will be enough to take care of that (see Ford cancelling the Mustang hybrid proposal due to sufficient Mach E and Lightning sales volumes, they weren’t interested in offering a more fuel efficient Mustang because customers wanted it, they were only interested in it if they needed it to game their CAFE average).
Bingo.
Anything else is wishful thinking IMO.
Non-enthusiasts mostly buy small cars because they can’t afford anything bigger. With fuel mileage and emissions penalties virtually eliminated for larger vehicles (both from the manufacturers’ POV and the drivers paying to operate them), there’s less reason than ever to settle.
Good points both you and Ranwhenparked…I guess I was really wondering about a bump in these kind of ICE cars before the end of all of them, a sorta transitional phase.
And one that might be be broken down differently, where the domestics do as you surmise, but some of the imports solider on with ICE stuff at the low end for awhile?
First, it looks really good. Second, what the hell are they thinking with that engine? The reported MPG numbers (28 city/32 hwy) are not a justifiable trade off for the pitiful HP. And, I would be honestly nervous getting onto the interstate with that 0-60 time.
It will be fine, that’s 2000’s Honda Civic 1.8L speed and there’s plenty of them still on the road. Actually 9.3 might be better than the Civic.
“And, I would be honestly nervous getting onto the interstate with that 0-60 time.”
Pretty sure those who “feel nervous about getting onto the interstate with that 0-60 time” are the exact same folks responsible for the interstate being a place where people feel nervous about that 0-60 time.
Ok, this logic is seriously faulty.
Not everyone lives next to freeways with long on-ramps that have great sightlines. Not everyone lives in an area where people will slow down to let you merge. And for that matter, having difficulty merging on a freeway has got nothing to do with other people being worried about those 0-60 times.
In the LA area many of the on-ramps are steep, merge almost immediately with the freeway (no dedicated merge lane), traffic is flowing at 75 mph when you get there, and nobody makes an effort to let you in.
Why is it so hard for some people to accept that there are parts of the country where having a slow 0-60 makes a legitimate difference in how difficult it is to merge on the freeway???
I drive my 95hp Corvair at 80+mph on the highway all the time, passing lots of 400hp cars along the way. I have to give it some welly but it accelerates and merges just fine. If someone wants to go faster, I move over. While the Envista will be a turd, it be able to motor around ok in the punchbowl.