The smallest Buick is also a little bit bigger.
Well, except for what’s under it’s hood – where you’ll find the smallest engine ever put in a Buick.
Just three cylinder and 1.2 liters.
There are motorcycles with more engine.
But there is an option to buy a bigger engine – and the Encore GX comes standard with more passenger and cargo room than the Encore without the GX.
Buick continues to sell both Encores – on the theory that one size might not fit all.
What It Is
The Encore GX is the slightly larger version – the encore – of the just-Encore.
Both are compact-sized crossovers – with very compact engines. But the Encore GX’s engines – there are two of them – are even more so.
Instead of a turbocharged four cylinder engine there are either of two turbocharged three cylinder engines to pick from.
Prices start at $24,200 for the base Preferred trim, which comes with a turbocharged 1.2 liter, three cylinder engine and front-wheel-drive.
All-wheel-drive is available optionally.
So equipped, the MSRP is $26,700.
A top-of-the-line Essence trim with a 1.3 liter turbocharged three cylinder (and AWD) stickers for $30,600. This trim also comes with leather upholstery, a heated steering wheel and the option to buy an automated parking system.
Or you can still pick the other Encore, if you prefer a bigger (1.4 liter engine) and a bit less room for passengers and cargo.
Prices for that Encore start at $24,600.
The 1.3 liter engine that was formerly optional in the top-of-the-line Essence trim is now standard with that trim.
Smaller engine gets bigger gas mileage.
Encore GX is roomier than the just-Encore . . . and costs a bit less, too.
AWD is available with the standard engine.
What’s Not So Good
Mileage gains aren’t big – with either engine.
Bigger engine is only available in the higher (and pricier) trims.
This Buick – either of them – could fit inside the trunks Buicks of once-upon-a-time.
The other Encore comes standard with a 1.4 liter four cylinder engine, its small size boosted by a turbo to summon 155 horsepower and 177 ft.-lbs. of torque at 2,000 RPM.
This engine was – and still is – paired with a six speed automatic and either FWD (standard) or AWD (optionally available).
The FWD-equipped version carried – carries – an EPA rating of 24 city 32 highway; with AWD this dips slightly to 23 city, 30 highway.
The Encore GX comes standard with a smaller 1.2 liter engine, also turbocharged. It produces 137 horsepower and 162 ft.-lbs. of torque at 2,500 RPM – a diminishment in both – for a slight gain in gas mileage, to 29 city, 31 highway.
The optional 1.3 liter three cylinder engine manages to just about equal the output of the other Encore’s standard 1.4 liter engine.
You get the same 155 horsepower- and almost-the-same 174 ft.-lbs. of torque. You also get a nine speed automatic transmission in lieu of the otherwise standard continuously variable (CVT) automatic – when you order AWD.
Interestingly – depressingly – the 1.3 engine that’s optional in the Encore GX does not give bigger gas mileage numbers. Just 29 city, 31 highway – a negligible difference that costs you more to buy it than it did before.
The other Encore, after all, comes standard with the same horsepower (and slightly more torque) and about the same gas mileage numbers that now costs extra in the Encore GX.
On the upside, Chevy did lower the base price of the Encore GX by $400 vs. the other Encore. That plus the increase in the standard 1.2 liter’s fuel efficiency by a handful of MPGs might compensate you a little bit for the engine (and output) downsizing).
And it’s nice that you can avoid the CVT – by opting for AWD.
The only thing about CVTs that doesn’t suck is that their use results in sucking a bit less gas, the result of the CVT’s slight efficiency advantage vs. a geared automatic. But this advantage is offset by the CVT’s poorer track record for long-term durability (metal fatiguing of the band that allows the ranges to be continuously varied eventually results in the failure not just of the expanding/contracting band but of the CVT transmission itself – the result of metal fragments of the failed band spewed within the transmission) as well as its unrepairability (you replace a failed CVT) and the CVT’s tendency to be noisier – especially in smaller engined vehicles that don’t make much power.
Like this one.
Speaking of that . . .
1.2 liters and 137 horsepower is not a lot to move even this much Buick – which isn’t a lot, in terms of of its size.
But it weighs about 3,300 lbs.
That’s a lot for a compact-sized rig that’s only 171.1 inches long. Which – for reference – is nearly five feet shorter than a Buick like the old Electra 225 sedan – the number proudly touting how long it was.
It was also heavy – easily two tons. But that’s actually not that much heavier than this pint-sized Buick – and the 225 had 455 (cubic inches) of Buick V8 power under its hood.
And just three gears in its THM400 transmission.
The Enclave’s standard CVT transmission has no gears at all – just ranges that vary. Which sometimes feels as if the transmission is slipping. The engine revs and the car kind of surges forward. It feels a lot like holding a geared automatic in first.
Sounds like it, too – if the engine paired with the CVT isn’t very powerful. That’s because in order to leverage whatever power it does have, the CVT will let the engine rev to the upper reaches of its powerband – and holds it there, until you back off the gas pedal. When you do, the revs (and sound) decrease – but so does acceleration.
Of which there isn’t much, even if you hold the gas pedal to the floor (and the revs near redline). This Buick is one of the slowest new vehicles on the market, needing 10 seconds to struggle to 60 – with just the driver on board. Add three passengers and you’re in Prius territory – but the problem there is this is a Buick (and not a Prius) it doesn’t give 50-plus MPGs as your consolation prize.
There’s just not enough engine to match the weight – or the badge.
The optional 1.3 liter engine offers only a slight improvement, getting you to 60 in just over 9 seconds. This is glacial, in general. Other small crossovers like the Mazda CX30 and the new VW Taos are two seconds (or better) quicker to 60 and match or beat the Buick’s mileage stats. Besides which they aren’t Buicks – which is to say, they are not attempting to play in the same entry-luxury field as Buick.
On that field, there are models like the BMW X1 and Audi Q3.
The former comes standard with 228 horsepower from its standard 2.0 liter, turbocharged four cylinder engine; the latter also comes standard with a 2.0 liter turbocharged four – and 184 horsepower. To be fair, both cost several thousand dollars more as they come than the Buick costs with everything.
But the Buick can cost well over $30k when ordered with its optional 1.3 liter engine. That’s a lot to pay for not much engine.
But you do get a lot of gears with that engine.
Nine of them (vs. three in the old 225’s THM 400 automatic). There’s a lot of shifting going on. The good news is, you don’t generally notice most of it – because the top three gears are overdrives and the programming slips them in (and out) with the subtlety of shades of gray.
It sounds – and feels – much better than the CVT, especially when you floor the gas, which you’ll be doing often in order to just keep up.
Once you’ve caught up, the Encore is ok. Meaning, it isn’t objectionable in any significant way. It’s even nice in a number of ways. This is a Buick, after all. It’s quiet at speed (once you’ve reached speed) with not much road or wind noise intrusion. The suspension has plenty of give without bounce . . .
This is a Buick, after all.
The problem – for Buick – is that more or less so is everyone else.
There are only finely parsable differences in ride quality, noise intrusion and general pleasantness from one crossover to the next. Once upon a time, Buick was the go-to brand for an extra-plush, extra-large boulevard cruiser. Nothing imported was anything like a Buick – and other American brand cars that were similar – like Cadillac and Lincoln – were also very different in other ways.
This Buick isn’t – relative to almost everything. It’s just another crossover. Not bad – none of them are.
Just nothing special.
You almost need a tape measure to tell the difference between the Encore GX and the other (but still available) Encore. They both look essentially the same. But the GX iteration of the Encore is about three inches longer overall than the old version you can still buy.
The slight stretch yields up 23.5 cubic feet of cargo space behind the third row of the GX vs. 18.8 cubic feet behind the second row of the just-Enclave. Fold the GX’s rear seats and the total capacity opens up to 50.2 cubic feet (from 48.4 previously/still actually).
Kidding aside, the Enclave is spacious for its size – and relative to others its size. The Mazda CX30 – which is several inches longer – only has 20.2 cubic feet of cargo capacity behind its second row; the Audi Q3 (also several inches longer) maxes out at 48 cubic feet with its second row folded.
You can also fold the front passenger seat flat – greatly increasing the useable potential cargo-carrying space relative to others that lack this feature.
In a faint whiff kind of way, there is a scent of the bigness that used to define what a Buick once was.
You also get a few more standard luxury upgrades, such as a leather-wrapped steering wheel, six speaker stereo with satellite radio, WiFi and keyless ignition. You don’t get some other features – such as climate control AC or a power driver’s seat – which you kind of expect to be standard in a Buick – unless you move up to the Select or Essence trim. The latter comes standard with a heated leather-wrapped steering wheel, LED headlights and the power driver’s seat/climate control AC system.
Buick also limits GPS and other options such as adaptive cruise control and a 360 degree remote-view camera system to the Select and Essence trims – where they are optional.
Options such as wireless charging for your sail fawn, a sunroof, hands-free rear liftgate and automatic/rain-sensing wipers are only available with the Essence trim.
How long before there’s nothing under the hood?
It’s hard to imagine engines getting any smaller than 1.2 liters and three cylinders. Or anything weirder than putting nine speeds behind 1.3 liters.
We are at or very close to the point at which engines will disappear altogether. Because nine speeds, CVTs – and turbos – can only do so much to make tiny engines functionally feasible while achieving compliance with the Green Ukases issuing from the apparat in Washington.
Only motors – as in electric – can appease the apparat, no matter how displeasing to us.
That will be the next encore, probably.
But don’t worry. It’ll be great. You’ll get to 60 much more quickly * and you won’t ever spend a cent on gas ** again.
* You will also wait much longer and won’t go as far before you’re wait . . .
** You will also spend thousands more on the electric Encore, itself. Plus what you’ll spend to wire up your house in order to charge it.
The Bottom Line
Size still matters, a little.
Just not much – especially under the hood.
. . .
Got a question about cars, bikes, or Sickness Psychosis? Click on the “ask Eric” link and send ’em in! Or email me at EPeters952@yahoo.com if the @!** “ask Eric” button doesn’t work!
If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos.
We depend on you to keep the wheels turning!
Our donate button is here.
If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:
721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079
PS: Get an EPautos magnet or sticker or coaster in return for a $20 or more one-time donation or a $10 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a magnet or sticker or coaster – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)
My eBook about car buying (new and used) is also available for your favorite price – free! Click here. If that fails, email me at EPeters952@yahoo.com and I will send you a copy directly!
2022 Buick Encore GX – the answer to a question no one asked
I weep for what Buick has become. Is this Encore a bad vehicle? No. It’s a decent little crossover-appliance. But a Buick? To ask this question in the presence of those who remember what Buicks once were is to invite a tsunami of derision.
Ball free auto industry committing suicide.
What is the back story of this engine ? Lop off a cylinder from the 1.4 ? Where did that one originate ?
I think the Buick lucerne was the last, best, Buick. It had a rather large trunk, lots of legroom, 4-speed overdrive for both the v6 and v8 versions. The later years Northstar is a very reliable machine. I have a CXS trim and it has not failed me after 200,000 plus miles
Buick still exists,,,, why?
I know it’s big in China, where it has more of a lineup than it does here in the good ol USA…… But why keep it here in the USA if they aren’t going to give it anything besides this crap? It’s entire lineup is a handful of also rans “suvs”. It’s as bad as Chrysler and it’s nothing lineup.
Sure wish they could have broken up GM when it went bankrupt and let the parts rebuild under new ownership.
If the push to “electrify” everything continues, I predict that many brands will go away – among them, Buick. What would be the point in buying a “Buick” that is just a skate for a common-architecture electric drivetrain? GMC makes no sense, either. I submit neither do already – as GMC just sells rebadged, slightly restyled Chevys and Buick sells the same – again.
GMC’s existence has always mystified me. But they sell tons of trucks and make oodles of money. I have no idea why, but people apparently love them.
GMC gets away with what Oldsmobile and Pontiac (in their later years) didn’t – selling rebadged, slightly restyled Chevys. There is little meaningful/functional difference between a Chevy Tahoe and a GMC Yukon. It is similar to the difference between the last “Pontiac” Trans-Ams and Chevy Camaros (pre-1982 Trans-Ams were still Pontiacs, with Pontiac engines . . . well, most of them!)
“How long before there’s nothing under the hood?” – squirrel power is next.
One of the reasons given for GM being bailed out was to save American jobs – this Buick
is produced in South Korea, others in China.
Old Buick advertisement “Wouldn’t you really rather have a Buick?” – no thanks.
So this is what we’ve come to – 3 cylinder engines in an “suv”?
With an increase in time, products should get better. The reverse is now true.
The govt is busy relegating (through regulation) autos to an undesirable commodity that inspire no one to want one.
If this is the future (and I bet this is not the last 3 banger you see) then it is bleak.
Bring for the day when a Briggs & Stratton will power us down the road.
Seems to me the companies that have fallen in line with the gaia cult are intentionally making IC an unreliable dumpster fire. People who don’t realize how dependable nineties to oughts vehicles got will be begging for e cars after a decade of overstuffed engine failures. Theres no way that subcompact euro car engine is going to avoid sucking and pissing its oil everywhere lugging a fat ass crossover.
I agree with you, Panem –
Whether intention or not, the effect will be just that – the rendering of “modern” IC cars so unappealing they will make electric cars seem appealing, in contrast.
A 3-cylinder is OK in a Subaru Justy, or Geo Metro. Buick? Not so much. Ernie is right, we are reaching nadir for the traditional personal transportation vehicle, and it can only go downhill into Trabant-land from here. Except, the 21st century version will be more like a golf cart than a Trabant.
Ah, you had to go to the Electra 225 Eric. In the 60’s, you knew that was really SOMEONE driving that Deuce-and-a-Quarter, with Breath, Slide, and Glide, and a potent Nailhead V8 under the 2-mile-long hood!
This is sad- cars in general have “jumped the shark” and reflect the ongoing degeneration of the once great USA.
With all the gimmickry and gadgetry added, we are now getting back to the 1950’s in terms of performance. A 1950 Ford, with a 226 flathead 6 and a manual 3 speed overdrive (which could be selected in every gear so essentially a 6 speed) weighed less than this Buick, had very comparable power and mileage, and was easily affordable and repairable by 95% plus of Americans. Yes, there was more wind noise, harshness, and vibration. We’ve gained there- but what we’ve lost was what made American cars great. Why would anybody spend a year’s after tax wages on one of these turd rollers? Just to throw it away as non-repairable after 7-10 years or trade it in on an upside down loan after a couple years on another ball and chain?
What I fear is that the older American cars were marketed to an older breed of Americans who appreciated freedom, actual diversity of thought and culture, and a good value. And these newer things are being marketed to new soviet woman- who values nothing at all and has no hope for any future.
I think for this thing, 7-10 years is generous. I think they probably last more like 4-5 years. Probably designed to last just long enough to get past the warranty period.
Small, weak, gay-looking, expensive to fix, proprietary software-laden crap. Probably uncomfortable seats and ride with a shit interior. A true testament to the current US car market.
Give me Grandma’s LeSabre or Park Avenue any day of the week.
Me too, Brandon –
Us Gen Xers are old enough to have been driven around in cars like the old 225 – and seen its fellows, all around us, as kids. It was glorious. And it makes these times look so sad.
The obvious answer here is an engine swap with a Milwaukee 8 motor, screamin’ eagle stage 4 kit and drag pipes under the body just to throw people off from the sound. Probably get more power that way.
How they call this a Buick is beyond me. How sad GM has fallen so far.
I just rented a Ford escape with 1.5T and it was not very nice. It got broken into (near SF of course, smash and grab) so the rental comp. gave us a Camry, much better.
I haven’t driven a 1.2T yet, but it’s gotta suck.