Jump to content
News
Reviews
Discussons
Activity
Create New...
Close

  • 💬 Join the Conversation

    CnG Logo SQ 2023 RedBlue FavIcon300w.png
    Since 2001, Cheers & Gears has been the go-to hub for automotive enthusiasts. Join today to access our vibrant forums, upload your vehicle to the Garage, and connect with fellow gearheads around the world.

     

  • Drew Dowdell
    Drew Dowdell

    By Drew Dowdell •

    2020 Buick Encore GX Will Get Two Three-Cylinder Engine Offerings

      ...for an all three-cylinder lineup...

    When the Buick Encore GX debuted in late May 2019, it was originally reported that it would have a Turbo-4 cylinder with more power than the current Buick Encore.  That turned out to be both true and false.  The engine will be more powerful than the current Encore, however it will be in 3 cylinder form rather than 4-cylinder.  GM Authority uncovered the fleet order guides yesterday and published the stats.

    The Buick Encore GX will be offered with a 1.2 liter three-cylinder turbo that produces 137 horsepower at 5000 RPM and 166 lb-ft of torque at 2500 RPM. That is 1 less horsepower but 18 lb-ft more torque than the current base 1.4 liter turbo four. The 1.2-liter will only be available in front-wheel drive trims and paired only with a CVT.

    The step up engine is a 1.3-liter three-cylinder turbo that produces 155 horsepower at 5600 RPM and 174 lb-ft of torque at 1500 rpm. That compares roughly the same to the offered but not often ordered 1.4-liter direct injected turbo offered in the Encore Sport Touring at 153 horsepower at 5600 rpm and 177 lb-ft at 2000 - 4000 rpm. This engine is offered with a CVT on front-wheel drive models and with a 9-speed automatic on all-wheel drive models. 

    The Encore GX is the slightly bigger brother to the Encore, offering five more cubic feet of cargo room.  Built in China, the Encore GX will arrive in dealerships this fall. 

    Go to articles

    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments

    ccap41
    7 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

    If only it hadn’t been ruined by the CVT in it. Just an absolute deal killer. 

    Yeah, not ideal but the people buying these likely have no clue and would welcome the no-shift feeling more than the rare instance where an enthusiast like Drew buys one. 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    Drew Dowdell
    17 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

    If only it hadn’t been ruined by the CVT in it. Just an absolute deal killer. 

     

    9 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

    Yeah, not ideal but the people buying these likely have no clue and would welcome the no-shift feeling more than the rare instance where an enthusiast like Drew buys one. 

    It's only in the FWD models.  The AWD get the 9-speed auto. I assume most of these are sold as AWD. 

    • Thanks 3
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    Drew Dowdell
    17 minutes ago, riviera74 said:

    Why put in a CVT in any vehicle? Cost?  Alleged efficiencies?

    As for the Encore GX, it should be sold as an AWD companion to the Encore here in the USA.

    Cost and efficiency... yes. 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    surreal1272
    47 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

    Yeah, not ideal but the people buying these likely have no clue and would welcome the no-shift feeling more than the rare instance where an enthusiast like Drew buys one. 

    Most of those clueless folks end up trading those in for a CUV with a real transmission, I’m willing to bet, when they realize that merging on the freeway or trying to pass someone is an exercise in futility. 

     

    @Drew Dowdell-I’m thinking that it’s the opposite and that FWD models are the bigger sellers because they are far cheaper than their AWD models. Cheaper is the reason for the existence of the CVT anyway. 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    Drew Dowdell
    3 hours ago, ccap41 said:

    Yeah, not ideal but the people buying these likely have no clue and would welcome the no-shift feeling more than the rare instance where an enthusiast like Drew buys one. 

    Also, to be clear, the Encore was bought for my partner and I was to take the CR-V until we replaced that.  We just never did replace it, we sold it for scrap instead.  I use my Toronado as much as possible as a daily driver now. And then I have that Cruze that mostly just sits there. 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    ccap41
    25 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

    Also, to be clear, the Encore was bought for my partner and I was to take the CR-V until we replaced that.  We just never did replace it, we sold it for scrap instead.  I use my Toronado as much as possible as a daily driver now. And then I have that Cruze that mostly just sits there. 

    Wait, WHAT? You sold the CRV for scrap and have a Cruze? When did this happen? 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    G. David Felt
    59 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

    Wait, WHAT? You sold the CRV for scrap and have a Cruze? When did this happen? 

    A while back, he posted about it here. Will have to search his posts, but I know he posted about getting ride of the CRV.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    Drew Dowdell
    1 hour ago, ccap41 said:

    Wait, WHAT? You sold the CRV for scrap and have a Cruze? When did this happen? 

    Yeah, back at Thanksgiving time. The brake lines had all rusted out and so had the front subframe holding the engine in. It was going to cost many thousands to fix, so we just sold it for $1000.  My partner's dad had a series of strokes last September and can't drive anymore, so we ended up with his Cruze, with very low mileage for its age, as a second car as soon as the CR-V was gone.  We're probably going to put it on the market soon. 

    In other news, I signed the paperwork this afternoon for my rental property to go on the market as well. It's about damn time the agent got around to that. 

    • Thanks 1
    • Agree 2
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    G. David Felt
    12 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

    Yeah, back at Thanksgiving time. The brake lines had all rusted out and so had the front subframe holding the engine in. It was going to cost many thousands to fix, so we just sold it for $1000.  My partner's dad had a series of strokes last September and can't drive anymore, so we ended up with his Cruze, with very low mileage for its age, as a second car as soon as the CR-V was gone.  We're probably going to put it on the market soon. 

    In other news, I signed the paperwork this afternoon for my rental property to go on the market as well. It's about damn time the agent got around to that. 

    Congratulations, I hope all falls in place so you can unload the rental property, sell your existing house and end up in a new house with that CT6 Sport you want! :metal:

    • Haha 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    ocnblu

    And here I thought tiny turbos were "over", a thing discredited by reality... only here, they're going even further into the realm.  The power figures sound good for the "Stage II" version, but I wonder what a modern, normally aspirated 2.0 would do in its place.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    ccap41
    3 hours ago, ocnblu said:

    And here I thought tiny turbos were "over", a thing discredited by reality... only here, they're going even further into the realm.  The power figures sound good for the "Stage II" version, but I wonder what a modern, normally aspirated 2.0 would do in its place.

    It would have zero bottom end to mid range, not ideal for a vehicle like this. 

    • Thanks 1
    • Sad 1
    • Agree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    Drew Dowdell

    I would have liked to see the 1.6T they used in the Cascada in there. 200 hp and 206 lb-ft of torque with an overboost to 221 lb-ft would have moved this along smartly and given it the premium feel it needs to be a Buick. 

    • Like 1
    • Agree 3
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    surreal1272

    These engine choices and numbers are just weak sauce on what is supposed to be a premium level CUV. Congrats Buick, You gave it as much power as the average Kia Soul (which is actually offered with more power if one chooses).

    • Sad 1
    • Agree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    surreal1272
    1 hour ago, dfelt said:

    Sad Panda on the 3 banger, not a luxury engine or experience one would want in an auto.

    I will never have a three cylinder anything and sure as hell not one with a supposed premium badge on it. Between that and the CVT, it just ruins an otherwise nice looking little CUV. 

    • Agree 2
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    regfootball

    I would have no issue with a 1.5 cylinder, either a three or a four and something outputting similar to the 170/200 in the Terrain.

    Rogue Sport, which i see as a competitor to this is kind of the same deal.  Nice attractive package, and paltry engine output.  Rogue sport has pathetic power ratings.  Honestly the optional engine here should be the base considering its a Buick, and there should be an optional mill in that 170/180hp and 200 torque plus range.  Or drop the new 2.0 LSY in it.  OH WAIT they save those big 2.0 engines for XT5's now.

    thanks EPA

    Edited by regfootball
    • Sad 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    daves87rs
    12 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

    I would have liked to see the 1.6T they used in the Cascada in there. 200 hp and 206 lb-ft of torque with an overboost to 221 lb-ft would have moved this along smartly and given it the premium feel it needs to be a Buick. 

    Sound  good...could even add maybe a 2.0 turbo and watch how it moves... ? 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites


    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
    Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

    Guest
    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

    ×



  • Support Real Automotive Journalism

    Cheers and Gears Logo

    Since 2001, Cheers & Gears has delivered real content and honest opinions — not emotionless AI output or manufacturer-filtered fluff.

    If you value independent voices and authentic reviews, consider subscribing. Plans start at just $2.25/month, and paid members enjoy an ad-light experience.*

    You can view subscription options here.

    *a very limited number of ads contain special coupon deals for our members and will show

  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • oldshurst442
      Beautiful Cars Appreciation Thread

      By oldshurst442 · Posted

    • oldshurst442
      Random Thoughts Thread

      By oldshurst442 · Posted

      Happy Birthday!!! Cheers!!!  
    • oldshurst442
      Porsche News: 2026 Porsche Cayenne Goes Electric with 1,084 Horespower

      By oldshurst442 · Posted

      Yes. Ferrari was always a company selling towards the top tier rich.  I am not sure about Porsche's marketing after 1945, but I do know that Porsche wanted to go up market, really up market,  to sell to the rich in the late 1990s.    Rolex watches were always expensive.  But not always being a  chic jewellery accessory.  Rolex watches were expensive time pieces because they were highly precise time pieces meant for professions that required time pieces that were precise in time telling. Also, Rolexes were also engineered to be tough and not break in those job environments. Therefore the high price tags of them were because the high standard of engineering that went into them.  The value of the brand went up because of the people that bought them praised them. It was after the quartz movement of the 1960s and 1970s that Rolex needed to re-invent themselves as battery powered watches were MORE precise ate their lunch. So...like many other "swiss" automatic watch makers launched their new image as luxury time pieces. It was easy for Rolex to do as Rolex was coveted as a great engineered watch to begin with.   Like I said...its a boys club that they want to be known as and bought by (rich) people that have bought into that boys club mentality.  It aint for you or for @ccap41.   Even if you or @ccap41 had the money, its obvious that you guys have not fallen for this marketing gimmick.  Its barely for me either.  1. I cant afford Ferraris, Porsches or Rolexes. 2. I do not want to be in a Porsche Boys club.  I like Porsches and all, but Im not in their camp.  Not because of the boys club marketing schemes. Its just that I am not a rabid Porsche guy fanatic.  3. If I had 1% money, I am not sure Id be a Ferrari guy either.  After deep thought, I am more of a Ferrari guy than I am a Porsche guy.  But maybe not enough for me to fall for this kind of sales scheme either. 4.  Rolex...   I do like a Rolex.  But I am not one to boast about what kind of time piece Im wearing. So...nix me on that club as well. 5. It looks like I am aligned with you and @ccap41's take on this, but with me, I shrug it off.  I see why the companies want to go down this road. And I see why there are some people...rich people...that do not mind giving their monies away to these companies. And at the end of the day, its what makes them happy and superior to the rest of us as we do not have the time or money or will to buy into any of this. And kudos for them for buying into that lifestyle.    At the end of the day, whether we are talking about Ferrari or Porsche or Rolex, some of their product, past and present, have been REALLY REALLY EXCELLENT product. Whether we are talking about looks and style or engineering and technology, all 3 have styled and engineered awesomeness.  We could talk about their products that were failures, but wouldnt that signal some sort of sour grapes analogy on our part? Its a company's right to mold their brand image as they wish.   Whether we agree to it as individuals is irrelevant. What is relevant though is how collectively we ALL feel about it.  In Ferraris case its a huge success. Porsche and Rolex have to work on it just a tad more. But I feels its successful.  If there is a downfall for Porsche, I think it has more to do with their decisions to being a sports car maker ALONGSIDE being a (rich) family grocery getter/soccer mom SUV maker.  The failure of having two opposing identities is killing Porsche.  And it is a double edged sword.  On the one hand, if not for the SUVs, Porsche would have been gone by the early 2000s.  The inevitable was prolonged?  Rolex... Too many boutique time piece makers have propped up in the last 15 years that took their place in some areas of the really expensive realm.  Quartz time pieces keep on being a nuisance to them. This time around its the fashion watch trend. The name brand watch sellers like Michael Korrs and Hugo Boss and even Porsche that have taken some of Rolexes market share.  The advent of smart watches also hurts them.  So they decided to change it up in the sales realm.  Are there enough Rolex worshippers out there that will buy cheaper Rolexes or older models just to get that one highly anticipated limited edition time piece? Well...although watches are strictly fashion devices today, there are more than enough fashionable time pieces around for people to by-pass Rolex fandom.  Some have their own unique look to them and are sought after and some just emulate Rolex but watch brand snobs are too few today so Rolex has a steep hill to climb because most people that wear watches dont give a shyte what kind of watch you wear.  Unlike cars, car snobbery actually still exits...  Hence why Ferrari is still king of the douchiness and going on strong. Stronger than ever Id say.    
    • ccap41
      Random Thoughts Thread

      By ccap41 · Posted

      Happy (belated) Birthday @G. David Felt!
    • ccap41
      Porsche News: 2026 Porsche Cayenne Goes Electric with 1,084 Horespower

      By ccap41 · Posted

      Oh yeah, I forgot to even mention the wireless charging! That is also a game changer. It eliminates yet another thing people are afraid to change, plugging in. Yes, i realize it is EXTREMELY easy to do, but the anti-EV people love to point out "I don't want to have to plug in every night". It's just another thing to check off the list. 

  • Who's Online (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online

  • My Clubs

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

Hey there, we noticed you're using an ad-blocker. We're a small site that is supported by ads or subscriptions. We rely on these to pay for server costs and vehicle reviews.  Please consider whitelisting us in your ad-blocker, or if you really like what you see, you can pick up one of our subscriptions for just $1.75 a month or $15 a year. It may not seem like a lot, but it goes a long way to help support real, honest content, that isn't generated by an AI bot.

See you out there.

Drew
Editor-in-Chief

I've whitelisted
Continue without support

Write what you are looking for and press enter or click the search icon to begin your search