Topic: First Drive: 2013 Buick Encore

[Noto]

   I read that power is not enough and ask...for who? I would say more than adequate...it always is and wonder about remarks of this kind made about cars and do not cosider my driving to be nauseatingly boring. The remarks have never turned out to be right. My little Hyundai Accent was similarly slimed and yet it had plenty of power. So, enough power to enter the highway safely is all that is required here and this usually is enough for the occasional pass on B roads for safety conscious drivers. Enough power to hold top tranny speed on the highway at 120 km/ (a little leeway)...not including steeper up-grades.

Wrong question - it's not a matter of having enough power for someone, but enough power for the vehicle itself to make it more efficient.  The smaller the engine, the harder it has to work - always (to a point - there is such a thing as peak efficiency).

Take the last gen Rav4 for example - the difference in fuel consumption between the 4cyl and 6cyl was really small (2MPG), yet the V6 made ~100 hp more.  Of course, Toyota axed that engine choice because they're silly.

The biggest problem with the Encore will be that it small displacement turbos may work well with manny trannys that can get the most of the smaller engine, but the Encore doesn't have one.  Even the XV Crosstrek with its 2.0L NA engine gets better fuel economy (8.2/6.0 city/hwy) compared to the AWD Encore's (8.8/6.9 city/hwy).  Even in FWD, the Encore only matches the more powerful, bigger, and AWD XV.

So you ask who needs more power?  The car does.  It's not a matter of preference, it's a matter of engineering.  Epic GM fail.

Let's also remember's consumer report's article on small displacement turbos:

"Another example is our tests of the Chevrolet Cruze. Our base Cruze had the 1.8-liter four-cylinder; our higher-end 1LT version came with the 1.4-liter turbo four cylinder. While the 1.4-liter feels marginally more powerful in daily driving, it was barely faster to 60 mph, and it got the same fuel economy as the larger engine—26 mpg overall."

Source:  http://news.consumerreports.org/cars/2013/02/consumer-reports-finds-small-turbo-engines-dont-deliver-on-fuel-economy-claims.html

[Lesley]

Touring - saw them being built in Korea a few years ago. I like the GT too, but the Touring gelled better with me overall.

[ChaosphereIX]

   I read that power is not enough and ask...for who? I would say more than adequate...it always is and wonder about remarks of this kind made about cars and do not cosider my driving to be nauseatingly boring. The remarks have never turned out to be right. My little Hyundai Accent was similarly slimed and yet it had plenty of power. So, enough power to enter the highway safely is all that is required here and this usually is enough for the occasional pass on B roads for safety conscious drivers. Enough power to hold top tranny speed on the highway at 120 km/ (a little leeway)...not including steeper up-grades.

Wrong question - it's not a matter of having enough power for someone, but enough power for the vehicle itself to make it more efficient.  The smaller the engine, the harder it has to work - always (to a point - there is such a thing as peak efficiency).

Take the last gen Rav4 for example - the difference in fuel consumption between the 4cyl and 6cyl was really small (2MPG), yet the V6 made ~100 hp more.  Of course, Toyota axed that engine choice because they're silly.

The biggest problem with the Encore will be that it small displacement turbos may work well with manny trannys that can get the most of the smaller engine, but the Encore doesn't have one.  Even the XV Crosstrek with its 2.0L NA engine gets better fuel economy (8.2/6.0 city/hwy) compared to the AWD Encore's (8.8/6.9 city/hwy).  Even in FWD, the Encore only matches the more powerful, bigger, and AWD XV.

So you ask who needs more power?  The car does.  It's not a matter of preference, it's a matter of engineering.  Epic GM fail.

Let's also remember's consumer report's article on small displacement turbos:

"Another example is our tests of the Chevrolet Cruze. Our base Cruze had the 1.8-liter four-cylinder; our higher-end 1LT version came with the 1.4-liter turbo four cylinder. While the 1.4-liter feels marginally more powerful in daily driving, it was barely faster to 60 mph, and it got the same fuel economy as the larger engine—26 mpg overall."

Source:  http://news.consumerreports.org/cars/2013/02/consumer-reports-finds-small-turbo-engines-dont-deliver-on-fuel-economy-claims.html

then how come tiny engines work in european cars? I dont hear them complaining? Must be our driving style of flooring it and slamming on the brakes...plus lack of driving skill or the lack of manuals...

[ChaosphereIX]

Want to see slow? Look at just about anything from the Hyundai/Kia stable without a turbocharger - first 2 gears are zippy, then they fall of a cliff [looking at you Soul].

I wouldn't describe any Hyundai I have driven with the 2.4l 4 cylinder to be slow.  Neither would I describe the Elantra with the 1.8l in those terms.  Probably the non-turbo Veloster is the only Hyundai I have driven that I would call slow.  Now for slow, just drive any non-GS Regal.  There's your 'slow' right there.

my mom's Soul was terribly slow - had to floor it to get it to go anywhere past 30km/h. It had the 2.0L, dont think the 2.4 was offered in it. I do agree the 2.4 in the Sonata is adequate for its needs, but nothing to write home about. Regardless, the 2.0L in the Soul is slow, you cannot deny that. Also the Elantra is also pretty lethargic in the midrange. But I guess it also is adequate for what is demanded of it. On that note, so is the 1.4T in the Trax/Encore. It gets you up to speed greatly and without needing to redline it thanks to the turbo [average people are afraid to wind up an engine into the higher revs]. It will with no drag races, but for everyday driving it will be fine.

[Jaeger]

Want to see slow? Look at just about anything from the Hyundai/Kia stable without a turbocharger - first 2 gears are zippy, then they fall of a cliff [looking at you Soul].

I wouldn't describe any Hyundai I have driven with the 2.4l 4 cylinder to be slow.  Neither would I describe the Elantra with the 1.8l in those terms.  Probably the non-turbo Veloster is the only Hyundai I have driven that I would call slow.  Now for slow, just drive any non-GS Regal.  There's your 'slow' right there.

my mom's Soul was terribly slow - had to floor it to get it to go anywhere past 30km/h. It had the 2.0L, dont think the 2.4 was offered in it. I do agree the 2.4 in the Sonata is adequate for its needs, but nothing to write home about. Regardless, the 2.0L in the Soul is slow, you cannot deny that. Also the Elantra is also pretty lethargic in the midrange. But I guess it also is adequate for what is demanded of it. On that note, so is the 1.4T in the Trax/Encore. It gets you up to speed greatly and without needing to redline it thanks to the turbo [average people are afraid to wind up an engine into the higher revs]. It will with no drag races, but for everyday driving it will be fine.

I have never driven the Soul and so don't dispute your characterization of it.  But how on earth do you extrapolate from that one car to claiming that 'just about anything from the Hyundai/Kia stable without a turbocharger ' is slow?  That's not even close to being a remotely valid generalization, IMO, and that's before we get to the direct-opposite-of-slow V6 and V8 motors.

[ChaosphereIX]

Want to see slow? Look at just about anything from the Hyundai/Kia stable without a turbocharger - first 2 gears are zippy, then they fall of a cliff [looking at you Soul].

I wouldn't describe any Hyundai I have driven with the 2.4l 4 cylinder to be slow.  Neither would I describe the Elantra with the 1.8l in those terms.  Probably the non-turbo Veloster is the only Hyundai I have driven that I would call slow.  Now for slow, just drive any non-GS Regal.  There's your 'slow' right there.

my mom's Soul was terribly slow - had to floor it to get it to go anywhere past 30km/h. It had the 2.0L, dont think the 2.4 was offered in it. I do agree the 2.4 in the Sonata is adequate for its needs, but nothing to write home about. Regardless, the 2.0L in the Soul is slow, you cannot deny that. Also the Elantra is also pretty lethargic in the midrange. But I guess it also is adequate for what is demanded of it. On that note, so is the 1.4T in the Trax/Encore. It gets you up to speed greatly and without needing to redline it thanks to the turbo [average people are afraid to wind up an engine into the higher revs]. It will with no drag races, but for everyday driving it will be fine.

I have never driven the Soul and so don't dispute your characterization of it.  But how on earth do you extrapolate from that one car to claiming that 'just about anything from the Hyundai/Kia stable without a turbocharger ' is slow?  That's not even close to being a remotely valid generalization, IMO, and that's before we get to the direct-opposite-of-slow V6 and V8 motors.

Ok I agree I might have been a bit loose with the term 'everything', but I have driven a Veloster na and turbo, Soul with both engines, Sonata 2.0T, Elantra, and Tucson. All seemed slow except the turbos. Maybe the ones I did not drive are not slow. I will say that the n/a ones I drove are slow, the ones I have not driven I dont know. I know for sure your 2.0T is fast Jaeger, not disputing that. Although I did race a Optima 2.0T recently and I am sorry to say it saw my Saab's taillights...

[Noto]

then how come tiny engines work in european cars? I dont hear them complaining? Must be our driving style of flooring it and slamming on the brakes...plus lack of driving skill or the lack of manuals...

1) their cars are notably slower, and they don't complain because their gas prices are so high that they don't care about speed unless they can afford it.
2) manuals are no longer always the more fuel efficient route - in fact, they seldom are now...auto tranny tech has come a LONG way.
3) their tiny engines are either diesels, which have so much low-end torque that real-world economy is close to EPA estimates, or small, non-turbo engines.  Europeans typically face winding, narrow roads and lots of hills - very different terrain than North America faces (except for a few locales in the mountains).  1.4Ts do more for marketing than they do for actual performance/fuel savings.

Turbocharging is NOT free power/torque - they work by allowing more fuel to be burned per unit time because there is more oxygen via the forced air induction.  It essentially allows the same power in a smaller engine as you would get in a larger one, but that doesn't mean that it uses less fuel in doing so - marginally less fuel at idle, absolutely, and likely [also marginally] even at low-speed, constant cruising...but NOT during acceleration where a V6 or even a larger I4 could stay in the 2000rpm range, but these lil' guys rev up higher, burning more fuel in the process.

As for "our" driving styles?  Speak for yourself.  I, and many others, understand how to coast just fine.

[ChaosphereIX]

then how come tiny engines work in european cars? I dont hear them complaining? Must be our driving style of flooring it and slamming on the brakes...plus lack of driving skill or the lack of manuals...

1) their cars are notably slower, and they don't complain because their gas prices are so high that they don't care about speed unless they can afford it.
2) manuals are no longer always the more fuel efficient route - in fact, they seldom are now...auto tranny tech has come a LONG way.
3) their tiny engines are either diesels, which have so much low-end torque that real-world economy is close to EPA estimates, or small, non-turbo engines.  Europeans typically face winding, narrow roads and lots of hills - very different terrain than North America faces (except for a few locales in the mountains).  1.4Ts do more for marketing than they do for actual performance/fuel savings.

Turbocharging is NOT free power/torque - they work by allowing more fuel to be burned per unit time because there is more oxygen via the forced air induction.  It essentially allows the same power in a smaller engine as you would get in a larger one, but that doesn't mean that it uses less fuel in doing so - marginally less fuel at idle, absolutely, and likely [also marginally] even at low-speed, constant cruising...but NOT during acceleration where a V6 or even a larger I4 could stay in the 2000rpm range, but these lil' guys rev up higher, burning more fuel in the process.

As for "our" driving styles?  Speak for yourself.  I, and many others, understand how to coast just fine.

Your first comment makes no sense, anyone would complain if the car was too slow. That is why they go for diesels because in real world driving they get the job done on motorways, cuty driving, and b-roads. I have heard many complain about slow cars in Europe, mainly because they were not turbos or diesels. I agree with the manuals argument, to an extent. The 1.4t is a world engine IIRC, as well Europeans really dont dig small petrol n/a engines, they prefer trubos - at least that is what I am seeing with their engine offerings. I can drive well too, but the majority of people cant - that is what I am saying. And I know how a turbocharger works, I never claimed it was free power...

my comment still stands. Europeans do fine with tiny engines with forced induction, with moderate power, and they get along just fine. Not all of Europe is mountain switchback road, just look central France...

[PJ]

Want to see slow? Look at just about anything from the Hyundai/Kia stable without a turbocharger - first 2 gears are zippy, then they fall of a cliff [looking at you Soul].

I wouldn't describe any Hyundai I have driven with the 2.4l 4 cylinder to be slow.  Neither would I describe the Elantra with the 1.8l in those terms.  Probably the non-turbo Veloster is the only Hyundai I have driven that I would call slow.  Now for slow, just drive any non-GS Regal.  There's your 'slow' right there.

my mom's Soul was terribly slow - had to floor it to get it to go anywhere past 30km/h. It had the 2.0L, dont think the 2.4 was offered in it. I do agree the 2.4 in the Sonata is adequate for its needs, but nothing to write home about. Regardless, the 2.0L in the Soul is slow, you cannot deny that. Also the Elantra is also pretty lethargic in the midrange. But I guess it also is adequate for what is demanded of it. On that note, so is the 1.4T in the Trax/Encore. It gets you up to speed greatly and without needing to redline it thanks to the turbo [average people are afraid to wind up an engine into the higher revs]. It will with no drag races, but for everyday driving it will be fine.

I have never driven the Soul and so don't dispute your characterization of it.  But how on earth do you extrapolate from that one car to claiming that 'just about anything from the Hyundai/Kia stable without a turbocharger ' is slow?  That's not even close to being a remotely valid generalization, IMO, and that's before we get to the direct-opposite-of-slow V6 and V8 motors.

I've driven a couple Souls and I don't see how they could be called slow.  I drove a 1.6 with a manual and a 2.0 with an automatic and both had plenty of power for the type of car (4 cyl, entry priced wagon).  They both scooted up to 100kph with ease.  The newer ones should be even better as they gained some more power last year.

[PJ]

I think the Encore is a good idea even if it's not something I would buy.  There are countless small cute utes on the road these days and no sign of the demand slowing.  Only problem I would say is wrong engine.

The 1.4 turbo would be fine in the Chevy version if it started around $16K but the Buick needs the 2.0 turbo.

[Jaeger]

Want to see slow? Look at just about anything from the Hyundai/Kia stable without a turbocharger - first 2 gears are zippy, then they fall of a cliff [looking at you Soul].

I wouldn't describe any Hyundai I have driven with the 2.4l 4 cylinder to be slow.  Neither would I describe the Elantra with the 1.8l in those terms.  Probably the non-turbo Veloster is the only Hyundai I have driven that I would call slow.  Now for slow, just drive any non-GS Regal.  There's your 'slow' right there.

my mom's Soul was terribly slow - had to floor it to get it to go anywhere past 30km/h. It had the 2.0L, dont think the 2.4 was offered in it. I do agree the 2.4 in the Sonata is adequate for its needs, but nothing to write home about. Regardless, the 2.0L in the Soul is slow, you cannot deny that. Also the Elantra is also pretty lethargic in the midrange. But I guess it also is adequate for what is demanded of it. On that note, so is the 1.4T in the Trax/Encore. It gets you up to speed greatly and without needing to redline it thanks to the turbo [average people are afraid to wind up an engine into the higher revs]. It will with no drag races, but for everyday driving it will be fine.

I have never driven the Soul and so don't dispute your characterization of it.  But how on earth do you extrapolate from that one car to claiming that 'just about anything from the Hyundai/Kia stable without a turbocharger ' is slow?  That's not even close to being a remotely valid generalization, IMO, and that's before we get to the direct-opposite-of-slow V6 and V8 motors.

Ok I agree I might have been a bit loose with the term 'everything', but I have driven a Veloster na and turbo, Soul with both engines, Sonata 2.0T, Elantra, and Tucson. All seemed slow except the turbos. Maybe the ones I did not drive are not slow. I will say that the n/a ones I drove are slow, the ones I have not driven I dont know. I know for sure your 2.0T is fast Jaeger, not disputing that. Although I did race a Optima 2.0T recently and I am sorry to say it saw my Saab's taillights...

I've driven that Saab. It's no slug.  But assuming it's not heavily modded, I'd be happy to oblige a rematch with the 2.0T at your convenience. 

Elantra and Tucson are not fast cars - but neither are they remotely "slow" as compared with their competitors.  In the first compact sport ute comparison that I participated in here at autos.ca, the Tucson was (surprisngly) viewed by many as the sports car of the bunch.  The Mazda CX-5 - now that was slow.  Brilliant handling and great steering feel, but slow.  I similarly got to drive the Elantra not just by itself, but in direct and immediate comparison with 5 or 6 class competitors in the autos.ca compact comparison test.  No way it was "slow" in relative comparison to the others.

[ChaosphereIX]

Want to see slow? Look at just about anything from the Hyundai/Kia stable without a turbocharger - first 2 gears are zippy, then they fall of a cliff [looking at you Soul].

I wouldn't describe any Hyundai I have driven with the 2.4l 4 cylinder to be slow.  Neither would I describe the Elantra with the 1.8l in those terms.  Probably the non-turbo Veloster is the only Hyundai I have driven that I would call slow.  Now for slow, just drive any non-GS Regal.  There's your 'slow' right there.

my mom's Soul was terribly slow - had to floor it to get it to go anywhere past 30km/h. It had the 2.0L, dont think the 2.4 was offered in it. I do agree the 2.4 in the Sonata is adequate for its needs, but nothing to write home about. Regardless, the 2.0L in the Soul is slow, you cannot deny that. Also the Elantra is also pretty lethargic in the midrange. But I guess it also is adequate for what is demanded of it. On that note, so is the 1.4T in the Trax/Encore. It gets you up to speed greatly and without needing to redline it thanks to the turbo [average people are afraid to wind up an engine into the higher revs]. It will with no drag races, but for everyday driving it will be fine.

I have never driven the Soul and so don't dispute your characterization of it.  But how on earth do you extrapolate from that one car to claiming that 'just about anything from the Hyundai/Kia stable without a turbocharger ' is slow?  That's not even close to being a remotely valid generalization, IMO, and that's before we get to the direct-opposite-of-slow V6 and V8 motors.

Ok I agree I might have been a bit loose with the term 'everything', but I have driven a Veloster na and turbo, Soul with both engines, Sonata 2.0T, Elantra, and Tucson. All seemed slow except the turbos. Maybe the ones I did not drive are not slow. I will say that the n/a ones I drove are slow, the ones I have not driven I dont know. I know for sure your 2.0T is fast Jaeger, not disputing that. Although I did race a Optima 2.0T recently and I am sorry to say it saw my Saab's taillights...

I've driven that Saab. It's no slug.  But assuming it's not heavily modded, I'd be happy to oblige a rematch with the 2.0T at your convenience. 

Elantra and Tucson are not fast cars - but neither are they remotely "slow" as compared with their competitors.  In the first compact sport ute comparison that I participated in here at autos.ca, the Tucson was (surprisngly) viewed by many as the sports car of the bunch.  The Mazda CX-5 - now that was slow.  Brilliant handling and great steering feel, but slow.  I similarly got to drive the Elantra not just by itself, but in direct and immediate comparison with 5 or 6 class competitors in the autos.ca compact comparison test.  No way it was "slow" in relative comparison to the others.

Look out for my Black Beauty SS 2.0T tooling around Ottawa...once it dries up and I get my summer rubber on I will no longer be spinning tires in first 2 gears...I am sure it will be a close one as I am only Stage 1 so 265hp/290tq. Will probably be close...

I hear ya on the direct competition, my compass is slewed by driving Saabs and fast Volvos/Buicks as of late. Lets call them 'adequate.'
I hear ya.

[Noto]

I've driven a couple Souls and I don't see how they could be called slow.  I drove a 1.6 with a manual and a 2.0 with an automatic and both had plenty of power for the type of car (4 cyl, entry priced wagon).  They both scooted up to 100kph with ease.  The newer ones should be even better as they gained some more power last year.

I rented a Soul the weekend before that whole fuel scandal came out - the Soul was FAR from slow (also far from fast - but faster than I expected), very peppy and competent on the highway as well (had the 2.0L).  Sucked gas on the highway at 9.5L/100km at 110km/h though.

[Noto]

my comment still stands.

You comment can still stand, but it lacks legitimacy and spell-check.

[ChaosphereIX]

my comment still stands.

You comment can still stand, but it lacks legitimacy and spell-check.

English double majors never know how to spell

[ChaosphereIX]

I've driven a couple Souls and I don't see how they could be called slow.  I drove a 1.6 with a manual and a 2.0 with an automatic and both had plenty of power for the type of car (4 cyl, entry priced wagon).  They both scooted up to 100kph with ease.  The newer ones should be even better as they gained some more power last year.

I rented a Soul the weekend before that whole fuel scandal came out - the Soul was FAR from slow (also far from fast - but faster than I expected), very peppy and competent on the highway as well (had the 2.0L).  Sucked gas on the highway at 9.5L/100km at 110km/h though.

one thing I hated on the highway in the Soul was the fact that it kicked down all the time, so much so it got very, very annoying quite quickly. Was only going 120, but the engine made me feel like I was pushing it way too hard. It did not feel quick at all - albeit below 60 it had some shove but nothing to write home about. And yes it does such gas for what it is and what it is moving around.

[Solstice2006]

Want to see slow? Look at just about anything from the Hyundai/Kia stable without a turbocharger - first 2 gears are zippy, then they fall of a cliff [looking at you Soul].

I wouldn't describe any Hyundai I have driven with the 2.4l 4 cylinder to be slow.  Neither would I describe the Elantra with the 1.8l in those terms.  Probably the non-turbo Veloster is the only Hyundai I have driven that I would call slow.  Now for slow, just drive any non-GS Regal.  There's your 'slow' right there.

my mom's Soul was terribly slow - had to floor it to get it to go anywhere past 30km/h. It had the 2.0L, dont think the 2.4 was offered in it. I do agree the 2.4 in the Sonata is adequate for its needs, but nothing to write home about. Regardless, the 2.0L in the Soul is slow, you cannot deny that. Also the Elantra is also pretty lethargic in the midrange. But I guess it also is adequate for what is demanded of it. On that note, so is the 1.4T in the Trax/Encore. It gets you up to speed greatly and without needing to redline it thanks to the turbo [average people are afraid to wind up an engine into the higher revs]. It will with no drag races, but for everyday driving it will be fine.

I have never driven the Soul and so don't dispute your characterization of it.  But how on earth do you extrapolate from that one car to claiming that 'just about anything from the Hyundai/Kia stable without a turbocharger ' is slow?  That's not even close to being a remotely valid generalization, IMO, and that's before we get to the direct-opposite-of-slow V6 and V8 motors.

Ok I agree I might have been a bit loose with the term 'everything', but I have driven a Veloster na and turbo, Soul with both engines, Sonata 2.0T, Elantra, and Tucson. All seemed slow except the turbos. Maybe the ones I did not drive are not slow. I will say that the n/a ones I drove are slow, the ones I have not driven I dont know. I know for sure your 2.0T is fast Jaeger, not disputing that. Although I did race a Optima 2.0T recently and I am sorry to say it saw my Saab's taillights...

I've driven that Saab. It's no slug.  But assuming it's not heavily modded, I'd be happy to oblige a rematch with the 2.0T at your convenience. 

Elantra and Tucson are not fast cars - but neither are they remotely "slow" as compared with their competitors.  In the first compact sport ute comparison that I participated in here at autos.ca, the Tucson was (surprisngly) viewed by many as the sports car of the bunch.  The Mazda CX-5 - now that was slow.  Brilliant handling and great steering feel, but slow.  I similarly got to drive the Elantra not just by itself, but in direct and immediate comparison with 5 or 6 class competitors in the autos.ca compact comparison test.  No way it was "slow" in relative comparison to the others.

Jaegar, regarding the CX-5, I have never driven one.  But people say the Crosstek is slow as well, with similar HP ratings and weight.  My Mazda5 which has the 2.3L (2010) and around 153hp, I feel is more than adequate, I can get up to 140km/h to merge 3 lanes quickly to grab the HOV lane.  Probably around the same as my Sentra, and that has a 1.8L with 30 less hp, but probably 300lbs lighter.  The Mazda CX-5 may be slower than some competitors but it was designed with a small displacement engine, to be efficient.  Try another one with the 2.5L maybe that will shave a second in the 0-100km/h. 

So back to my real question, have you driven the Mazda5, and if so, do you find it slower than the CX-5 or the same.  That will give me an indication of what you, and others feel is slow.  But to some of us....adequate.  As the CX-5 seems to sell pretty well.

As for the Encore....I prefer it over the Trax, but I hope this segment goes away quickly, and have normal wagons come back....

[Jaeger]

So back to my real question, have you driven the Mazda5,

Yes, and you can read my thoughts in some detail here    http://www.autos.ca/car-test-drives/long-term-test-update-4-2012-mazda5-gs-manual/

and if so, do you find it slower than the CX-5 or the same. 

The CX-5 felt slower.  Now a couple important qualifiers.  1) The Mazda 5 I drove was a manual and those always seem to feel faster than their automatic counterparts.  That said, I drove it with a very full load of pasengers and gear and never felt like it was struggling. 

2) As I was trying to point out above, there's a difference between an impression of a vehicle's power and performance in isolation as opposed to that which may be perceived in direct comparison with other segment competitors.  It was in this latter comparative context that the CX-5 really stood out as a bit of a slug.  Not that the other cars were rocket ships (okay, the V6 Rav 4 stood apart as the clear straight-line power champ) - but the other 4-pot competitors all managed to negotiate the hilly and twisty bits of our test route with noticeably more pull out of low-speed corners and up steep inclines than the Mazda.  It struggled quite noticeably, and highway merging was definitely not a strength, either.

And this was with a driver, no passengers, and only a mostly-consumed box of timbits for cargo.  I shudder to think how the CX-5 would perform with the same passenger and cargo load that I experienced in the Mazda 5.

Now, if a person goes into a Mazda dealership, likes the looks of the CX-5, takes it for a spin with just the salesperson around, and doesn't drive any competitors, they may well conclude that the power is "adequate".  That's a pretty subjective standard, anyway.  I can't tell you if you will find it adequate.  I can tell you that I did not.

Hope that helps.

You may now return to your regularly-scheduled Buick programming. 

[Neromanceres]

I personally like the Encore.  It's proportions look off in pictures but it looks better in person. 

The Encore (FWD 2900lbs, AWD 3000lbs) is lighter than the Cruze (3100lbs).  So the 1.4T engine should move it fairly well.   The vehicle is well layed out and very space efficient.  My wife is seriously considering the Trax if GM Canada can offer some decent financing on it [currently at 4.99%]. The Trax is actually built in Mexico while the Encore is built in Korea not sure I understand why?

As for the debate on turbo engines.  You can't beat the law's of physics.  It takes a certain amount of energy to accelerate an object of a specific mass to a velocity and maintain it.  Turbo engines are not magic.  If you get into the boost you will suck the juice.  But turbo charging allows you to get away with using a smaller displacement engine so at idle or taking your time accelerating to minimize the boost you can get better fuel economy.

PS Consumer Reports are full of idots.  Some of the worst automotive reporting I have ever seen.

[Snowman]

I personally like the Encore.  It's proportions look off in pictures but it looks better in person. 

The Encore (FWD 2900lbs, AWD 3000lbs) is lighter than the Cruze (3100lbs).  So the 1.4T engine should move it fairly well.   The vehicle is well layed out and very space efficient.  My wife is seriously considering the Trax if GM Canada can offer some decent financing on it [currently at 4.99%]. The Trax is actually built in Mexico while the Encore is built in Korea not sure I understand why?

As for the debate on turbo engines.  You can't beat the law's of physics.  It takes a certain amount of energy to accelerate an object of a specific mass to a velocity and maintain it.  Turbo engines are not magic.  If you get into the boost you will suck the juice.  But turbo charging allows you to get away with using a smaller displacement engine so at idle or taking your time accelerating to minimize the boost you can get better fuel economy.

PS Consumer Reports are full of idots.  Some of the worst automotive reporting I have ever seen.

  Oh please enlighten us