2014 Buick Encore Convenience on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Junkyard Gem: 1962 Buick Electra 225 4-Door Sedan

Buick built its first Electras as 1959 models, with Electra production continuing unabated through 1990 (after which the Park Avenue trim level took over as the model name, much as the Malibu trim level designation had shoved aside the Chevelle model name in 1978). Some of the handsomest Electras were the second-generation models, built for the 1961-1964 model years, and today's Junkyard Gem is one of those cars. I'd always assumed that the Buick Electra took its name from the daughter of Clytemnestra and Agamemnon in Greek mythology, because the people who named cars back then were forced to read Euripides and Sophocles as undergrads. In fact, the car was named after Electra Waggoner Bowman Biggs, a Texas heiress and sculptor who married the brother-in-law of Harlow Curtice, who ran the Buick Division before being promoted to president of General Motors in 1953. How did she feel when the last Electra rolled off the assembly line in 1990? The junkyard is full of history, if you know where to look. The 1959-1960 Electra had enormous tailfins, angled something like the ones seen on the same-year Chevrolet Impalas. This Electra generation ditched the fins but kept much of the general Space Age spirit of its predecessor. The Electra lived on the same platform as the Cadillac DeVille and Oldsmobile 98 from start to finish, and it was the most expensive Buick available in 1962. The MSRP of this one was $4,051, or about $41,462 in 2023 dollars. The engine in this one was present when it arrived at U-Pull-&-Pay, but a junkyard shopper grabbed it within a couple of days of arrival. It would have been a 401-cubic-inch (6.5-liter) "Nailhead" V8, rated at 325 horsepower and a whopping 445 pound-feet of torque (keep in mind that these are gross, not net, power numbers). The Nailhead's small valves meant that it wasn't much good for high-rpm use, but its big torque was perfect for moving two-ton land yachts. The final Nailheads were installed in 1966 Buicks. Every production Electra ever built came with an automatic transmission, and the 1959-1963 models received the extremely smooth and alarmingly inefficient Dynaflow (known as the Dual-Path Turbine Drive for 1962). Originally developed for use in the 1943 M18 Hellcat tank destroyer, the Dynaflow was considered a two-speed automatic but drove more like a CVT with two selectable drive ranges.

2020 Buick Encore drops more powerful 1.4-liter four-cylinder option

It's not just Chevrolet Equinox, Terrain and Traverse crossovers and Cadillac CT6 enjoying the engine and trim switcheroos this spring. Based on the order guide, CarsDirect reports that the Buick Encore, Buick's most popular model by far, will lose one of its two engines. The 2019 Encore offers a 1.4-liter four-cylinder in two guises: one with 138 horsepower and 148 pound-feet of torque, the other with 153 hp and 177 lb-ft and stop/start. The more powerful version will not be an option on the 2020 Encore. The upgraded motor is a $250 option, but only after spending an additional $2,600 to move up to the Sport Touring trim, or shelling out $6,100 to reach the Essence trim. Aggressive deals could make the higher trims more economical, though; at the time of writing, the Sport Touring Encore includes $3,250 cash allowance, making it $650 less expensive than the base Encore 1SV. The more powerful 1.4-liter engine also delivered better gas mileage, with buyers getting one more mile per gallon in combined driving. Even so, buyers didn't dig it. In comments to CarsDirect, a Buick spokesperson said those purchasing 2019 Encores have only chosen the burlier motor 12 percent of the time. The weak take-rate could end up doing Buick an easy favor. The Buick Encore GX is expected to make landfall on U.S. shores sometime this year, riding on a different platform than our present Encore, and bringing a longer wheelbase with it. It will slide into the lineup between the $23,200 Encore and $31,995 Envision. This is all hypothetical at the moment, of course, but that seems a perfect place to insert the 153-hp 1.4-liter as an exclusive standard feature.

Dear America, you don't need as much power as you think

I recently won a 0-20-mph drag race against a Chevrolet Volt. A day later I smoked a Tesla Model 3. “Um OK,” youÂ’re thinking, “that canÂ’t be that hard.” Well, except that the vehicle I was piloting featured a hybrid powertrain of a Bosch electric motor and 40-year-old human legs. ThatÂ’s right, I out accelerated automobiles on a bicycle. On another occasion, I found myself driving behind my wife in her 2023 Kia Niro EV. The specs say it accelerates from zero to 60 mph in 7.8 seconds, a time thatÂ’s six-tenths off the pace of KiaÂ’s rear-motor-only EV6, a vehicle IÂ’ve repeatedly read being described as “slow.” The Niro, therefore, must be extra-slow. And yet, as she turned left onto a highway onramp, she rocketed forward leaving me in a Mercedes-AMG C43 and every other car in the left turn lane in the distance. I share these anecdotes not to boast about my cycling ability, nor my wife having a lead foot. No no. IÂ’m crap and she really doesnÂ’t. Instead, I want to point out that most drivers accelerate very slowly. The notion of “bigger is better” will forever be engrained in the American psyche, but when it comes to horsepower largesse, todayÂ’s cars hilariously exceed both the expectations and driving habits of most drivers. Most car buyers just donÂ’t have a frame of reference when it comes to equating 0-60 times, output figures and the actual feeling of acceleration.   Eat my dust, Mr Volt! Now, we in the automotive-reviewing media absolutely share some of this blame. We like accelerating quickly and cars that accelerate quicker are bound to reap more positive reviews. At the very least, weÂ’re obligated to point out when a carÂ’s acceleration is slower than a certain competitor's or the segmentÂ’s average. However, just because Car A is slower than Car B doesnÂ’t make Car A slow. It makes it slower. For example, the dual-motor EV6 may be 2 full seconds quicker from 0-60 than the rear-motor model ­– a relatively massive difference – but barring a back-to-back drive or a wealth of comparative knowledge, itÂ’s laughable to think that the average driver could possibly deem the rear-motor version “slow.” Because it isnÂ’t. The near-universal use of turbocharging, the popularity of all-wheel-drive and increased proliferation of electric motors has resulted in this rapid drop in 0-60 times thatÂ’s outpacing customer expectations and driving habits.