When was the last time a marque launched a regular-ass car? Not to be confused with a regular ass-car (any BMW sedan prior to Chris Bangle), a regular-ass car eschews premium aspirations for affordability. Sure, a soft-touch interior for a soft-touch life sounds brilliant, but only until you remember that the average American can maybe cough up twenty dollars as a down payment. The 2024 Chevrolet Trax is a regular-ass car, and it’s about to be absolutely everywhere.
Why? It’s as simple as one headline figure: $21,495. That’s what a base 2024 Chevrolet Trax LS pictured above costs including a $1,095 freight charge ($23,699 including a $2,000 freight charge in Canada), which in this age of premium everything, qualifies as dirt cheap. What’s more, this Korean-built crossover is surprisingly big – almost as long as a Mazda CX-5 or Toyota RAV4. As a result, Chevrolet is expecting huge volume, predicting that the new Trax will be its third-best-selling model behind Silverado and Equinox come 2024. That’s certainly ambitious, but it will only pan out if the Trax is actually good. Needless to say, I flew to Asheville, N.C. to find out.
[Full disclosure: Chevrolet flew me out to Asheville on a series of interesting regional jets and put me up in a room that felt like wealth and sadness at a hotel that used Tesla Model S courtesy cars with some of the most curbed alloys I’ve ever seen in my life. The automaker also offered far too much food for me to possibly eat. Maybe I’m just not used to American portion sizing? Oh, and I got to talk with engineers, marketers, and designers. -TH]
How Does It Look?
The new 2024 Chevrolet Trax is one of those rare vehicles that’s trying to pull off a reverse catfish. While GM has taken great pains to apply a dab of plastic cladding, pinch the greenhouse and take press photos from low angles, the actual proportions tell a different story. While the Trax may only be about 1.5 inches shorter than a Mazda CX-5, it features a roofline some four inches lower. Plus, front track width and vehicle height are basically 1:1 on lower trim levels. That doesn’t scream crossover by any stretch of the imagination. Indeed, what Chevrolet’s managed to do is sneak 250 milligrams of wagon inside a wrapper of crossover cheese. It even has windows in the C-pillars and the roof appears to just barely cover more than 50 percent of the cargo area (the rear door is deceiving).
As for general appearances, the Trax is busy but still one of the most handsome vehicles in its segment. It feels like the stylists loaded a blunderbuss with character lines and fired it at the side of this entry-level vehicle because my word, is there ever a lot going on. From the flared haunches to the line that runs through the front door handle before sweeping up towards the greenhouse to the fake vents below the tail lights, the profile of this thing seems busier than an Amazon warehouse. However, all the lines are fairly subtle so they just fade into the background in real life, especially if you pick a fun color.
Up front, the Trax features one of the more successful split-headlight applications in recent history, with a distinct down-the-road graphic that makes the Trax instantly identifiable as a Chevrolet. I’m not crazy about the winged chrome accents extending off of the grille, but those can be clipped by going with the Activ trim.
Around the back, things are slightly bland, but in a refreshing and honest way. Think digestive biscuits, water, and oats. Aside from the fake vents below the tail lights, there’s no garish trim nor wild attempt at a ducktail. Everything seems pragmatic, reasonable, and comfortably functional.
Considering how the old Trax looked like a fake car from a banner ad for insurance (see above), I’d call the styling of the new one a huge success. Plus, I’m a sucker for Harley Earl’s philosophy of “lower, longer, wider” and the Trax’s silhouette really overpowers the fussy details. I reckon that in some of the brighter colors, it largely succeeds. Plus, styling in a vehicle like this is really just a wrapper – it’s what’s inside and underneath that counts.
What’s The Interior Like?
Normally when an automaker puts out a car that’s really cheap for its size, a certain contempt appears as soon as you hop inside. Think the highly-questionable plastics and complete lack of styling in the Jeep Patriot’s cabin. However, we’ve come a long way from the bleakness of the 2004 Chevrolet Malibu’s scratchy, nasty brain matter-grey dashboard, and Chevrolet seems to have learned its lesson.
While it’s hard to avoid hard plastics at this price point, design can sometimes matter more than material. Two identical plastics can appear to be at two completely different price points based on texturing and color. With that in mind, Chevrolet has poured its sweat into making cheap materials look interesting in the Trax, and it shows. The dashboard cap has a fantastic diamond texture that renders it interesting yet hardwearing. It still feels like a Dell laptop from 2009, but the ridges make it fun to run your fingers across. It’s a similar story with the E-Class-aping air vents that aren’t made of anything special but look like jet turbines, and the extreme driver-centric cant of the infotainment screen. The designers claim to have fought long and hard for this interior, and it seems totally worth it.
If you’re feeling fancy, you can option a 2024 Chevrolet Trax up with an 11-inch infotainment screen, a digital instrument cluster, keyless start, wireless charging, automatic climate control, adaptive cruise control, and a power driver’s seat. It all sounds very nice but thanks to Chevrolet’s brave decision to bring a base model on the press launch, I can say that popping for a high trim isn’t the move. Nothing feels missing on the base LS trim, and some pieces of low-end tech are actually better than their high-end counterparts. The giant screen on LT and up models is nice, but can get partially-hidden behind the steering wheel rim depending on your driving position. Plus, the base eight-inch screen has a physical home button and still supports wireless Apple CarPlay and Android Auto. The all-digital cluster looks great, but the base cluster with analog dials features easier configurability. Even the base cloth seats are slightly comfier than the uplevel EvoTex faux-leather seats because the material is stretchier.
Since I love my music in the car, best believe I’m dedicating a paragraph to audio. You can get a six-speaker stereo on LT and higher trims, but I reckon the base four-speaker job is plenty. It’s warmer than the uplevel system, with good character for the price point and solid bass reproduction found by running The XX’s Fantasy through wired CarPlay. Sure, you can still get distortion if you crank it, but it doesn’t sound hollow and goes plenty loud before the speakers start to knock. Playing Nordpool Orchestra’s version of Weird Fishes shows decent texture, and vocals on wall-of-sound tracks aren’t drowned out. Don’t expect perfection or even deep-hitting sub-bass, but I’ve heard worse stereos with actual brand names attached.
Open a rear door and you’ll find that the Trax has a completely flat rear floor, thanks in part to being front-wheel-drive only. When you just have to run an exhaust pipe the diameter of a falafel and some tiny brake lines from ahead of the driver to behind the rear seats, a flat floor becomes a no-brainer. Add in three more inches of legroom than the outgoing car and you have a comfortable rear seat for three people. Hell, this cheap little crossover has nearly as much rear legroom as a Toyota Camry. Subcompact? Yeah, right. Unfortunately, likely because of the price point, rear seat amenities could be better. There’s no rear center armrest available, which means that the middle position is very comfortable but the only beverage receptacles are bottle holders in the rear doors. While the phone cubby in the back of the center console is useful, a set of fold-out cupholders would be much appreciated.
Behind the second row, you’ll find 25.6 cubic feet (724.9 liters) of cargo space with the rear seats up, expanding to 54.1 cubic feet (1,531.9 liters) with the rear seats down. While the second-row seats don’t fold perfectly flat, the lip is small enough that it shouldn’t be a huge issue to get cargo in and out.
Speaking of the cargo area, lift the false floor to discover a feature from a bygone time – an actual spare tire. Sure, it’s a donut, but it’s a sight for sore eyes in an age of inflator kits. As to be expected in most cars at this price point, the under-floor compartment doesn’t have a full coat of paint over its e-coat corrosion-resistant coating. Although the spare tire well is an unlikely area to accumulate moisture, it’s something worth checking down the line.
How Does It Drive?
Powering the front wheels of every 2024 Chevrolet Trax is a 1.2-liter three-cylinder engine mated to a six-speed automatic, a combination that should in theory feel like a Cuisinart gyrating a vat of custard. Three-cylinder engines are inherently imbalanced and a six-speed-automatic with wide ratios is so ten years ago. However, because the three-cylinder engine has very good stop-start and a turbocharger the size of a literal snail, it’s dead silent at traffic lights and makes 162 lb.-ft. of torque from 2,500 RPM to 4,500 RPM. This means the Trax dashes from zero-to-60 in a claimed 8.6 seconds, which is about as quick as a Toyota Corolla Hatchback despite a 32-horsepower deficit. More usefully, the Trax is properly punchy around town, which makes turning left onto a four-lane road a breeze.
Torque is good, but how about fuel economy? After all, a tiny turbocharged engine can sometimes be less efficient in the real world than a larger naturally-aspirated one if you’re always in boost. The Trax is rated by the EPA at 28 mpg city, 32 mpg highway, and 30 mpg combined. That works out to 8.3 L/100km in the city, 7.4 L/100km on the highway, and 7.9 L/100km combined in Canada using metric units. Those aren’t brilliant figures, but from my experience, they’re absolutely achievable. No matter what I did, the Trax always seemed to get around 30 mpg. Punishing the front tires on a mountain blast? Around 30 mpg. Cruising on the highway? Around 30 mpg. Slogging through suburbia? Around 30 mpg. It’s not the greatest number in the history of the world, but I appreciate the consistency.
Ride quality comes with a disclaimer – Asheville, N.C. isn’t a city renowned for its potholes. When planning these great big press launches, manufacturers often pick locales with mirror-smooth roads. That being said, the Trax rode admirably over the minor imperfections I managed to find. Sure, there was some expected road noise at freeway speeds, but it never grew loud enough to hinder conversation. Impacts were heard rather than felt through the suspension, although that doesn’t mean the Trax is totally isolated.
Here’s a shocker: Despite the high-profile tires and comfortable ride quality, the Trax’s steering wants to reach out and touch base. It can offer a slight nudge as road camber dramatically changes, a pronounced rumble over broken pavement, and a very minor jolt over expansion joints. It doesn’t exactly turn tarmac into braille, but when combined with pleasant weighting, it feels more connected than the steering in most modern compact sedans.
As for hardware, there’s nothing fancy going on underneath the Trax. You get MacPherson struts up front, a torsion beam in the rear, and electric power steering, same as pretty much every entry-level crossover. I reckon that’s good news as this simple setup should simplify suspension maintenance in the long-run. Unexpected for this size and price point is the presence of four-wheel disc brakes with a pleasantly firm pedal that offers confident feel and easy pedal modulation.
What’s The Verdict?
Upon first drive, the 2024 Chevrolet Trax is great. As the miles ticked away, I found more and more to like about this reasonably-priced and spacious crossover. It’s the sort of car I’d recommend to my parents, who want a true replacement to their dearly-departed Toyota Matrix. Hell, I’d love one as a daily. There’s something awesome about a simple, economical vehicle that won’t high-center in the snow and can haul oversized car parts. With used car prices being higher than Godzilla’s left nostril right now, the Trax is something to buy new, maintain, and just keep driving until it’s all worn out. It’s as cutting-edge as it needs to be, techy enough to fit in with modernity yet simple enough to not age like milk.
While the seat time afforded on a typical press launch isn’t enough to learn everything about a car, it’s plenty of time to know if something feels obviously substandard. For example, the Nissan Kicks isn’t exactly quiet and the Hyundai Venue feels like it’s flirting with the FAA when driving on concrete freeways, and I formed those impressions within the first ten minutes of driving either. Over a few hours of driving the Trax, I couldn’t find anything inappropriately poor. I suppose that if I’m nitpicking, more rear seat cupholders would be nice, but that’s it.
As far as similarly-priced competition to the $21,495 Chevrolet Trax LS, you have the Nissan Kicks S at $21,775 including a $1,335 freight charge, the Kia Soul LX at $21,215 including a $1,325 freight charge, the tiny Hyundai Venue at $20,985 including a $1,335 freight charge, and that’s it. Literally every other subcompact crossover is noticeably more money. Actually, here’s a list with all prices including freight charges: The Toyota Corolla Cross L costs $24,395, the Honda HR-V LX costs $25,395, the Hyundai Kona SE costs $23,475, the Kia Seltos LX costs $25,715, the Mazda CX-30 2.5S costs $24,325, the Volkswagen Taos S costs $25,450, the Jeep Renegade Latitude costs $29,150, the Fiat 500X Pop (they still make it!) costs $29,560, the Mitsubishi Outlander Sport 2.0 S costs $24,595, and the Buick Encore GX Preferred costs $27,195.
While I haven’t driven a Soul in a while, I can confidently say that the Trax is flat-out better than the Nissan Kicks and Hyundai Venue, and it’s better value for money than any other subcompact crossover on sale today. In Canada, only the Nissan Kicks S and Hyundai Venue Essential undercut the Trax LS, with major competitors like the Kia Seltos LX, Toyota Corolla Cross L, and Honda HR-V LX costing thousands of dollars more.
The Chevrolet Trax isn’t as refined or as premium as a Mazda CX-30, but it doesn’t need to be. Instead, it poses a more important question: Why don’t we just make regular-ass cars that people can afford again? Although even a fully-loaded Trax 2RS or Activ with the optional premium paint, Driver Convenience Package, and sunroof stickers for a very reasonable $26,935 ($31,589 in Canada), I reckon the picks of the range are the $23,195 1RS trim in America and the $23,699 LS trim in Canada, mostly because those are the entry points for heated seats. Beyond that, everything feels unnecessary. It’s good enough to enjoy yet uncomplicated enough to not worry about. Learn to love the fundamental goodness of this entry-level crossover and you just might find automotive enlightenment.
(Photo credits: Thomas Hundal)
Support our mission of championing car culture by becoming an Official Autopian Member.
-
The 2024 Chevrolet Trax Looks Like A Deal For $21,495
-
The Hero Of The LA Auto Show Was This Dirt-Cheap Kia Rio
-
The Sharp 2024 Hyundai Kona Lets You Pick Between Two Gas Engines Or 260 Miles Of Electric Range
-
The Chevy Bolt Is Officially Dead
-
The Dirt-Cheap Mitsubishi Mirage Is Getting A Ralliart Edition And It Might Look Like This
Got a hot tip? Send it to us here. Or check out the stories on our homepage.
Considering the outgoing Trax was just terrible to drive, I feel like going even smaller with the motor size is going to result in a lot of hesitation to purchase. BTW this is not a car, it is marketed by Chevrolet as an SUV, it is really more of a CUV, but it has no actual car to be based upon to have gotten the raised roof and psuedo SUV styling(apes the RAV4 quite a lot now).
The CVT not being the trans of choice here is actually a selling point as nobody really seems to like a CVT and they have a reputation of failing. The Base LE Rav4 with 8 gears and a 200 hp NA 4 cylinder that is likely to last much longer than an overstressed motorcycle engine is by far the better value even at a 8 thousand dollar premium.
Spend 40% more doesn’t sound quite like “value.” And if you want some of the same basic features, the price gap increases even more. Not really comparable.
While it has Toyota reliability rep behind it, I’ve never read a review of the RAV4’s nonhybrid powertrain that was very favorable about its drivability. Neither one is bought or will be bought for how well it drives.
$8,000 is a lot of money, especially for someone in a price-sensitive part of the market like this. The RAV4 isn’t even in the conversation if someone is shopping for a Trax.
The spare tire reminded me of the old VW Jetta commercial where one guy thought full size spare tires were extinct and the second guy says it’s like the Coelacanth, long thought to be extinct but found living off the coast of Africa.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MunowVfXOuY
An automatic… Ew.
You guys must have been at the exact same press event as the Jalopnik folks because that sure looks like the same area that they were in. Asheville, NC, right?
Yeah, automakers tend to send multiple journalists out to the same event, where a fleet of subject vehicles awaits. It’s a great way to catch up with old friends in the car scene and make some new ones!
Makes sense. Sort of like what I used to have to do when I worked in Tech and went to conferences at the same places. I would run into people I worked with at previous companies all the time
Alex on Autos (YouTube) also.
possibly paid the same amount to write nice stuff about this polished turd as well.
I cannot speak for other outlets, but I do know that Jalopnik and us here at the Autopian are not paid to write reviews. What you read is how Thomas felt about the CUV. The only checks we get are from Beau! 🙂
This is why every review here comes with a disclosure statement. We want you to know what the automaker offered up for the press trip.
That looks not bad? Nicely done GM. I feel like I wouldn’t be mad if I got one of these at the rental aisle, and thats not something you could say about the old Trax.
It’s honestly more handsome than the Blazer. I don’t even mind that it’s made by the ghost of Daewoo.
So it’s a Chevy badged Daewoo?
Most if not all smaller GM cars have been developed under GM Korea for some time now, dating back to the original Chevy Cruze.
The ass-car joke needs the obligatory XKCD citation: https://xkcd.com/37/
Also, it’s the BMWs from the Bangle era that are ass-cars, not the pre-Bangle era.
As for the Trax, this looks significantly better than the horrible first-gen Trax, an awful vehicle I suffered with as a rental several times. It at least seems like it might be… competent? That’s actually not faint praise given the utter lack of affordable basic transportation these days.
Pre-Bangle BMWs are normal ass-cars. Bangle era are abnormal ass-cars. Maybe it should be normal car-asses?
Bangle BMWs are just ass.
I have described the first gen Trax as an ugly, hateful, little vehicle. This one looks nicer. It would be decent for a generic ‘not car’ person.
I feel an irrational level of hatred every time I see a Chevy Trax. Its proportions are all wrong and the styling feels like Chevy wanted to go with cute, but gave up at some point and settled for ungainly. This new generation looks much better. The fuel economy is weak for what you get though.
you should drive one, that would just make your opinion diminish even more.
“You think you hate it now, just wait ’till you drive it!”
I’d buy one.
This is a great example of what I was thinking about the other day; the most significant improvements from one generation to another.
I loath that first gen Trax. It’s one of the worst looking cars on the road, and overall it’s design feels like it shows contempt for anyone that wanted a cheap car. It was basically “Ok assholes, you won’t buy a Sonic? Well here ya go, for an extra 4 grand, here’s your crappy tall Sonic”. I put it in the category with the Ecosport of cars that only make sense when they’re cheap hatchbacks. Paying so much extra for a pretend SUV seems nuts to me.
But here we have something that punches above it’s price point, the design seems genuinely decent and, I don’t know, appears that someone actually cared? The interior should be cheap, but at least it looks like it was designed.
I can’t think of a car I’ve hated so much as the Trax to now sort of admire. That’s pretty impressive, especially for GM. If they actually manage to build a decent number of these and actually sell base and mid trim versions at MSRP or below? That’d be a huge win for people just looking for a regular new car to drive.
Yeah, I have to admit in my old age I’ve apparently become more of the Autopian ideal of “pro-car”. Previously I would have just assumed that the new Trax is as terrible as the old and dismissed it. I also would have dismissed it because it wasn’t something I personally would want since there’s not much that really stands out.
But as the years have gone by and I’ve advised a lot of normie non-car people regarding what transportation appliance they should buy I’ve really come around on things that are reasonably priced, economical to own and run, and safer for them and their families than some old beater. Heaven help me, I might even want a new Prius Prime for myself as a daily if I happened to wreck the Fiesta ST.
I’ve gotten a lot of people asking me about what’s out there and affordable; including my parents. Lately, I usually respond with a “uhhhhh good luck?”. I understand a lot of people here think everyone should have the skills of a post-apocalyptic survivor when it comes to maintaining cars, and that everyone would be better off with a “reliable beater” if that even makes sense, but for a lot of people there’s value in a cheap new car versus the unpredictable nature of the beater life. Some people are risk-averse and it works for them.
Sometimes it’s nice to have a couple of reasonably well designed cheap cars on the market you can point to that your middle class friends and family can you know, actually afford to pay off in a reasonable amount of time. This isn’t my cup of tea, but man, it’s better to have people throwing down 23k on this than getting duped into something excessive that they hardly care about in the first place.
I realize JB might not be the most popular author among the commenters here, but his piece on this topic is probably the best out there.
https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2015/02/no-fixed-abode-gotta-rich-cheap-car/
Agreed with this. It’s why I can afford to drive cars a decade plus old and lots of miles.
Entirely true.
When I graduated college (lucky to have gone, yet entirely on debt) and I finally managed to land a job in the height of the recession, I started to look at my 280k Camry, replete with various hideous noises from the transmission, with uncertainty. I was moving away from home to a place where I knew no one, and absolutely had to have reliable transportation, or I would be screwed. I left home with 2500$ in my checking account, and a credit card with a 3k limit. If anything serious happened to my car, I’d be screwed instantly.
So I decided to take that variable out of my life and kicked the can down the road, by buying a new 2011 Accent hatch for 13k. That car sucked. Totally. But it was the right choice; It made my expenses predictable so that I could save money and get myself out of a hole. I didn’t own the Accent for long but it was one of the best choices I’ve made. Sometimes you just need something that won’t even threaten to screw you.
It’s also a win against visual pollution. Walking or driving surrounded by ugly cars is a bummer. Running into Aveos or older Traxes or rental Malibus is a real bummer. This car and the new Hyundai group designs makes city scapes more pleasant.
Especially if they manage to sell a few in color, like that yellow.
It’s such an improvement over the old one that they should have changed the name. I just like that it’s not a CVT. Almost all the competition is a CVT and I won’t buy a CVT because of longevity concerns.
I’m actually shocked they didn’t change the name. GM has moved on quickly from nameplates with far better reputations than the Trax.
And the fairly normal, simple 6-speed auto is exactly what you want in a car like this.
GM likes to slowly redeem a car in preparation for slaughter, like the fatted calf. I have a feeling that the C-suiters are actually psychic vampires that feed off the anguish of carthusiasts.
Well said
COTD nomination
I’m surprised they resisted. GM’s favorite thing to do is replace cars in the same segment with a car with a different name.
Glad I’m not the only one who notices this. Always feels weird. Cavalier/Cobalt/Cruze were basically all the same and the name didn’t change that.
and well those were cars, this is a CUV or SUV if you believe the GM dealers ads.
Ford pulled that stunt with the Five Hundred, wasting 10-15 years of broadly positive brand equity in the Taurus badge. Mulally went “wtf this is stupid” and renamed it Taurus, as it should have been.
Cars don’t get renamed often enough.
If you have longevity concerns, you should still avoid this.
Wow, an interior that looks like, well, a car. I am definitely over the gamer’s bedroom aesthetic.
I like it, which is not something I’ve been able to say for a new GM product in a long time. It’ll be interesting to see how it holds up quality-wise. I’m just glad to see a manufacturer introduce something not eye-wateringly expensive for once.
Looks like a decent tall wagon/CUV thing. On the price of the Trax vs some of the other CUV’s mentioned, like the Corolla Cross, does the base of the Trax lack some features that that the base Corolla Cross has?
In a few years it would be interesting to come back and compare how they end up being optioned in the real world.
Weirdly, I reckon it’s mostly a wash, but the Trax has a slightly more useful feature set. The Trax LS doesn’t get adaptive cruise control, but the Corolla Cross L doesn’t get a rear wiper, and not having a rear wiper seems far more infuriating than a lack of adaptive cruise control. Otherwise, they’re quite evenly-matched for equipment, right down to LED headlights.
But the bigger question in today’s world is whether GM will actually bother to build many of the base trim instead of the higher margin loaded ones
I don’t hate it. I won’t buy one but I’m all for lower cost options. Not everyone can afford 35k and up vehicles. I just wish more manufacturers would recognize that. I know profit blah blah blah. Also like the Maverick I doubt you’ll find the base model on any dealer lots.
I feel like Chevy likes to keep more of the base models around, but I’m sure it will be a fleet-heavy spec – both rentals (“midsize SUV” or something given rental classifications) and maybe contracts with government and otherwise.
But even if so, there’s maybe ~$4k separating the top and bottom trims of the Trax with several trims in between. Or about the same amount that the base Maverick MSRP increased from launch to 2024…
Has the 2024 MY Maverick MSRP been announced? It’s probably going to be closer to Ranger pricing than anyone should be comfortable with. I’m thankful that I got the special offer – a $2,750 discount- after my October ’21 order didn’t show up until this January. That brought my XLT Hybrid with Lux and Co-pilot down to roughly $26.5k. Funny enough, that seems to be the same bracket as a loaded Trax.
Continuing the random thoughts… Is it just me or are the only other vehicles that seem to attractive at this price seem to be a base CX-5 or the Elantra N-Line trim? Shame the Bolt and Bolt EUV are now zombies. Any hope that Ford, Toyota, or Hyundai can create something for that niche?
I may have misspoke. There were some outlets reporting that the order books for 2024 are opening in July and one of them had prices listed, but on review it looks like that was the current 2023 prices after the last round of hikes. A 2023 XL is $22595 or $2605 over the original MSRP; plus destination of $1595, an increase by $100.
That’s true too re: Ranger pricing closeness, though with a new Ranger on the horizon that will probably increase too…
msn says for 2024 Maverick, including destination fees,
XL: $24,190
XLT: $26,450
Lariat: $29,950
so your $4k number seems right.
Those prices leave me feeling cold toward the Maverick..
This is the correct pricing currently. you probably cannot get one form a dealer for this price as they are still gouging prices if they actually get one to sell, and Farley has been know in the past year or more to raise price willy nilly on things like the Bronco and Lightning, so you know, who knows.
In my area there are plenty of the LS in transit to dealers, so I am glad to see Chevy isn’t holding back on the base model.
Crossover styling with a pillbox greenhouse is not for me, but I’m glad GM is making an effort to produce a value-based car for those who do like them. One caveat: good luck finding a base model on a dealer lot. Still, looks like a good effort.
I like to think you were so bored looking for a picture of it you zoned out and forgot to add it in the write-up.
The Envista is more obvious with that whole “four-door coupe SUV” attempt or whatever, but with the Chevy having a lower roofline than most crossovers as well (and no AWD) it seems more like it’s adjacent to the whole “lifted sedan” trend. Maybe it’s the yellowish color, but the proportions do have a bit of Crosstrek in them being longer/lower/less boxy (and it’s a couple inches shorter than the Crosstrek too) which is no bad thing for the segment.
Also, Asheville seems to be getting a lot of activity from the OEMs lately. VW has done some press drives there and I was visiting a couple weeks ago and passed what looked to be two camo’d potential Audi models on the road (but couldn’t get a decent pic in time).
I think you meant to say: any BMW sedan during Chris Bangle’s tenure.
30 MPG? Shit, my big-assed Buick LeSabre can do that all day long, and push 35 on the highway. All without buzzing itself into oblivion.
I can’t find a curb weight, but the GVWR of the FWD 2RS model is 4,145 lbs. So probably a curb weight of around 3400lbs. Currently there’s no Curb Weights from Chevrolet.
20 years ago, an E120 Toyota Corolla would be the better part of 1000lbs lighter.
Moreover, those older economy cars were lower, which does help with aero, which helps with fuel efficiency. The minimum ground clearance of the Trax is 7.3 inches. It’s also 71.8 inches wide before mirrors. Again, 4-5 inches wider than that Corolla, so more frontal area.
A taller, wider, heavier car is going to have an impact. Plus you need to spin up that turbo to accelerate, which will suck down more fuel when it does, and a 1.2L I3 engine is going to have to sit at a higher rpm than a larger displacement engine even when cruising.
—
Not excusing it, just explaining it. I agree. The fuel economy is beyond lackluster.
Ouch, here’s another point. Tires are 225 minimum section width, 245s for the 19s. 245s is wider than the front tires you’d get on most Boxsters and Caymans (GT4/Spyder excluded). Again, not going to help fuel economy, but you want them for a 4100+lb GVWR. We’re a far cry from when economy cars had 185s and 195s.
It’s good to see a plain little wagon like this.
Y’all need to edit down the over-the-top metaphors. It gets tiring.
Also, the editor forgot to insert the old Trax picture.
Don’t rant about quality control on the marvel of a modern vehicle, when you don’t have a good editorial workflow yourself.
I counted five! Impressive
The over-the-top stuff is part of the style here. Jason Torchinsky’s influence stretches beyond just his articles.
As to quality control and editorial workflow, their job is to critique vehicles. Even if a mistake is made (or perhaps it’s a joke that didn’t land), that does not mean that automotive journalists should stop writing the quality control on vehicles. That’s like saying a food critic needs to ignore overcooked food.
Torch can pull it off. Let the other writers develop their own style.
I personally appreciated the irony of forgetting to insert the picture of an old Trax.
Those flourishes are what make this site’s editorial voice so compelling, Mr grouchypants.
I mean it’s a decent enough looking car and I actually won’t bemoan the 6 speed torque converter that’s probably ancient…it’s better than a damn CVT which is what you’ll find in a lot of econobox competitors. I’m personally fine with manufacturers raising what are essentially wagons and hatchbacks a few inches and marketing them as crossovers. If that’s what it takes to sell them then so be it.
I’d personally love to see a couple performance oriented trims in this category since my beloved Kona N has already bitten the dust but unfortunately I think the idea was one of God’s own prototypes. A high powered mutant never intended for mass production. Too rare to live and too weird to die…
How did the Kona N die? Last I knew it was up and running a month(ish) ago. Also important, what are you looking at to replace it?
The Kona itself got redesigned and the new one is a BEV first and an ICE second. They’ve said they have no plans to continue the N with a 2.0 liter turbo. I think the upcoming Ioniq 5 N is going to more or less fill the gap the Kona N is leaving, albeit at a much higher price.
In regards to my next plans I ain’t got none. I’m only a year and 6,000 miles into mine and I’m still loving it. The wife’s 2015 CRV is going to be upgraded way before the Kona is. But eventually I’d like a luxury performance sedan. I have my eye on the IS500 and CT4 V Blackwing in particular. The M2 is also tempting but a coupe is going to be a hard, hard sell. There’s a good chance the eventual compromise is going to be an X3 M40i and honestly I’m not even going to complain. B58 go brrrrrr.
Oh, I thought you mention your CUV itself died. My hope is the Ioniq 6 gets a fastback model. An N version of that would be almost perfect. That or sell a kidney if the N Vision 74 ever sees the light of day…
The IS500 is perfection.
We just got a few in at work and feeling the interior plastics you can definitely tell where they cut costs. At this point cheap cars are so few and far between that I won’t complain about it, but hard plastics galore in this thing.
Ask the average car buyer what they think of the interior plastics in their CUV and they’ll look at you like you have two heads. Two types of people care about that. Auto reviewers, and luxury car buyers. When my wife bought her Sorento, I can guarantee the texture of the lower door panel was not a factor in her purchasing decision.
This comment isn’t meant to be against you. Just a comment in general about auto reviewers calling out cheap, hard wearing materials in a car that’s supposed to be cheap and hard wearing. Becky & Jim don’t want Alcantara on their doors because the kids are going to spill chocolate milk on it anyway.
Yep. Calling out cheap and hard wearing plastics reminds me of when it was popular to shit on the Mirage for being a basic ass car when really that was and is the entire point of the Mirage. Judge the thing for what it really is, not against a completely different segment. Or if you are judging the segment, then I guess admit that you don’t think basic ass cars should be made.
What I want to know is which brand’s cheap and hard wearing plastics hold up best? What patterns put into those plastics hide scratches best?
The wear element like you say is a better way to put it; it’s possible to do “cheap and cheerful” for example.
The 2004 Malibu mention in the article may be an easy target but it was appropriate, because 2000s-era GM cars entered a new era of cheap interior plastics and fabrics that were supposed to look better but seemed to wear worse than 90s GM. And in the Malibu’s case it maybe cost less than a Camcord, but that delta was a lot narrower than it was 10 years prior.
The whole baby crossover segment has a built to a price element too so Chevy’s not alone. A base Corolla Cross doesn’t have a rear window wiper. A loaded HR-V is $30k but doesn’t have rear HVAC vents or a rear seat armrest.
The 2004 Malibu was hateful in every way though. I can understand the contempt for it because not only were the materials awful, but they didn’t even attempt to hide it, or at least make it cheerful enough to distract from it.
Designing the Malibu feels like the assignment you get after making one too many wisecracks at your boss’s expense.
I bet some of the 2004 Malibu designers don’t even remember working on it.
We agree! Hard plastic ain’t the end of the world if the car is cheap enough!
Hey David, any updates on fixing the comment notifications? If I subscribe to my comments, I still get emails for every new comment on the article.
Side note, it would be great if we could click the pictures to get high res versions.
We’re going to keep pushing to improve this. Honestly, it’s not remotely where I want it to be. I get notifications, but they don’t really take me where I want them, and I have to go to the page to even see them. Not ideal.
Yeah, hard plastics may produce some extra rattles and such, but it’s a good, honest way to make things easy to clean and pretty durable. Just don’t give me shiny piano black to make it look fancier and I’m okay.
I also think that vinyl floors could sell well in the family hauler category (not counting the family hauler quad-cab pickups that already do have that option) for the easy clean, but carpet floors are so expected on most of these things now.
A minivan with a vinyl floor would be a game changer, and seems so obvious that it’s shocking it’s not offered.
I’d love to see it go a step farther and put a drain in the floor, but that’s certainly asking too much.
I installed some 3D max spider mats in our Pacifica PHEV, they cover every inch of carpet pretty well. I dont have to even remove them, just vacuum, spray some cleaner and wipe with a microfiber.
I’ve gotten those mats for my last two cars, they really are a cool product.
dude for real. We flooded our Odyssey once (log story), and after removing the carpet for cleaning I really wanted to bedliner the thing. In my Eurovan I have mostly full coverage with custom low profile mats, but a true ruber floor would be ideal.
I really, really would like this for my Voyager. I bought some used WeatherTech mats (80$ for the front and rear, not bad!) but I don’t love them. They curl up around the edges near the doors, and look a little sloppy. I’d much prefer just having the floor be a durable vinyl and skip the carpet entirely.
I do car detailing on the side and I’ve done countless minivans. I have no idea why it’s not an option. Sure you can buy rubber mats, but every inch of carpet not covered by them still ends up with stains and smells. And past a certain point, those stains and smells really don’t want to vacate, no matter how enthusiastic my efforts were.
GM really liked the Subaru Soltera tail lights I see.
Overall it looks ok, except the rear. Something is wrong, I think it is the taillights. Maybe it is the angle of the pictures. I don’t know, but something is off. They look sorta like fish eyes…
The taillights are definitely the one weak spot in the styling.
Looks interesting. Which is more than can be said about the last one. The price is right too. They’ll be everywhere in the Rust Belt soon.