1973 Buick Riviera Gs on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Kia Telluride vs Buick Enclave Luggage Test | What actually fits behind that third row?

So, you want to buy a three-row crossover. Before plunking down $40,000 on a new sport utility vehicle, might we dissuade you with the prospect of minivan ownership? The Pacifica Hybrid, perhaps ... no? Fine. Good thing crossovers (especially the Telluride and comparable Palisade) are so nice to drive these days. We’ll assume you want the big three-row crossover, as you intend to seat folks in all three rows. Unfortunately, raising that third row reduces the luggage area from cavernous to crawl space. ItÂ’s rather devastating from a pure numbers perspective to the two models we have today. The 2019 Buick Enclave goes from a monstrous 58 cubic-feet with the second-row in place down to 23.6 cubic-feet (which along with the nearly identical 2020 Chevrolet Traverse is still best-in-class). Meanwhile, the 2020 Kia Telluride takes a similar hit, going from 46 cubic-feet down to 21 cubic-feet. Just looking at the numbers, it would seem that the EnclaveÂ’s big advantage all but disappears with the third row up, boasting just 2.6 cubic-feet of storage more than the Telluride. But as West Coast Editor James Riswick has discovered in the numerous luggage tests he's conducted, the numbers don't always tell the whole story. Let's see how the Enclave and Telluride compare when you actually put things inside.  Boom. The Enclave swallows all of the test luggage we have for it without any fuss. The distance between the back of the seats to the hatch opening is enough to fit our full-size suitcase horizontally, making it easy to stack every other bag around it. It even fits below the seatbacks, so the driver will have an uninhibited view out the rear of the vehicle.  At our Michigan HQ, our test luggage consists of the following pieces: 28-inch upright suitcase, 24-inch upright suitcase, 19-inch upright suitcase, two small tote bags and one backpack. ItÂ’s likely enough luggage for a quick weekend getaway with the family, given there are no strollers involved. As we attempted to pack it all into the Telluride, weÂ’re glad we didnÂ’t have anything else. The loss of 2.6 cubic-feet of space was indeed felt much harder than what it looks like on paper. We knew we were in trouble when the 28-inch suitcase didnÂ’t fit along the floor as it did so neatly in the Enclave. We were forced to stack it up next to the rear seats, which left it sitting rather tall back there. As a result, the other suitcases didnÂ’t have a neat or convenient place to go.

GM applies to trademark Buick Envision GX

GM Authority found a GM application with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to reserve the name Buick Envision GX. We can't be certain, but it seems this all but confirms that the three-row Buick Envision, which debuted a year ago in China as the Envision Plus (pictured), will sell here as the Envision GX. Doing so would reinforce the naming convention established in the U.S. with the Encore and slightly larger Encore GX. Adding a third row to the compact two-row Envision extends three of of four dimensions. According to specs the Chinese transport ministry put online last year, the three-row Envision will be 190.7 inches long on a 111.5-inch wheelbase, increases of 8.2 and 2.1 inches, respectively. Height grows by 2.7 inches as well, only the 74.1-inch width holding steady.   That length has been utilized to make life easier for second- and third-row passengers. The Envision Plus in China comes with 2+3+2 seating, the second-row bench able to slide 9.8 inches. Behind that, cargo volume with the second and third rows stowed climbs from 52.7 cubic feet to 58 cubic feet. The sole engine will be the current Envision's 2.0-liter four-cylinder, making 228 horsepower and 258 pound-feet of torque, sent to the wheels through a nine-speed automatic. Power gets sent to the front wheels as standard, and all-wheel drive will be an option.  On top of the extended rear overhang on the seven-seater, GM designers slipped in a few cosmetic changes to set it apart from the five-seater. A new horizontal trim piece connects the headlights, the lower bumper getting a pair of larger, reshaped intakes. A complementary horizontal slash connects slimmer taillights, the license plate surround squared off instead of trapezoid-shaped.  Related video:

Lexus tops JD Power Vehicle Dependability Study again, Buick bests Toyota

It shouldn't surprise anyone, but Lexus has once again taken the top spot in JD Power's Vehicle Dependability Study. That'd be the Japanese luxury brand's fourth straight year at the top of table. The big news, though, is the rise of Buick. General Motor's near-premium brand beat out Toyota to take second place, with 110 problems per 100 vehicles compared to Toyota's 111 problems. Lexus owners only reported 89 problems per 100 vehicles. Besides Buick's three-position jump, Scion enjoyed a major improvement, jumping 13 positions from 2014. Ram and Mitsubishi made big gains, as well, moving up 11 and 10 positions, respectively. In terms of individual segments, GM and Toyota both excelled, taking home seven segment awards each. The study wasn't good news for all involved, though. A number of popular automakers finished below the industry average of 147 problems per 100 vehicles, including Subaru, (157PP100), Volkswagen (165PP100), Ford/Hyundai (188PP100 each) and Mini (193PP100). The biggest losers (by a tremendous margin, we might add) were Land Rover and Fiat, recording 258 and 273 problems per 100 vehicles. The next closest brand was Jeep, with 197PP100. While the Vehicle Dependability Study uses the same measurement system as the Initial Quality Survey, the two metrics analyze very different things. The VDS looks at problems experienced by original owners of model year 2012 vehicles over the past 12 months, while the oft-quoted IQS focuses on problems in the first 90 days of new-vehicle ownership. Like the IQS, though, the VDS has a rather broad definition of what a problem is. Because of that, a low score from JD Power is no guarantee of extreme unreliability, so much as just poor design. In this most recent study, the two most reported problems focused on Bluetooth connectivity and the voice-command systems. The former leaves plenty of room for user error due to poor design (particularly true of the Bluetooth systems on the low-scoring Fords, Volkswagens and Subarus), while the second is something JD Power has already confirmed as being universally terrible. That makes means that while these studies are important, they shouldn't be taken as gospel when it comes to automotive reliability. News Source: JD PowerImage Credit: Copyright 2015 Jeremy Korzeniewski / AOL Buick Fiat Ford GM Hyundai Jeep Land Rover Lexus MINI Mitsubishi RAM Scion Subaru Toyota Volkswagen Auto Repair Ownership study