Officially breaking cover in April of 2023, the 2024 Buick Envista drops in as GM’s crossover coupe for the masses, offering attractive styling, a premium cabin appointment, and relatively affordable price point. Indeed, the new Envista has a lot to offer, and now, Consumer Reports is recognizing as much by naming it in its list of top 10 recommended cheap cars for the month of October.
To note, the new Consumer Reports list is based on transaction price, rather than MSRP.
As Consumer Reports points out, it’s not uncommon in the current car market for lower priced models to sell above MSRP, while more-expensive models are often offered at a discount. As such, analyzing the transaction price, or the price that customers actually paid for their new vehicle, rather than the sticker price provides a more accurate representation of vehicle pricing.
To determine this, Consumer Reports pulled transaction data from TrueCar, a Consumer Reports partner, then sorted models based on their selling price. From there, Consumer Reports determined the 10 models that met the organization’s standards for road test performance, owner satisfaction, reliability, and safety in order to be recognized as a CR Recommended vehicle.
The 2024 Buick Envista Preferred is the trim that made the list, touting a price range between $22,400 and $28,600. Among the vehicle highlights is a robust features list for the price, “secure handling,” solid braking performance, and the versatility of a “hatchback” rear cargo area. Meanwhile, Consumer Reports was less enthused over the noisy cabin, uneven power delivery, low-end cabin materials, and the lack of an all-wheel-drive option.
Consumer Reports recorded an average fuel economy of 29 mpg, including 21 mpg in the city and 39 mpg on the highway. The organization ranked the Envista in fifth place among seven luxury entry-level cars.
For reference, the 2024 Buick Envista is motivated by the turbocharged 1.2L I3 LIH gasoline engine, which is rated at 136 horsepower and 162 pound-feet of torque. The GM VSS-F vehicle platform provides the underpinnings. Production takes place at the GM Bupyeong plant in South Korea.
Comments
I like CR but hate it when it recommends a vehicle with insufficient reliability data. It has had to backtrack MANY times.
CR is the place to go when researching vacuum cleaners, not cars.
Disagree 100%.
CR’s readers are not a representative sample of the general public so they start with a biased group that is being sampled. Because CR starts with a biased group the results of their surveys are not considered statistically significant.
The fact that CR will not report the exact numbers that go with their 5 circles also make the results suspect to me. My guess is that since all cars have become very reliable that if CR released the percentages behind the circles it would make people realize that most cars are quite reliable and wonder why they wasted money on the magazine.
To me, there’s a difference with “cheap” (low quality) v. inexpensive (low cost).
Good thing most people don’t buy cars based on what CR says . Otherwise there would be no American made cars in the US . don’t like anything but Toyota.
Justified.
I would not call this a cheap car. There is no such thing today.
It’s a cheap car but it’s a Buick which, historically, would’ve been an oxymoron. I understand Buick now has the lowest average transaction price in the GM lineup. This illustrates how badly managed GM has become since their heyday where Buick was a prestigious brand one step below Cadillac.
Buick has the lowest TP because it doesn’t have any of the hideously-overpriced big pickups and SUVs that Cadillac, GMC and Chevy have.
I wonder how its ATP would compare to Chevy’s if you removed all the body-on-frame products from the numbers.
Given the Envista and Trax recent poor performance in the safety tests, CR will probably take it off their recommended list. These cars are competitively priced, but you truly get what you pay for. These are the modern day Cavalier/Skyhawk. Purely entry level, disposable vehicles.
I’m surprised either are Recommended. Hopefully, GM is at work fixing those crash results for the ’26s. Instead of rolling out MORE EVs, ahem.
The safety tests that were made more severe AFTER the cars were designed to meet the then-current standards? Yeah, a lot of cars are going to do worse since they made them tougher. Context matters.
A true owners experience from someone that bought lives and drives with this vehicle holds a whole lot more weight than somebody who is driven the vehicle for a week and then reviewed it. I personally drive the Buick and Vista Avenir and I can confidently say that this is truly a nice vehicle, now regarding reliability that is something to be seen moving forward. Regarding all wheel drive that is a feature that is being marketed, but has no real value. When you start talking about safety ratings anything that gets hit by one of these behemoth pick up trucks or SUVs is not going to farewell I don’t care how much testing you’ve done. I will just leave it at that.
You own the car and can’t spell the name? AWD is not an option in any trim level.
Spot on. Fake post. What he/she also is unaware of is that CR surveys all of its magazine subscribers, so it IS based on actual experiences.
There are a lot of these in the Des Moines area. I see a copper colored ST most days on my way home from work. When I can see the driver, it’s a young woman. Interestingly, they’ve all had black Iowa plates which is an extra 80 dollars over the standard plate. Prevalence is < 10% for all vehicles in IA.
I have black plates on my Trax, they’re $60 more the first year ($25 plate fee + $35 for Blackout Plate fee) and then $10 extra every year, unless they’re personalized.
From Iowa DOT site
“$35 initial fee to the Road Use Tax Fund for the Blackout Plate fee
$10 annual registration fee for the Blackout Plate renewal
Annual registration renewal fee
Personalized plates
$60 initial fee ($25 plate fee + $35 for Blackout Plate fee)
$15 annual registration fee ($5 validation fee + $10 for the Blackout Plate fee) at time of renewal.” The take rate is 12%.
Been to the Buick dealer and test drove. It’s an entry level “cheap” car for someone who never had a new car.
And a lot of those first-time buyers pay sticker, not knowing any better.
It certainly looks like. Styling is a cut above the grade, but I just can’t get past that 3 cylinder.
It’s pretty but as a “crossover coupe”, popular in Europe but despised in the US, I don’t hold much hope. Funny that the Trax is being discounted thousands but not this thing. Weird.
Trax and Envista currently offer NO discounts, there’s no need…the Trax is the #2 selling Chevy right now, why discount something that sells so well? They are offering lowered lease rates but no “cash on the hood” for either one. Just checked their respective manufacturer web pages. Nothing.
Two things in the article stand out to me in a huge way.
1. Overly noisy cabin. I have not driven one and won’t until they offer it in EV, which they won’t. But just how noisy is it? This is a Buick and needs to be quiet.
2. Terrible fuel economy. An average of 29 in 2024 on a smaller low priced vehicle with a 3 cyl? That is horrible and even if I were interested in going back to ICE (will never happen), that poor MPG would kill it for me.
In 2009, I owned a 1999 Buick Regal LS with the 3800 V6 and 4 speed auto. It had 219,000 miles when I purchased it dirt cheap. I drove that car from the Chicago area to southern California and back and averaged 27 MPG back then. It was quiet, rode like a dream and was super comfortable. What the hell happened to Buick?
It’s not noisy, not sure what they’re hearing…and that 29mpg? My Trax lacks the undercoating and sound deadening applied to the Buick and my Trax is very quiet, almost as quiet as our Bolt EUV so I don’t get what they’re talking about at all. I have never had my gas mileage be that low, I’m averaging 34-36 after 9500 miles. I don’t baby it but I do drive mostly highway, and I also don’t drive like I’m auditioning for Furious 11. Nothing happened to Buick. Until you’ve driven one I would take articles with a grain of salt, it’s all anecdotal until you experience it yourself. One person’s opinion does not a fact make, not even mine. hahaha
All true. And I don’t put much stake in what CR says. Never have and probably never will. I’m much more likely to listen to what JD Power says since that’s all coming from the owners who have actually owned them for some time. So I agree with you.
But even if you are getting higher MPG’s than that, it’s still (IMO) pathetic for numbers. I quoted what my high miles old Regal did and I’ve owned many other Buick’s over the years (cars) and have always gotten better MPG that what they are saying this gets. Heck on a brand new 1994 Buick Skylark with a 4 cyl and 4 speed auto, we would get in the mid-30’s for highway. It’s now 30 years later and they still can’t improve them? All the more reason why I love my Bolt EV.
So do we, we have one ICE and one EV, which works for us. He drives farther to and from work than I do so he uses the EV, I use the Trax. I don’t think 34-36 is pathetic for a 3,100 pound car that sits that high off the ground and is shaped like a chiseled brick.
Sorry. I was going from what CR reported and what the article quoted, not what you are getting. Although 34 to 36 isn’t bad, IMO it’s just not great. Anything under 30 MPG is just terrible and what I’d expect from a 6 cyl truck doing a constant 65 mph.