2025 Chevy Trax – 3K miles on a 1200 cc 3-cylinder!

[Scout1]

Flew into Chicago for a little road trip around Michigan and Wisconsin. Had an intermediate SUV reserved but they were all old dogs with over 50k miles on them. So I asked if they had anything with lower mileage. Just then they brought up a Chevy Trax with only 12k miles. Looked bigger in the dark rental car building so I took it. Come to find out it had the 1.2L 3-cylinder turbo engine! That’s smaller than my motorcycle! (Yamaha FJR - 1300 cc)

So here are my impressions: First of all, kind of uncomfortable seats a bit too small for me. Also, I immediately noticed the blind spot created by the wide A-Pillars just off the drivers shoulder. I had to kind of lean backwards to see around when doing a head-check for lane changes.

As for the drivetrain, the engine and 6-speed transmission seem really jerky to me when left in “drive”. I preferred to manually shift it and as I got used to the car it got better but still jerked often when shifting. Surprisingly, the motor produced adequate power to run down the freeways at 75-80 no problem. You can feel the turbo taking over when a hill comes up and the transmission keeps the higher gear better than the immediate down-shifts other cars do (e.g. my Lexus ES-350)

Overall impression – it’s kinda small (duh!) My wife and dog missed the mid-size I had reserved. Engine noise is most noticeable at low RPM but you don’t hear it much at road speeds and sometimes I forgot to upshift and saw the little 3-cylinder running at 4500 perfectly happy and actually very smooth. Kind of a goofy dashboard if you ask me with skinny sticks showing fuel and temp. I know these are fairly cheap vehicles and as such, it’s about what you’d expect for a bottom of the line SUV.

 

[HyundaiAbuser]

my coworker had to lemon law hers. seemed nice enough

 

[daves87rs]

Well, they are cheap……

 

[joekingcorvette]

Yes, I agree you kind of get what you pay for. It seems as if the manufacturer's keep making engine smaller and smaller and still obtain decent power and mileage. Way different than 30 years ago that's for sure.

 

[fantastic]

The Trax 3 cylinder engine does have me curious about longevity.

 

[Scout1]

Oh, by the way, we averaged 32 mpg over the trip - two people with luggage. The on-board computer was a bit optimistic when I checked it manually... it showed the average as 34. It's better than my Honda Accord with the old 2.4L, especially around town. But on the freeway it used more fuel to keep the speed up and was no better than the Honda with the twice as large engine!

As a side note, I sure did love the mid $2 price for gas in the mid west! We're in the mid $4 to almost $5 per gallon in Washington thanks to our Carbon tax and sky high fuel taxes :-(

 

[Marcozi]

Earlier this year my wife and flew into Fort Lauderdale airport (FLL). Rented ad intermediate from Alamo. Ended up with a Mitsu Endevor. What a slug.

 

[dishdude]

I like the Envista (Buick version of the Trax) has a nicer interior and for a car starting at $25k it's quiet, rides nice and is very comfortable.

I too have concerns about a 3 cylinder turbo, I suspect with proper maintenance it'll be fine but the motoring public generally isn't as concerned about maintenance as the BITOG crowd.

 

[IndyIan]

Yes, I agree you kind of get what you pay for. It seems as if the manufacturer's keep making engine smaller and smaller and still obtain decent power and mileage. Way different than 30 years ago that's for sure.

These still have fairly bad mileage with fwd only, Mazda and Subaru offer similar vehicles with larger NA engines with more hp and with AWD get better hwy mileage?
I don't get it how a turbo 3cyl is cheaper to make than a NA 4 cyl, but maybe the difference is dozens of dollars for a manufacturer?

 

[duck__dodgers]

The Trax 3 cylinder engine does have me curious about longevity.

it has a wet belt....which is a non-issue for (almost) everyone who knows what a wet belt is.

As for a Normie or the 3rd owner of a Trax.....

 

[duck__dodgers]

I don't get it how a turbo 3cyl is cheaper to make than a NA 4 cyl, but maybe the difference is dozens of dollars for a manufacturer?

some markets also tax displacement, which is why you see do many 2.5, 1.5, 1.0L engines.

Someone at RenCen ran the numbers, and a 1.0L turbo came out the winner when you factor US CAFE + China's displacemen t tax + development costs + assembly costs + misc.

 

[zzyzzx]

it has a wet belt....which is a non-issue for (almost) everyone who knows what a wet belt is.

As for a Normie or the 3rd owner of a Trax.....

I'll take that wet belt over the CVT that the competing vehicles mostly have,

 

[Scout1]

I forgot one other annoying thing about the little Trax; you constantly hear the AC clutch engaging and releasing... even when you turn the AC button off. The only way I got it to stop was turn off the whole heater system. Fairly noticeable clicking at parking lot speeds.

Also, I forgot to post a picture of the little beast!

 

[dogememe]

If I was buying my mom a car (hypothetically, I don't have any money, and she doesn't want a new car), and an EV was not an option, this would be the top contender. I don't have massive confidence in the 3-cylinder turbo engine, and the fact that it uses a timing belt and not a timing chain is a nuisance, but still, I think it's an awesome value and if 0-60 time is not important, you get a modern car with modern safety stuff, modern tech, and NOT A CVT thankfully... for a low price.

I've helped a few customers at work buying oil and filter for their newer Traxes and asked some of them if they liked it. Nobody had a single complaint although one person did mention it was on the slower side when merging on the highway. Still, compared to a typical car 20 years ago, it's not even slower.

 

[fdcg27]

We had the sister Trailblazer as a rental a few years ago with the same 1.2L turbo triple and it was pretty okay.
Fuel economy was surprisingly good and we did run a couple of tanks through it in the week we had it.
Acceleration is adequate but never exciting, handling seemed okay if uninspired and ride quality and interior room were pretty good.
Overall, for someone without a lot of coin to burn or someone who doesn't care to spend a bunch on a new car, this would be a solid choice.
Durability would depend upon driving and maintenance practices, as with any other vehicle.

 

[addyguy]

I really like the look of these. If I was buying a new car for my commute I’d get one today.

 

[andrew_j]

Small bottom of barrel CUVs are miserable. All of them .

 

[Oliveoil2]

The wet timing belt is a non-starter. If it were cheap to replace like a regular timing belt that would be different. It seems to be more cost effective to buy a low mileage used engine.

 

[IndyIan]

I really like the look of these. If I was buying a new car for my commute I’d get one today.

Yes its always nice when a manufacturer realizes that making something look nice is free!
I think its going to be fine car for the first owner for 5-6-7 years, but probably not a great idea to keep it long term, and I think you'd want to sell it before it gets a bad reputation. The wet timing belt is probably never going to get changed, at its a big bill, so almost all these will probably die at some point? 10 yrs? 160k?
Add some iffy lube changes at 15k+ miles? Maybe sooner.
I guess GM customers are fine with low resale values on their midsize and below vehicles, as I don't think making this with a long lasting simple NA motor would change anything about it?
It's not terrible, but it's built to a price point, and all it predecessors haven't been great. I found this guys review pretty balanced.

 

[Pretty Lies]

I rented a Chevrolet Trax LT last weekend for work. Really, really like it. Such a great value compared to the past. When I was young, a 1985 Chevette with with A/C and an automatic transmission was $7,050 (the same inflation adjusted cost of a Trax LS, which is a superior car in features and power, today).

Only thing is to make it last, I'd do more maintenance that the manufacturer suggests.