Last post on Aug 02, 2011 at 4:53 AM
You are in the Buick LaCrosse
What is this discussion about?
Buick LaCrosse, Sedan
#756 of 2335 Edmunds True Cost To Own
Oct 23, 2004 (8:55 am)
I tried to run the numbers for the 2005 LaCrosse at the Edmunds True Cost To Own site, but the model is too new. I was able to run the numbers for the 2004 Buick Regal and the 2004 Lexus ES330. Based on 15,000 miles per year, the five year ownership cost of the Regal is $37,122. That works out to $0.49 per mile. For the ES330, the five year ownership cost is $38,572. That works out to $0.51 per mile.
Even though the Lexus is more expensive to purchase, the superior resale value reduces the cost to own. I would hope that eventually the LaCrosse resale value will be superior to the Regal, but it may take some time.
Oct 23, 2004 (2:38 pm)
Yes but the ES330 is a horrible looking car. How can you value resale potential over styling? The Es330 is less attractive than the camry on which its based.
Oct 24, 2004 (10:01 am)
I'm confused why you are asking about portholes here? The LaCrosse doesn't have portholes. Only the Park Avenue does. I believe the porthole is simply a styling gimmick and does not actually allow air or water to get into the engine bay.
As for features, I'm not disappointed because I think the LaCrosse offers the features that are important to me. By the way, the CXS model does offer StabiliTrak.
Oct 24, 2004 (2:09 pm)
The talk about portholes is because Buick has indicated the LaCrosse will soon be modified to add the portholes, which are to again become a signature of Buick products.. It was mentioned in one of the cited articles, I believe one that I posted a link to here...
#760 of 2335 Saw a lacrosse in person
Oct 25, 2004 (6:52 am)
Hi gang, i sat in a lacrosse (I believe it was CXS) at the long island auto show this weekend.
Overall, it was just o.k. I think the overall build quality - in and out - is much better than the Regal GS. But there's really nothing striking about the car (versus the Regal GS, which, at least for the first few model years of its last incarnation, looked 'stealth' and 'young'.
But the car didn't get my me excited. Buick defnitely isn't going for a younger demographic like they (arguably) were targeting with the Regal GS. In fact, I spotted a couple senior citizens just positively *gushing* over the car. but the younger audience just wasn't into it.
Oct 26, 2004 (4:47 am)
I always liked the Regal GS and I think the LaCrosse is a step back in terms of excitement. Inside, the car is several steps up however and the 3.6L is also. Too bad we couldn't have the Regal exterior with the new interior/3.6L.
Oct 27, 2004 (12:15 pm)
The dealership right next to my job has two silver CXLs. It is a very classy looking car, not sporty, but classy. You can definitely tell the body gaps are tighter than before. It's looks like a quality piece. I'm not really feeling the "Chrome-Tec" 16" rims though. Can't wait to see a CXS with the 17"s. What they need to do is offer the 18"x8" rims from the show car with the 245/45 Goodyears. That made the car truely stand out. Plus, the rims are really pushed out to the corners of the car. Regardless, the interior is hot. It looks very upscale and luxurious. The wood shifter is also a nice touch. I'm anxious to see the acceleration and braking figures once a magazine does a real road test. Buick claims it has an all new Delphi braking system although the rotors seem the exact same size as the Impala's. Some places quote torque at 225 lbs-ft 2000 rpm or 3200 rpm while others say 230 lbs-ft. I don't understand why this engine is detuned so much from Cadillac duty- even the Rendevous has a higher output. But hey, this baby has a much better interior than the CTS so I guess it's a fair trade considering the customer base. Hopefully once the incentives kick in, I can have a nice Grey steel or red LaCrosse CSX in my driveway.
Oct 27, 2004 (12:20 pm)
They should've added Navigation but I'm sure it'll be available later. Xenon is a strech but it would've been nice since the Mercury Montego will offer them.
#764 of 2335 LaCrosse vs. ES330
Oct 27, 2004 (1:34 pm)
There is so much talk on this board about how much more expesive the ES330 is than the LaCrosse CXS, and if the ES is worth it..
Lets put styling aside, shall we, for a moment?
The ES330 plus VSC, heated and ventilated seats, 6 CD changer, 17 inch alloys, Wood Steering Wheel and Trim, Power Rear Sunshade, Power Adj Pedals, Trunk Mat, Wheel Locks and Cargo Net:
MSRP including freight: $35,419
The LaCrosse CXS plus Stabilitrak, Power Passenger Seat, Heated Front Seats, Upgraded Sound System, Side Curtain Airbags, Power Sunroof, Chrome Appearance Pkg, Trunk Liner, and Carpet Savers
MSRP including freight: $32,840.
(I didnt add Nav or Adaptive suspension to the Lexus or Digital Radio to the LaCrosse to try and keep things even).
Considering that the Lexus has a longer warranty, better side impact protection, higher scoring dealer network, and resale value that will likely be about 20% higher as a percentage of MSRP than the LaCrosse's after 4 years, $2500 doesnt seem like too much of a premium.
#765 of 2335 Re: LaCrosse vs. ES330 [alpha01]
Oct 27, 2004 (2:26 pm)
Don't forget about higher insurance costs, higher maintenance per hour costs, higher parts cost, higher license plate cost in most states, and lower mpg for the ES330. If one considers the lower CX or CXL instead of the CXS it becomes a much better buy. Resale value means nothing if one keeps the car for 10 years.