Last post on Sep 07, 2011 at 7:13 PM
You are in the Buick Lucerne
What is this discussion about?
Buick Lucerne, Sedan
#1488 of 2217 Re: 2007 Lucerne [imidazol97]
Jun 04, 2006 (6:03 pm)
Not pro GM at all. Not anti- GM at all, except for recognizing many of their flaws over the years. Designs were excellent, as in proud to own Body b Fisher designs up to the early 70's. Then thing sort of fell apart. Current offerings, of those newer than say 2002, looked a bit more promising. In looking over the data in Consumers Report, it looks like after a few years the engine was not rated highly on the Cadillacs. That would be the Northstar. I am wondering if any other data backs this up. Was told that the Northstar is their stellar engine in a V8. Will try to get the JD Powers off the Edmund's site here for the years 2003 and older. The site is not working at the moment.
What I do see from Consumer Reports data, is that the Buick line seems to be most reliable for years and years. The engines are rated well going back in time for a number of years. I know someone that had his Caddy blow up going up the grade we have here near the town. Of course that would be a survey of one
I owned a car with the 3.8 which was not reliable. BUT, the problems I understand got pretty much worked out over time. I had a 1987. By 1988 the transmissions and the strange engine problems got worked out -- I think. When it worked the engine was fine. Good gas mileage. Only 150HP back when, but pretty good torque. I learned to drive in a Buick LeSabre '71. Ah, the good ol' rear wheel drive and chrome years. I sort of like the Lucerne for interior, and in some ways the exterior is OK too. Kinda like the LaCrosse though. Really love the crash test scores for the Lucerne, and the chassis being a DTS.
I may take a LaCrosse, Lucerne and the Azera for a test spin on the same day to see how they compare. Unless discounted, I am not terribly impressed with the Buick pricing, so would go for the end of year blow-out sale or just buy one used.
#1489 of 2217 Re: 2007 Lucerne [imidazol97]
Jun 04, 2006 (6:10 pm)
Yes, it was already in the previous model. But the module could not have built enough for it and the others. since it is a Buick engine they got the short straw. I like the engine but the new ones would be better.
Jun 04, 2006 (6:19 pm)
Well I got back in Edmund's site. Was down for a brief time. Anyway on this page:
I noted the reliability of the engine for 4-5 years period as not all that bad compared to what Consumer Reports magazine data would indicate. The current magazine report shows a major deterioration of reliability on several cars - Cadillac included. It is like they fall apart in around the fourth year on. I have used this magazine for data on reliability for years, but will be sure to always cross reference it now. Some things don't seem to add up.
Is this Northstar really all that great, sort of over hyped, or not so good ( temperamental or easily trashed )? It is lighter in weight and suppose to be better I guess in other some ways?
#1491 of 2217 Re: 2007 Lucerne [m1miata]
Jun 05, 2006 (5:10 am)
I would not take what Consumer Reports says too seriously. For years I have thought they were full-of-crap, and have this odd preference for Japanese cars (maybe because they are from California?). This weekend I actually looked in their best and worst magazine and read that they down graded the Chevy HHR for having center mounted power window controls, but when I looked over at the Chrysler PT Cruiser, there was no mention of their center mounted power window controls.
I would look at CR for ratings on dishwashers, televisons, vacuum cleaners, and maybe lawn mowers, but that is about it.
#1492 of 2217 Re: 2007 Lucerne [poncho167]
Jun 05, 2006 (9:16 am)
Oh I just look more at the data gathered from the survey on each car. But when the data changed so from the 2005 magazine I did wonder. The difference was little between 2003 and 2005 magazine for about the same number of years of service for the Cadillac, I could not believe all the black dots suddenly appear in 2006. They say this is due to GM cars falling apart in years five on, but it did NOT look that way on the older cars in 2003 book, then again 2005 was tracking about the same, only to see something quirky about the 2006. If the cars fail in say year five, why did it not do this before?
And the JD Powers older data would not indicate the mechanic to be gawd-awful. Something is wrong here.
Before I would dismiss all CR data though, I would cross reference it with other data found on the Net. The MSN Auto and ConsumerGuide has some info. too. If it all looks bad, then I would say good-bye to that car.
Yes, I agree about reviews. Perhaps they are better at toasters than what makes a good car. But I guess it is all in what people see a car as.
#1493 of 2217 Re: 2007 Lucerne [m1miata]
Jun 05, 2006 (9:58 am)
I marvel at the blanket statement from CR that GM cars fall apart after 4-5 years!!! I see many cars from the 92-99 era H bodies running around our area. They have been traded in or sold and have used car owners who are using them. There are a boatload of them. For something that falls apart I haven't seen one on the side of the road yet.
There are loads of Cavaliers and Impalas running around, FWD, RWD, Box versions. Lots of them.
I did see a recent Vette sitting on I-70 overpass (white) that didn't make it to the cruise-in last Saturday afternoon. Guess those Vettes just aren't no good?
#1494 of 2217 Re: 2007 Lucerne [imidazol97]
Jun 05, 2006 (1:50 pm)
They have a graphic simple line chart of say Honda and Toyota and GM and Fords displayed. It indicates far more trouble areas as the years go by. The chart is not pretty. The worse one is GM, which starts having more and more problems per hundred cars as the years tick away in the 4 to 8 year range.
Now they did not say the cars are broken down on the freeway, but indicate that you will have more problems. Could very well be true. Personally, I think the year 2002 on looks more promising for most GM cars for reliability. Would imagine the older the platform and engine, the better your odds. Lucerne is on a Deville chassis and the engines have been time tested. I might consider a Cadillac or Buick. Those two of GM fame seem to be pretty good in most ways, and if bought used, their owners tend to keep them in good running order, and nice a clean.
Maybe the long term chart at CR will look more favorable for GM enthusiasts and first time buyers in a few years. The data JD Powers is collecting indicates Buicks are right up there with the Japan makes. We'll see. Cadillac is an interesting one. You look at some data which shows all these problems per 100 car data, with Cadillac near the bottom, yet the other data doesn't seem to back it up. So Buick is nearer the top and Cadillac is the bottom fish? Best to cross reference every bit of data these days. Seems like everyone's survey data is quite different. Maybe all the techno wizard stuff on a Caddy does make it worse than say a more basic Buick. If true, maybe I will avoid the Cadillac line. But I don't think Caddy is doing so badly on JD Powers surveys. And NO I will not be taking the CR magazine as gospel. I am like others no longer convinced it all makes sense. I do believe as a whole however, the older GMs of 1975-2000 say did, on a average of all their cars, have more problems per car than did the Toyotas and Hondas. This can be cross referenced with say JD Powers. Hyundais were bad too. Both Hyundai and GM have now improved.
#1495 of 2217 Re: 2007 Lucerne [62vetteefp]
Jun 06, 2006 (6:19 pm)
My 94 Park Ave (bought new) has 154,000 miles on it.
12 years of use = Tires,brakes,struts,alternator,and A-C recharge(2 times).
( A Reasonable list I think)
But Engine,(3800 V-6 AND 4 speed transmision are A-OK,
original and trouble free ! (Still gets 30 MPG highway.)
Is 12 years enough to ask from a new car? I think so.
Am looking to Lucerne or Caddy DTS to "retire" my'94 Buick.
#1496 of 2217 Re: 2007 Lucerne [loyalbuickfan]
Jun 07, 2006 (3:46 am)
Isn't it great how dependable they are!
I marvel at how irritated some people are with the dependability of Buicks that they come here to post against the known durability. I see so many of the 92-98 model years driven around our metro area. I haven't seen one by the side of the road.
1993 leSabre 150K, struts, reman alternator
1998 leSabre 130K, UIM, water pump (may not have been seeping, changed anyhow), struts, broken wire to load leveling air pump in rear. Still own and drive more than 2003 leSabre we also own.
2003 leSabre 42K, no problems. Quiet, high gas mileage, roomy, powerful motor and trans combination with torque at lower speeds so I don't have to sound like a 6000 rpm electric router to take off quickly!!! Torque is where it's at, not horsepower at 6000 rpm!
#1497 of 2217 JD Power IQS today at 1:00
Jun 07, 2006 (3:53 am)
IQS is announced today. Be prepared for changes. Life as we know it will be different. Gods will fall. Upstarts will change the game.