Last post on Jul 16, 2012 at 7:08 AM
You are in the Sedans
What is this discussion about?
Buick Lucerne, Chevrolet Impala, Dodge Charger, Ford Taurus, Hyundai Azera, Toyota Avalon, Nissan Maxima, Pontiac G8, Car Comparisons, Sedan
#3013 of 6854 Re: 2007 Buick LUCERNE [thegraduate]
Aug 23, 2007 (6:16 am)
Good point, they would need to put the 292HP version from Caddy in. It will be in the "Super" coming out soon. The 3.6 could be standard and then the V8 could be an option in the CXS and standard on the Super. They are losing people on an otherwise nice car because of powertrain options. I know there are many people that pray to the God known as the 3800... but its time has passed.
#3014 of 6854 Re: 2007 Buick LUCERNE [tjc78]
Aug 23, 2007 (6:37 am)
There's a substantial difference in torque at 2000-2500, e.g. for the Northstar even in the Lucerne version.
As for your comments about the 3800, I find it's very competent. I don't dragrace. I don't do hotrodding around corners. To each his own, but I find it nicely competent and would replace my current one with a 3800 Series II or Series III if the need arises.
#3015 of 6854 Re: 2007 Buick LUCERNE [tjc78]
Aug 23, 2007 (7:09 am)
There is no point buying that Lucerene because the base price would be $37K. They need to at least but the 4.6L V8 320 hp engine from the new STS and XLR that comes with a 6 Speed Auto.
#3016 of 6854 Re: 2007 Buick LUCERNE [tjc78]
Aug 23, 2007 (7:12 am)
Drove the 3800 for several years in a work Bonneville - acceleration was fine but certainly a bit rough.
Have driven both the CXL with the V6 and the CXS V8 - power good for both, but the smooth powered acceleration of the V8 was much better for me and I liked the handling better.
Have driven Honda, Toyota, etc. updated V6 and certainly they are more than sufficiently powered and I suspect in a race would run rings around the V8 Buick. But of course, these are not designed for hot-rod enthusiasts.
For many of us that grew up with V8's there is something about that effortless smooth torque that a V6 cannot match. This, of course, is an "old school" thing and I can fully understand why much of the younger crowd thinks we are nuts.
#3017 of 6854 Re: 2007 Buick LUCERNE [jimmy2x]
Aug 23, 2007 (7:28 am)
"there is something about that effortless smooth torque that a V6 cannot match"
I know what you are saying and have driven my share of "old school" autos mostly full size Fords. Anyway, the newer V6's are so smooth you can't usually tell what RPM they are at anyway. My point continues to be if you can get almost equal power from a smaller more efficient motor that is the way to go, especially in a FWD.
#3018 of 6854 Re: 2007 Buick LUCERNE [tgkoenigsegg]
Aug 23, 2007 (7:35 am)
"There is no point buying that Lucerene because the base price would be $37K. "
That price is inline with the Avalon Limited and a bargain compared to some of the Luxury nameplates Buick wants to go after.
I'll give you one better, the Lacrosse Super will get the 5.3L from the Impala SS and will be cheaper than the Lucerne what sense does that make? I know that from an engineering standpoint it makes sense (same platform) but how do you market that? The flagship car gets a lesser motor.
#3019 of 6854 Re: 2007 Buick LUCERNE [tjc78]
Aug 23, 2007 (7:44 am)
"Anyway, the newer V6's are so smooth you can't usually tell what RPM they are at anyway. My point continues to be if you can get almost equal power from a smaller more efficient motor that is the way to go, especially in a FWD."
Rest assured that I have no basis to argue the smoothness of the 6 vs. the 8 - just a matter of personal preference.
As far as FWD goes, I have found more FWD torque problems on the wife's 4 cyl Camry than on the V8 Buick. After all, GM has been making large FWD cars for many years and they seem to have that issue solved.
#3020 of 6854 Re: 2007 Buick LUCERNE [jimmy2x]
Aug 23, 2007 (1:49 pm)
The graphs above show a lot, though.
4400rpm for both engines. This is reasonably the most anyone will push their car, ever, even during really hard launches. 3400 is actually more reasonable.(they used to rate the engines at 3800rpm a decade ago, which is more realistic).
V6: 3000rpm - 125HP/225lb-ft.
4400rpm - 180HP/220lb-ft.
V8: 3000rpm - 150HP/270lb-ft.
4000rom - 250HP/295lb-ft.
And this isn't the miserable 3.8L. Closer to 100HP at 3000rpm - it's a very sluggish engine at low RPMs, especially when pulling as heavy a vehicle as the Lucerne.
#3021 of 6854 2008 Honda Accord
Aug 24, 2007 (8:59 am)
Just read in latest Autoweek that 2008 Accord will be considered a large sedan. Should/could the 08 Accord be added to this board? It will certainly be more mainstream in sales volume than any car listed in the heading of this board.
#3022 of 6854 Re: 2008 Honda Accord [xrunner2]
Aug 24, 2007 (9:07 am)
Let's see how it goes. A day or two ago I said let's leave in the Midsize Sedans discussion because that's where its main competitors are. I don't want to add it here, too, at least not now.