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
#6422 of 6854 Re: 2009 Lucerne [drwilsc]
Jun 05, 2008 (6:27 pm)
IMO its not that big of an improvement. The MPG should be similar, (using the Impala's #s) however the highway # comes with the use of cylinder deactivation. The 3.9 is also a dated OHV design, at least it has VVT. Like joe97 said GMs 3.6 is the better option here, however, I read somewhere that the 3.6 is not setup to be installed where the Lucerne is being built. IMO if they aren't putting the 3.6 in, keep the 3800 at the very least the Buick lovers will be happy as that engine has a following so to speak. Bulletproof it is... rough, noisy and underpowered in todays standards... that too.
#6423 of 6854 Re: BMW Sophistication [kdshapiro]
Jun 05, 2008 (8:17 pm)
Like I said, if you brought the Genesis out with NO badging on it and sat folks in it and asked them to give their opinion of what the car should be worth...
This should be done, and then the final test is to smash them into a brick wall.
The cars, or the folks?
#6424 of 6854 Re: "What anything is worth is exactly what it sells for." [captain2]
Jun 05, 2008 (8:20 pm)
I disagree. As Car and Driver put it so well in the bad old days of Cadillac:
"You don't always get what you pay for. Sometimes, you get less."
#6425 of 6854 Re: 2009 Lucerne [joe97]
Jun 06, 2008 (4:44 am)
The 3.9 in the Lucerne should make somewhere between 227 hp (like in the G6 convertible) and 240 hp (like in the Impala).
As far as the 3.6 liter, it is already used in the Malibu/Aura, CTS, STS, SRX, etc. I wonder if GM needed to 'use up' their supply of 3.9's? The 3.9, being more of a torquey engine, may make more sense in a larger car like the Lucerne.
#6426 of 6854 Re: Taurus observations? [jontyrees]
Jun 06, 2008 (5:32 am)
I don't know the gear ratios.
The Ford website shows the Taurus FWD to have a 3.16 axle ratio and the AWD version to be 2.77. I suspect they printed it backwards. Based on the revs per mile that a tech at my dealer provided me, it makes more sense that the FWD model is the one with the 2.77 axle. The OD gear is .74 so we are looking at about a 2.05 overall top gear.
#6427 of 6854 Re: 2009 Lucerne [drwilsc]
Jun 06, 2008 (6:22 am)
It's not a big deal, but I thought the Impala 3.9L had 233hp. ?
#6428 of 6854 Re: 2009 Lucerne [thegraduate]
Jun 06, 2008 (6:58 am)
I stand corrected. Still, that is 36 more hp than the 197 in the Lucerne's 3.8. Consumer Reports clocked a 3.9 liter Impala 0-60 in 7.8 sec, just a hair slower than the 7.5 sec. 0-60 run they got in the Lucerne V8. The Lucerne 3.8 was clocked at 9.2 sec. Do keep in mind, however, that the Impala is slightly lighter than the Lucerne.
Let's say the 3.9 in the Lucerne is good for low-8 0-60 times. That makes it more in line with other makes and closer to the V8 Lucerne, with some benefit with the sticker price and at the pump.
#6429 of 6854 Re: 2009 Lucerne [drwilsc]
Jun 06, 2008 (7:02 am)
Indeed, not a big deal (233 v. 240) but the big deal is 233 vs. 197. Motor Trend had a 3.8L Lucerne at 8.8 seconds to 60, with the V8 Lucerne at something like 7.2 seconds (I'll have to look it up).
The 3.9 ought to be good for at least 8 seconds, a notable improvement.
UPDATE: Car and Driver quoted the 2006 Lucerne CXS at 6.9 seconds to 60 saying this:
From a standing start, you get an initial jump off the torque converter up to 7 or so mph, followed by a sag as you wait for the twister V-8 to take over, which it does at about 28 mph; 60 mph comes up at just a tick under seven seconds (6.9), followed by the quarter-mile mark in 15.3 at 94 mph.
They also say this about the 2007 Impala LTZ, with the 3.9L.
Its 233 horsepower is enough to giddyap to 60 mph in 7.4 seconds, and the 15.6-second quarter-mile pass at 91 mph is respectable for what this car is.
Not a whole lot better with the Northstar, eh? For the record, Consumer Guide tested an Impala LT 3.5L with a curb weight of 3,555 lbs. The Lucerne CXL in the same publication was tested with a curb weight of 3,764 lbs, or about the weight of an extra decent-sized passenger.
#6430 of 6854 Re: 2009 Lucerne [drwilsc]
Jun 06, 2008 (8:22 am)
shame when GMs (or any mfgrs.) ability to compete is dictated by plants they are contractually obligated to keep open and/or their poor finances dictate an inability to produce enough quantity of a good thing (the 3.6) . Don't think the 3.9 is much better - other than being a proper 60 d. V6, the very thought of that engine (the 3.9) at 5600 rpm (where all the hp is) enough to make me wince just thinking about it. More torque will certainly make any car more driveable, but that projected (and not really class competitive) acceleration comes from that torque as it is applied over time - otherwise known as horsepower The Lucerne has much going for it, although very little under the hood, it looks like it will remain that way - GMs stepchild!
#6431 of 6854 Re: 2009 Lucerne [tjc78]
Jun 06, 2008 (10:35 am)
Just because an engine has OHV or other "older" technologies doesn't mean it's rubbish. Often these engines are very reliable and inexpensive to repair because they DO use these simpler technologies.
I'd rather have a more reliable and less costly to repair drivetrain than the type of nonsense that you're seeing recently. $3500-$4000 to fix a transmission? That's robbery. Yet that's what one costs on most Toyotas now. BMW or Audi or any of the others aren't any different, either. A 3800 plus 4 speed - the entire engine and transmission can be replaced for under $3500.
The 3.6 not being offered is simply because they don't have enough production - they are being put into CTSs instead.