Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Sedans Buick Lucerne Buick Lucerne: Engine & Performance
191 messages, Last post on Feb 03, 2007 at 9:20 PM
You are in the Buick Lucerne Forum. Your Hosts are pat & karens
The January issue of Motor Trend has a test for the Car of the Year award. The 0-60 time for the Lucerne is 7.5 seconds. The DTS with the higher performance northstar and axle ratio is 7.1 seconds.
|
|
|
Replying to: sls002 (Dec 16, 2005 10:40 am) Oops - your post reminds me that there is a 'step up' FWD at GM. The DTS. For several reasons, I'd never consider it, but starting at $42K, it is "above" the Lucerne. One reason I follow this thread is that now (again, with Olds gone, and the Pontiac Bonne gone, and the STS \ SLS Caddy FWDs gone) this is the overall size I'd likely prefer when I trade my GP GXP. If a performance variant of the Lucerne, with more HP and more TQ (from this or some other V8) and a 6 speed automatic with manumatic \ paddle shift, a more performance oriented suspension, wheels & tires, etc. becomes available – I would at least look at it. - Ray Not likely in the market again until sometime next year . .
|
|
|
Replying to: rayainsw (Dec 16, 2005 10:50 am) |
|
|
Lucerne Acceleration Performance: The original C+D test (1SG w/3.42 to 1 final drive) reported 0 – 60: 6.0 and 14.6 at 97 in the Quarter. The later C+D sedan comparison with a 1SE version of the STS (and 2.73 final drive) reported 0 – 60: 6.0 and 14.5 at 100 in the quarter. And the 30 – 50 and 50 – 70 mph times were actually better for the 1SE than in their previous test of the 1SG. Given Michelin Energy tires (not exactly designed for maximum dry grip) in size 235 / 50 x 17 on the tested 1SE vs Michelin Pilot HX MXM4 in size P255/45ZR-18 on the 1SG, I don’t expect that the 1SE would have better launch traction . . . Granted the 1SF test weight is quoted at approx. 150 pounds lighter (attributable to less extensive equipment, I expect) The braking performance for that 1SE was worse than the 1SG's . . 70 – 0 = 190 feet vs 177 in previous 1SG test. Exactly as I’d expect, given smaller tires and less bias toward ultimate traction in the tread compound and design. In at least a token attempt to bring this into a Lucerne context (and I actually believe it is relevant on this board) since there is no longer a FWD Seville (STS or SLS), and no Olds available at all (FWD or not), it seems to fall to the Lucerne to attempt to win sales for GM where people do want and appreciate the positive attributes of a medium sized FWD sedan. Things like a substantially smaller front & rear ‘hump’ than the STS . . . And the Lucerne acceleration in 6 cylinder form appears clearly less than stellar – and in V8 form, well it again appears to be somewhat less than many expect. I have driven both a 1SE and a 1SF (3.23 final drive) RWD 2005 STS. I would personally consider the 1SF level of acceleration acceptable in a $35 – 38K mid-sized sedan. But not what I perceived in the 1SE. Fugedabout the V6 in either the STS or the Lucerne (for me – Torque snob) regarding acceleration. So – the question (one important question) becomes: Will it sell anyway? We shall see . . . As someone pointed out above, GM may release a higher capacity 6 speed automatic for FWD eventually – if they do, it could be an aid in the cause. Allowing a better compromise between acceleration and high MPG \ low NVH at highway cruising speeds. Again – we’ll see. - Ray Wondering also if 2007 will see something like a Buick Lucerne GXP – or GS???
|
|
|
Replying to: rayainsw (Dec 16, 2005 10:16 am)
|
|
|
Replying to: sls002 (Dec 16, 2005 10:47 am) Although I have no access to a true Autobahn (sadly) I am curious about what you’re getting at here. My personal preference is low RPM at cruising speeds. My current Sedan shows approx. 1700 \ 2000 and 2250 RPM at 60 \ 70 and 80 MPH. And that gearing (2.93 to 1 final drive and low profile 18” tires) would likely translate into approx. 2800 RPM at 100 MPH and 3350 RPM at 120. Although I have never attempted cruising at those speeds, assuming that the wind & road NVH did not rise too quickly, my cruising at up to 80 suggests to me that sustained 100+ would not be a problem – if there was a venue allowing this safely & legally here in the South East US. When VW introduced their 8 cylinder 250+ HP version of the Passat (W8), they changed the final drive from 3.0 to 1 (Europe – with opportunity to travel on ‘real’ Autobahns at higher speeds than is currently legal here) to 3.5 (US). This (and other similar reading) leads me to believe that in a general sense, many Europeans generally prefer lower RPM cruising and US drivers prefer quicker acceleration. Thus, in this context, the 2.73 in your example would appear to be a more appealing option than 3.08 or 3.1. What am I missing? - Ray Hoping some day to actually drive a fun sedan on the Autobahn . . .
|
|
|
Replying to: rayainsw (Dec 16, 2005 11:19 am)  2000 RPM's in third gear and 72 in overdrive (4th). For cruising on the Autobahn, on does not want to be in a lower gear to cruise at 150 MPH. The STS should have been able to reach 150 MPH 5000 RPM's instead of 6000 RPMs.
|
|
|
Replying to: sls002 (Dec 16, 2005 11:34 am)
|
|
|
Replying to: bruneau1 (Dec 17, 2005 9:49 am) |
|
You are here:
Forums
Sedans Buick Lucerne Buick Lucerne: Engine & Performance
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2010 Buick Lucerne
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
