- #7 of 191
-
Final Drive Ratios Re: Lucerne Acceleration Performance: Re: . [sls002]
by rayainsw
-
Dec 16, 2005 (12:19 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: sls002 (Dec 16, 2005 11:47 am)
“Yes, you are right, Car & Driver did get 0-60 at 6 seconds for both RWD STS models that they tested. Road & Track got 5.9 seconds. It is my feeling that the best performance would be with an axle ratio around 3:1, perhaps 3.08:1. The 2.73:1 axle ratio is not good for Autobahn cruising.”
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 . . .
|
- #8 of 191
-
Re: Final Drive Ratios Re: Lucerne Acceleration Performance: Re: . [rayainsw]
by sls002
-
Dec 16, 2005 (12:34 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: rayainsw (Dec 16, 2005 12:19 pm)
Basically, the horsepower requirement increases exponentially with speed. I think that the prime reason for giving the STS (FWD) a 3.71:1 axle ratio was so that it could reach 150 MPH. With a 3.11:1 axle ratio the top speed would probably have been less, although 150 is possible in third gear. My SLS will do 50 MPH  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.
|
- #9 of 191
-
Re: Final Drive Ratios Re: Lucerne Acceleration Performance: Re: . [sls002]
by bruneau1
-
Dec 17, 2005 (10:49 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: sls002 (Dec 16, 2005 12:34 pm)
Who needs to worry about such possible speeds? Who cares? Where can one do that with legality and safety? Get real. What counts is how a car drives under normal and demanding conditions- and I don't mean 100 miles per hour. The Lucerne is a very nice vehicle and it needs to succeed or it is the end of Buick. They have only two cars and two suv types whose sales are dropping and a minivan which is scheduled to die when the Atlanta plant closes.
|
- #10 of 191
-
Re: Final Drive Ratios Re: Lucerne Acceleration Performance: Re: . [bruneau1]
by jh1977
-
Dec 17, 2005 (7:32 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: bruneau1 (Dec 17, 2005 10:49 am)
I agree with what you are saying except for the 3800 Engine in the Base Lucerne. The 3800 has been a great reliable Engine for GM cars for years, but now its time has past. GM should put a more modern engine in the Base Lucerne so it can compete with the V6 engines in the Avalon, Charger and 300 Limited full size cars. As we have heard or read in the news, GM is in the process of cutting jobs and closing plants. Toyota, Honda and other foreign manufacturers are gaining car market share in the U.S. To compete with the foreign car manufacturers and Daimler Chrylser, GM must began manufacturing quality built vehicles with modern technology, modern engines and attractive body styles for all of its car divisions (especially Buick) to appeal to a broad section of consumers, if not GM might go out of business. I would hate to see GM and Ford go out of business and the U.S. is left with only foreign car manufacturers.
|
- #11 of 191
-
Re: Final Drive Ratios Re: Lucerne Acceleration Performance: Re: . [jh1
by vanman1
-
Dec 18, 2005 (12:12 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: jh1977 (Dec 17, 2005 7:32 pm)
The base Lucerne needs the 3.6L as a base with a 5 or 6 speed transmission. More HP and a modern power plant for a modern car. I love the Lucerne otherwise but while the 3800 is smooth and efficient, the car would really attract me with better power.
I also think the optics of 197 hp just looks awful on a near luxury full size car.
|
- #12 of 191
-
Re: Final Drive Ratios Re: Lucerne Acceleration Performance: Re: . [jh1 [vanman1]
by 62vetteefp
-
Dec 18, 2005 (7:09 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: vanman1 (Dec 18, 2005 12:12 pm)
The base Lucerne needs the 3.6L as a base with a 5 or 6 speed transmission. More HP and a modern power plant for a modern car. I love the Lucerne otherwise but while the 3800 is smooth and efficient, the car would really attract me with better power.
But what would you think about a $1500 increase in the base price for just the engine?
|
- #13 of 191
-
Re: Final Drive Ratios Re: Lucerne Acceleration Performance: Re: . [jh1 [vanman1]
by imidazol97
-
Dec 18, 2005 (7:37 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: vanman1 (Dec 18, 2005 12:12 pm)
>optics of 197 hp just
I assume you haven't driven a 3800 in a recent GM product. It's the torque for most people's driving that matters and that motor has a lot of torque at low speed. If may not be BMW territory for high speed sport shifting, but it's a great motor. It has been updated throughout it's life and vastly improved many times. Current improvements in the Series III includes an aluminum oil pan for stiffening the lower motor and reducing harmonic vibrations.
|
- #14 of 191
-
Re: Final Drive Ratios Re: Lucerne Acceleration Performance: Re: . [imidazol97]
by jh1977
-
Dec 18, 2005 (10:49 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: imidazol97 (Dec 18, 2005 7:37 pm)
I currently drive a late model Buick Lesabre with the 3800 engine. I love the car, it has good acceleration and I have had no problems with it so far. I really hated to see GM drop the Buick LeSabre nameplate. My problem with the new Base Buick Lucerne is that GM says this is a new car with new technology but it has the Buick Lesabre engine with some modifications. Due to the Base Lucerne weighing more and being slower in acceleration that the LeSabre, I think GM should have have put a stronger engine in the Base Lucerne. Please don't get me wrong, the 3800 engine has been a great engine for GM cars for years, but as times change, GM must also change its products to stay competitive in the car manufacturing industry. I read Ford is coming out with a new engine for its 500/Montego sedans within a few years, a 3.5 Liter engine with at least 240 or more HP.
|
- #15 of 191
-
Re: Final Drive Ratios Re: Lucerne Acceleration Performance: Re: . [62v
by evandro
-
Dec 19, 2005 (9:54 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: 62vetteefp (Dec 18, 2005 7:09 pm)
I keep hearing that pension and health care costs about $1000 per car to GM. So, instead of having $1000 worth in modern technology and safety features, it's making GM products less competitive.
|
- #16 of 191
-
Lucerne Performance
by fin
-
Dec 14, 2005 (8:07 pm)
-
|
As a potential Lucerne buyer I continue to read with interest all the posts to date. Thanks, and please keep the comments coming.
If the Lucerne has a performance issue, the problem appears to be the transmission. Only 4 forward gears as many have noted. And gear 4 is an overdrive for gas mileage, it has nothing to do acceleration. The horsepower (actually torque) is there, it's just a matter of getting it to the ground. A 5 or 6 speed is critical in this heavy sedan, and much of the competition has one.
Beyond that, the car sounds like a winner at this point....
|
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Sedans 
