Sign In Join 

You are here: [F] Forums / Sedans / Buick Lucerne / Buick Lucerne vs. Toyota Camry

Buick Lucerne vs. Toyota Camry

92 messages,  Last post on May 22, 2007 at 8:32 PM

You are in the Buick Lucerne Forum. Your Hosts are pat & karens

What is this discussion about? Buick Lucerne, Toyota Camry, Sedan


Messages Page 6 of 10
1
...
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Prev
Next
Last
Go To Msg #
Search This Discussion

#49 of 92
Re: . [rake2] by m1miata
Mar 26, 2006 (7:54 pm)
Reply

Replying to: rake2 (Mar 26, 2006 7:11 pm)

Yeah, the Lucerne as a Buick or as a Cadillac, after GM re-organization, would make sense for those in need of FWD. Seems like some people need, or prefer FWD. The FWD is less expensive to build, so the profit is there. Maybe AWD is the way to go though. As for available cars, my o' my, most are FWD, so you should not have trouble picking up one.
#50 of 92
Re: . [rake2] by 62vetteefp
Mar 27, 2006 (5:29 am)
Reply

Replying to: rake2 (Mar 26, 2006 7:11 pm)

There are very few who even know what FWD or RWD means or care. There is a market for RWD but it is small. Look at what is being built today in the non performance market. The only RWD cars under 30K (where the huge volume of cars are sold) are the new chryslers and they are not sold in that high of volume compared to all the rest. Their wagon is already crested and is going down in volume. And I surmise that most of those buying the Chryslers are buying because of the "look at me" styling and/or the V8. They would have bought if FWD/AWD/RWD or hook a horse up to it just to be seen!!
 
Of course nothing wrong with that but a smaller niche market.
 
FWD is not going away. That being said full size vehicles like the Lucerne and DTS keep losing sales. Mostly old folks who want a car that large. Most younger (under 60) know that a SUV is a much better vehicle for their needs if they need the carrying capacity for family and stuff. Remember our government killed the large car with MPG requirements on the cars and then NOT applying to trucks.
   
All that said above, with the large car going RWD they can turn up the advetisements and convince the buying public that RWD is upscale and all should buy! It is in performance cars!
#51 of 92
Re: . [ab348] by poncho167
Mar 27, 2006 (7:53 am)
Reply

Replying to: ab348 (Mar 26, 2006 11:02 am)

I don't believe the 3.4 is the same engine block as the 2.8, 3.1, 3.5, 3.9. The 3.4 cubic inch engine was an Oldsmobile engine. The 3.4 from what I have seen and heard has been pretty good.
#52 of 92
Re: . [poncho167] by sls002
Mar 27, 2006 (8:32 am)
Reply

Replying to: poncho167 (Mar 27, 2006 7:53 am)

The 3.4 is the same engine family as the 3.1, which was re-engineered at some point allowing the first generation 2.8 to be as large as 3.4 liters. The new 3.5 and 3.9 engines are newly re-engineered to, allowing them to become as large as 3.9 liters. I should point out that there are two versions of the 3.5 liter engine, one without VVT (variable valve timing), which has the same stroke as the 3.9 but a smaller bore; and one with the same bore as the 3.9, but with a shorter stroke. Both of the larger bore engines have VVT.
#53 of 92
Re: . [m1miata] by rake2
Mar 27, 2006 (3:11 pm)
Reply

Replying to: m1miata (Mar 26, 2006 7:54 pm)

Not in a luxury or quasi-luxury class.
#54 of 92
Does everyone need a V-8? by loyalbuickfan
Mar 27, 2006 (7:14 pm)
Reply

Replying to: imidazol97 (Mar 26, 2006 7:03 am)

I am in agreement as to just how much power is REALY needed on a typical day of driving. My 94 Park Ave.
(bought new) has 151,000 on it and it still gives adequate performance 99% of the time. When I order my new Lucerne
this Summer will it be worth $2,000 more for the V-8 and
10 Dollars more a week for gas, for 1% of the time I wish I had more horsepower?
 
Why am I am THINKING about it?
#55 of 92
Engine architecture by ab348
Mar 30, 2006 (4:26 am)
Reply

Replying to: sls002 (Mar 27, 2006 8:32 am)

The 3.4 is the same engine family as the 3.1, which was re-engineered at some point allowing the first generation 2.8 to be as large as 3.4 liters. The new 3.5 and 3.9 engines are newly re-engineered to, allowing them to become as large as 3.9 liters.
 
I'm still unclear whether the 3.5 and 3.9 are based on the old Chevy Citation V-6 architecture. My understanding was that they were. For that reason alone I would avoid any vehicle that has them. If they are not stemming from that design I would be interested in knowing their origins.
#57 of 92
Re: Engine architecture [ab348] by sls002
Mar 30, 2006 (8:37 am)
Reply

Replying to: ab348 (Mar 30, 2006 4:26 am)

Here is a website that has some information, possibly right:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_High_Value_engine
 
Note that the engine is based on the old design, but since the block is longer, the whole engine is really redesigned and one would think much better.
#58 of 92
Re: Engine architecture [ab348] by poncho167
Mar 30, 2006 (12:29 pm)
Reply

Replying to: ab348 (Mar 30, 2006 4:26 am)

The 2.8 L engine was an excellent engine and can easily top 200,000 miles if maintained. Mine has 131,000 miles and I look at it as just broken in at 100,000. Great mileage and reliability. Easy to do home maintenance on.

Messages Page 6 of 10
1
...
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Prev
Next
Last
Go To Msg #
Search This Discussion
To POST a message, please Sign In.

You are here: [F] Forums / Sedans / Buick Lucerne / Buick Lucerne vs. Toyota Camry

New? Join Now!

Forum Tools

Please sign in.
Email Address:

Password:

Forgot Password?
Connect with Facebook Sign In Using Your Facebook AccountNew!

Search Forums

Enter Keyword(s)

Advanced Search

Browse by Vehicle



View All Vehicles
Advertisement
Learn More

2010 Buick Lucerne

2009 Buick Lucerne CXL Special Edition Sedan Shown

More Pictures

2011 Toyota Camry

2011 Toyota Camry LE Sedan Shown

More Pictures

DoMore

Ask the Community
See What People Are Asking

Browse by Board

Browse by Topic


View All Topics

Today's Chats

Advertisement