Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory

CarSpace | Forums | Answers | Blogs | Photos | Videos | Guides | People

Buick Lucerne vs. Toyota Camry

92 messages, Last post on May 22, 2007 at 7:32 PM

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

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

Outline

Messages Page 7 of 10: 1; ...; 4; 5; 6; 7; 8; 9; 10; Prev; Next; Last

#53 of 92 Re: . [m1miata] by rake2 Mar 27, 2006 (2:11 pm)
Replying to: m1miata (Mar 26, 2006 6:54 pm) Not in a luxury or quasi-luxury class.
#54 of 92 Does everyone need a V-8? by loyalbuickfan Mar 27, 2006 (6:14 pm)
Replying to: imidazol97 (Mar 26, 2006 6:03 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 (3:26 am)
Replying to: sls002 (Mar 27, 2006 7:32 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. Replies to this message: sls002 (Mar 30, 2006 7:37 am) poncho167 (Mar 30, 2006 11:29 am) ab348 (Mar 30, 2006 8:06 pm) sls002 (Mar 31, 2006 7:27 am) and 5 more...
#57 of 92 Re: Engine architecture [ab348] by sls002 Mar 30, 2006 (7:37 am)
Replying to: ab348 (Mar 30, 2006 3:26 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 (11:29 am)
Replying to: ab348 (Mar 30, 2006 3:26 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. Replies to this message: ab348 (Mar 30, 2006 8:06 pm) sls002 (Mar 31, 2006 7:27 am) poncho167 (Mar 31, 2006 8:14 am) 62vetteefp (Mar 31, 2006 9:08 am) and 3 more...
#59 of 92 Re: Engine architecture [poncho167] by ab348 Mar 30, 2006 (8:06 pm)
Replying to: poncho167 (Mar 30, 2006 11:29 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. I have no doubt that the 2.8 was good for its time -- my father had one in a '82 Olds Omega and it was very good, if somewhat gutless. However its later iterations as the 3.1 and 3.4 today seem thrashy and crude. I was in a Chevy minivan with one tonight and moving away from a stop the engine sounded anything but refined. I can only assume that the 3.5 and 3.9 share similar characteristics. It seems a shame to put such an engine in a premium vehicle. Replies to this message: sls002 (Mar 31, 2006 7:27 am) poncho167 (Mar 31, 2006 8:14 am) 62vetteefp (Mar 31, 2006 9:08 am) sls002 (Mar 31, 2006 12:27 pm) and 2 more...
#60 of 92 Re: Engine architecture [ab348] by sls002 Mar 31, 2006 (7:27 am)
Replying to: ab348 (Mar 30, 2006 8:06 pm) The magazines that have tested cars with the new 3.5 (without VVT, Malibu) have said it is a better engine. In other forums here at Edmunds, people who have driven the new 3.5's have said it is a much better engine. But these engines are not as refined as the DOHC 60 degree high feature V6 line that the LaCrosse offers on the top of the line series. Replies to this message: poncho167 (Mar 31, 2006 8:14 am) 62vetteefp (Mar 31, 2006 9:08 am) sls002 (Mar 31, 2006 12:27 pm) 62vetteefp (Mar 31, 2006 2:15 pm) and 1 more...
#61 of 92 Re: Engine architecture [sls002] by poncho167 Mar 31, 2006 (8:14 am)
Replying to: sls002 (Mar 31, 2006 7:27 am) I read a lot of forums and don't recall hearing anything bad about the 3.5 L. I have driven a few and they are very responsive with more than enough power to out run quite a few Japanese cars. Felt smooth and refined to me. It's all in one's perception of what an engine should be.
#62 of 92 Re: Engine architecture [sls002] by 62vetteefp Mar 31, 2006 (9:08 am)
Replying to: sls002 (Mar 31, 2006 7:27 am) Yes but the price difference is around $1500 between a DOHC and a "cam in block" engine. GM is offering a value engine choice. Not sure about the NVH of the 3.5/3.9 but the big difference would be that DOHC's require high revving to get going and the non DOHC's normally have lots of pulling power at lower RPM allowing the non DOHC driver to not have to rev their engine to death to get going. Replies to this message: sls002 (Mar 31, 2006 12:27 pm) 62vetteefp (Mar 31, 2006 2:15 pm) sls002 (Mar 31, 2006 3:20 pm)

Messages Page 7 of 10: 1; ...; 4; 5; 6; 7; 8; 9; 10; Prev; Next; Last

To POST a message, please Sign In.

New? Join Now!

Forum Tools

Search Forums

Browse by Vehicle

2010 Buick Lucerne

2009 Buick Lucerne CXL Special Edition Sedan Shown

No reviews
Write a Review

2010 Toyota Camry

2010 Toyota Camry LE Sedan Shown

Ask the Community

See What People Are Asking

Browse by Board

Browse by Topic

View All Topics

Today's Chats

Chat Schedule