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
Automotive News & Views The Rebirth of Buick.........
417 messages, Last post on Nov 19, 2009 at 8:10 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
Replying to: hpmctorque (Sep 23, 2008 5:42 pm) This probably isn't a concern for more average-height people, or if you never have back seat passengers, but I just find the back of the LaCrosse, and all W-bodies, for that matter, to be really cramped in the back. Put the front seat all the way back and the only way I can fit in is sideways. I think part of the problem is that the "theater height" seating raises the cushion enough that my legs need more fore-aft room, than with a lower seat. My head also hits the ceiling in back. I swear the LaCrosse feels more cramped inside than my Dad's '03 Regal, although part of it might be the higher beltline and smaller windows of the LaCrosse. Even though the LaCrosse is a bit bigger than the Century Regal, having moved from the 109" Buick/Intrigue wheelbase to the 110.5" Impala/Grand Prix wheelbase, it seemed to have adopted the Pontiac's passenger cabin, which is swoopier and more rounded, which probably cuts into interior room. As for the Lucerne, I looked at it as sort of splitting the difference between the LeSabre and the Park Ave, and trying to fill in for both at the same time. However, the cheapest Lucerne still seems more upscale than what the cheapest LeSabre was, while the top-line Lucerne seems a step above the Park Ave Ultra. I think the Park Ave's style had a bit more presence to it though. I'd consider a used Lucerne if I was in the market for another car. But like Imidazol, I want to move ahead when it comes to fuel economy, not take a step back. I just noticed that for 2009, the Lucerne V-6 is the 3.5, rather than the 3.8. It's rated at 17/26, whereas the 3.8 was 16/25. So that's a slight improvement. For comparison, the 2000 LeSabre is rated at 17/27 (the window sticker, which reflected the old rating method, was 19/30). My 2000 Intrepid is rated at 18/27 (20/29 on the window sticker). So I guess 17/26, using the old rating system, would have been around 19/28 or 19/29? In real-world driving, that might actually not be too much of a difference compared to a 2000 Intrepid or LeSabre |
|
|
|
|
"I just noticed that for 2009, the Lucerne V-6 is the 3.5, rather than the 3.8. It's rated at 17/26, whereas the 3.8 was 16/25. So that's a slight improvement." 3.5 or 3.9? How does the '09 Impala compare with the LeSabre and LaCrosse, in your opinion?
|
|
|
Replying to: hpmctorque (Sep 24, 2008 4:59 am) The 3.9 in the Lucerne puts out 227 hp, 237 ft-lb of torque. Interestingly, it puts out a touch more in the Impala...233 hp, 240 torque. A few years back, in the Impala, it was putting out 242 hp, 242 ft-lb of torque. It was also a bit of a guzzler back then, too, as I recall. Maybe cutting the hp a bit is what helped its fuel economy? Anyway, the 3.8 in the Lucerne was putting out 197 hp, 227 ft-lb of torque, so I'm guessing the 3.9 should be an improvement. As for the Impala, even though it is a bigger car inside than the LaCrosse, it doesn't feel like it to me. My head still hits the ceiling in back, and with the front seat all the way back it's really cramped in there. It might be a little bit better, legroom-wise, than the LaCrosse, but I swear I fit better in the back seat of a Malibu or Aura. If I was shopping for a car like this, that's probably the reason that I'd get an Aura or Malibu over a LaCrosse or Impala. While the LaCrosse/Impala are larger cars, they just don't feel like they're larger in any dimensions that would increase their usability to me. But then cars like the Lucerne, or the departed LeSabre, feel plenty roomy to me, without feeling any more bulky in overall size than an Impala or LaCrosse. And fuel economy is close enough that I'd probably just go for the bigger car.
|
|
|
Replying to: andre1969 (Sep 24, 2008 5:29 am) this one and this flex fuel 3.9. There is a difference in emissions, so both are not available everywhere. |
|
| The straight eight Buick had in the 1930's had over head valves, which put it a step a head of GM's other 8 cylinder engines, which were not over head valves. | |
|
|
|
Replying to: steve_ (Sep 23, 2008 4:57 pm) Of the two, the Accord was notably the driver's car and both had 4-cylinder engines, which is what made me think that for steady-state driving like that Lutz might be on to something with his idea for turbo 4s in the Buicks. I bet that Lacrosse you rented would use 1/3 less gas on the highway with the turbo 4, while still having plenty of pick-up for freeway ramps and around town. But it would have to be a less powerful engine than the one in the Solstice, because that one did no better for fuel economy in GM testing than their 3.6 V-6 when they tested it in the Camaro. Plus that one is more powerful than Buick's current base engine for Lacrosse and Lucerne. Maybe the biggest problem for the future of Buick is how will they kill their twin reputations for being (1) rental cars, and (2) cars for old old people driving their final car into those twilight years? I don't think it is a problem that Buicks have the rep of being cars for non-drivers (floaty, disconnected, "rolling sofas", etc), as Toyota has made a killing selling Camrys with exactly the same rep.
|
|
|
Replying to: nippononly (Sep 24, 2008 7:27 am) I don't rent all that often but this is the first Buick I can remember ever having (the rental places were sold out so I wound up renting from a Buick dealer on that trip). There was a lot to like about the Buick. Comfy for the two of us, lots of gadgets to play with and I liked the way it drove, although it did have a bad pull to the right that I attributed to the tires or a curb hit by the last driver. The back up sensor saved the bumper when I was parking it in Chicago. Old, old drivers? My 87 year old mom recently gave up her keys - she drove a 1990 Mazda Protege off the lot new into the twilight, after driving Buicks all during her 30's and 40's. But my elderly mom-in-law swapped her BMW for a Buick 5 years ago. Sorry, I'm rambling here. I've never spent any time in a Camry or Accord to really compare, and spend most of my drive time is in a wagon or minivan. The last sedan I rented was a base '07 Mustang and the Buick was light years ahead of it for what I needed.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: steve_ (Sep 24, 2008 7:45 am) But I think a large Buick with a direct injected, 2.0L turbo four could end up rated somewhere around 25/35 EPA and still have plenty of power for everything people need their large cars to do. And that would be a huge step forward in terms of fuel economy for Buick.
|
|
|
Replying to: nippononly (Sep 24, 2008 8:24 am)
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: sls002 (Sep 24, 2008 8:50 am)
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views The Rebirth of Buick.........
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
