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.........
410 messages, Last post on Oct 29, 2009 at 12:33 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
Replying to: nippononly (Sep 24, 2008 9:00 am) |
|
|
Replying to: steve_ (Sep 23, 2008 4:57 pm)
|
|
|
Replying to: nortsr1 (Sep 24, 2008 11:05 am) I guess to me, what matters the most is the context in which this 28 mpg is taken. For instance, if I get out on the highway in my Intrepid and average 70-75 mph with the a/c going, I'd probably get about 28 mpg as well. If I turn off the a/c and loaf it, more like 60-65, I've managed to get 31-32 mpg. Driving my uncle's '03 Corolla in a similar gentle manner got me 37.4 mpg. So the real test, to me at least, is what kind of economy that LaCrosse would get with ME driving it. Now if we could get Nippon into a LaCrosse and see what kind of economy he gets out of it, to compare with his Echo, or the 4-cyl Accord and Camry he mentioned, or get Steve in a 4-cyl Accord/Camry and drive it similar to how he drove the LaCrosse, it might put the numbers more into perspective. For instance, if I'm only getting 37.4 mpg out of my uncle's Corolla, I doubt if I'd be able to get mid to upper 30's out of a 4-cyl Accord/Camry, unless I really drove it like an old lady. Now depending on how you drive, you might be able to get a LaCrosse to break 30 mpg. Supposedly it's not that hard to do with older 3.8's, like the Regal, LeSabre, and Impala. I think Lemko's even been able to get close to 30 with his '88 Park Ave. The 3.8 in his car isn't as sophisticated as the newer ones, but the car's not as heavy either, so those aspects might cancel each other out. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: nortsr1 (Sep 24, 2008 11:05 am) I was comparing 2 long highway rides I did in the last 18 months, one in an '06 Camry, and one in an '04 Accord. They both pulled about 37 mpg overall. A/C running constantly, one was with 4 adults, the other was with 3 adults and 2 small children, both running 70-75 mph most of the time. Oh, and for andre's benefit I will add that I was the driver in both cases. bumpy: I wasn't aware the Solstice turbo already had DI, but it makes sense. I agree with you that a low-boost DI 2.4 turbo makes good sense as the base engine for all future Buick sedans. Better city numbers, really good highway numbers, without a noticeable loss of the power Buick owners expect to have.
|
|
|
Replying to: nortsr1 (Sep 24, 2008 11:05 am) |
|
|
Replying to: nippononly (Sep 24, 2008 11:30 am) What I think you are missing is that the Big Buicks not only have a bigger engine, but weigh more. Your Camcords weigh on average, 3150 lbs w/ the 4 cyl engines. My '99 Ultra weighs a shade under 3900 lbs. Whenever I have taken it on long trips, there are 4 people (2 large adults and a teen and a preteen) plus 4 pieces of luggage, I get between 30-33 mpg, depending on how fast I go (60-65 will get me 33, while 70-75 gets me 30). You also don't mention whether they were sticks or autos, as that can make a difference too. My Uncle averaged 29 mpg in his '97 Ultra in all the trips he took from RI to Fla. doing 75-80. So, you see, the mpg numbers aren't all that different when you consider the extra 750 lbs you carry around. Think of it this way: You got ONLY 20% better fuel economy in the Camcords in cars that are 25% lighter, with engines that are 35% smaller than I did.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: cooterbfd (Sep 24, 2008 1:34 pm) Let's see, to address some of your points: 1. both the Accord and Camry seated four adults comfortably, size was not a limiting factor 2. both of them were automatics (boo hiss  ) 3. if I am making the correct inference, you somehow view 750 extra pounds of curb weight as a positive. I view them as a needless negative, and certainly I WOULD agree with your implication that one significant reason the Buicks do a lot worse for gas mileage is the excess weight. Really, all I was doing was calling steve out a little on his remark, and certainly if he is coming out of a minivan (which I didn't realize when I made the remark), 28 mpg must have seemed glorious. I don't in any way feel that Buicks have notably worse fuel economy than other large cars, but rather that the whole breed (large cars, that is) is needlessly gas-guzzling. Stuff a little technology under those hoods, boost fuel economy and improve driveability all in one fell swoop, where's the harm in that in what is supposed to be a "premium" or "near-lux" automobile?
|
|
|
Replying to: nippononly (Sep 24, 2008 6:21 pm) I did enjoy driving my friend's 5 speed ECHO a few times although my '82 Tercel was more fun (but that's probably just my slanted opinion since I had great luck with the Tercel).  I gotta upload the ~'61ish family Buick station wagon pic I found at my sister's house a couple of weeks ago. |
|
|
Replying to: nippononly (Sep 24, 2008 6:21 pm) While large cars may be needlessly gas-guzzling, SUV's are even worse. Perhaps the government should ban all vehicles larger than say 1000 pounds. I think using carbon fiber technology 1000 lbs would be possible.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: sls002 (Sep 25, 2008 6:51 am) You are sooo right! The ironic thing is we have mostly managed to kill the breed of truck-based large SUVs, only to replace them with car-based large crossovers that weigh just as much or more! The Enclave is a VERY good example of this.
|
|
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
