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.........
421 messages, Last post on Nov 27, 2009 at 3:10 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
|
|---|---|
|
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.
|
|
|
Replying to: nippononly (Sep 25, 2008 7:00 am) What I think is needed is new body technology, carbon fiber can greatly reduce the weight, and with electric drive technology, vehicles can be designed for far greater efficiency.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: sls002 (Sep 25, 2008 7:08 am)
|
|
|
Replying to: nippononly (Sep 25, 2008 7:23 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
