Last post on Jun 30, 2013 at 8:40 AM
You are in the Buick LaCrosse
What is this discussion about?
Buick LaCrosse, Sedan
#1366 of 2056 Beware of limited rear view
Jan 03, 2011 (7:05 pm)
I am the proud owner (2 weeks now) of a 2011 Buick Lacrosse. Although I love the car, I would not recommend buying one without the rear view assist. You litteraly cannnot see anything behind you. In the 2 weeks that I have been an owner, that beep, beep, beep, has prevented 2 accidents. I was a driver of a 2002 Cadillac Deville which great window views everywhere around the vehicale. This car will take some getting use to as all the windows are so much smaller. Regrets? None. I bought a CXL, will all the options but the Navigation and the rear seats DVD player. The price difference between a new Cad and this Lacrosse, made this car much more desireable. The only thing lacking is the rear heated seats. But I gained a heated steering wheel, and ventilated seats. The lighting inside is beautiful. Ice blue everywhere.
#1367 of 2056 Re: LaCrosse CXL Mileage [ab348]
Jan 04, 2011 (1:33 pm)
ab: Please see the attached website for comments on the use of the 3.0L V-6 in the Cadillac SRX model. Previous posts raised the question about why GM delete that option in the Lacrosse in favor of an I-4 and the more expensive 3.6L. The Cadillac application explains where the engine were used. The "transaction price " for Lacrosse models is also up ~$8500 per car which indicates a stronger mix of CXS (with the 3.6 and more options) versus CXL and certainly CX with I-4 only.
Overall a great car choice with whatever engine/trim level you chose. Only one guys opinion, but GM 2010 sales are up 7.5% with total industry up 10.7%.
Jan 07, 2011 (4:58 am)
I took delivery of a 2011 CXL on 12/20/10, and now have about 600 miles on it. It has 18" chrome rims with Michelins all around, set at 33 PSI cold. I'm really, really disappointed in the ride. I seem to feel each and every small crease or bumps in the road. I thought maybe it was the cold weather here in Ohio, but the ride does not improve once the tires are warm. Anyway, it's enough to rattle my soon-to-be false teeth! Is anyone else experiencing this and is there a remedy for it? Thanks much...
#1369 of 2056 Re: The CXL Ride [buickbill]
Jan 07, 2011 (5:08 am)
I have a 2010 CXS and have the optional 19" Wheels. My ride at low speed is extremely choppy. I thought something had to be wrong with the suspension but was told not. Ride on the highway is not really a problem.....
#1370 of 2056 Re: The CXL Ride [buickbill]
Jan 07, 2011 (5:58 am)
Is that the correct pressure for the tires according to the placard?
Is the pressure displayed on DIC or are you reading it with an accurate guage? After a lengthy run to warm tires, what pressure is displayed?
I have the CXS Touring Package and the ride seems to be softening a little at 5600 miles. But I still believe I hear my noise from road and suspension than this vehicle should have. Over 3800 miles of highway and loaded vehicle may have helped breakin the suspension.
I'm still of the opinion that this vehicle should have had air load leveling on the rear.
#1371 of 2056 Re: Reply >The CXL Ride [buickbill]
Jan 07, 2011 (6:10 am)
We have 2010 CXL with 3.0L V-6 and H-arm rear suspension. also have 18" wheels with Michelin tires. Ride is excellent in our 6000 miles of experience. We do hear more road bump noise than with 60 series tires on other GM models. The lower profile tires have less "cushion" per prior posts on this site and telegraph noise to suspension. We use 36# cold with gauge that translates to 37# hot on the road. The suspension keeps the car down on the road, even with bumps, so our view is the noise/feedback is from the low profile tires. Other posts on 19" rims with even lower profile tires make more noise and cushion even less. We prefer the feedback from the road and the engine/exhaust as a speed indicator and do not find it to be intrusive with the triple layer glass and noise dampening on this model.
great car so far- waiting for long term quality with this new model. Price wise- the CXL is a good choice of cost versus value of upscale options.
#1372 of 2056 Re: The CXL Ride [1ststate]
Jan 07, 2011 (6:17 am)
Is "choppy" the correct definition?
Are you running in sport mode? That is, are the 19" part of touring package or a separate option?
Everyone with the touring package has been getting GY tires and I'd bet they are part of ride issue as well as noise, poor in snow, and not the best on wet road.
What is cold inflation and are you monitoring it closely via DIC?
Choppy is how I might have defined my ride on a 96 Olds Aurora when the pressure was too low. Tires I had on it were a bit soft in sidewalls compared to GY and some Michelins. The result was that not enough of the impact at surface was immediately passed to struts and less valving would open to properly handle rapid movement. Yet compression of the sidewall would take longer to fully release resulting in choppy bounce of sorts. Too much air and every small road defect would try to pass through, so I had to hunt a sweet spot for ride. That vehicle and Cadillacs were the reason RFB were created. The bodies were very stiff compared to other vehicles and would pass slight tire imbalance to the passenger compartment.
#1373 of 2056 Re: Reply >The CXL Ride [crankeee]
Jan 07, 2011 (6:40 am)
Crankee, you got one from the time I started shopping. That was when H-arm was standard on CXL and CXS. And that makes me wonder why they later added 19" to the H-arm, that is when you had to buy it. I sure would like to see the engineering notes on that.
I guess I'm happy I missed that time since they later added other options not previously available such as SBZA. At the time of my ordering, the Touring package was not available on CXL, but I believe it now may be an option.
I compared the price of CXL with options added to bring it to level of CXS and the price was quite close, but still missing some standard options that came on CXS. Also they did away with 3.0L by the time I ordered. And that may be a regret with gas prices steadily climbing.
Does your guage agree with DIC pressure? If you are reading a garaged temperature that might be why you only see a 2# increase. If mine, 19", are read at ambient temperature for cold, I consistantly see a 3# increase once thoroughly warmed.
#1374 of 2056 Re: Reply >The CXL Ride [e_net_rider]
Jan 08, 2011 (8:15 am)
Rider: We posted comments on the H-arm and concluded it was a nice addition to the CXL that we got kinda by accident since GM may have included since CXL had AWD option and CXS had touring option at that time and the assembly line gurus made the H-arm standard for a while.
Also posted earlier that we wanted 3.0L in lieu of I-4. 3.6L is a great engine but we went for the 2010 CXL at the time for total cost/benefit of the package. GM used the 3.0L in other models per prior posts.
Wonder how the actual mileage is on the I-4's in 4400# vehicle?
Yes our cold gauge (Accutire) reading is 3# less than the hot readout on the DIC and it is pretty close to DIC. Also the painted 18" alloy wheels seem to hold air in cold temps but we think that is the Michelin tire bead as much as rims - chrome plated GM rims seem to do better in the past IMO.
#1375 of 2056 Re: Reply >The CXL Ride [crankeee]
Jan 08, 2011 (12:49 pm)
I was later told that you could always get H-arm on CXL even though it went away according to build it site. And my book printed in July says it is not available on CXL but standard on CXL AWD.
I know it sure confused me, the changes they made during the year. And wonder if GM sales and production were confused or had their wires crossed.
Just checked on the weight and they are still confused.
did not show 4 cylinder on CXL. And the weight is really nuts. I knew the CX was quite a bit lighter when it was available with 3.0, before 2.4. I think they have not corrected it since changing to the 2.4 and shown as 3829 lbs.
And the CXL 4196 lbs, not saying if that is for AWD or not. But check this, the weight shown for CXS is now 4045 lbs. That can't be right.
Knowing how mine performs in quite hilly or mountainous areas, I'd think the 4 cylinder would not be up to it, not without it constantly shifting a lot and bogging down. When mine was loaded, it bogged a bit before downshifting. Load that four cylinder with four adults and cargo and it will surely have to work even with lower ratio final drive.