Last post on May 28, 2013 at 2:14 PM
You are in the Buick Regal
What is this discussion about?
Buick Regal, Future Vehicle, Coupe, Convertible, Hatchback, Truck, Sedan, Wagon, SUV
#3 of 752 Re: 2011 Buick Regal [hpmctorque]
Nov 13, 2009 (7:03 pm)
Here's a small review of the 2011 Buick Regal, including some photos and the original press release.
"In Europe it is known as the Opel Insignia, but for the North American market General Motors decided to revive a name first used in 1973: the Buick Regal. Sales of the new sport sedan will begin in the second quarter of 2010, and its main competitors will be Acura TSX and Volvo S60. The 2011 Regal will be offered only in the CXL trim (additional ones will be added for the 2012 model year). The Regal CXL will be offered standard with a 2.4L Ecotec..."
You can read the rest of the article here: 2011 Buick Regal and more Buick related articles here: Buick
#4 of 752 Regal a Saturn Aura replacement right?
Dec 19, 2009 (2:44 pm)
So why no V6 option. Turbos are too complicated and I don't want to
bother with primu fuel. Great looking car, but I'm not buying a turbo 4.
#5 of 752 Re: Regal a Saturn Aura replacement right? [joey2brix]
Dec 19, 2009 (8:44 pm)
There's no V6 option because of the ever tightening fuel economy standards. It's not about customer preference.
#6 of 752 Re: Regal a Saturn Aura replacement right? [joey2brix]
Dec 19, 2009 (9:11 pm)
It always amazes me that people are willing to spend more for a well-equipped car, but don't want to spend a few cents more per gallon for premium. Be that as it may, all engines are complicated these days, and turbos are well-proven. I have driven turbo-ed cars since the mid-80's and have never encountered a durability problem. To each his/her own, but turbo power is going to be the norm now on anything that is non-hybrid, non-electric. Diesels have been turbo for a couple decades now. Now that things like turbo lag and engine oil coking have been eliminated, Buick has to provide this option to be competitive.
#7 of 752 Re: Regal a Saturn Aura replacement right? [gregg_vw]
Dec 20, 2009 (12:21 pm)
I hadn't thought about engine oil coking for a long time, but it was often cited as a negative for turbos in the '80s and early '90s. Can someone please remind me how this was dealt with? Is it no longer a problem with the new turbo engines, or is it only a lesser problem than in the past? Is it no longer necessary to cool a turbo engine down by idling for a while after a long drive at, say 80 mph, or rapid acceleration?
#8 of 752 Ignoring customer preference
Dec 20, 2009 (4:01 pm)
Is what got GM in this mess in the first place. Bigger V8's in camaros and vettes,
and 40 grand Volts will never make a dent in fuel averages as they'll never sell enough of them to make a difference. I can get an Accord, Camery, and every mid-size car with a v6, and GM's not offering one (and expecting people to fork over 27K!) Another big mistake GM. Check the Opel option list, I'm sure a small
V6 is offered in Germany. The Saturn Aura, the last generation of this car, had a V6 option.
#9 of 752 Re: Ignoring customer preference [joey2brix]
Dec 21, 2009 (6:32 am)
All manufacturers will be moving more toward direct injection, turbo'ed 4s. Fours in these size cars are becoming quite accepted and more prevalent already (VW CC, Audi A4, Acura TSX). They will offer a V6 option, but first they have to start building the Regal here, to make it financially feasible. The initial Regals will be imported to get it to market sooner, and at very unfavorable exchange rates. Once the factory is up and runnning here, you can have your V6. Meanwhile, you can buy a Lacrosse or Malibu. For many of the rest of us, I applaud GM for moving so quickly to issue a world class mid-size like the Regal when the company almost went under last year. I am a Ford guy, but it is quite clear to me that GM is introducing more new and revamped models more quickly than even Ford's stepped up pace.
#10 of 752 Turbo-4 vs. Naturally Aspirated V6
Dec 21, 2009 (9:06 pm)
Each has pluses and minuses, but one key advantage of the 4 over the 6 is lighter weight and, therefore, better weight distribution. That translates into better handling.
#11 of 752 Re: Turbo-4 vs. Naturally Aspirated V6 [hpmctorque]
Jan 10, 2010 (6:56 pm)
Might make sense in a small sport coupe. But a turbo 4 in a 4 door family car is a stupid move. I have no need to pay 20 cents or more a gallon for premium gas
and experience the lack of low end torque (while better in newer turbos) off the line when a simple small V6 will do the same job at equal MPG numbers.
Even if the first few months of production are imported, why not import the V6 models, which are likely not big sellers in Europe anyway. The 2.8L V6 is an option in Europe. The car could also be imported from South America rather then Germany at a better exchange rate.
#12 of 752 Re: Turbo-4 vs. Naturally Aspirated V6 [joey2brix]
Jan 11, 2010 (8:42 am)
Turbo 4s in a family car may not be your cup of tea, but they are the way the industry is heading. The new direct injection turbo 4s are powerful, have plenty of torque off the line, and are beginning to register better fuel economy than the equivalent 6 did. VW/Audi has proven for years now that a turbo 4 is more than adequate in a family car. Ford has one coming out soon, and it will be installed in the new Explorer. Not all of them use premium fuel, but I have never understood the reluctance of some people to pay 20 cents more per gallon when they somehow see fit to pay all that extra in the first place for a premium car.