Last post on Sep 10, 2013 at 9:05 PM
You are in the Buick Regal
What is this discussion about?
Buick Regal, Future Vehicle, Coupe, Convertible, Hatchback, Truck, Sedan, Wagon, SUV
#214 of 753 Re: should i bite it for 24000? [overbrook]
Oct 25, 2010 (9:40 am)
Faster yes but I've read overall refinement as well. I'm trying to find the articles now:
"Impatient? Wait only a couple of months until the 2-liter, turbocharged model hits showrooms. We got an hour in a very preproduction version, and it was as good as the non-turbo was bad."
"In our minds, there's no point to the non-turbo, 2.4-liter car. In Buick's mind, the non-turbo's $2,500 lower starting price, $26,995, will make all the difference in sales, so that one's here to stay."
"When I started the Turbo I felt as though I had found a paragon of four cylinder refinement. The Turboís drivetrain was quieter, less frenetic, and it shifted more smoothly than did the base carís with the 2.4 liter direct injection four cylinder. The Regal Turbo is not only more refined than the 2.4 liter Regal, but far quieter and placid than GMís former applications of the related 2.0 liter turbo direct injection fours found in the likes of the Cobalt SS Turbo."
#215 of 753 Re: should i bite it for 24000? [dash5]
Oct 25, 2010 (12:39 pm)
Faster yes but I've read overall refinement as well.
I interpret your last paragraph differently. The main point the author is making refers to GM's former turbo's : "...but far quieter and placid than GMís former applications of the related 2.0 liter turbo direct injection fours...".
The DI 2.4L in the Regal is plenty quiet and refined.
#216 of 753 Re: should i bite it for 24000? [dash5]
Oct 26, 2010 (5:18 am)
Have not driven the turbo obviously but I can tell you the 2.4L is plenty refined. I doubt there are any mechanical differences between the engines related to NVH- they are from the same architecture afterall. The 2.4L is as refined as any competing four cylinder in my book.
#217 of 753 Re: should i bite it for 24000? [dash5]
Oct 26, 2010 (5:22 am)
I think its funny when auto journalists dismiss price differences in cars they drive for free. The USA today reviewer says the base car is pointless because it only costs $2500 less than the turbo. He ignores the facts that a) the turbo isnt even available yet b)$2500 means something to people who are actually paying for the car and c) the base car runs on regular and gets slightly better mileage.
#218 of 753 USA today review
Oct 26, 2010 (5:27 am)
Just read it- I don't think highly of Healey's reviews in general, but this was one of his worst. His impressions of the car contradicted almost everything stated in other reviews. If he has that much trouble figuring out the basic controls perhaps HE has the problem and not the car. Other reviews raved about the refinement of the car and the transmission performance. As an owner I can verify the tranny is very smooth and always does the right thing. That was one of the most inaccurate and biased Regal reviews I've seen so far- in fact its the only negative review I've seen on the car.
#219 of 753 Re: should i bite it for 24000? [dodgeman07]
Oct 26, 2010 (10:28 am)
Mostly concerned about this sentence:
"The Turboís drivetrain was quieter, less frenetic, and it shifted more smoothly than did the base carís with the 2.4 liter direct injection four cylinder."
I've learned to take reviewers words with a grain of sand. I'm not saying they are right or wrong, just something to consider when you're asking "Should I get the base or wait for the turbo." IMO if you have a choice, wait for the turbo. Test drive them both and make a decision.
#220 of 753 Re: should i bite it for 24000? [dash5]
Oct 26, 2010 (7:46 pm)
I gotcha. Depending on your driving style and environment, the turbo may well be the best choice. If you have a need for speed, drive in higher elevations or regularly have heavier loads, then definitely wait for the turbo.
For my driving style, and at the lower elevations I drive in, the base DI 2.4L will be fine. I'm hoping to find a gently used CXL next year for $20K. If not, I may well end up in a Malibu or Cruze.
#221 of 753 Regal Turbo comparison test
Oct 26, 2010 (9:01 pm)
Just got my December issue of Car and Driver and in it is a comparison test between the Regal CXL Turbo, Acura TSX V6, and the VW CC 2.0T R-Line. The Regal placed last and the CC placed first. In the article, they praised the Regal's looks inside and out, the solid structure, and the light steering.
Their complaints mostly centered on the engine and the hefty weight. Here is one quote : "This Buick's 3772 pound mass explains most of the lethargy. But, jeez, how could the Regal's engine be thirstier then the Acura's monster V6?"
And another quote: "Equally disappointing, there's a grittiness here that, combined with the turbo's part throttle hissy whistle, aurally wends its way too freely into the cockpit. It isn't that the engine is loud - it isn't. Rather, it's a murmuring metal-on-metal hubbub that registers the moment the starter is engaged. At any speed, this engine announces way too proudly that it's a four banger."
They also mentioned that the car simply doesn't engage the driver handling wise like a BMW 3 series or Audi A3. And they complained you sink into the seats too much.
Their verdict was: "All the right stuff is there; it just needs some finessing." They also suggested Buick needs to look no further then VW's turbo if they want to perfect it.
In other words, it was another very good try, but GM still hasn't got the formula quite right.
Here are the performance figures:
0-60mph: 7.5 seconds compared to 6.0 for the TSX and 6.4 for the CC
5-60mph: 8.3 sec compared to 6.2 for the TSX and 7.2 for the CC
top gear passing power from 30-50 mph:
4.4 sec compared to 3.1 for the TSX and 2.7 for the CC
top gear passing power 50-70mph:
5.1 sec compared to 4.1 for the TSX and 4.4 for the CC
top speed was governor limited to a test topping 150 mph
braking from 70 mph was the shortest at 172 feet
the engine was the loudest at idle but the quiestest at full throttle
average gas mileage over 900 miles was 27 mpg, not bad at all, but the VW pulled 29 mpg.
Base price for the CXL Turbo is listed at $29495 and their car totaled $35185. The VW CC totaled $32200.
Oct 26, 2010 (9:13 pm)
Since the Sonata 2.0T was mentioned many times in here as a possible competitor to the Regal Turbo, those cross shopping these 2 cars should look at the same magazine I just mentioned. They did a short take on the Sonata SE 2.0T. They praised the "no waiting throttle response, turbo torque, impeccable road manners, and great value". Their test example was very green (only 367 miles) so performance figures should improve some, but it still did very well. 0-60 in 6.2 sec, 5-60 in 6.7 sec, top speed 153 mph, braking from 70 in 180 ft, and average fuel economy of 24 mpg (note: short take tests don't involve much more then performance testing so this number should be much higher under more normal circumstances). Base price was $24865 and as tested it was $27465.
It should be noted that the Sonata's impressive horsepower is achieved on regular 87 octane gas. Quite impressive for a turbo motor!
#223 of 753 Re: should i bite it for 24000? [dodgeman07]
Oct 27, 2010 (6:00 am)
i pulled the trigger and bought a CXL two days ago, the price was just too good to pass, $23,200.
Blue exterior, cashmere interior.
For turbo, i might need to pay 3k more, which i really could not justify.