Last post on Dec 31, 2012 at 9:20 AM
You are in the Buick Regal
What is this discussion about?
Buick Regal, Future Vehicle, Coupe, Convertible, Hatchback, Truck, Sedan, Wagon, SUV
#80 of 750 Re: 2011 regal [overbrook]
Aug 04, 2010 (10:27 pm)
Buick expects the 2.0 turbo to do mid-seven-second 0-60 mph runs. The 2.4 will manage mid-eights. Fuel economy is estimated to be about 20 mpg city/30 mpg highway for the the 2.4 automatic, the turbo automatic's dropping to about 18/29 mpg."
Read more: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/112_0911_2011_buick_regal/engines.htm- l#ixzz0vhpvMmwY
"Mid-eights" for the 2.4 is not very impressive. For that matter, "mid-sevens" is not so stellar either.
This car really needs a big six to give it the power and acceleration which would match the otherwise fine attributes but calling it a performance car with these puny acceleration times is intellectually dishonest.
#81 of 750 Re: 2011 regal [priggly]
Aug 05, 2010 (11:29 am)
acceleration is on par with other four cylinder sedans with naturally aspirated engines. The Accord needs 8.7-9 secs to hit 60 with an automatic. Its no faster than the Regal even though its a lighter car. I think 0-60 for the turbo should be between 6.7-7 secs which is on par with the 9-3 2.0T which only had 221lb-ft of torque.
The car is called a sports sedan based on its handling, not blazing acceleration. A TSX with an auto needs mid 7s to hit 60mph. There isnt going to be a V6 so anyone looking for one should probably go elsewhere.
#82 of 750 Re: 2011 regal [overbrook]
Aug 06, 2010 (6:42 pm)
Here's hoping they pare some fat from the Regal in future iterations. It is puzzling to me that the GMC Terrain using the same 2.4 engine manages to get better mileage.
I am not yet ready to pull the trigger, but I have been looking at mid-size sedans (something a bit smaller than the La Crosse). My list has included the 2011 Regal, 2011 Optima, Kizashi (that is a real fun drive for a 4), VW CC (a bit more pricey but worth it), maybe the 2011 2.0T Sonata. Each has +'s and -'s. The Regal is fast enough for me, but, like the Kizashi, most Regals seem to come with all black interiors--something I will not buy again. The Regal's mileage at 19/30 also seems low for a 4, and is almost certainly at the bottom of available mid-size 4 cylinder sedans. The AWD Legacy does significantly better than that.
Now, I have been reading good things about the Chevrolet Cruze. A smaller car for sure, but trimmed out with quality materials and truly quiet like the La Crosse. It would be less $ and much better mileage than the Regal. Choices, choices.
#83 of 750 Re: 2011 regal [gregg_vw]
Aug 07, 2010 (9:25 am)
I happened to just finish driving a Cruze about an hour ago at a GM event. I drove a Regal 2 weeks ago, so let me compare for you. The Cruze feels a bit smaller, but not by much. It has a huge trunk, as big or even bigger than the Regal. I was more comfortable in the drivers seat of the Regal but perhaps the Cruze has adjustments I did not take advantage of. The Regal is quieter and more refined feeling overall. The Cruze I drove had the turbo engine and it is potent! A little noisy but much more fun than the Regal in that regard. Unfortunately I did not get a chance to drive it on the highway so I cannot comment on passing power. I was unimpressed with the passing power of the Regal with the standard engine. The Regal had a black interior and like you I did not care for the color, though the overall design was good. The Cruse had a red and black fabric interior and was very nicely done for the price point, which I'm guessing is about $7000 less than the Regal.
I think the Cruze is the better buy right now.
#84 of 750 Re: 2011 regal [kplacer]
Aug 07, 2010 (12:29 pm)
Thanks! The Cruze is supposed to have soft feel materials on the doors, dash and console--plus, the leather interior puts leather (not vinyl) on the door trim and even a bit of leather trim on the dash. Unheard of in this class. I'd have to compare turbo to turbo to find out whether the Cruze is refined enough to substitute for a well-designed mid-size.
#85 of 750 Re: 2011 regal [kplacer]
Aug 07, 2010 (1:22 pm)
Thanks for the review! The Regal and Cruze are two of the cars I'm considering for my next purchase.
I'm curious regarding your comments about the Cruze being noisier. Was that under acceleration only? I've read a couple reviews that called the Cruze "Lexus-like" quiet.
I believe your $7K price difference is on the money. Similarly equipped the Cruze should come in $7K less than the Regal. That's why I'm seriously considering it.
#86 of 750 Re: 2011 regal [dodgeman07]
Aug 07, 2010 (4:17 pm)
Yes, the Cruze interior treatment seems to put sections of whatever material is used on the seats in spots on the doors and dash. I failed to mention the door treatment in my initial post but what you say is correct, as the car I drove had door panels that were nicely done in black and red.
My noise comment was mostly related to when under acceleration. It was quite raucous when I stepped on it in the Cruze, but only a little less so when I tried to pass on the highway in the Regal. The difference was that the Cruze actually shot forward where the Regal mostly made more noise but didn't seem to go that much faster. In regular driving the Regal did feel quieter subjectively, but I do not mean to imply that the Cruze was noisy like a Civic would be. It was quiet, just not _as_ quiet as the Regal.
#87 of 750 Re: 2011 regal [kplacer]
Aug 08, 2010 (12:15 pm)
I found your comments on the new Regal and Cruze helpful interesting. I also find both of these cars intriguing.
In my view the Regal is obviously the more upscale of the two but the base engine is inadequate. The upcoming turbo may be adequate. I'd prefer to see a new, high tech six in the Regal as the top-of-the-line engine but that is not an option.
The Cruze probably is the better buy of the two in view of its quality, energetic turbo four, lower price and better fuel economy.
GM obviously is turning out more desirable cars now than in previous years but I personally hope they are not developing a corporate culture of anemic engines simply to placate the extreme environmentalists and the government.
#88 of 750 Re: 2011 regal [priggly]
Aug 09, 2010 (5:13 am)
Yeah the relatively weak engine is keeping me from trying this car right now. I will give the turbo a go though when it's available. I'm guessing GM gave it that engine because that's what sells for the Opel brand in Europe? I dont know really.
In any case, the Regal is frustrating me because I feel like it's close to being a really solid choice in this segment but it's just shy of it. Less power and lower fuel economy than the new Korean mid sized Sonata and Optima, it's heavier, just as expensive or more so. That said I assume it's very smooth and quiet, so that's a big factor that will come out in test drives. I'm also guessing the interior is very nice as well, not sure how that will stack up against the competition.
#89 of 750 Re: 2011 regal [dash5]
Aug 09, 2010 (6:18 am)
Opel uses even smaller engines in Europe. They also offer several torque-y diesels, which Europeans prefer. The 2.4 is a very good engine--well rated. This engine is used in many GM models now. GM is using it widely because smaller engines are the way of the world, and at 182 hp from 145 naturally aspirated cubic inches, it is not inefficient. It wasn't very long ago that V8s were putting out less than 200 hp, yet somehow people survived with that in the 1990s.. As Hyundai has shown, however, this size engine can give out even more power without resorting to turbos.
The problem with it in the Regal and LaCrosse (for some people, but not for me) is that both cars are porky for their size. And 19/30 mpg looks not so good compared to other mid-size 2.0 to 2.5 liter cars. And the 18/29 mpg 220 hp Regal is still not going to look like a great bargain next to the 274 hp Sonata/Optima with 24/34 mpg. Also, though quiet, the Regal is not as quiet as the Lacrosse. The Regal will stand out in this class for its looks, details and handling.