Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

2011 Buick Regal

hpmctorquehpmctorque Posts: 4,120
Today I viewed pictures of the 2911 Buick Regal , which will be introduced in the second quarter of 2010, on Edmunds and another site. Both the exterior and interior styling look excellent to me. The engine lineup will include or consist of (it's not clear to me which) GM's 2.4 four and a direct injection turbo four.

The Regal will compete directly with an all-new Volvo S60 and the Acura TSX.

If Buick gets the handling and driving dynamics right, this new Regal could be a winner. I sure hope so since, you and now are part owners of GM, albeit indirectly. The biggest obstacle to success may be that so many people are prejudiced against American cars, and won't even consider one. That, and the perception that Buicks are for old people is another challenge.


  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Posts: 4,120
    I read in Automotive News that a V6 will not be offered in the Regal.
  • 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
  • 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.
  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Posts: 4,120
    There's no V6 option because of the ever tightening fuel economy standards. It's not about customer preference.
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,419
    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.
  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Posts: 4,120
    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?
  • 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.
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,419
    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.
  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Posts: 4,120
    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.
  • joey2brixjoey2brix Posts: 464
    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.
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,419
    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.
  • joey2brixjoey2brix Posts: 464
    If I buy a turbo Porsche 911, I'd already be of the mindset to buy premium fuel for it. Buying a Buick Regal is trying to save money and not buy the Lexus. So goes with saving on my fuel costs without giving up power. Premium gas is pushing over over $3.25 /gal here in NY, 30 cents more then regular. If the 2.0T can run on 89 octane , I might take a look, but again the engine option won't be ready until the Fall.
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,419
    Most all turbos these days can run on regular gas. The computer makes the adjustment and you simply lose a couple hp for that tank. For you buying a Regal with a turbo engine might be trying to save money, but not for a lot of the rest of us. I can't imagine that the GS is going to sell for less than $35K. It will be loaded with all sorts of nice equipment. If I wanted to save money, there are plenty of mid-size cars that cost less than that.
  • For you buying a Regal with a turbo engine might be trying to save money, but not for a lot of the rest of us. I can't imagine that the GS is going to sell for less than $35K....If I wanted to save money, there are plenty of mid-size cars that cost less than that.


    The turbo engine is available in the CXL also and it should be below $30K. I don't want to buy premium fuel to get 220HP, so the Buick is off my list........ :(
  • biancarbiancar Posts: 913
    Does the CXL non-turbo also take premium fuel?

    At any rate, by my math: at 12,000 miles a year, and 25 mpg (being conservative, although the Regal is supposed to get "up to 30" mpg, according to Buick site), that's 480 gallons a year. If gas prices go up some, at $3 a gallon for regular, that would be fuel cost of $1440 per year. Let's say premium is 30 cents more. That would mean fuel costs would be around $1584 per year. So $140 difference over a year's time, a bit more than $11 a month.

    I can't see that as making even the slightest dent in my thinking.

    Up it to 20,000 miles a year, and a 50 cent difference between premium and regular, then you've got $2400 a year for regular, $2800 a year for premium, or $33 a month more.

    Maybe I would take that a tiny bit into consideration, but if the car were otherwise what I wanted, not enough to make me not buy it.

    If I were driving 30,000 miles a year or more, then maybe it might begin to add up.

    For the average driver who puts on 12 to 15k miles per year, the cost of premium vs. regular just doesn't seem all that important.
  • Does the CXL non-turbo also take premium fuel?

    No it doesn't. It takes regular fuel.

    I agree that the cost difference the not huge. For me it's idea that I have to buy premium fuel to get 220HP. I typically burn about 15 gallons of fuel a week and keep my cars about 4 years. At $0.20/gallon more that's $624 over the entire timeframe. Not a big deal but something I'd rather not do.

    P.S. I'm looking for a car the size of the Regal that will deliver 35mpg Hwy mileage on regular fuel, so the Buick it not in consideration.
  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Posts: 4,120
    What Regal-size car delivers 35 mph highway today?
  • What Regal-size car delivers 35 mph highway today?

    We can start with the Hyundai Sonata, then there's the Chevy Malibu, Mercury Milan, Nissan Altima, Ford Fusion and many others.

    The new Regal is a small mid-size car that happens to weigh 2 tons. It's easy to get 35 MPG Hwy unless you're building Tiger Tanks.
  • jay_mjay_m Posts: 8
    Funny, my 03 Regal LS is rated 210 with the 3.8 motor.
    Well smoothed-out old tech motor, mileage ratings were ? 19/29?
    Or, did they change the way they predict mileage since then?
    My typical mileage is low-mid 20's, and high 20's on the highway.
    If you want a mid-sized econobox, you can get better mileage.
    I don't want to drive an econobox/penaltybox.

    Oh, yes: The 3.8 will go 250-300k miles typical. I don't see a turbo doing that many miles without repair of at least the turbo itself. That runs up the cost of ownership quite a bit.
  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Posts: 4,120
    Not one of those midsize cars is EPA rated at 35 highway. Check again.
Sign In or Register to comment.