Howdy, Stranger!

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





2011 Buick Regal

18911131425

Comments

  • prigglypriggly Posts: 642
    !. It's easy enough to learn by gong to GM.ca.

    2. The cost of a new Regal Turbo loaded in Canada is $44,125!* Hardly in keeping with a car that takes 7.5 seconds to get to 60 mph! The new Volvo S6 T AWD does it in 6.2 seconds and basically at the same identical price. Plus, it is AWD!

    http://configurator.autodata.gm.ca/GMCanada/buildYourVehicle.html?lang=en

    It is not a $27k four cylinder sedan and is certainly not on par with them. And the dollars are now at par!
  • Sorry, that I dont live in Canda- dont know what to tell you.

    Do you are telling me that all the Regal competitors I named that cost around $27k in the US cost the exact same in Canada? Are you telling me the regal is the only vehicle up there that costs considerably more than its US counterpart?

    What is the canadian price of the new S60? Here it starts at $38k and tops out near $48k. You mean to tell me it costs the same amount in Canada?
  • ....in the U.S. a loaded Regal CXL Turbo barely reaches $35K against our powerful USD. ;) It is still being made in Europe you know. Production will be moved to Canada early next year.

    If raw horsepower and "throw me back in the seat acceleration" is what you're after, the Buick Regal is not for you.
  • I almost drank the kool-aid. I went to the Opel website and configured a German version of what I thought would be pretty much the American Regal GS for 2012.

    After so damn many Audis I almost lost count (29), I thought the new GS was a reasonable candidate for consideration with the current Audi A4 2.0T S-Line -- and at a savings likely north of $5,000.

    Yesterday I read that Buick has decided to drop the AWD from the GS's spec sheet, but, remarkably, KEEP THE MANUAL TRANSMISSION.

    I would bet, now that I approximately know the sales figures for Audi A4 2.0T quattros and BMW 328i x-drives and Infiniti G37x's and so on and so forth, that very few manual transmissions will be sold -- and probably fewer than I would have predicted now that I know that all that torque is going to be routed through the front wheels.

    Hmm, if I were asked, I would have said, BAG the stick, KEEP the AWD (in the GS) -- or, do what the other guys do, offer the GS in both 2WD and 4WD variants and make everyone happy.

    I don't even plan to test the GS at this point.
  • stephen987stephen987 Posts: 1,994
    So you've decided not to consider the car because it offers the option of a stick, which you wouldn't want? You do realize the automatic will also be available, right?
  • markcincinnatimarkcincinnati Posts: 5,093
    edited November 2010
    No, I would WANT THE STICK, but wouldn't have one without the AWD and I would be fine to have the AWD and only auto as a choice but not the other way around.

    I apologize for not being clear on that point -- 180 degress unclear in fact.

    I meant by my comparison to ONLY AWD vehicles to suggest that only AWD vechicles need apply (since the quattro, x-drive and x cars were my basis for comparisons.)

    I would be OK with a stick or an auto and might even go out of my way for another manual transmission -- it is just so odd to see Buick remain with the stick feature but drop the AWD.

    Beats me why, but I have never found a person who has a CUV or an SUV that doesn't cite among their reasons for purchase AWD. You would think that an attractive vehicle like the GS would, first and foremost OFFER AWD as an option, like the LaCrosse, the Cadillac CTS, the Lincolns and Fords (like the Taurus, even). And, given the Regal GS's German parentage, one would think that AWD would not even require much debate. The cost of the eletronics and mechanicals to add the selectable adaptive suspension almost certainly exceed the cost of the addition of two more driven wheels; and, I would venture to guess that folks would "use" the AWD much more than they would use selectable damper and steering turn in settings (at least after the novelty wore off.)

    I have ADS on my A4 and my wife just leaves it in auto mode, as I suspect most folks do -- and ADS was a $3,000 option. AWD would be half that at most.

    If you need to make a statement with a stick shift, fine -- keep it, I might buy it; but, not with a high torque engine driving only the front wheels.

    In GS trim and FWD, this thing might be DOA, unless it is really low bucks.

    Pull the other one.
  • In GS trim and FWD, this thing might be DOA, unless it is really low bucks.

    I agree there's not much incentive to buy a GS over the turbo model w/o AWD being offered. The GS needs to be priced well under $35K to find many buyers.
  • Completely agree. I've owned five BMW 3 series in a row. Just bought a Chevy SUV and am surprisingly pleased with GM. Thought the Regal may be an affordable American alternative for a BMW but the lack of RWD or AWD is a deal killer. ANYONE who can appreciate the dynamics of driving a car with a manual transmission is going to demand power be transmitted via the real wheels (RWD or AWD). Offering a manual with FWD only makes no sense. GM's only other option is the CTS but there you're well in the BMW, Audi, Merc price point so the value proposition is lost.
  • I'm willing to bet fuel economy was the motivation behind dropping the AWD. The Turbo already gets below average gas mileage and the GS will be worse still. Add AWD and we are talking V6 or even small V8 gas mileage, which would turn off some buyers. The added weight of the AWD may have also taken away the added performance gain of the GS, making the added expense of the GS over the Turbo not make any sense.
  • markcincinnatimarkcincinnati Posts: 5,093
    edited November 2010
    I'll bet the penalty in gas mileage would have been, perhaps 1MPG. And, even that would have been mitigated by simply buying the current transmission set up (for the other fine as wine Germans) -- an 8 speed, like the Audi and BMW offer. Even the Infiniti is now at 7 speeds. Moreover, offering an 8 speed would have been NOT class leading, but CLASS KEEPING UP WITH -- but it could have been spun as class leading (taking into account that you would have to concede the Regal GS was a class below the Audi and BMW it so clearly does rival in Opel trim.)

    The final drive ratio with an 8spd, too, could have been set higher (lower numerically) meaning 7th and 8th gear could have been seriously overdriven and 1 -6 could have been used to keep the car pulling strongly in the optimum power RPM range. Remember, as a turbo, in GS trim, the Regal would have had strong torque from low RPMs over a broad range.

    My measly 211HP AWD '09 A4 with only a 6speed auto has 258 lb ft of torque from sub 2,000 RPM's -- acceleration is brisk (certainly competitive). The same vehicle, now, with the same engine but with the 8spd auto trans is better at both acceleration and fuel sipping.

    Dittos could have been for the Regal GS. Also, the 8speed either weighs the same or less than the 6speed -- Opel would have had no problem with this approach, I am certain. The Opel, too, has the availability of the 2.8Turbo V6 (from Saab and also seen in the Cadillac SRX). I understand not wanting a thirstier engine in this new GS -- and I am confident the torque and HP are more than adequate to hustle the additional 150 or so pounds that the AWD set up would add with aplomb.

    Thusly configured (and presumably built in NA) the 2012 Regal GS could certainly have been said to be a NOT UNREASONABLE alternative to the Audi 2.0TQ, the BMW 328i (x-drive) the Infinti G25x and even the odd Acura or IS AWD Lexus. If, fully loaded up it could have been in the mid to high $30's, it would certainly have merited a look-see, especially with a good supporting ad campaign reminding folks of the Buick Performance Heritage.

    At that price point, then, I would imagine it would not be a threat to a just south of $50K Cadillac CTS AWD, normally aspirated 300HP V6.

    All would be right with the world.

    Drive it like you live.

    :shades:
  • They didnt want the added weight of the AWD on this car with the 255hp engine. Perhaps it will be offered later on but the obviously think it can compete with TL, TSX, Maxima, etc. with FWD.

    How can you rule the car out without driving it?
  • Audi is the only manufacturer with an 8 speed in a FWD vehicle. The other 8 speeds made by ZF are in RWD vehicles. Most cars in this price range DO NOT have 8 speed transmissions. Not the Lexus IS, not the 3 series, not the TL, not the TSX, etc. GM doesnt even have 8 speeds in Cadillacs yet so the idea of an Opel or Buick having one seems like a stretch- especially when Acura is still using 5 speed autos.

    There is no way a loaded AWD GS would be mid to high 30s. I suspect a loaded FWD GS is going to be close to $40k so you can add about $2k to that for AWD, plus another 150-200lbs of weight and probably a smaller trunk and/or gas tank.
  • I would've agreed before seeing test numbers on the turbo. If the GS is a second faster to 60 I would say it may be worth it to some folks. Plus you get the sports seats and nicer rims. I think base price will be $34k-$35k- don't forget the GS has standard 19s and HIDs which are not standard on the $30k turbo model.
  • There are a few reasons. First of all the Opel has 321hp which helps offset the gain in weight. The GS has only 255hp and will be competing at a lower price point. Basically, they wanted to keep the power to weight ratio as close as possible to the OPC Insignia while delivering a cheaper and more efficient car.

    The mileage of the GS will not be worse than the turbo- 19/29 for the stick and 18/28 for the automatic.

    I also disagree with the idea that sporty cars have to be RWD. Says who? What about the TSX, GTI, GLI, Maxima, etc.? Those cars are dull to drive because they aren't RWD? The reality is an AWD car based on a FWD car is only marginally better. AWD gives you better traction and tempers torque steer but a well balanced FWD car isnt going to get much better with AWD. At the end of the day even an AWD car based on a FWD platform still has the engine in front of the axle and 60%+ of the weight on the front tires. People get carried away with the idea that AWD turns any car into an STi. The Lacrosse offers AWD but I dont think anyone would suggest its suddenly a canyon carver.
  • Dont Acura, Honda and VW combine FWD and manual transmissions in sporty cars?
  • Yes, at least I think they do. You too may think so, too. However, we do not represent those who write and blog about, advertise and test cars for a living.

    We are at a point where RWD and rear biased AWD are qualifiers and usually FWD is a disqualifier from being seriously considered a sports sedan.

    Even if you and I are correct, it probably doesn't mean a hill of beans; for, from the ability to attract the buyers Buick so desperately wants (and needs), only RWD or AWD will do. A Honda Accord shopper is probably NOT what the GS was, originally anyhow, aiming for. And, only when Acura started offering up their "downstream" vehicles with AWD (SH-AWD to be accurate) did the motoring press really start to give them some respect.

    My personal preference is AWD, FWD and RWD, in that order. Most sporting buyers probably would say RWD, RWD, AWD and forghettaboudit. Yes I meant to type RWD twice.

    In our fair city there are two BMW dealers -- they say that nearly half of all the BMWs they sell here are AWD versions (and we have really moderate winters here, so I doubt it is as a defense against the snow.) Over 95% of all the Audis sold are, likewise AWD -- and even at the Cadillac dealers a significant minority of their sales are AWD vehicles (and it is growing in favor of the AWD variants.)

    The fact that BMW and Porsche offer so many AWD vehicles paints a pretty clear picture. The fact that the top o the line models from many of the companies these days offer or come ONLY with AWD is also tellling.

    The new BMWs are 8 speed. The new Audis, ditto. Several Lexus come thusly equipped and 7 speeds are the new 6 speeds and often 6 speeds are the new four or five speeds. The trend is for 6, 7 or 8 speed lightening fast shifting "conventional" torque converter based autos.

    I have no issue with Buick offering both autos and manual transmissions and also not really much of an issue with them offering 6 speed autos, at this time. My personal preference and what the market seems to be saying is AWD should at least be offered as an option, especially if they want to differentiate themselves and make the "this is not your father's Buick" their new mantra.
  • dodgeman07dodgeman07 Posts: 574
    edited November 2010
    I would've agreed before seeing test numbers on the turbo. If the GS is a second faster to 60 I would say it may be worth it to some folks. Plus you get the sports seats and nicer rims. I think base price will be $34k-$35k- don't forget the GS has standard 19s and HIDs which are not standard on the $30k turbo model.

    $34K would be a reasonable price for the Regal GS if that's well equipped. The Turbo Regal has been tested at 7.5 sec. 0-60 (actual) with it's 220HP mill. That's plenty fast for me but with the GS "only" coming in at 6.9 sec. (estimated) it's not not going to grab many enthusiasts attention and $4K is about all the premium anyone should be expected to pay.

    Many thought the GS was going to offer AWD and some were expecting 275HP. They are disappointed and rightly so. The Regal GS is not a $40K car either though, and if Buick tries to charge $40K for it (even loaded) it won't sell.

    P.S. I agree that 6 speeds is more than enough for any car.
  • cooterbfdcooterbfd Posts: 2,770
    ".....We are at a point where RWD and rear biased AWD are qualifiers and usually FWD is a disqualifier from being seriously considered a sports sedan."

    Mark, I will say this. I drive a 2010 Lacrosse CXS, and the torque steer with the trac control off is minimal. W/it on, it's almost non-existant. My car, unlike the 2011 CXS, doesn't have the new HiPerStrut system (Which the Regal GS will). This setup all but eliminates the torque steer, and gives a negative camber to the inside wheel to allow for better cornering. I would test drive it before I condemn it. If it gives satisfactory performance from this setup, people may gain in the long run by having a lighter car, and not have to worry about any addition amintenance costs asssociated w/ AWD.
  • cooterbfdcooterbfd Posts: 2,770
    ".......Many thought the GS was going to offer AWD and some were expecting 275HP. They are disappointed and rightly so. The Regal GS is not a $40K car either though, and if Buick tries to charge $40K for it (even loaded) it won't sell"

    Considering that it's the same powerplant as the Solstice GXP, getting the 275 HP shouldn't be an issue. IIRC, the GXP motor only had 276 lb/ft of torque. This version was tuned to get 295 lb/ft. The result was a loss of 20 ponies, though. Why?? I dunno.
  • Actually, the Solstice GXP was rated at 260 hp and 260 lb/ft of torque so the Regal only lost 5 hp compared to that car, which could be the result of a more restrictive exhaust or different tuning for lower emissions.
  • We can't say for sure yet that the GS will have the same mileage as the Turbo. We can't even say for sure what the mileage is of the Turbo because the ratings haven't been released. The Turbo is rated at 18/29 with the automatic, at least according to the Car and Driver article which said that was an estimate because the official rating hadn't been released yet . So if the GS is rated at 28 on the highway, that's a drop of 1 mpg. I'd be surprised if the city mileage doesn't drop to 17 because when you take the same engine and add more turbo boost, the gas mileage drops, especially in the city. Now, add AWD...you can expect to lose 1 mpg in both the city and highway. Look at Buick's own Lacrosse as an example. The 3.6 FWD is rated at 17/27 and the 3.6 AWD is rated 16/26. So, assuming similar losses with the Regal GS with AWD, you are looking at 17/27, which is crappy mileage for a four banger. Some people would be turned off seeing such low mileage for a four banger luxury car, so I think this is why Buick decided not to offer AWD at this time. That and the fact the AWD would have slowed the car down to the point it wouldn't offer enough of a gain over the Turbo to justify the increased price.

    That being said, it's a shame Buick isn't offering AWD as they could have earned a sale with my brother. He drives an 01 Audi A4 1.8T Quattro with a 5 speed manual. He is currently looking for a replacement and is adamant about having a turbo four mated to a manual tranny and linked up to AWD. This limits him to Audi and Subaru. His car was based on a FWD platform and he swears the difference is immediately apparent between FWD and AWD in the handling department. He would know because for 3 years, my mom owned an 01 Audi A4 1.8T FWD with manual tranny at the same time. How her car drove was one of the reasons he got the Quattro. He may still consider the Regal GS but all that power driving the front wheels will most likely deter him from biting.

    As for the idea sporty cars should be RWD, well, that's just the truth. I've owned an 84 GTI (one of the most pure handling FWD cars ever made), a 95 Integra GSR (considered widely to be the best balanced and handling FWD car), and a 92 Mazda Miata. I loved all 3 of those cars, but guess which one drove the best? You guessed it, the Miata. Pushing power through the same wheels you steer with has inherent limitations and though the GTI and Integra handle very well, they can't match the pure driving enjoyment, balance, and poise of a RWD car like the Miata.
  • cooterbfdcooterbfd Posts: 2,770
    OK, so even better. A 2% loss in HP for a 13% gain in torque.
  • cooterbfdcooterbfd Posts: 2,770
    "......He may still consider the Regal GS but all that power driving the front wheels will most likely deter him from biting."

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but the '01 Audi wouldn't have a sophisticated suspension like the Regal GS (HiPerStrut). That alone should be enough to consider a test drive flogging.

    I too agree that RWD is the way to go. Unfortunately, in the last 30 years people have forgotten how to drive one in the snow, and too many are "afraid" to drive one in the snow, so it is off their radar screen.
  • Actually, the Audi A4 had one of the most sophisticated front suspensions ever designed. A delicate expensive multi link arrangement that was specifically designed to mitigate torque steer while offering near perfect wheel control. It was lauded by magazines and owners alike and was the main reason the A4 was vaulted to the top of the heap in the handling and driving enjoyment hall of fame.

    It will be interesting to see how much the HiPerStrut improves handling and stops torque steer. I'm sure like other gimmicks, it might offer a minute improvement but a strut can never match a multi link or unequal length control arm arrangement.
  • cooterbfdcooterbfd Posts: 2,770
    Like I said, It is minimal in my Lacrosse, w/o HiPerStrut. I'm sure this is even better
  • I dont believe offering AWD will make this car any less like Buicks of yore. The size, powerplant, styling, handling and features make it clear its a NEW kind of Buick. There is a lot of hype over AWD and handling but as a resident of the NE US I can tell you most people here buy AWD for traction, not handling. I dont understand the logic because it doesnt snow that often here, but rest assured fear of getting stuck is why so many buy the IS250 and 328 with AWD. In normal driving there is NO advantage to having AWD and many AWD systems offered today are not performance biased systems, they are simply traction aids.

    Top line Audis come standard with AWD because of the amount of power they have. Remember, Audis are not RWD so once you get to 300hp and up they HAVE to offer AWD to be taken seriously. In addition, some Audis are available in FWD in Europe even though you cant get them here with FWD.
  • Its too soon to say 0-60 will be 6.9 secs. They said "under 7" whihc could mean a lot of things. I'm thinking with the stick this car will be capable of mid 6 sec run. Remember, no one has tested a turbo with a stick.

    Not sure who expected 275hp when GM said 255 in the concept version. I wouldnt be shocked if the official SAE number is over 260 since gm usually underestimates power on purpose. This car will be VERY close to $40k with all options. If this car has a $4k-$5k premium over turbo I would think it will be $38k loaded. Keep in mind thats the price of a loaded Maxima and TSX. I don't think either of those cars is more premium than the GS.
  • There are people who demand AWD but many do not- especially outside of the northern part of the country. FWD only will be a deal breaker for some but acura manages to sell TSXs and Nissan sells plenty of maximas with FWD. Toyota branded cars dont even offer AWD period. You cannot please everyone and I'm sure there are PLENTY of buyers who will like the GS even without AWD.

    RWD is best for balance but the reality is most cars sold today are NOT RWD and that isnt changing anytime soon. Ironically, it was the import brands like Honda that changed perceptions about FWD and handling. In the 70s most agreed you needed RWD for handling and power but that isnt true today. RWD doesnt MAKE a car better handling by default. The Cobalt SS was FWD and could lay down better lap times than a 135i and numerous other RWD cars. With FWD you cannot overcome the weight distribution issues, but a proper chassis will go a long way towards making a FWD car fun to drive. The reality is MOST owners cant or wont drive their cars hard enough to appreciate the advantages of RWD. I bet a Regal GS could beat a base 328i or A4 in a timed lap on a road course.
  • The vibration noise in my wife's car resulted from a loose clip on the driver's side rear tail light cover. Service tech secured it and the sound went away.
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,422
    I wouldn't call the Audi A4 2.0T measley, when with the added weight of AWD, it still accelerates 0-60 in 6.5 seconds...significantly faster than the 220 hp Regal turbo. And with mpg 21/27 (2010 #s 21/29) vs. 18/29 for the Buick, GM has some room for improvement on that score,
Sign In or Register to comment.