Howdy, Stranger!

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





2011 Buick Regal

1141517192025

Comments

  • so if you get the sonata you are willing to forego features?
  • bvdj84bvdj84 Posts: 1,721
    Alright. If you were offered the same payment for a Regal and or 2011 Jetta SE lease. Which would you pick? I am wanting the SEL Jetta, but apparently sets me way to the lower 400's.

    Both lease for $361 a month! Which would you pick? I am at a loss. I really like the Jetta, but really prefer the SEL.

    I am including the Regal, because it is so nice and the fact that it is a $28k car and I can lease it for $361!! The Jetta is only about $21k. Very classy and sharp! The interior is amazing! The black looks very good! Top notch! The space for my family is nice. Drives nice, but lacks that oomph out on the highway. Jetta would have that engine to have some fun with.

    Keep in mind, I am trading my current lease with under $2k negative equity. I cannot wait any longer! Must make a move now.
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,415
    None of my business of course, but why do you need to make a move now? You still owe on your previous lease. Why not wait until that obligation is up? And why pay so much for a $21K Jetta? I hope you don't mean the Jetta interior is "amazing," because VW deliberately cheapened it from the previous version in order to be able to lower the price on the car. The Jetta is not a near luxury car, although in the past, versions of it were almost priced like one. But maybe I am misunderstanding you.
  • VW most often compared with regal is VW Passat CC. It is probably is the better than Regal, at least according to Car & Driver. Jetta is cheapened version of VW Golf made specifically for Camry/Corolla obsessed American driver.
  • bvdj84bvdj84 Posts: 1,721
    I am totally over my mileage for my current lease. If I wait I will be roughly 8,000miles over! That will be too much! Nor do I want to question every single trip I make as to how worth it is it to drive.

    I really want the Jetta, however I am a little bummed that they did cheapen the interior. It is not too exciting. That is why I wanted the SEL. It seemed a bit more appealing. But, way too much for lease. Not when I can lease a $28k Regal and have a HUGE list of features and beautiful interior and less a month.

    But, it does not have the engine power I want. Perhaps I could lease a Turbo!
  • carfreak09carfreak09 Posts: 160
    edited December 2010
    I gotta ask....If you went over mileage on your lease this time, are you going to do something different this time to keep the same thing from happening again? If not, it would seem like you would be in a losing battle and leasing might not be the best choice for you. To me, the whole point of leasing is being able to buy more car for the payment, so with that in mind, I would get the Regal since it's more of a luxury car than the Jetta and therefore a better value.
  • bvdj84bvdj84 Posts: 1,721
    Yes, I am actually thinking of getting loan on the Jetta, perhaps then with the right terms I could get the SEL model. However, if I don't then I am leaning towards the Regal. I would be getting a very nice car for the money!

    I am going to make sure if I lease I will have enough miles to cover everything.
  • CC is faster than the Regal but the advantages pretty much end there. My friends have one and I drove it once. In terms of space and quality its comparable but it only seats 4 and ingress/egress are a pain due to the low roofline.
  • are you aware that the Jetta isnt all that fast? Its faster than the Regal due being 600lbs lighter but its not MUCH faster. 0-60 for the Jetta is 8.2-8.4 secs vs 8.7 secs for the Regal. To be honest I don't think that is a difference most people would actually notice and the 2.5L isnt known for its refinement or high revving nature. Jetta does get far better city mileage than Regal though. The Jetta is WAY down on features vs the Regal as well. No leather, no power lumbar, no power passenger seat, no Onstar, no 18" wheels, no rear AC vents, etc.
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,415
    Have you looked at the 2011 Kia Optima EX? Great styling and way more toys than either the Regal or the Jetta. Plus 200hp and 24/34 mpg. Since you are comparing apples and oranges already, why not throw in a peach?
  • I looked and drove the Kia Optima. It's a nice car. Road noise was better then Sonata, but not by much. I would take it over the Sonata, but I got a better deal on a Regal, which is finished much nicer, in my opinion, then the optima. If you can wait a few months, or due some shopping around, you would be able to score a good deal on a Kia.
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,415
    I was making the Optima suggestion to bvdj84. Since he was comparing a Jetta with a Regal, it seems the Optima would fall somewhere between the two cars in terms of price, equipment, quality, etc. I understand how you perceived the car and why you prefer Regal. But unlike you, I am not sure he has even looked at the new Optima.
  • I test drove the Turbo today, and even though I Only drove a 4 block radius, I was happy with vehicle. I'm going to purchase it. It drive much better than base 4 and doesn't have that engine drone when U press accelerator. I will get another ride on Saturday on a highway. The dealer had just received its allotment of the turbo and the vehicle didn't have enough gas and the battery light
    was flashing. But I was impressed with my initial drive. It's what I want in a car.
  • Regardless of what the test numbers say, the 220hp turbo is enough power for the average person. Its as fast as the TSX with an automatic and no one ever called that car slow. In fact, the new TSX wagon needs 8.3 secs to hit 60 which is almost a second slower than the Regal turbo. I have a feeling that those who drive the Regal 2.0T wont have an issue with it.
  • bvdj84bvdj84 Posts: 1,721
    Not to emphasis a comparison between the tsx and regal. But, notice how the TSX does not have a turbo and it is able to provide enough power. The non turbo in the Regal just struggles. So the tech specs of both base engines could be close in range, such as even the jetta engine. There are some 4's that feel and run much more efficient. This lack of oomph in the Regal has kept me away from it. Though its power is managed better with the speed auto. It feels fine, but the lack of power on the interstate could ruin that "german" appeal they want to pursue.

    I am not sure why GM has not improved or updated their base 4cyl to be more strong and powerful. It is very dated in terms of what other 4's offer today. Many had purchased the V6 in a GM car in the past for this reason.
    See, again we are already looking to get the Turbo. If they offered a V6, people would opt for it too. Not as much as before, but they would.

    The Regal to me, with the base engine is a bit unfinished. About 85% there.

    The Regal still has me looking. :) I do like it. I could live with the engine.

    Thanks for the review of the turbo, let us know about the interstate drive!
  • The 2.4L is hardly "outdated", its one of the few direct injected fours in a midsize sedan. The Sonata has a similar engine but makes 200hp. The Accord makes 177hp in standard form and 190hp in EX form, but both engines have less torque. As with most small Honda engines, the TSX makes decent power only because it revs so high. That means around town the TSX isnt going to feel much faster than the Regal- you will need to get that engine up to 7000rpm to get that 201hp. Not many people do a lot of driving with the tach in that range. The regal's real issue is the weight of the car, not the engine. Its about 200lbs heavier than most of its competition and that makes it slower.

    The 2.4L without DI that preceded the Regal's engine had 169hp and 161 lb-ft of torque so the current 2.4 DI is in fact an upgrade over that engine.

    If you throw out the wild car sonata, most midsize sedans with NA engine make 173-190hp and the Regal makes 182hp- it's right in the mix. The CC has a turbo standard so it makes 200hp- and requires premium fuel.
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,415
    Well stated, overbrook.
  • Like Overbrook said, they did upgrade the base engine. They gave it direct injection which many cars in its class lack. HP was increased from 169 to 182, which is very class competitive. How is that not an improvement? What GM failed to do was give the Regal a diet. It's simply too heavy of a platform.
  • zeenzeen Posts: 391
    Does the turbo require premium fuel like many turbos do? If so, that's certainly a negative.
  • yes, there are only a few turbos that dont need premium. Sonata and Cruze are only two cars I can think of. VW's turbos take premium.
  • Most new cars on new platforms get heavier, especially European cars. The Jetta was an exception but VW cheapened the Jetta with helped lower the weight vs the last car. Look at the recent 5 series and E class, both jumped about 200lbs with their redesigns. The Rega is really an opel and thus its not a lightweight car. From behind the wheel you cannot tell though.

    You cannot compare Regal's weight to Sonata or Altima or Camry- those are lower end cars designed to start around $20k. If you look at cars that start closer to $30k and up like Maxima, TSX, ES350, TL, MKZ, etc. you will see curb weights closer to 3500lbs or more. The new S60 (with standard AWD) is almost 4000lbs and its 8" shorter than the Regal. An A4 quattro is close to 3700lbs.
  • ab348ab348 Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, CanadaPosts: 1,869
    Premium fuel is recommended but it will run on regular at some reduced level of output. Reports I have seen indicate it does not make a huge difference.

    2011 Buick Regal Turbo, 1968 Oldsmobile Cutlass S Holiday Coupe

  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,415
    However, most of them allow you to use regular, if that is your wish. The computer adjusts to the grade of fuel, and you lose a couple hp by not using premium, but companies like VW/Audi indicate it is fine to do so if you wish.

    However, if you have a really high performance turbo- or super-charged engine, like the 300+ hp 2.0 liter engines in some Subaru and Mitsubishi compact sports sedans, I wouldn't do it. The 220 hp 2.4 liter does not fall into that category.
  • almost all cars will run on regular in 2010. You lose power and efficiency if you dont use recommended Octane however. The engine will adjust but its not operating at peak on regular fuel. Most people I've ever talked to dont even know a car that recommends premium will run on regular and they are afraid to ever use lower octane gas.
  • cooterbfdcooterbfd Posts: 2,770
    "....What GM failed to do was give the Regal a diet. It's simply too heavy of a platform. "

    Having a Lacrosse, I believe that the extra weight is what makes the body so solid and sturdy.
  • zeenzeen Posts: 391
    I am considering the Regal and LaCrosse. The latter may be too big for my garage but I have to drive it first in any event. I'm assuming the 4 cylinder is way too weak for that car and shouldn't even think about it.
  • kernickkernick Posts: 4,072
    edited December 2010
    The regal's real issue is the weight of the car, not the engine. Its about 200lbs heavier than most of its competition and that makes it slower.

    When someone speaks of a weak engine in a vehicle, they mean weak relative to weight. Of course if you put a 4 cyl. 180hp engine in a 2,500 Lb vehicle it is not weak. If I'm looking at a vehicle over 3,500 Lb, I want an engine that is going to have some power - over 250ft-lb, preferably 300 ft-lb of torque and corresponding hp. I don't care what brand of vehicle it is in when the vehicle is costing over $25K- a VW, an Acura, or whatever. They're all over-expensive, boring vehicles. You might as well drive a minivan and get some utility.

    The Regal turbo sounds adequate. That should be the base engine in this vehicle, with something more like the Infiniti G37's engine as the upgrade, as it is a premium vehicle. Give it a premium engine, able to leave the less premium vehicles in the GM lineup in the dust! Otherwise the Regal sounds decent.
  • cooterbfdcooterbfd Posts: 2,770
    I never drove a four in the Lacrosse. I've yet to drive the Regal, yet rode in a Equinox for a test drive (same 182 hp 2.4) Seeing as how the Equinox and the Regal are about the same weight, it accelerated fine, but I thought my friend and his wife seemed to be on the throttle a little too much for it to go. Again, I was just a passenger, so it could be the way they drive (heavier foot).

    As far as the Lacrosse, for 2012 the 4's will have eAssist as standard equiptment:

    http://www.autoblog.com/2010/11/15/2012-buick-lacrosse-eassist-achieves-up-to-37- -m/
  • Cadillac sells the CTS and it offers 270hp standard with 304hp and 556hp optional. Its also RWD. Thats the G37 competitor. The regal starts at $27k and isnt competing in the same price class as the G37. You might say the G25 is a competitor and if offers only 218hp standard. The Regal is not the CTS- it costs less and offers less power. What you are asking for is a Buick version of the CTS which makes little sense.

    The majority of family sedans sold have four cylinder engines. This means the average midsize sedan has less than 175lb-ft of torque and about 3300-3400lbs of curb weight.
  • I would never buy the Lacrosse I4 now that we know about eAssist but the Lacrosse I4 is about the same weight as the Equinox- around 3800lbs. I dont even know if Buick officially lists curb weight of the base model but I remember hearing it was 130lbs lighter than the CX with the 3L V6. Bottom line is the Lacrosse wouldnt be noticeably slower than the Equinox.

    I think Americans will see 0-60 times stagnate or drop over time. More and more offerings are coming with smaller engines standard. The Venza has 187hp standard and weighs about 3700lbs without AWD. The new C250 will have 201hp standard in 2011. Even the Highlander offers and I4 engine standard.
Sign In or Register to comment.