Howdy, Stranger!

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





2011 Buick Regal

1568101125

Comments

  • dash5dash5 Posts: 418
    Faster yes but I've read overall refinement as well. I'm trying to find the articles now:

    http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/reviews/healey/2010-09-09-test-drive-buick-r- egal_N.htm

    "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."

    http://www.autosavant.com/2010/06/02/first-drive-2011-buick-regal-turbo/

    "When I started the Turbo I felt as though I had found a paragon of four cylinder refinement. The Turbo’s drivetrain was quieter, less frenetic, and it shifted more smoothly than did the base car’s 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 GM’s former applications of the related 2.0 liter turbo direct injection fours found in the likes of the Cobalt SS Turbo."
  • 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 GM’s former applications of the related 2.0 liter turbo direct injection fours...".

    The DI 2.4L in the Regal is plenty quiet and refined.
  • overbrookoverbrook Posts: 275
    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.
  • overbrookoverbrook Posts: 275
    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.
  • overbrookoverbrook Posts: 275
    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.
  • dash5dash5 Posts: 418
    Mostly concerned about this sentence:

    "The Turbo’s drivetrain was quieter, less frenetic, and it shifted more smoothly than did the base car’s 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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!
  • elvissselvisss Posts: 14
    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.
  • stephen987stephen987 Posts: 1,994
    edited October 2010
    That's a pretty deep discount for a new model in semi-short supply--CarsDirect is still showing them going for close to MSRP here in Georgia.

    At $23200 (close to $4000 discount) it's really competing with midrange Accords and Sonatas. In that particular company, the Regal's powertrain is merely adequate but the interior really stands out.

    Congratulations on your new ride--keep us posted on how you like it as the miles roll up!
  • prigglypriggly Posts: 642
    As far as Car and Driver is concerned, no one makes a car like the Germans.

    Have you ever seen one of their comparisons in which the German contender did not win?
  • I think as far as anyone is concerned, the Germans tend to make the best handling most refined cars around, thus why even Buick touts the fact the Regal was bred on a German racetrack using a German designed platform. The fact remains, GM didn't get the formula right as far as weight and engine refinement. The Regal has 20 more hp and 51 more pound feet of torque than the CC but they had the same exact power-to-weight ratio and yet the CC was a full 1.1 seconds quicker to 60. That's a big difference. The drop in gas mileage isn't worth the minor improvement in speed over the 2.4. That being said, it's a gorgeous car and one of the best to come from GM in a long time. Hopefully, the GS model will get it right.
  • overbrookoverbrook Posts: 275
    exactly. If you think an Accord or Camry I4 is fast enough the CXL is fine for you. If you want more power or miss a V6 the turbo is the way to go. I do mostly city driving and I dont need 220hp even though it would be fun to have.
  • overbrookoverbrook Posts: 275
    German cars tend to be heavier than Japanese cars so the Regal's weight is hardly surprising. The CC and Passat are VERY light for some reason. If you look at other midsize German cars you will see weights in the 3500-3700lb range. Even the 335i is over 3600lbs and its technically a compact.
  • overbrookoverbrook Posts: 275
    That was your price before downpayment or trade? Was the dealer desperate? There arent even any good national promotions on the Regal yet so a $3k discount is substantial. PLease explain.
  • overbrookoverbrook Posts: 275
    Sounds like a typical C&D comparo although I havent gotten my issue yet.

    1. No previous reviews mentioned the 2.0T being unrefined. In fact it wasnt even called unrefined in the Cobalt SS when C&D tested that car
    2. No sane person would call the seats too mushy- they are very firm
    3. Part of the weight penalty is due to the 19s which I presume C&D had on their test car. They are optional
    4. If the Regal got 27mpg I'd like to know what the TSX managed
    5. The CC is extremely light and I don't know why. Its lighter than a 3 series or C300 or A4 FWD by a few hundred lbs in some cases.
    6. I don't see why a nose heavy FWD sedan would feel like a BMW 3 series.
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,415
    Um, the Regal is a German car, through and through. It was designed in Germany, built there and is imported from there. Car and Driver has had many good things to say about it as well. It just so happens that the CC is the better car, but both are outstanding.
  • The CC is also a compact car that weighs in at nearly 3400lbs with the automatic. Not really that light for a compact car with 94cuft of passenger volume.

    Yes the Regal is heavier, but it's also a larger car.
  • The CC and Regal are very close in size. Only 4 cubic feet of space separates them, and that's in the front seat. The rear seats have the same amount of space. In actual size, the Regal is less then 2" longer than the CC but the CC is wider. There really is no reason why the Regal should weigh as much as it does.
  • The weight penalty for the 19s over the 18s is miniscule, like maybe 25-40 pounds total.

    The TSX V6 averaged 28 mpg, which is actually 1 mpg above its highway rating. That's impressive for a 3.5 liter V6 with 280 horses
  • Don't get me wrong. A 3400lb Regal would be nice. It is true that GM does build vehicles that are a bit heavier than the competition. The sound deadening materials used, a la Buick "Quiet-Tuning" do add weight.

    That said, a TSX w/V6 auto comes in at 3660lbs. Hardly light and definitely not an attractive vehicle to me. The CC is nice car. My brother recently bought one and likes it. He and the local VW Service Manager are like best friends since it's in the shop once a month for repairs, recalls and enough squeaks and rattles to beat the band.
  • overbrookoverbrook Posts: 275
    edited October 2010
    In C&D Honda's tend to average better mileage combined than their EPA ratings which seems odd. This also happened with the Fit they ranked #1 in a recent comparo. The TSX's mileage isnt bad for a V6 but it starts at $35k while the Regal turbo starts at $30k- huge gap. I could live with one less 1mpg for 5 grand less.
  • overbrookoverbrook Posts: 275
    The CC is one of the lightest midsize German cars on the market. It's lighter than average and I'm willing to bet the 19s on the Regal added close to 100lbs in weight. GM lists the weight of the turbo as the same as the regular car which suggests most of the extra mass in in the optional wheels. C&D tested the Regal 2.4L and listed weight as 3670lbs.

    Other German cars similar in size to Regal (A4, C300, 328i) are in the 3500-3600lb range. An A4 quattro is about 3800lbs. The new S60 is 3900lbs and is 8" shorter than the Regal.
  • overbrookoverbrook Posts: 275
    C300- 3560
    C350- 3616
    A4 FWD- 3505
    A4 quattro- 3616
    328- 3362

    Of course the problem is those are all manufacturer curb weights of base models, not as tested weights. You could probably add 100lbs to those with automatics and larger wheels.
  • The CC is a compact. I agree it's not a lot smaller than the Regal, but it is a compact car. The Regal barely squeezes in to the mid-size category at 111cuft of total interior volume but the CC, at 107cuft, is smaller yet.
  • berriberri Posts: 4,202
    Do you think the lighter weights of some of the competitors is because they use more aluminum and high tensile steel?
  • That could be. I don't work for GM or know the composition of vehicle structures that well. I do know that, on average, GM vehicles tend to run about 5% heavier then I'd like to see.

    Over the last few years there has been a craze that associates "quietness" with quality and refinement. GM has gone to great lengths to make their vehicles quieter and more refined. Numerous sound deadening materials that GM uses add significant weight and I'm willing to pay the 5% penalty because I like a quiet driving experience.

    In the past, I'd look at the structure of the engine block, cylinder head(s) and, of course, engine configuration (I4, V6, etc) to help explain part of the weight differential. That's not such a big factor anymore with so much additional safety equipment and other legal or consumer mandated measures adding to the weight.
  • overbrookoverbrook Posts: 275
    No, its due to sound deadening and the newness of the platforms. If you look across the board you will find that totally redesigned models tend to weigh more. The new 5 series moved to a new platform and gained over 200lbs in the process. The epsilon 2 platform is only about 2 years old and is likely very rigid- this was confirmed in the C&D test. I dont know exactly what platform the CC is on but I'm willing to bet its several years older than the Regal's platform. The Passat is also very light and I'm not sure if the current Passat( debuted in 2006) was on a new platform when it debuted. Gm values rigidity and quietness over weight, sometimes to a fault. C&D noted that the CC experienced some vibration at times when cornering hard or hitting bumps. That low curb weight doesn't come without compromises. The Regal was also the quietest car at full throttle and @ 70mph.
  • prigglypriggly Posts: 642
    Let's face it, the new Buick Regal is just too slow with either of its engines.

    Although it may be refined and quiet and have a rich feature set, the acceleration is mediocre to poor with either engine. The turbo is little better than the non-turbo.

    GM has gone just too far with this engine downsizing to placate the government and it is not boding well for the future of the brand. It is simply not competitive with most of its competitors in its class.

    The car badly needs a six if not an eight and then it would truly be a force to be reckoned with. I personally would not buy it with the present mediocre acceleration capabilities.

    What a shame. Hopefully in future years this oversight will be rectified.
1568101125
Sign In or Register to comment.