Howdy, Stranger!

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





2011 Buick Regal

1679111225

Comments

  • ab348ab348 Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, CanadaPosts: 1,903
    What you are saying is simply ridiculous. The acceleration is not "poor". Even the base engine does 0-60 in the mid 8-second range.

    To say that it simply is not competitive is absurd. It is extremely competitive. Not everyone buys a car based on drag strip times and spec sheets.

    2011 Buick Regal Turbo, 1968 Oldsmobile Cutlass S Holiday Coupe

  • prigglypriggly Posts: 642
    The Regal is slower than virtually all cars in it competitive class, its other virtues notwithstanding. The Acura TSX, for example, is almost two seconds faster to 60 from a dead stop. That may not be to your fancy but it is a fact nevertheless.

    The Acura TSX does 0-60 in 6.1 seconds. Even the Sonata 2T runs rings around it. If the Regal with the turbo engine is to compete effectively with these and other cars it is going to have to do better than its present acceleration figures, like it or not.

    People may not buy a car based on "drag strip times" (an exaggeration if I ever heard one), acceleration is still one of the distinguishing points that differentiates the great ones from the also-rans.

    GM has unfortunately been demonstrating an unwise propensity lately towards underpowered engines in a number of its new vehicles and this will not auger well for the long run. Time to get out from under the heavy hand of government and build what the people actually want.
  • dodgeman07dodgeman07 Posts: 573
    edited October 2010
    Most buyers in this class have no idea of "acceleration times" for their vehicles nor are they true car enthusiasts. Car buyers tend to purchase what they like and what appeals to them.

    We'll have to wait and see what happens. To pronounce any vehicle "uncompetitve" based on a Road & Track mindset could only accurately apply to true sports cars. None of the cars in this class are sports cars and few of the buyers even read "Car and Driver" or peruse this type of website.
  • For a car that's loaded at 35K the Regal isn't bad when you take all the other cars at the same price. None of the other cars are really missiles. I for one need my car to be quiet, comfortable on top of being fast. If speed is the only criteria then everybody would go for muscle cars.

    Not that I don't understand why some people are complaining. For a car that's billed as a sports sedan, it's slow, especially all family sedans with their optional engine are faster. It really depends on what you want from your car. If you want a premium car with some spice then the Regal Turbo might be your thing. If speed is your cup of tea then go for a muscle car. No one car is going to fit all crowds.

    In my opinion, fast is a relative term for real drivers. My car does 0-60 in 10+ seconds so the Regal Turbo would be very fast for me, but not for my friend who drives a Mustang GT. Let's remember Buick is a premium brand not a sports brand.
  • The TSX V6 is a slow seller. The main model is the four cylinder and with an automatic it has the same 0-60 times as the Regal Turbo.

    At any rate, you can expect to see downsizing in the engine department everywhere, not just with GM. It's the early 80s all over again. Mitsubishi completely dropped the V6 from its midsize Galant. Hyundai is downsizing the four cylinder on the compact Elantra from 2.0 to 1.6 liters and replaced it's midsize V6 with a turbo four. BMW dropped the V12 and downsized their V8s. Ford is planning on replacing base V8s in their pickups with turbo V6s. So get used to it. The fact is, automakers can't meet the new gov't fuel economy mandates without downsizing.
  • prigglypriggly Posts: 642
    The fact is, automakers can't meet the new gov't fuel economy mandates without downsizing.

    You hit the nail on the head. The government has no business telling the car makers what kinds of cars to build and what engines to put in them. That should be the job of the market place and the market place alone. The country is on a slippery slope where the autocratic government is dictating every facet of life now and that concept will not end well.
  • There is never going to be a V8 in this FWD car and to suggest it needs one just to have adequate acceleration is absurd. As I have said numerous times, acceleration is on par with other four cylinder sedans in the $25k-$29k price range including Mazda6 and Accord EX. How does that continue to be overlooked?
  • The government doesnt regulate engine size or type. It does set CAFE targets which will lead to SOME engine downsizing. I wouldnt expect rampant engine downsizing because there are tons of loopholes in the CAFE rules and newer transmissions and other technologies are allowing better mileage from V6 and V8 engines. The regal's mileage isnt even that great, although its impressive compared to recent Buick sedans. The Accord V6 now gets 20/30 which beats Regal so you dont have to downsize to get efficiency.
  • First of all, the TSX 2.4 is rarely tested with an auto even though thats what people buy. I estimate that a TSX with the 5A tranny would do 0-60 in about 8 secs- less than 1 sec faster than the Regal. The TSX V6 is about 1 sec faster than the Regal 2.0T which is NOT surprising when you consider it has 280hp vs 220 in the Buick. Of course you failed to mention the $5k price premium for the TSX V6. The reality is the Regal GS will be priced like the TSX V6. In terms of price, the Regal turbo lines up with the TSX 2.4L.

    You mention the Sonata but didnt clarify that MT noted the Regal turbo was faster in the figure 8 in spite of being slower. What does that mean? The Regal overall is a better handling car even if it will lose in a drag race to the Sonata. Considering the sonata has 274hp and weighs 300lbs less than Regal its acceleration advantage isnt surprising.
  • exactly, the speed value card can be played a lot of ways. For example, a $25k Camry V6 is faster than ANY German luxury sedan you can get for $35k including C300, 328 and A4. Does that mean no one buys those German cars? Of course not. With today's V6 offering in affordable family sedans you can outrun more expensive cars EASILY. The new 528i starts at $45k and is slower than a Camry or Mazda6 V6. I'm pretty sure buyers of the 5 series dont really give that much though though.
  • prigglypriggly Posts: 642
    I and many other car enthusiasts are not merely interested in "adequate" acceleration. A Cruze has that. In a premium car such as the new Regal which aims to compete with the world's best the acceleration had better be a lot more than just adequate.
  • prigglypriggly Posts: 642
    To quote the Bard of Avon, "that which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet."
  • prigglypriggly Posts: 642
    The TSX V6 is about 1 sec faster than the Regal 2.0T

    In the first place your acceleration numbers are absolutely not correct unless you are given to a bit of exaggeration.

    In actuality, the Acura TSX with the 6 achieves 0-60 in 5.9 sec while the Buick Regal does it in 7.5. Hardly "about 1 second."

    http://www.roadandtrack.com/tests/impressions/2010-acura-tsx-v-6

    http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/1004_2011_buick_regal_us_spec_drive/s- pecs.html

    Of course you failed to mention the $5k price premium for the TSX V6

    Now, let's compare apples to apples and not to apricots, shall we?

    The price of the premium Acura TSX V6 according to the Acura website is $34,850 while the price of the premium Buick Regal Turbo is $34,435.

    http://www.acura.com/Pricing.aspx?model=TSX

    http://www.buick.com/regal/2011/build-your-own/

    I have nothing against the new Buick Regal and in fact think it has the potential to be a world-class car, especially when it arrives as the Regal GS. But presently, it is underpowered and if it is to aspire to be the best then it is going to have to have exemplary acceleration because that parameter happens to be associated with world-class cars, e.g. BMW. Did you ever hear BMW described as having merely "adequate" acceleration?

    The comments and rationale in this discussion actually bring up an interesting point. For far too long Americans have become accustomed to being satisfied with "adequate" and "good enough." Where has gone that burning desire to be the very best in the world? Unless attitudes change, mediocrity is going to be the rule rather than the exception. Personally, I would prefer excellence over mediocrity.
  • Not to get too far off topic, but without the gov'ts intervention, we would still be driving around gas guzzling behemoths that had no safety features whatsoever. It took a govt law to force automakers to install safety belts as standard. It took a law to force them to add airbags, something that has been universally accepted to save numerous lives. It took a law to force more fuel efficient engines. It took a law to force them to reduce tailpipe emissions. I could go on and on. Automakers, if left to their own devices, would simply do what they want and it would not be in the consumer's best interest. I surely would hope you don't think it's better to simply gorge on a finite supply of oil to satisfy your enthusiast desires. That kind of glutonous attitude is what is truly wrong with Americans. Should the govt control everything? NO! But, some guidance is required to convince them to do better. The market does not make the most rational decisions when left to its own devices.
  • cooterbfdcooterbfd Posts: 2,770
    ".....Now, let's compare apples to apples and not to apricots, shall we?

    The price of the premium Acura TSX V6 according to the Acura website is $34,850 while the price of the premium Buick Regal Turbo is $34,435"

    Yes, but a BASE Regal turbo may be had for $28,745. NO TSX V6 can be had for less than $34,435. Not to mention the extra $110 for destination for the TSX over the Regal.

    According to C&D's comparo, the as tested price difference is about $3,600 ($38,810 vs $35185 for the Regal T07) If you look at their final results on a point by point basis, The Regal scored as high as, or better than both the CC and TSX for the overall vehicle and the chassis, lagging only in powertrain (Duly noted in these arguments).

    I have no doubt that anybody buying a Regal over the other 2 will be quite satisfied with their purchase.
  • cooterbfdcooterbfd Posts: 2,770
    I concur. While I too would like to be rolling around in a 900 hp supercharged 455 Lacrosse GSX, We DO have to be concerned with the availability of dino juice both short and long term.
  • The base Regal has adequate power. The turbo Regal is far more than adequate, not a fast car but plenty powerful. If you want a lot of power, and a 5.9 sec 0-60 time, wait for GS and it's 255HP mill.
  • prigglypriggly Posts: 642
    I presently drive a 2006 Chevy Impala SS which goes from 0-60 in 5.6 sec and still gives 26 miles to the gallon on the highway. It uses a pushrod V8 which is a fabulous engine and has not given me a moment's trouble in over four years. It is much simpler than any turbo and has less complex mechanicals. What, pray tell, is the advantage of a slower, more expensive, more complex engine the mileage of which is marginally greater, if at all?

    Newer is not always better.
  • cooterbfdcooterbfd Posts: 2,770
    ".....I presently drive a 2006 Chevy Impala SS which goes from 0-60 in 5.6 sec and still gives 26 miles to the gallon on the highway."

    More than likely, if you took a long drive in a new Regal, you will find you get north of 30 mpg. My father got over 30 in his 2010 Lacrosse with the 3.0 V6. I have yet to take mine on a long enough drive, but routinely got over 30 mpg in my '99 Ultra. 26 MPG in a V8 car is excellent for what it is.
  • prigglypriggly Posts: 642
    The base Regal has adequate power.

    That is entirely a matter of subjective opinion, not fact. In my opinion it is not adequate but slow and for that reason it does not meet my needs and I would not buy it.
  • prigglypriggly Posts: 642
    I would much, much rather achieve 26 mpg in a car I dearly loved to drive (puts a smile on my face every time it lays me back against my seat at 80 mpg in southern Utah or West Texas) than achieve a minuscule 4 more mpg in a car that just ambles leisurely along.

    That is not to say that a leisurely car is problematic, I simply prefer the raw power of the SS combined with very good gas mileage.
  • ab348ab348 Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, CanadaPosts: 1,903
    Well, you raise an interesting question. The Impala is built on GM's old W-body platform, as is my '09 Allure/Lacrosse. As an older platform, it lacks a lot of the hi-tech geegaws that newer designs receive. It is also less rigid but trades that off for lighter weight. It may not be quite as good in a crash, though I do not know that for a fact.

    For what I would spend on a Regal GS or a 2011 Lacrosse CXS, I could have bought an Impala SS or, even better, the Lacrosse Super, with the V-8. Now, it would look old-fashioned inside and out, and the dash designs are old-style, and some of the materials were not as good. But it is roomier and probably a lot less expensive to fix should something go wrong.

    Is it progress? From the point of view of looks and efficiency, probably so. But my '09 Allure, with the ancient 3800, put out 200hp and 230 lb-ft of torque. That's more power than the base Regal has. Even with the old 4-speed automatic, my car moves quite well. I have driven the base Regal, and it might be a bit quicker off the line than my car thanks to the 6-speed transmission, but the rest of the time it drives pretty much the same. I like the size and handling of the Regal compared to my car, but it isn't a huge leap forward. But it is new and stylish and has all the tech. I'm happy with my car and feel no urge to upgrade right now.

    2011 Buick Regal Turbo, 1968 Oldsmobile Cutlass S Holiday Coupe

  • dodgeman07dodgeman07 Posts: 573
    edited November 2010
    Somebody driving a V8 powered Impala states they get 26mpg hwy. A car that's rated 16mpg city and 19mpg combined. Sure you can 26mpg if you drive 65mph on a level highway, but that's far more than that car will ever average.

    And yes, I don't need a 300hp engine while our planet is down to it's last 38 years worth of petroleum. I do fine with cars I can average 26mpg in, thank you.
  • Priggly -

    Let's keep the politics out of this discussion. You've swerved pretty far in the last couple of posts, and are starting to get shrill. And speaking for myself, I personally don't want to read rants about liberal lunatics, scientific conspiracies, and Al Gore's beach mansion, or claims that these people are ganging up and wrecking the world (and depriving everyone of cheap gas and a good time, just because).

    There are other blogs for that sort of thing, filled with like-minded people. And talk radio.

    Make sense? Let's talk about cars.
  • stephen987stephen987 Posts: 1,994
    Give it a rest, priggly. You're obviously immune to any point of view beyond your own.
  • A $27k car is not a premium car in 2010. A loaded Camry, Accord or Malibu will cost you over $30k so how is a $27k Regal "premium" in terms of price. Sure, the interior and warranty is superior to those cars but at the end of the day it's still a midsize family sedan.
  • Impala SS was rated at 15/24 or 16/24 which is hardly the same as 19/30. If you think you need 303hp to get around every day there is no wonder you hate the Regal so much. GM's V8s with cylinder deactivation do well on EPA tests but real world mileage has never lived up to the EPA numbers according to magazine results. Average mileage for V8 powered cars with AFM has been in the mid to upper teens in magazine tests. The LS4 was a nice engine but the days of V8s in FWD cars is over.
  • 1. Regal Turbo starts at $30k, not $34k.

    2. A base TSX has about the same level of equipment as the base Regal Turbo. The TSX has HIDs and memory standard which the Regal lacks. That's where the equipment advantages end.

    3. C&D just tested the two cars and the TSX V6 got to 60 in 6 secs vs 7.3 for the Regal- a whopping 1.3 sec difference. Again, the gap wasnt surprising considering the 60hp advantage of the Acura. The TSX tested was over $3k more than the Regal and the Regal had better braking, a quieter ride and equal or superior skidpad grip. Regal has more cargo and rear seat room, larger wheels, adjustable suspension and better styling as well. They also said the regal handled better.

    4. Plenty of BMWs have had "adequate acelleration" until recently. The last gen X5 came standard with a 260hp engine and a near 5000lb curb weight. This version was rarely ytested but 0-60 was likely in the mid to upper 7 sec range. The last gen 528 had only 230hp standard and with an auto likely needed mid 7s to hit 60. Same for last gen X3. The 328i with an auto is probably slightly faster than a Regal turbo. The manual car was capable of a mid 6 sec run to 60.
  • Your position is that any midsize car or crossover with a four cylinder is too slow. FINE. That is your opinion and there is no need for you to talk about the Regal or any similar vehicle any farther. The FACT of the matter is that the Regal is as fast as at least a dozen other cars and crossovers sold in the $25k-$30k price bracket. Its acceleration is adequate for a midsize sedan with a 2.4L engine. If you think its too slow that means you find this class in general to be underpowered. Thats cool, but you wouldnt be looking at the Regal or any similarly powered cars anyway so you might as well stop ranting. Again, if you think 303hp is the baseline for necessary hp than its obvious the Regal isnt your cup of tea. In fact, you wont even be satisfied by the GS so I dont see ANY regal that will be up to your standards.
Sign In or Register to comment.