Howdy, Stranger!

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





Buick LaCrosse

15657596162110

Comments

  • johnclineiijohnclineii Posts: 2,287
    You might want to look at the then Buick Lucerne instead....

    Just a thought.
  • You are correct, in my previous post talking about engine noise of the Accord vs. Lacrosse, I was referring to the engine noise under accelleration. They clearly have very different sounds. Of the seven cars we tested at highway speeds (only up to 60 mph, however) on level ground, I don't recall any distinctive engine noise from any of them. However, it should be noted that it can be hard to distinguish engine noise from the variable amounts of other noise that each vehicle lets in (tire, wind, and other traffic). The vehicles we tested were the Toyota Camry, Toyota Prius, Ford 500, Ford Escape, Honda Accord, Chevy Malibu, and Buick Lacrosse.
  • dialm4speeddialm4speed Posts: 110
    The car makers did the ol switch-a-roo! This LaCrosse sure don't look like the one I saw at the autoshow a few years ago. Does it have the voice activated features? What happened to the rear tailgate type thing?
  • rwisemrwisem Posts: 96
    General consensus is that the Lacrosse is not enough of an upgrade to the Regal to compete favorably with the competition and the high-end versions are pricey. Professional reviews have been somewhat lukewarm. I have noticed, however, that on two web locations that have consumer reviews, the Lacrosse is very highly rated.

    I have had several GM mid-size vehicles. My absolute favorite being a 2001 Intrigue GLS. This time my wife and I decided to go for a CTS, which is a great car, but had some niggling details. I felt a bit squeezed between the door and the console and was surprised at the amount of transmission noise that entered the cabin.

    The test drive in the Lacrosse was a real surprise. It handles at least as well as the Intrigue did and the ride is much improved. (we tested and bought a CXS) Normally, slapping wide rubber on these GM intermediates results in tar strip harshness, but even with the fatter 17" 55 series tires, the ride was amazingly free of harshness, unlike my Impala SS company car, which will shake your fillings loose.

    The CXS seems as fast as the supercharged Impala, too and uses regular fuel.

    It's not perfect, the rear seat should be roomier for its size and I wish it had an iPod jack, but so far we are very pleased - just like those other owners.
  • vanman1vanman1 Posts: 1,397
    I am really happy to hear your story.

    I will be replacing my Intrigue GL in 2-3 years and I was really hoping this Buick would fit the bill. Sounds like it could have been a 2005 Intrigue.

    Hopefully it will have an MP3 player or jack available by the time I buy.

    ;-)
  • c2rosac2rosa Posts: 76
    Regarding:
    "Not to mention that GM continued to market OnStar with analogue only cellular service for quite some time long after the rest of the world had taken all of their new equipment digital."

    GM stayed with Analog to guarantee coverage in rural areas not yet covered by digital systems. This was to ensure that if an airbag in one of the vehicles deploys, the vehicle can be contacted and 911 contacted even in rural areas.

    Regarding
    "And I haven't even mentioned those VERY annoying radio ads they run with people in distress being saved by OnStar."

    OnStar is an excellent safety feature that serves a very real purpose. Many other automakers realize this and are using the OnStar service (rebranded accordingly), or developing their own version of the service.
  • 62vetteefp62vetteefp Posts: 6,048
    "Professional reviews" build off each other. Once either negative or positive reviews start the others tend to follow. Most of the enthusiast press are also just that. They like sporty in your face styling and sport performance. Most of the buyers out there do not read the mags.

    The most sucessful cars look good but tend to be conservative (mid size). Camry and Accord are the top sellers but they are about as bland as can be.
  • mrrogersmrrogers Posts: 391
    Mrs. Rogers has had her LaCrosse since January. She is crazy about the car. For my money, the most accurate review of the LaCrosse was done by Warren Brown of the Washington Post. The link is posted in message #894.
  • 62vetteefp62vetteefp Posts: 6,048
    The Brown review captures what is the essence of the LaCrosse. It is not a sports car for go real fast folks. That is what Pontiac is for, BUT it can go fast smoothly and quietly w/o raising a alot of attention.
  • verdi942verdi942 Posts: 304
    states in this wednesday's post on www.Autoextremist.com, the LaCrosse line should be limited to the top-of-the-line CXS, which, at $25,000 would be truly competitive in the market. That idea has my vote.
  • rwisemrwisem Posts: 96
    Yes, I agree that the Lacrosse is essentially the next generation Intrigue, and I agree with Autoextremist that it should be sold only in CXS form as one of the "keepers" in a pared down GM line-up. Let Chevrolet cover the under 25K sedan market with the Malibu and Impala.

    While both of my Intigues (I had a '98 as well as the '01) were well put together and dependable, the model in general had quality issues, which was a shame. GM built it in one of their worst plants. The Lacrosse, on the other hand, is built in GM's best plant. This may be the single biggest improvement over the Olds.
  • vanman1vanman1 Posts: 1,397
    Why there are 3 trims (CX and CXL and a CXS) is unknown.

    Should be 2 trims, CX and CXL and both should have the 3.6L standard. 3800 should not be sold in Buicks but if they are I could see it only in the CX as a entry value leader model. I hear the 3800 is going into the Lucerne which doesn't seem right to me.
  • bigdaddycoatsbigdaddycoats Posts: 1,058
    I could not agree more. The 3.6 should be standard period.

    The fact that the Lucerne getting the 3.8 is an absolute joke. A car that will be close to $30k and have the 3.8 with only 195hp is inexcusable. The 3.6 should be standard, period.
  • mrrogersmrrogers Posts: 391
    My wife and I drove a CXS before she bought her CXL. My personal opinion is that the CXS is too stiff to drive on Northern frost heaved roads. If you live in the South or the West it may be okay, but please fly before you buy. I was also concerned that the seventeen inch rim/tire combination would not hold up to the chuck holes in the roads. My friend has already ruined a rim and a tire on his BMW 325iX shod with seventeen inch rims and tires.
    Concerning the 3.6 engine, I think it is too soon to put an unproven engine in a serious car like a Buick. Cadillac builds the least reliable GM cars. Let those people work out the bugs before the engine damages the Buick brand.
  • johnclineiijohnclineii Posts: 2,287
    I've seen no statistics that say Cadillac builds the least reliable GM cars. None at all. Care to share?
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Crossroads of America: I70 & I75Posts: 18,048
    The 3.8 hasn't been a joke for me in 3 cars. It pulls the full weight of a LeSabre nicely. I'm surprised the smooth 4-speed transmission didn't get criticized also...

    Check the 2000 rpm horsepower and torque for both engines in the following links someone provided in GM's Return of Might discussion:

    3.6 LaCrosse: http://www.media.gm.com/division/2005_prodinfo/powertrain/2005%20HPT%20Library/HFV6/LaCros- se/2005_36L_LY7_Buick_LaCrosse.pdf

    3800 LaCrosse: http://www.media.gm.com/division/2005_prodinfo/powertrain/2005%20HPT%20Library/90%20Deg%20- V6/2005_3800_L26_Buick.pdf

    As I read those graphs at 2000 the horsepower is about 80 for each engine and the torque (more meaningful) is about 220 lb-ft in both. At 3000 rpm the horsepower in 3800 may be slightly hgiher than the 3.6. Torque at 3000-4000 may be slightly higher for the 3800.

    Most of my perception of my car is leaving a stop sign or light in moderate driving. RPMs typical are 2000-3000. Torque at 3000-4000 may be slightly higher for the 3800.

    My LeSabres do this handily. While I probably would enjoy a V8 that I have to work to keep from spinning tires if I'm not care, I find the 3800 very competent.
  • bigdaddycoatsbigdaddycoats Posts: 1,058
    I have no problem with the 3.8, it is a very good powerplant. It was in my GP.

    I just do not think launching a new model with a 195hp V6 at $30k is going to cut it.

    I can not think of any other car that the Lucerne will compete with that has so few hp. I know that this car is not about flat out acceleration, but people will notice that the Avalon... has much more power.

    The 3.6 would make a much more attractive base engine. Mark my words - the press will slam the Lucerne for only having 195hp. Right or wrong consumers remember negative reviews.
  • 62vetteefp62vetteefp Posts: 6,048
    Here is where there are many opinions on what a car should ride and handle like. When the Regal came out it was calibrated to ride like a Buick of old with some handling capability. It got awful reviews from the press and Consumer Reports on a floaty ride. The car was then tightened down a bit and was acceptable to the press. BUT got a great number of complaints from the older drivers (60+) that wanted the ride of the old rear wheel drive Buicks. Cannot satisfy everyone.

    The CX and CXS were tuned to give a slightly better ride than the Camry and kept most of the Camry handling characteristics. Most consumers would not be able to tell the difference. Also has better ride than the Accord. (remember that Accord and Camry have a huge part of midsize market) The Accord handles slightly better than the base LaCrosse.

    The CXS rides about like the ES330 (same suspension as Camry with different spring and bushing rates) but the CXS has better handling. The ES330 rolls more over undulating roads. CXS has better handling than the Camry, Accord and ES330. The ride is much smoother than A6, Passat.

    It is very hard to get both a good ride and great handling. The Germans compromise a smooth ride for better handling. They also tend to put very expensive suspensions in their cars to try and get both. If you live down south you will find that the ride is acceptable in these vehicles because you do not get the sharp impacts of the north.

    There are very few cars being made now that have a better impact harshness than the LaCrosse in the mid size market. I would say the ES330 is one. The ES330 is a luxury car with no pretenses of sporty handling. The Camry is another. Any one know of any others? I have not driven the Ford 500 nor it's twin.

    Todays drivers are demanding better handling and also bigger wheels for appearance. Handling and bigger tires go together but you lose the soft ride.
  • verdi942verdi942 Posts: 304
    great engines - right up there with the old MOPAR "slant six". Durable, trouble-free with plenty of torque, real-world adequate power AND phenomenal MPG, no small consideration these days. It needs what the 3.6 has - aluminum block, overhead cams, variable displacement - all to get another 50+ HP and make it competitive in the marketplace.
  • mrrogersmrrogers Posts: 391
    The April 2005 Consumer Reports annual Auto issue lists the reliability of the Deville and SRX as below average. The CTS and Escalade are average. The STS and XLR are too new for a rating. Last year's issue had the Regal with a very reliable rating.
Sign In or Register to comment.