Howdy, Stranger!

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





Buick LaCrosse

15960626465110

Comments

  • dan165dan165 Posts: 653
    500 is totally underpowered. Based on that alone it should be 4th I think.

    Buick is barely a full size sedan, no mention of that of course. Funny also that they say the interior is sub par in text but praise it in the video?

    Obvious that the Toyota would win. Edmunds will always feel Toyota can do no wrong. I think the Toyota is a good car, but it's dull and looking and very expensive.

    I would have picked the 300.
  • alpha01alpha01 Posts: 4,747
    "500 is totally underpowered."

    So then you must think the LaCrosse CX and CXL are totally underpowered as well, given that they are slower than the Five Hundred. Funny, I dont remember you mentioning that before.

    And Edmunds.com is hardly Toyota blinded- check out the Corolla's finish it its last comparison.

    Check the specs on the Buick, outside its hardly "barely a full size sedan", its just the poor space efficiency that gets it. (The LaCrosse is longer than BOTH the 300 and Avalon, and wider than the Avalon as well, with its wheelbase but half an inch shorter.)

    ~alpha
  • 307web307web Posts: 1,033
    I like the looks of the LaCrosse. Too bad it gets so expensive when well equipped and even then still doesn't have some of the high tech features like navigation systems and audio inputs for portable music devices (iPods etc.)
    The upcoming Lucerne clearly looks like a rebadged Impala with portholes for much more money.

    Things like this are why there is talk about GM dumping Buick or Pontiac.

    http://money.cnn.com/2005/03/29/Autos/buick_pontiac_future/index.htm
  • vanman1vanman1 Posts: 1,397
    They didn't test the 3800, they tests the 3.6L with 240hp. The 500 has no other engine to my knowledge.

    Longer does not mean bigger in cars. The Corvette is long but it has very little room inside.

    ;-)
  • Kirstie@EdmundsKirstie@Edmunds Posts: 10,674
    A reporter with a national newspaper would like to interview someone who considered one of the new domestic pass cars (Buick LaCrosse, G6, Ford 500, Mercury Montego, Malibu) but ultimately decided on Toyota, Honda or Nissan. Ideally, it’s someone who’s been driving an import brand and just couldn’t make the switch back to domestic for whatever reason. If you fit what the reporter is looking for, please email Kirsten Holguin at kholguin@edmunds.com by 3/31/05 with your contact information including a telephone number.

    Need help navigating? kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.

  • alpha01alpha01 Posts: 4,747
    For its exterior dimensions, the LaCrosse is classified as a Large Car. That GM placed a new name on a vehicle of old platform doesnt change the fact that its not a very space efficient design.

    Whats your point about Edmunds.com not testing the 3800? You stated that the Five Hundred is underpowered. Since it can outrun the 3800 LaCrosse CX and CXL (which are a majority of the vehicles sales), I just called you on the fact that those models must also be underpowered by your logic.

    ~alpha
  • vanman1vanman1 Posts: 1,397
    The test was on a 3.6L, that is all I would be interested in and the 500 has no other engine choices. The CXL does have the power and refinement available.
  • 14871487 Posts: 2,407
    The lacrosse isn't a large car. Car sizes are based on interior volumes and the Lacrosse isnt a fullsize car. Anyone who says otherwise is wrong. The other cars have more room because of their high rooflines (500 and Avalon), long wheelbases (300) and upright profiles. The edmunds comparison was ridiculous and predictable. If they were going to allow the $37K Avalon to compete then they should have left Buick out of the comparison or waited until the Lucerne was out. The Lacrosse was facing a serious size disadvantage and it didnt stand a chance. The comments edmunds made about the sloppy handling were not backed up by other magazines. Most reviews said the car handled much better than previous Buicks and offered a nice compromise between ride and handling. Edmunds was determined to sink the car because its on an old platform and it was too small. Why not compare the lacrosse againt other midsize cars?

    Anyone know how new the Avalons platform is? As far as I know the Avalon is a modified verion of the current camrys platform and the current camry is on the same platform as the two previous platforms.
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Crossroads of America: I70 & I75Posts: 17,688
    Someone in Can Gm Survive ... group said the Avalon is based on a Camry chassis, but stretched (ala, LeSabre and Park Avenue shared same chassis with lengthened wheelbase). It used to be built on another chassis out of the stable of Toyo products, So it's 'new' because they put it on a different foundation.
    A Camry is a Camry.

    This message has been approved.

  • 62vetteefp62vetteefp Posts: 6,048
    Avalon has always been based on the Camry.
  • vanman1vanman1 Posts: 1,397
    The Lucerne will do MUCH better vs. the Avalon. The Lucerne is a full size, LaCrosse is a large midsize in my opinion.
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Crossroads of America: I70 & I75Posts: 17,688
    Yes. When I reread the other posts, the Avalon was based on the old Camry chasis. So now it's based on a new Camry chassis, rather than it's own chassis as the wording implies when it says it's based on a new design for the Avalon.

    This message has been approved.

  • badgerfanbadgerfan Posts: 1,564
    I think you are cutting it pretty fine by categorizing the LaCrosse as a large midsize. If you compare Edmunds overall measurements for the four cars compared, the range in length variation is 3.9", width 2.3", height 2.7" and weight 198lbs, so in my book, they are all about in the same size range.

    Fact is the LaCrosse is just a bit smaller due to its somewhat dated platform and roofline, which particularly cramps the rear seating head room.
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Crossroads of America: I70 & I75Posts: 17,688
    I notice that the 500 and apparently the Avalon have higher roofs to make more rome for passengers who sit more upright in the car. These extra tall cars are not going to have as high gas mileage at 70 mph as a car with a more aerodynamic design. It's the Pacifica problem. Tall car, wide, almost like a minivan in aerodynamics; poor gas mileage results.

    This message has been approved.

  • vanman1vanman1 Posts: 1,397
    I like the lower roofline and stance of the LaCrosse. If I wanted an SUV or a crossover, I'd buy one. I like "sleek" in my car.
  • badgerfanbadgerfan Posts: 1,564
    To each his own, but 2.7" in height variation between the tallest and lowest of these four choices doesn't seem like much to me.
  • The difference in height of the passenger compartment between the various vehicles is likely more than just 2.7". The actual height of the passenger compartment is the vehicle height minus the floor height. While I could not find the floor heights of the vehicles, I did find the ground clearances for each vehicle. If one assumes the ground clearance reflects the height of the floor, one ends up with the following passenger compartment heights.

    Car Overall height Ground clearance Passenger compartment height (Relative height)

    Lacrosse 57.4 6.5 50.9 (0.926)
    Chr. 300 58.4 5.6 52.8 (0.96)
    Ford 500 60.1 5.1 55.0 (1.0)
    Avalon 58.5 5.3 53.2 (0.967)

    Thus, there is a >7% difference in height between the highest and lowest vehicles. From my perspective, 7% is non-trivial. The other interesting feature, and one that we did not consider before buying the Lacrosse, is the significantly greater ground clearance of the Lacrosse. Relative to the other 3 cars, it has 18% (Chr. 300), 27% (Ford 500), and 23% (Avalon) more ground clearance. While this is disadvantageous in terms of overall passenger compartment height and volume, it can be very advantageous in going over large bumps, sharp driveway cuts, etc.

    Note: The ground clearances were found by doing a Google search on "[Car] ground clearance".
  • badgerfanbadgerfan Posts: 1,564
    You can not accurately calculate cabin height by using ground clearance as the ground clearance is measured from the lowest hanging feature on the car. In no way is this related to the actual useable cabin height.

    You also cannot use head room data as this depends on seat height data.

    If maximum ground clearance is your criteria for picking a vehicle, then LaCrosse is your car.
  • As I noted in my previous post, it is an approximation that ground clearance and floor height are related. While there is clearly no absolute relationship between the two, unless a manufacturer is really stupid, ground clearance and floor height will be fairly similar. At least in a car, it would be less than smart to have a high floor and lots of stuff dangling far below the level of the floor.

    Finally, as I noted in my previous post, we did not consider ground clearance when we chose to buy the Lacrosse - it was primarily its ride and quiteness that attracted us. For the type of roads we occassionally drive on in the hills of Colorado, the higher ground clearance will likely be an added benefit.
  • badgerfanbadgerfan Posts: 1,564
    I guess you haven't looked at a Toyota Camry tailpipe lately!
Sign In or Register to comment.