Howdy, Stranger!

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





Buick Lucerne

1111214161753

Comments

  • 62vetteefp62vetteefp Posts: 6,048
    How we forget out history. We had a huge gas problem back then. Our government put MPG requirements on the cars. The large cars were supposedly dead and we had to go to more efficient smaller FWD cars quick. No hump, lighter weight, etc. Cars also became more boxy for effiency. That is why SUV's became popular. Most folks still wanted the carrying capacity of the old cars and bought them instead. But then, just like today, high gas prices are temporary.

    I really doubt the Lucerne will go RWD in the future, same with the DTS. Too much going for FWD cars. Too many people like the FWD vehicles. The Town Car/Vic/Marquis were mentioned. These cars are only kept around for the fleets-taxi/airport/police, etc. W/O the fleet volume they would have been gone long ago. Hardly any retail sales anymore. When Impala went FWD they got all the fleet business and GM felt it was not profitable enough to sell to the fleets.

    But, do not worry, GM will be coming out with more RWD models for those who want them.

    As far as $18K LeSabres? I guess they will have to try and find something else if they cannot afford the $28K nicer Lucernes. Maybe they can afford a malibu? Impalas start at $22K.
  • sls002sls002 Posts: 2,788
    The 95 Aurora/Riviera were on an all new platform, I think called the G platform. This design was intended to bring GM's full size FWD cars up to the standards set by the E-class Mercedes body design. All of the full size cars moved onto this platform, the Park Avenue in 1997, the Seville in 1998 and the rest (Bonneville, LeSabre and Deville) in 2000.

    GM moved the full size cars to FWD as a response to the 1979-1980 oil crisis. They were intended to be 1984 models, and were in the design phase in the early 80's when better fuel economy was a top priority. GM probably went overboard, but at the time (1981), it was a good plan. Ronald Regan was just starting to clean up the mess :P
  • sls002sls002 Posts: 2,788
    I do not know what GM's longer term plans are for the DTS/Lucerne. I doubt that they can build only one of them. I think that the total sales need to run at 200,000 to make production profitable. So, if sales of the DTS+Lucerne fall short, then a RWD replacement might make sense depending on what the large sedan market wants. I would like to see a nice RWD station wagon. But even a nice FWD wagon would be OK. I am thinking a CTS wagon would be good. I think that if the sigma platform could be expanded to include some production for Buick this would be good. However, this would require additional sigma production capacity, and I think that this platform is too expensive for where the Buick prices need to be to sell. What I see as possible is a somewhat less costly platform that could serve as a basis for a large luxury RWD Cadillac sedan and a nice, but cost effective Buick sedan. Some wagons would probably be a good plan too. We do not need a sports sedan on this platform, that is what the sigma platform is about.
  • Hate to burst your bubble but you couldnt buy a lesabre NEW for 18000.. The lowest priced msrp's were about 26-27. Maybe low 20's but certainly not 18000. :)
  • daryll44daryll44 Posts: 306
    OK, fair enough. The ads I saw here probably had tiny fine print with "cash or trade required of $XXXX dollars" to get to the $18,000 number.

    I actually WENT AND SAW the Lucerne today. Nice, but as you guys point out, just a recycled '95 Aurora.

    And thanks for the GM history lesson. I do find it interesting that Ford kept the large RWD cars long after GM quit. SUV sales, however, didn't take off right as GM shrunk their big cars in 1985, however. The original 1991 Ford Explorer was what started it all.

    For what it's worth, speaking of downsizing, I clearly remember going with my father to the Oldsmobile dealer in the fall of 1976. We we both shocked that the '77 Olds 98 coupe that had just come off the truck was indeed a 98. We thought it was a Cutlass. And we couldn't believe that the public would ever accept such a small vehicle as their flagship vehicle. Cutlass didn't shrink until the following year so for model year 1977 both vehicles were very similar in size. In the end the public loved those 1977 thru 1984 big GM vehicles that lived on with the Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham into the 1990s (I think the original downsized 1977 Caprice bodystyle lived on longer than the rest, too. Not to mention the bulbous, short lived, attempt to update it starting in 1989 or 1990).

    Anyway this trip down GM memory lane is fun. Aspiring to and getting a GM vehicle was truly the Mark of Excellence. It's too bad what it's devolved into. The GM vehicles are "good", but today "good" isn't enough to move metal. "Good" is just a starting point. Now that I see what Lucerne is...just more recycled GM parts bin...I can't imagine that it will be a major winner. Those who like that parts bin will love it, but it's a recycled Aurora from 10 years ago.
  • daryll44daryll44 Posts: 306
    Oh, one more thing: Am I correct that the 2005 LeSabre, the final year for it...is essentially the same car as the 1986 "original FWD" vehicle? Or was that changed to something else, too, along the way?
  • Since I have carped about it twice here, I feel compelled to announce that the Lucerne web site has been fixed at least with respect to the build-your-buick paint prices.
  • 62vetteefp62vetteefp Posts: 6,048
    "Since I have carped about it twice here, I feel compelled to announce that the Lucerne web site has been fixed at least with respect to the build-your-buick paint prices. "

    Just had to call the right person!
  • 62vetteefp62vetteefp Posts: 6,048
    It will be quite a stretch to hit 200,000 DTS/Lucernes a year. Hope they can do it though!!

    CTS station wagon exists. Called an SRX.
  • jh1977jh1977 Posts: 40
    Can Somebody please explain to me why GM did not add more HP(Maybe at least 230 HP)to the old 3.8 Liter engine currently in the Base 2006 Lucerne. For 2006 the HP in the base Lucerne is 197. Or why didn't GM put the 3.9 Liter engine with 240 HP (Currently in the 2006 Chevy Impala)in the base 2006 Lucerne. For me the V8 engine in the 2006 Lucerne waste a lot of gasoline and I don't need a V8 engine for my driving needs. I Currently have a Buick Lesabre and was thinking about buying the new Lucerne with a V6 engine until I found out the V6 engine in the Base Lucerne has less HP than my Lesabre. I'm considering buying the 2006 Chevy Impala with the 3.9 Liter engine.
  • johnclineiijohnclineii Posts: 2,287
    By all accounts, the 3800 is soon going away...as such, it will not be modified at this late date. As for the V8, don't forget it DOES have displacement on demand...

    And if you buy an Impala, GM will still be pleased...it's all the same company! :)
  • 62vetteefp62vetteefp Posts: 6,048
    "Can Somebody please explain to me why GM did not add more HP(Maybe at least 230 HP)to the old 3.8 Liter engine currently in the Base 2006 Lucerne. For 2006 the HP in the base Lucerne is 197. Or why didn't GM put the 3.9 Liter engine with 240 HP (Currently in the 2006 Chevy Impala)in the base 2006 Lucerne. For me the V8 engine in the 2006 Lucerne waste a lot of gasoline and I don't need a V8 engine for my driving needs. I Currently have a Buick Lesabre and was thinking about buying the new Lucerne with a V6 engine until I found out the V6 engine in the Base Lucerne has less HP than my Lesabre. I'm considering buying the 2006 Chevy Impala with the 3.9 Liter engine."

    As was said above the 3.8L is gone very soon for a number of reasons so it would make no sense to redesign it for HP. 200 is plenty for everyday driving for most customers. It is only left in the LaCrosse, Grand Prix and Lucerne. I believe it was used in the Buicks because GM gradually ramped up the manufacturing capacity of the new 3.9 engine family and Buick has had a tradition, and customer base, using the 3.8L. To me it should be the last ones to use it of any division. There are a lot of Buick buyers that love the engine.

    As far as less HP than the older one it is the same exact engine except for some noise improvements. In actuality due to the new way of measuring/advertising HP there is probably a true difference of 6HP and that is lost due to the quieter mufflers. Not many will notice the 6HP. Also most will buy the V8 in the Lucerne.

    As far as the Impala, the LaCrosse is available with the 3.6L DOHC with 240HP.
  • I agree. You haven't been able to buy a new LeSabre for 18000 for several years. Even with the GM discount this past summer, you couldn't get one that low. When I bought my 95 Roadmaster in 96, you could get one at that price. Talking about RWD, they never should have stopped making the Roadmaster!
  • daryll44daryll44 Posts: 306
    I agree...the Roadmaster was a nice throwback to the golden era of GM. And a nicer alternative to the Caprice of that era and a better size than the larger Cadillac Brougham.

    Is Impala on the same platform as Lucerne or LaCrosse?
  • 62vetteefp62vetteefp Posts: 6,048
    Impala is the W architecture same as Grand Prix/LaCrosse/Monte Carlo
  • rayainswrayainsw Posts: 2,504
    “By all accounts the 3800 is soon going away...as such, it will not be modified at this late date. As for the V8, don't forget it DOES have displacement on demand...”

    Hi John!

    To be clear, since this is the Lucerne thread, the Impala’s (and Grand Prix’s) 5.3L OHV V8 has DoD. The Northstar V8 version available in the Lucerne does not.

    - Ray
    Enjoying DoD . .
  • bruneau1bruneau1 Posts: 468
    I have owned a few Buicks in the last ten years, so I was interested to see what Buick has done with the Lucerne. I drove the cxs and a middle model with the v-6. It is a very quiet car and seems to be nicely made. The v-8 is more energetic, of course, but it needs a 5-spd- it tends to need prodding on to get the performance. Unfortunately, the alignment was bad and there was a tire balance problem. The magnetic shock absorbers do a good job, but I don't care for the 50 series tires which pick up too many little bumps. The trend toward lower and lower profile tires is one I deplore. The v-6 had a smoother ride under most conditions, but the old 3800, while improved once again, seemed lethargic, especially with only 4 speeds. It too took prodding, only more of it. The rear end is too plain, but I like the front. Nice car, but not for me right now.
  • evandroevandro Posts: 1,108
    I don't either. Apparently, each model has a premium engine. The Lucerne the base is the 3.8 V6 and the premium, the 4.6 V8; the La Crosse, 3.8 V6 and 3.6 V6.

    It's really a pity, for the 3.6 V6 in the La Crosse has all the virtues of the 3.8 V6 (low-end torque) without its vices: it's a smooth engine with a spirited response over its entire RPM range.

    I own a Bonneville '02 with the 3.8 V6 and love it, but it's time for it to go.

    And, no, the 3.9 V6 is too coarse compared to the 3.6 V6. At least on a Buick, IMO.
  • sls002sls002 Posts: 2,788
    So, what did you not understand in my post #401. I said that the LeSabre moved onto the Aurora platform in model year 2000.
  • sls002sls002 Posts: 2,788
    The SRX is not a station wagon. It is an SUV built on a car platform, otherwise it is nearly like the trailblazer in size. A CTS wagon would not be more than 60 inches tall, the SRX is 68.
  • 62vetteefp62vetteefp Posts: 6,048
    Ahh, the definition of a truck comes up. SRX is considered a truck but so are can most all station wagons.
    There are no rules that define a station wagon to be a car by height or any other dimension. Most rules say if it has a flat load floor it is a truck. Depends on who is making the rules. But the SRX uses the same architecture and suspension as the CTS. Just a bit taller. No one wants to build a vehicle anymore and call it a station wagon. Kiss of death. (unless you are mercedes)
  • sls002sls002 Posts: 2,788
    My thinking on the sales are that the LeSabre used to sell 114,000+ in 2003 and 2004. The Deville has been sliding, but used to sell near 100,000. Then there were Park Avenue sales in addition, so my thinking is that the Lucerne sales should run over 100,000 and the DTS should recover to something closer to 90,000. However, I think that the deVille sales have dropped because the CTS has taken some away and now the STS will steal more.
  • 62vetteefp62vetteefp Posts: 6,048
    We sold a lot of Buick Fleet in the last years of the LeSabre. The Lucerne will cutting way back (as is all of Buick) and letting Chevrolet have that business. Also the Lucerne is a bit more expensive and fewer sales in that price range. Some say that truck sales will go down and car sales will go up but what will really happen is that the crossovers will take over the truck sales and sedan sales will go down.

    http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051209/AUTO01/512090408/1148- /AUTO01

    Hopefully they will sell over 200K!
  • jh1977jh1977 Posts: 40
    If the 3800 is going away soon, what will be the replacement engine in the base Lucerne and when will it occur? The V8 engine in the 2006 Lucerne is the Cadillac Northstar Engine, it does not have the displacement on demand.
  • 14871487 Posts: 2,407
    Unfortunately, I think this engine is going to be around at least two more years. Now that doesnt mean it will be in the Lucerne, but my understanding is that the factory that makes these engines wont close until 2007 or 2008. I would hope GM drops the 3.9L in the Lucerne for the 2007 MY and couples that wil a 6 speed auto. I dont think anyone knows whether the 3.6 VVT, 3.5L or 3.9L will replace the 3800 in this car. I know there is a capacity problem with the 3.6 and that is why it is offered in only five vehicles right now. The factory where it is built is being expanded.
  • sls002sls002 Posts: 2,788
    The traditional station wagon was made out the sedan body by adding a pillar at the rear of the car and extending the roof to the backend. The wagon was about the same height as the sedan. The SRX is larger than the CTS and is able to handle the northstar V8, while the CTS is not wide enough for that engine I think. The SRX is more of an STS than a CTS. Now I think that a true crossover is something between a wagon and an SUV. Something with a height of about 62 to 64 inches. BMW makes some station wagons in both the 3 and 5 series. They also make SUV's.
  • sls002sls002 Posts: 2,788
    The 3800 should be in production till the end of the 2008 model year. That is three model years for the Lucerne. So, if the Lucerne remains in production for the 2009 model year, then they could drop a V6 model, or put either the 3.9 or a 3.6 DOHC engine in. A lot has to depend on how the Lucerne does for sales over the next couple of years. I should point out that there are two 3.6 engines, the LaCrosse version with only 225 lb-ft of torque and the CTS version with 250 lb-ft of torque. The difference seems to be in the intake manifold, which is variable on the CTS.
  • sv7887sv7887 Posts: 351
    Hi Everyone,
    Judging from the Perfect Rating Lucerne owners have given the car, it seems that people so far are happy with it. Any owners out there that want to share their experiences thus far?
    I was reading JD Power's press release on Customer Loyalty. Buick was only at 41.8% Retention. The industry average was close to 50%. I find that rather unusual considering Buick's strong Quality scores.

    One theory of mine is that GM uses "blowout" sales to move their cars. This would lead consumers to buy solely on Price. Such consumers are normally not loyal to the "Value" product and have a high propensity to defect from the brand when the opportunity arises.

    I think GM is addressing this problem with a better product. The Lucerne is not only a good value, but it is a car of substance. I'm hoping a 6 speed Auto will come out soon. A Northstar with a 6 speed ought to deliver some serious performance.

    SV
  • bunoybunoy Posts: 7
    Greetings All !

    In the market for a new car, 35k or under. I looked at ES330, but apparently the model has transmission problems not addressed by Lexus. Also looked at CTS, but they have diffrential problems not yet solved.
    Being that the Lucerne is based on the DTS, and from GM parts bin as per one post....can we disregard 1st year model problems?? and have good reliability? I know no car is perfect, but I would like mine to last at least 10 years without major repairs.

    Also has anyone driven the v6 and felt this from Edmunds review:
    "Extra power aside, the main reason to get a V8 Lucerne is because the steering feels wobbly on-center in V6 models, sullying an otherwise enjoyable driving experience."

    Never thought I would consider a Buick but the Lucerne is nice.
  • zen2zen2 Posts: 226
    That is ridiculous.
Sign In or Register to comment.