Howdy, Stranger!

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





Mainstream Large Sedans Comparison

1293294296298299333

Comments

  • tjc78tjc78 JerseyPosts: 5,025
    but don't have nearly the problem with a $500 lease payment

    What is really funny is when they lease them, blow the miles allowed then end up buying out the lease and financing the residual for 5 more years. Imagine 8 years paying for a car? Oh, and BTW that 12 year thing Allmet mentioned, you would have to be on something :confuse:

    1999 Chevy S10 / 2004 Merc Grand Marquis / 2012 Buick LaCrosse

  • tjc78tjc78 JerseyPosts: 5,025
    the power plant in the Avy feels just as responsive if not more ( due to less weight ) than the Northstar

    All one has to do is go and drive a Lucerne V8 and an Avalon back to back. The difference becomes apparent right away. While the Lucerne is a very nice driving car the Northstar does not spool up like the Toyota 2GR and the Avalon feels noticably quicker. As has been noted the Northstar is a great engine, but isn't it already outclassed by GMs own 3.6 direct injection V6?

    That's a tried and true engine that Gm employs, but at 197 hp, it needs to go

    That's an understatement. However, if it does anything for GM it keeps the reliability ratings up.

    1999 Chevy S10 / 2004 Merc Grand Marquis / 2012 Buick LaCrosse

  • allmet33allmet33 Posts: 3,557
    Trust me...I'm with you on this one. I mean...the fact that you're paying for a car for 12 years seems ridiculous by itself. However, stretching it over 12 years would make the terms and payments more like a typical 5 year loan on an average $30-40K vehicle. I think it's only available for vehicles above the $55K range. The only thing that could save you in the event of an accident...gap insurance.

    I couldn't believe it either, but it does exist and there are plenty of folks that will go to that length just to have a premium vehicle. Just to be able to say they drive one. I'm sorry, I can't do that to myself. :sick:
  • allmet33allmet33 Posts: 3,557
    Hey Captain...remember how you said Hyundai was wrong for employing the use of comparisons to premium sedans in their commercials and we went back and forth about it?

    Have you seen the latest Lucerne commercial? They mention that it has more room than the ES350 and then it goes on to say, if you want to beat a Lexus, there's room for that too! LMAO (I'm sorry...I had to interject that one). The sad thing here is that in order for the Lucerne to "beat" the ES350, it would have to do so in V-8 trim. Now THAT...is sick!!!
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    give me a break - of course the ES is smaller than a Lucerne, it is an optioned out Camry - Buick is comparing apples and oranges and conveniently forgets about their own Lacrosse that can be had with the better V6 incidentally. And no the ES is not in the same class as the other Lexus products. In fact, I would imagine that the ES's very existence is viewed with some disdain by those folks that spent the extra money on a 'proper' Lexus - things like the ISs/GSs/LSs. Had Buick been trying to compare that Lucerne more properly with the LS, or FTM if Toyota was trying to compare an Avalon to the LS then I have the same problem with that that I have with Hyundai comparing the Sonata to a 5 series, or a non-existent Genesis to something more than that.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    if it does anything for GM it keeps the reliability ratings up
    actually I believe it is the Northstar equipped Lucernes doing better reliability wise than those wheezy 50 year old V6 models.
  • allmet33allmet33 Posts: 3,557
    RIGHT! Thus I had to interject the LMAO in that posting. Not only comparing the whole interior space thing, but the nerve to say the Lucerne can beat the ES. What they aren't saying is that it would take the V-8 variant to "beat" the ES with a V-6. Go with the V-6 variant of the Lucerne and the ES would stomp all over it! ;)
  • tjc78tjc78 JerseyPosts: 5,025
    the Northstar equipped Lucernes doing better reliability wise

    That is weird. If anything the 3.8 4 speed combo was always great in the relability department.

    1999 Chevy S10 / 2004 Merc Grand Marquis / 2012 Buick LaCrosse

  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    don't profess to understand all that googlygook about engines and torque
    this is kind of simple -if I may. Torque is an actual measurement of 'twisting force' or power - and it is indeed what you feel in the seat of your pants when you hit the accelerator. HP is torque applied over a period of time and is a direct indicator of a car's ability to do useful things -like accelerate.

    The mathematical relationship between the two is: HP=(torque*rpm)/5252.

    Therefore as engine speed increases so does the HP, and likewise if a particular engine is slower to increase its rpms it is also slower to increase HP, or if an engine is rpm limited the HP it produces will be less. This is why a diesel car will usually feel quicker then it actually is - you start with very high torque at a comparatively low rpm but the engine is not only rpm limited but it is also slow to increase them.
    Things that will generally make for an engine with lots of torque include engine size and type - the more cylinders and/or cubic inches the better, compression ratios -turbo and/or supercharging, and engine geometry (longer piston stroke = more torque), all among other things. Truckers all worship torque for obvious reasons - it is what gets that 30 ton+ trailer moving, and they are too terribly concerned with the fact that it might take a few minutes to get up to highway speeds. As big torquey engines apply to cars we drive every day, it is exactly as pletko says, a lot of torque accessible in lower rpm ranges will generally make for a more driveable car - the difference now is that we are starting to see engines like the CVVTi 2GR Toyota engine is that now we can 'program' the engine (by continuously varying, intake/exhaust valve and spark timings) to maximum efficiency and get that same accessible torque in an engine that revs more freely (think HP). Not to mention the added benefit of having less displacement and fewer cylinders to feed (think FE) Kinda the best of both worlds - smaller and more efficient engine, max engine torque still available at usable levels, all leading to cars this days that are cat quick, producing unheard of FE levels relative to performance.
  • alexstorealexstore Posts: 264
    nice review.

    one thing that is missing is DI.
  • tonycdtonycd Posts: 223
    "Buick forgets about their own Lacrosse that can be had with the better V6 incidentally."

    Sadly, not anymore. Now all you can get is the ancient 3.8, unless you get the Super with the pushrod V8 from the Impala SS.

    By the way, dragging this message back on-topic: I accepted the other poster's challenge to price the Lucerne CXL V8. But while there, I also checked its specs. Yes, the CXL has a package with the Northstar. But stability control (standard on Avalon and Azera) is an extra-cost option even at a $34K sticker, and you can't get the Magnaride suspension at all. That's critical, because everyone who's tested the car says it pitches like the Queen Mary without it. So if you want a Lucerne that drives well, you're still talking the CX$.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    Sadly, not anymore. Now all you can get is the ancient 3.8,
    REALLY, to me this is another indication of the sorry straits that GM must be in - seemingly they can't produce enough of the 3.6s (can you say Malibu) and are forced instead (UAW?) to continue with the 3.8 that nobody wants. Think SC is also optional on Avalons as well BTW- it's almost not possible to find one without it though - another excuse to add $600 to the price, I guess.
    As far as the 'tightened up' MagnaRide, agree with you, it does make the Lucerne decidedly not like a Buick, much like the Avalon Touring mods. take away a good piece of it being an Avalon. But, different strokes for different folks - for many buyers in this class, the 'softer' the 'better'.
  • allmet33allmet33 Posts: 3,557
    Well...GM must be able to produce enough of the 3.6's because not only is it in the Malibu, but it's also in the Aura too (and was long before the Malibu was introduced).
  • tjc78tjc78 JerseyPosts: 5,025
    and you can't get the Magnaride suspension at all

    There is a special edition CXL coming soon that will have the Magna Ride and the V8 as an option. Right now the V8 is only available on the CXS. There is almost always rebates on the Lucerne that will lower the OTD price as well. If you don't mind the FE penalty the V8 Lucerne is nice. However, I think the Avalon is the overall better bet with the 2GR V6 (quicker and better FE) and while it will cost more initially it will hold its value better.

    1999 Chevy S10 / 2004 Merc Grand Marquis / 2012 Buick LaCrosse

  • cobrazeracobrazera Posts: 352
    Direct Injection. Which by itself does little, if anything, for power. The power comes when the compression ratio is raised. The ability to raise the compression ratio and still run on pump gas is due to the fuel being injected directly into the cylinder ( not the intake port ) just prior to combustion.
    Port injection systems inject the fuel into the port and then the gas/air mixture enters into the combustion chamber. It's temperature rises as it's compressed, and if the octane rating is not high enough for the engine's compression ratio, it'll preignite without a spark ( known as knock or detonation ).
    Note that the DI engines in use today will commonly run a compression ratio of about 12:1, not the 10:1 which is pretty normal for modern, non DI engines.
    The old hot rodders rule of thumb is that a 1 point rise in compression ratio will yield up to 10% more power.
    DI systems require higher pressure injection systems and very precise metering of the fuel, hence, higher cost.
  • tjc78tjc78 JerseyPosts: 5,025
    GM must be able to produce enough of the 3.6's

    How could you forget the Acadia triplets. That is where GM is allocating most of the 3.6s to. I am sure they make more money selling those than the relatively low volume LaCrosse.

    1999 Chevy S10 / 2004 Merc Grand Marquis / 2012 Buick LaCrosse

  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    and in your Outlook/Acadia/Enclaves, not to mention the CTSs.and the high volume Malibu. The LaCrosse would seem sell about as much as something like the Aura and NOT put that much more production 'load' on the factory(s) that build the 3.6 - this is why it is it so 'confusing' that the 3.6 would no longer be around for the LaCrosse. :confuse:
  • cobrazeracobrazera Posts: 352
    are forced instead (UAW?) to continue with the 3.8 that nobody wants
    I think you hit the nail on the head, when you mentioned Malibu. We have discussed the 3.6 shortage before.
    Considering how many GM vehicles use the engine, there's no wonder it's in short supply. As I've mentioned before, I live by Flint where the 3800 is made and ( drumroll, please ) that engine is in it's last year.
    The LaCrosse was the only vehicle on that platform ( Grand Prix, Impala ) that used the 3.6 engine, and the typical LaCrosse buyer probably had no clue that they were getting a modern, hi-tech engine anyway. It's probably cheaper to produce the 5300 V8 than the 3.6, and it makes production simpler without having to worry about the additional engine.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    it's a sorry state of affairs when the 'Indians' tell the 'Chief' that they won't be 'allowed' to offer a competitive product.... :cry:
Sign In or Register to comment.