Howdy, Stranger!

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





Mainstream Large Sedans Comparison

1309310312314315333

Comments

  • patpat Posts: 10,421
    Okay, let's everyone step back and take a few breaths here. We can have differences of opinions and viewpoints without making it personal.

    Several personally directed posts have been removed. Let's move on, please.
  • snaglepussnaglepus Posts: 160
    Please contact me privately.

    Regards
  • alexstorealexstore Posts: 264
    There is an article today on edmunds about people getting from 1.5 to 2 times EPA FE in their cars. IN the past I achieved 35 mpg mostly highway mpg in my 05 Maxima and thats 9 mpg higher than new EPA estimate. I am currently carpooling with a guy and my mpg is expected to fall by at least 1-2 mpg , but I am still managing to get 30-32 mpg.
    I used both computer and gas station estimate and they are in my case are almost same. I reset computer @ a gas station few miles from highway. I can only imagine my FE if I did it once I reached my cruising speed. I also try to keep 59-64 constant speed AC or open windows have small effect on FE ( about 1-2 mpg loss)
  • jontyreesjontyrees Posts: 159
    I have the 18" rims with 225/55 tires on my Taurus - any idea if the overall diameter is different than the 17" rims? I don't know what tire size the 17" rims come with. That might account for the disparity in calculated rpm at 80mph and what I'm seeing on the tach. I'd guess I'm at around 2150rpm at 80mph, (which is "around 2k rpm" for me).
  • snaglepussnaglepus Posts: 160
    Pirelli does not list either the overall diameter for your tire or the revs per mile.
    Is that your brand?
    That brand is what TireRack lists as OEM for the 2008 Taurus FWD LTD model.

    For other brands, you can use anywhere between 746 and 750 revs per mile for that size.

    This tire would indeed be bigger in overall diameter than the 215-60-17s listed for the SEL models.
    Those tires are 767 revs per mile.

    Perhaps you are on to something. That is a considerable difference in tire diameter.
    Do you know for sure what the overall gear ratio is for your car when it is in overdrive 6th gear?
  • jontyreesjontyrees Posts: 159
    Yup - Pirelli P6 4 Seasons 225/55R18 - quite a lot of rubber. I don't know the gear ratios.
  • drwilscdrwilsc Posts: 140
    Evidently Buick is dropping the 3.8 liter engine in favor of the 3.9 liter as the base V6 engine for the 2009 Lucerne. Any comments? Does this make the V6 Lucerne a more viable option, with the roughly 30 hp improvement over the 3.8?
  • joe97joe97 Posts: 2,248
    So the power rating would go from 197hp on the 3.8L V6 to 240hp ton the 3.9L V6.

    The question to beg, why not the 3.6L V6?
  • tjc78tjc78 JerseyPosts: 5,023
    IMO its not that big of an improvement. The MPG should be similar, (using the Impala's #s) however the highway # comes with the use of cylinder deactivation. The 3.9 is also a dated OHV design, at least it has VVT. Like joe97 said GMs 3.6 is the better option here, however, I read somewhere that the 3.6 is not setup to be installed where the Lucerne is being built. IMO if they aren't putting the 3.6 in, keep the 3800 at the very least the Buick lovers will be happy as that engine has a following so to speak. Bulletproof it is... rough, noisy and underpowered in todays standards... that too.

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

  • tonycdtonycd Posts: 223
    Like I said, if you brought the Genesis out with NO badging on it and sat folks in it and asked them to give their opinion of what the car should be worth...

    This should be done, and then the final test is to smash them into a brick wall.


    The cars, or the folks?
  • tonycdtonycd Posts: 223
    I disagree. As Car and Driver put it so well in the bad old days of Cadillac:

    "You don't always get what you pay for. Sometimes, you get less."
  • drwilscdrwilsc Posts: 140
    The 3.9 in the Lucerne should make somewhere between 227 hp (like in the G6 convertible) and 240 hp (like in the Impala).

    As far as the 3.6 liter, it is already used in the Malibu/Aura, CTS, STS, SRX, etc. I wonder if GM needed to 'use up' their supply of 3.9's? The 3.9, being more of a torquey engine, may make more sense in a larger car like the Lucerne.
  • brucelincbrucelinc Posts: 814
    I don't know the gear ratios.

    The Ford website shows the Taurus FWD to have a 3.16 axle ratio and the AWD version to be 2.77. I suspect they printed it backwards. Based on the revs per mile that a tech at my dealer provided me, it makes more sense that the FWD model is the one with the 2.77 axle. The OD gear is .74 so we are looking at about a 2.05 overall top gear.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    It's not a big deal, but I thought the Impala 3.9L had 233hp. ?
  • drwilscdrwilsc Posts: 140
    I stand corrected. Still, that is 36 more hp than the 197 in the Lucerne's 3.8. Consumer Reports clocked a 3.9 liter Impala 0-60 in 7.8 sec, just a hair slower than the 7.5 sec. 0-60 run they got in the Lucerne V8. The Lucerne 3.8 was clocked at 9.2 sec. Do keep in mind, however, that the Impala is slightly lighter than the Lucerne.

    Let's say the 3.9 in the Lucerne is good for low-8 0-60 times. That makes it more in line with other makes and closer to the V8 Lucerne, with some benefit with the sticker price and at the pump.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Indeed, not a big deal (233 v. 240) but the big deal is 233 vs. 197. Motor Trend had a 3.8L Lucerne at 8.8 seconds to 60, with the V8 Lucerne at something like 7.2 seconds (I'll have to look it up).

    The 3.9 ought to be good for at least 8 seconds, a notable improvement.

    UPDATE: Car and Driver quoted the 2006 Lucerne CXS at 6.9 seconds to 60 saying this:
    From a standing start, you get an initial jump off the torque converter up to 7 or so mph, followed by a sag as you wait for the twister V-8 to take over, which it does at about 28 mph; 60 mph comes up at just a tick under seven seconds (6.9), followed by the quarter-mile mark in 15.3 at 94 mph.

    They also say this about the 2007 Impala LTZ, with the 3.9L.

    Its 233 horsepower is enough to giddyap to 60 mph in 7.4 seconds, and the 15.6-second quarter-mile pass at 91 mph is respectable for what this car is.

    Not a whole lot better with the Northstar, eh? For the record, Consumer Guide tested an Impala LT 3.5L with a curb weight of 3,555 lbs. The Lucerne CXL in the same publication was tested with a curb weight of 3,764 lbs, or about the weight of an extra decent-sized passenger.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    shame when GMs (or any mfgrs.) ability to compete is dictated by plants they are contractually obligated to keep open and/or their poor finances dictate an inability to produce enough quantity of a good thing (the 3.6) . Don't think the 3.9 is much better - other than being a proper 60 d. V6, the very thought of that engine (the 3.9) at 5600 rpm (where all the hp is) enough to make me wince just thinking about it. More torque will certainly make any car more driveable, but that projected (and not really class competitive) acceleration comes from that torque as it is applied over time - otherwise known as horsepower The Lucerne has much going for it, although very little under the hood, it looks like it will remain that way - GMs stepchild!
  • plektoplekto Posts: 3,707
    Just because an engine has OHV or other "older" technologies doesn't mean it's rubbish. Often these engines are very reliable and inexpensive to repair because they DO use these simpler technologies.

    I'd rather have a more reliable and less costly to repair drivetrain than the type of nonsense that you're seeing recently. $3500-$4000 to fix a transmission? That's robbery. Yet that's what one costs on most Toyotas now. BMW or Audi or any of the others aren't any different, either. A 3800 plus 4 speed - the entire engine and transmission can be replaced for under $3500.

    The 3.6 not being offered is simply because they don't have enough production - they are being put into CTSs instead.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    The 3.6 not being offered is simply because they don't have enough production - they are being put into CTSs instead.

    It's a shame, because the Lucerne should get this engine and drop the now-behind-the-times Northstar. Tune the engine with the same 275hp/251lb-ft as in the Acadia/Outlook XR and give it a transmission from this side of the ninteen eighties and it might have a fighting chance against the Avalon/Azera/Taurus in the engine room.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    Since most of the folks here are primarily new car buyers and owners, it sure would seem silly to pay that much money for anything that is so clearly inferior. Heck, we could go back to the horse and buggy and only have to buy some horseshoes - and hay. The chances of my 05 Avalon having any problems with it for the first 75000 or so are pretty remote - oh wait, it already has - repair costs $0. Your glass must always be half-empty, if you are out buying substandard vehicles because you are worried about tranny repair costs that never happen.

    OTH if I was looking to buy a car on a tight budget, didn't care about FE, or driving wallowing whales I'd get in line for that late model Crown Vic you seem to favor. Dirt cheap now - and later - and worth every penny!
Sign In or Register to comment.