Howdy, Stranger!

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





Mainstream Large Sedans Comparison

16162646667222

Comments

  • batistabatista Posts: 159
    well yes it does and no it doesn't - the 'trick' that Pontiac used to 'hide' it - smaller tries and wheels on the front than on the rear.

    You are not right this time. Actually wide tires are used at the front.
    Tires, P255/45R18 front, P225/50R18, rear

    Why would they use smaller tires at the front? It's not RWD remember.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    255/45 IS a smaller tire/wheel combo than 225/50 - why would they do that all has to do with that gyroscope mentioned by joe131, the inertial forces created are less with the smaller tire - therefore less torque steer. Not a bad idea, although it does mess with evening out tire wear - and sure, many RWD cars do come that way.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    yep a ludricrous assertion, I drive the 'tightened up' Touring - which does allow some bumps and a tad of road noise thru, and think that I have a little more road feel thru the recalibrated steering. To call it a 'sports sedan' though, despite the wonderful power, is almost as 'nuts' as pletko's comments.
  • Karen_CMKaren_CM Posts: 5,032
    A reporter is hoping to talk with Buick Lucerne owners who never before owned a Buick. Please reply to ctalati@edmunds.com no later than Thursday, May 10, 2007 with your daytime contact info and a few words about your experience.

    A reporter is hoping to talk with Buick Lucerne owners who are long-time Buick loyalists. Please reply to ctalati@edmunds.com no later than Thursday, May 10, 2007 with your daytime contact info and a few words about your experience.

    Community Manager If you have any questions or concerns about the Forums, send me an email, karen@edmunds.com, or click on my screen name to send a personal message.

  • allmet33allmet33 Posts: 3,557
    To a degree I would agree, but for cars packing 200+ hp, it's a non-issue as we know all of them can pretty much merge into highway traffic with ease. It's the smaller 4 bangers (some) that would be the rule in this case.

    It's funny, but when I was driving my grossly underpowered '87 Excel, I NEVER had a problem with merging into highway traffic. It's a matter of knowing your vehicle and doing so at a moment that provides you with a safe merge.

    The problem is too many folks want to use that hp to stick themselves into traffic regardless of whether traffic affords the opportunity or not. I see folks driving Accents, Corollas, Sentras, Versas, all those sub-compact cars with tiny little 4 bangers that can merge into traffic with no problems.
  • tjc78tjc78 JerseyPosts: 5,025
    No, you are right its not a sports sedan. However, I do think that it strikes a good balance between a soft ride (mine is an XLS) and handling. Its been a while now but I did drive a Touring and don't remember it being that much firmer than the XLS/Limited. I never drove an XL but would suspect that with 16" rims and taller tires that it would ride softer than the rest.

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

  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    had an XL rental for a period of time a did find the XL substantially softer - but you may be right - a function of the tire size, assume yours is also the 215/55/17 Michelins?
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    sorry, misread the tire sizing - the GP "trick' actually the reverse of what I said. Here's an article about it:
    http://www.caranddriver.com/roadtests/9964/pontiac-grand-prix-gxp.html
  • tjc78tjc78 JerseyPosts: 5,025
    Same size but mine came with the Bridgestones. They are just OK. Pretty noisy on the highway and aren't wearing that well.

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

  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    an simple comparison of HP/lb. in my mind can help us decide when accelerative power is sufficient or marginal.
    The Avalon, Azera, Maxima (as well as those Detroit V8s) will all figure at about 13 lbs/HP (or better) and therefore have similarily quick accelerative capabilities. It is those Lucerne 3.8s and 500s that have to pull 18-19 lbs or so, that don't accelerate nearly as well. Your point about adjusting to what you got is right on, it wasn't until recently that cars like these (6 sec+) even existed. Sometimes I wonder how we made it thru the 80s and 90s with the selection of relative 'dogs' available to us? ;) Suggest to you that had Hyundai decided to put that older 194hp 3.5 in the Azera or Toyota had stuck with the 200hp 3.0, we would have the same 'problem' as the Lucerne and 500.
  • allmet33allmet33 Posts: 3,557
    Yeah...looking at what is avaiable today, compared to 10 years ago...it is amazing we made it.

    Even with the Lucerne and the 500 using underpowered powerplants, the power is still sufficient to merge into traffic safely. Then again, offering an underpowered engine isn't so bad because there are plenty of folks that seem to be scared to push the gas pedal! LOL

    It's truly funny to see someone pay $50K+ for a high powered sports car...say a Vette and do the speed limit and watch a $10K sub-compact barrel down the highway at speeds in excess of 80 mph.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    Even with the Lucerne and the 500 using underpowered powerplants, the power is still sufficient to merge into traffic safely
    well, I guess, this might be where we disagree - but, then again, we both might be just a little spoiled? :D I drive usually between 4-500 miles per week, and would guess that there are a handful of times (5 or less) that I actually use a good part of the power my Avalon has. To me, that is enough to justify the 268 hp. Could I adjust to a 3.8 or a DT3.0, sure - but not without some wincing.
  • allmet33allmet33 Posts: 3,557
    I won't disagree with you on the being spoiled part. I came from an '02 Sonata (170 hp) into my Azera, so yeah...that was lethargic compared to now. However...I NEVER had an issue when I was driving the Sonata.

    There are times I have tapped the gas pedal more than a situation actually called for, but like you...the times I've really NEEDED it have been few. It is nice to know it's there though...that much I won't deny! ;)
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    your old Sonata should have logically run in the low 8s, in the same ballpark as the Lucerne and 500. 2 seconds doesn't sound like much, unless of course, you consider that that 2 seconds is about 180 feet (~12 car lengths) at 60.
  • cobrazeracobrazera Posts: 352
    Did you ever try paying the insurance on on of those high powered sports cars? It's bad enough with a clean record, add on a few points for barreling down the highway at 80+, then see the bill.

    My '99 Cobra is $840 a year versus $640 a year for my Azera.
  • tjc78tjc78 JerseyPosts: 5,025
    You obviously don't live in Jersey.... not to get off topic but I pay $2400, for an '06 Avalon and a 99 S-10 (liability only on the truck). Can't imagine if I had points or accidents. Also, if I had a Mustang like yours 4000+

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

  • allmet33allmet33 Posts: 3,557
    Oh...trust me I know!

    However, there's a new sherriff in town. I was watching Top Gear last night and they pitted a new Mitsubishi Lancer Evo against a Lamborghini Murcielago and even though the Evo had 1/3 the number of cylinders, it was pumping out over 400 bhp and the Lambo couldn't shake it on the track!!! Technology is amazing!

    Sorry to get off topic, but I had to share that!!!

    And now, back to our regularly scheduled program...

    I love my Azera!!!
  • allmet33allmet33 Posts: 3,557
    You are right, acutally mid-8's. However...I still never had any problems with merging, it was quite competent.
  • dborthdborth Posts: 474
    I had a '87 Volvo 740 Turbo Plus, 4-banger 180 hp/rwd. It ran 0 -60 according to Volvo in 7.7. Not bad for a heavy mid-size 4 door sedan of 20 years ago.

    (Quick return to Large Sedans)
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    Turbo and supercharging create engines of their own definition and their own set of problems in drivability and durability. Understand that the Chinese market Lucerne uses the Ecotec 4 banger as a base engine - can you imagine 150hp even trying to keep near 4000lbs. moving - guess the Chinese have not only a lot of time on their hands, but also bad hearing. Car of this size (and weight) IMO need a minimum of 240 hp or so (as well as 6 cylinders or more), hopefully without the 'benefits' of a turbo?
  • tjc78tjc78 JerseyPosts: 5,025
    150HP in the Lucerne. Painful! Speaking of the Lucerne, it boggles my mind why on earth Buick wouldn't put the 3.6 in the base model. Do you think it has something to do with the "loyalists" wanting the 3.8 from their LeSabres and Park Avs or is it GM just not having the money to make the change?

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

  • the engine is a Chevrolet V8. if ne1 knows any modification i could to the engine i will be very thankfull.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    had the experieince of driving the new Saturn Aura XR a couple of weeks back, and it is a relative revelation to all those other GM pushrod choices. Really good power (some torque steer), and a smoothness and willingness to rev never before seen in a 'Detroit' product. Not quite up to the Toyota/Honda/Nissan V6s in that dept. but close enough that few would notice the difference. I agree, the Lucerne would be much much better with the 3.6 than even the Northstar if for no other reason than FE.
    Think GMs problems with being able to do this may be more financial and labor related - they can't produce enough of the engines to use them line wide (the way Toyota and Nissan do), and may be constrained thru labor contracts from closing some of these plants that make the old stuff. Pletko would be disappointed though - it was a 6 speed auto in the one I drove and is subject to a little gear hunting on downshifts, much like many of these new (expensive to fix) 'high tech' trannies.
  • cnwcnw Posts: 105
    The width of the tires is the only thing that differs. The radius and resulting diameters differ by only 0.7%--an insignificant difference when talking leverage and the effect on torque steer. Good tool at http://www.miata.net/garage/tirecalc.html to check the difference that a change in tire size will make.
    Clark
  • cobrazeracobrazera Posts: 352
    It's possible they don't yet have the production capacity up to speed on the 3.6 liter. The 3.8 has excess capacity and is on its last legs as well as the factory that produces it.
  • tjc78tjc78 JerseyPosts: 5,025
    I hope you are right. IMO the 3.8 ship has sailed. The 3.6 six speed in the Aura should be the future of GM mid and full size sedans.

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

  • tjc78tjc78 JerseyPosts: 5,025
    You are right most of the newer transmissions do hunt around a bit. Especially in the 35 - 45 range.

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

  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    The 3.8 has excess capacity and is on its last legs as well as the factory that produces it.
    True, too much production capacity for the old 3.8 and complicated by the fact that GM can't do what they want (or need) to do in terms of closing old plants. Unless, of course, they want to end up doing what Ford did and continues to do - spend beaucoups of money to 'buy-out' their employees, an effect of some rather nasty labor contracts they signed back in the truck/SUV euphoria days.
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Crossroads of America: I70 & I75Posts: 18,537
    > too much production capacity for the old 3.8

    Odd they have capacity. The 3.8 hasn't been made for years. There has been a 3800 since before 92 IIRC and it has been modified strongly since then. Check some other discussions for a full history of the passing of the 3.8 and the evolution of the 3800 motor. But sometimes people are talking about things that don't exist anymore. :blush:
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    you can clain the 3.8 has been improved and/or modified since the Buick 231 of the 50s, and sure it has - the only porblem is that the end result is the same - an ancient and non-competitive engine. Suppose it becomes a definition of what you consider to be new and improved, doesn't it?
Sign In or Register to comment.