Buick LaCrosse

alpha01 · January 2004

Congrats, a_i_hubcaps and theo! And thanks for the link, theo.

I'd like to add:

T: Chevy Chevette, Pontiac T1000/1000.

~alpha

hammen2 · January 2004

http://www.detnews.com/2004/autosinsider/0401/27/b01-47089.htm

dindak · January 2004

Don't care for it much. It looks too much like the GP with a Buick face on it.

Hopefully it has a good powertrain and interior though. That would make up for the so so looks.

dindak · January 2004

I guess the name in Canada will be the Buick Allure,

badgerfan · January 2004

Roofline/side windows are nearly a dead ringer for current Taurus. Front end has some resemblance to Taurus/Jag.

Doesn't look bad, but definitely not cutting edge. I wouldn't expect much cutting edge out of the Buick Division anyways, given the demographic of their customers, and I don't think GM wants to change the Buick customer base that much anyways, except to give them SUV options.

vcjumper · January 2004

Seems very derivative. Oh well atleast the interior pic that has been floating around looked good. Ford 500 is probably much more modern though just as unoriginal in styling.

dindak · January 2004

Which site did you see the interior shot?

Car is nothing exciting but a good power train and interior will attract attention. Definitely nothing cutting edge here but better than the spy shots I saw 2 years ago of the 04 Regal.

rctennis3811 · January 2004

So is that supposed to lure buyers away from the imports!?!

regfootball · January 2004

Did ford revise the front end of the Taurus?

Looks like the Taurus and LeSabre mated and had a child with a Riviera rear end.

Check, just scratched that one off the list. I can buy a new Taurus with multivalve for like 15-16k. GM will be charging 25+ for the same thing. Not worth the ten grand diff. If it had some style, sure, but this thing's a yawner.

If people want to buy something that looks like a Taurus, why not just buy a Taurus?

rcf8000 · January 2004

Anybody who likes the styling can save a lot of money by buying a leftover 2003 Taurus! We think alike, reg!

dindak · January 2004

I see no Taurus here? I see some Jag, some Buick, some GP..

The car looks better blown up. I saw a bigger picture on Cheersandgears.com. Car could appeal to anyone in the boomer age and up so long as it's well made, refined, has a solid power train and a good interior. We shall see,

alpha01 · January 2004

I see no Taurus, and if this car is as anywhere near as able performing as the Malibu, I think it deserves consideration.

~alpha

badgerfan · January 2004

Greenhouse is a dead ringer for Taurus. If I only saw the car from the top of the doors up, it appears to be a dead ringer-especially the 96-99 Taurus before the roof was raised for more headroom but I doubt they copied the oval rear window from 96-99! Oval grille is nearly identical to 2000-2003 Taurus, and slope of hood is nearly identical as well, along with lower horizontal grille below the bumper.

alpha01 · January 2004

...But not mine. I seem to have different eyes than most, though, as people are saying they see VW/Audi in the styling of Five Hundred, whereas, I see Freestar.

Even so, why are people writing this model off already? We dont have many concrete details, we dont have any press reviews, nor consumer test drives. This car is not a repeat case of the seemingly uncompetitive GM "crossover" vans (think: Saturn Rebate), so I'm not really sure why this design is not being give a chance. Personally, I'd prefer the name of the car to be Allure in the USA as well, LaCrosse is just stupid, makes me think of the sport, and I see no correlation.

~alpha

dindak · January 2004

Don't see the Taurus.. sorry. Front looks very Jag though, another Ford product.

Allure seems a bit better. I don't mind LaCrosse though. I really hope they are dropping the 3.6L in there as an option at least. Car doesn't appeal to me really, but I think it will to the 40+ crowd.

theo2709 · January 2004

A better resolution pic:

http://www.autonews.com/images/random/12604/lacrosse410.jpg

theo2709 · January 2004

And another if you want a desktop background:

http://gm.wieck.com/forms/gm/X05BU_LC022.jpg?download=016198

b4z · January 2004

I don't see too much Taurus.
I see Lexus GS300/400 headlight treatment and GP greenhouse(roof stamping).

This vehicle will be available with 2 engines.
Will the 3.6L from the CTS/SRX be one of them?

theo2709 · January 2004

Yep. Check post 50.

b4z · January 2004

Answered my own question.

Looks like the 3.6L VVT motor from Cadillac will be optional.

Plus more legroom due to longer wheelbase than regal.

Seems like a nice replacement for an Impala or instead of a CTS.

dindak · January 2004

The old reliable 3800 a base and the 3.6L from the CTS as the optional power. Glad to see the 3.6L option for people who must have OHCs. Looks like it's detuned to 240 hp though b4z.

The interior spy shot at the beginning of this forum looks good if it's real. Car should be a winner. I believe it will be sourced down the highway in Oshawa also.

rctennis3811 · January 2004

No Taurus!?! You guys gotta be kidding me. Well, eye of the beholder I guess. I only see oval Taurus in the side-windows on the back doors where it sweeps upward. Looks like it to me!

a_l_hubcaps · January 2004

I have to agree, my first reaction to the pics was "1996 Taurus". That's not a good thing to think. But after I looked at it for a little longer, my opinion improved. I was hoping for something with a little more substatial look to it, rather than the '90s-style ovoid design, but it's not bad. At least it's more distinctive than the Regal.

By the way, Automotive News is reporting that this thing replaces both Regal AND Century. Considering that the actual sale prices of Centurys are quite low (under $20K, if I am correctly informed), I'm not sure that this vehicle will actually be able to fill that slot. I looked at the GM Fleet Tools web site and found that there is an ordering guide for the 2005 Century, so evidently the two will be side-by-side for at least a year. Personally, I think the Century needs to go, but it needs a real replacement so the LaCrosse is not pulled down into the lower end of the sedan market. I can think of two possibilities: an Epsilon-based replacement, or a rebadged Daewoo Leganza (like the Suzuki Verona). I think either of those would fill the Century spot nicely, and keep the LaCrosse away from the dreaded cost cutters.

-Andrew L

regfootball · January 2004

its one thing for chevy to rebadge daewoos but if buick does......whoa....bad deal.

the greenhouse is way too much taurus. if you can't see it its time for lasik.

its a shame the car doesn't connect on any level because the interior spy shots looked promising and GM finally is putting a real v6 in something again.

but the exterior styling seems to drop the ball. this thing will be priced the same as the Ford 500 and Dodge Magnum. The Dodge, I have my days when I like it, and too many when I think its over the top. The AWD is a nice thing but will be pricey, can't have RWD around here (especially after being stuck behind a crown vic upping a one mile incline with bad tires). Ford 500 is bland but certainly makes a better connection with me than this thing. But in no way does it ring my bell.

Its nice to see some new domestic sedans, but maybe I am getting really bored with the domestic sedans these days. They are all so........what's the word.......ordinary?....not there?......unappealing....?

johnclineii · January 2004

Buick Century's target market is not buying any rebadged Daewoo's. No way, no how. That market was largely little old people who loved Buick for its reliability (Century was, believe it or not, one of the best...it should have been, the design was nearly as old as the buyers' kids!). Most of them also bought Buick because it was NOT one of them thar furr'n cars, don't ya know? Selling rebadged Daewoo's would not just hurt new Century sales, it would hurt the entire Buick line. The target market would not be amused.

As for the LaCrosse, over on the Impala board there is this carguy guy who has been chastizing me for even considering the Five Hundred before I saw a LaCrosse.

Well, all I can say about that is I have seen pictures of the LaCrosse. I have learned never to say never, but I can't imagine me driving THAT thing. I just keep seeing 1996 Taurus and laughing myself silly. I was supposed to wait FOR THAT?

I had an 89 Taurus back when I was 35. Once was enough!

And the 89 was, to my eyes, a lot more attractive than the 96 or than this Buick looks to be.

b4z · January 2004

When I first saw the Impala I said I would never drive that thing either.
When I took early lease termination on the Intrigue the Impala was the only car that did everything I wanted it to do for the price i was willing to pay.
Been driving it for 2.5 years.
Don't hink I would buy a Ford 500 though.
Will probably stay GM.

rctennis3811 · January 2004

The styling is not horrendous, but disappointing and would make me look REALLY old if I had to drive one. The only advantages I can think of is a new and improved interior (hopefully as good as the 500) and the 3.6L engine. I'll have to wait and see how good the Duratec 35 is until I can make a choice between the two, not that I'm buying one...

bigdaddycoats · January 2004

So any guesses on pricing for the CXS with the 3.6? My guess around $23k for a base with the 3.8, $30k for the CXS with the 3.6.

Looks too much like the Grand Prix, hopefully the interior is really good.

dindak · January 2004

I read on GMinsider that Century is headed for the fleets in 2005 and will still be produced. Not sure if that is true, but it sounds likely to be.

Looking at the car some more I think it looks better than my first impression. I'd like to see the other angles and the inside before I decide but I know the car looks too "old" for me to ever consider. The Buick trucks are the only Buicks I (or anyone else under 45) would likely ever consider. It's too bad because the current Regal GS is a pretty sporty looking car.

badgerfan · January 2004

You could have gotten a Taurus instead of the Impala and gotten a car with much better seating comfort (especially the back seat) and you could have gotten a sweet performing DOHC Duratech for less than you paid for your Impala. I bought a 2000 Taurus SES Duratech new for $18K+TTL and also got 0.9% financing for 36 months. It was decently but not extravagantly equipped. Could you have even gotten a base Impala for $18K? With current rebates, you likely could do even better for a new Taurus, four years later.

LaCrosse certainly has similar greenhouse styling to Taurus. Not that this is necessarily bad, I just would think GM could be a little more innovative. Hopefully the interior and controls will be a big upgrade from the dated Century/Regal, and GM will get rid of the floaty suspensions. Note to GM: It is possible to get a good ride these days in a non luxury sedan without completely sacrificing handling. Drive just about any of your competitors.

My main concern with Ford 500 and GM's offerings is that pricing not get out of hand. It seems the market for new vehicles keeps going upscale. I just read that the average MSRP (not as sold) has now passed $30K. Of course this is probably swayed a lot by loaded up SUV's, but still seems a lot to pay for any vehicle.

b4z · January 2004

I am 6'8" and not really comfortable in most Ford products.
Impala LS was $25.5K MSRP. paid $21.087K plus $300 sales tax.

Leather, driver info center, power passenger, heated seats, steering wheel controls,etc.

Could have gotten base Impala for less than $18K

Impala has more room than Taurus and bigger trunk.
Considered a full size car while regal and Taurus are mid size.

I miss the OHC motor that was in the Intrigue.

alpha01 · January 2004

An occasional offender myself, this is NOT a Taurus vs. Impala board.

~alpha

bigdaddycoats · January 2004

not 100% sure if all of this is correct -

2005 Buick LaCrosse CX CXL CXS
C67 Air conditioning S - -
CJ2 dual-zone ACC - S S
AP9 Cargo convenience net, trunk - S S
U68 Driver Information Center - S S
Personalization features - S S
Steering, tilt adjustment S - -
N37 Steering power tilt and telescopic adjustment - S S
NK5 Steering wheel, 4-spoke, cruise control S - -
NP5 Steering wheel, leather, cruise control - S S
UA6 theft alarm - S S
Visors, extendable, vanity mirrors S - -
DH6 Visors, illuminated, extendable, vanity mirrors - S S
PEB Silver Convenience Package A - -
(includes CJ2, AP9, U68, N37, NP5, UA6, DH6 and
personalisation features)
AV8 Seating, 6-passenger A A -
Seating, cloth S - -
Seating, leather - S S
AM9 rear split-folding seat, armrest and cupholders A S S
Chrome door handles - - S
R13 Chrome Appearance package - A A
QPX P225/60R16 S S -
QVS P225/55R17 touring - - S
QB5 16" steel wheels S - -
QD1 16" painted aluminum, 8-spoke A S -
N85 17" painted aluminum, 8-spoke - - S
J65 Brakes, 4-wheel disc S S -
JL9 Brakes, 4-wheel disc, ABS, and traction control A A S
FE1 4-wheel independent suspension, Premium Ride S S -
FE2 4-wheel independent suspension, Gran Touring - - S
NW9 Traction control - - S
L26 3800 S S -
LY7 3.6- VVT, dual exhaust - - S

bigdaddycoats · January 2004

Sorry, it did not line up right. Don't know if this was posted before or not.

dindak · January 2004

Surprised ABS would not be standard across the board on this car.

Otherwise it all looks pretty usual.

regfootball · January 2004

"I miss the OHC motor that was in the Intrigue."

specifics please?....?

tomcat630 · January 2004

The late 3.5 'Shortstar' is it.

What is Greek for 'W'? GM could have renamed it in Greek and called it "new", then the media would do back flips.

-----
Someone missed C body when listing the GM codes, it was the Caddy DeVille/Park Ave/98.

Once, in 1959, GM used one body shell for all of their cars. Why? They moved up the restyle for the B body from 1960 a year, to battle Chrysler's "forward look". So, Chevy had the 1958 B body for a year only, instead of the planned 58-59.

Letters have been recycled. The mid size cars of 1964-72, which includes classic Muscle Cars, were A bodies, and the RWD 1962-79 Nova was also an X car.

rctennis3811 · January 2004

Shortstar would've been a great engine back then if it only had VVT to improve its gas mileage.

theo2709 · January 2004

http://www.fortune.com/fortune/images/fortune/magazine/2004/20040- 209/aua_lacrosse_430x275.jpg

b4z · January 2004

Shortstar was a great engine.
I pulled 29 mpg on several long trips.
And I had the 3.29 gear not the 3.05 gear.
My city mileage was consistently 21-22.
My suburban mileage was 24-25mpg.
So, i was pretty happy with that especially in light of the car's acceleration.

dindak · January 2004

I typically get 20+ in the city and 30-34 on the highway with my shortstar (with no VVT). As good as most cars with it.

rctennis3811 · January 2004

Hmm, I guess it's how you drive it!

dindak · January 2004

That can be said about any car. Posted mileage numbers are not possible with lead foots.

corvette · January 2004

It appears neither side airbags nor ABS are standard in this "upmarket" car. Oh, I almost forgot, Lutz detests safety features, hence making them optional equipment on many GM models starting in 2003.

alpha01 · January 2004

I was really trying to give this vehicle a chance, defending it to the Five Hundred and Montego folks. But from what that equipment list reads, the 3.6L engine is only available in top trim, where its standard, and not optional anywhere else. MISTAKE NUMBER ONE. This car will likely carry a sticker that starts at what? $22K- $23K? right? Yet, ABS is not standard. MISTAKE NUBMER TWO. Side Impact Protection appears missing, though my guess is that it simply isnt on THAT list- the Malibu and GP both have side curtains, so it would be ENTIRELY bizarre for them not to appear here. Even so, they should be standard across the board, and GM had an opportunity to take a competitive advantage here, as they arent standard anywhere else in this class. MISTAKE NUMBER THREE.

In terms of features content, three strikes and youre out. This car had better have one top notch interior, excellent driving dynamics, and very competitive pricing.

I guess the gates are wide open for the '05 Avalon to kill this segment. (Well.. at least the $26K-$34K range of it.. which is a good chunk of the 500/Montego/300/LaCrosse anyway).

~alpha

dindak · January 2004

I suspect when there is a better supply of 3.6L, the engine will move down the Rendezvous and LaCross chains. That's what GM did with the 3.5L in the Intrigue from 98-99.

ABS should be standard on ALL models here. This equipment list doesn't seem accurate or complete.

regfootball · January 2004

"Oh, I almost forgot, Lutz detests safety features, hence making them optional equipment on many GM models starting in 2003."

no, he just wants to extort even more money from you for them. Probably have to get two option packages and a crappy delco factory upgrade stereo (which is still worse than a 20 dollar kraco from walmart) to get the ABS WHICH SHOULD BE STANDARD ON ANY CAR OVER 15g.

when I asked the poster to expand on the specifics it was prompting the question as to why he missed his OHC engine and that he share those reasons with everyone here since so many of you don't seem to think it matters. But it does.

My guess would have been the answer might be

smoothness
more elastic powerband and better engine breathing
a feeling you got more than what you paid for
etc.
yada yada.....

For once, GM ought to come out at launch with a LOW STICKER and loaded to make a market impact instead of bleeding the GM faithful for 3 months until the inevitable incentives kick in and everyone talks bout the insanely high MSRP for a car that's usually not worth the MSRP (or even close).

johnclineii · January 2004

One thing is absolutely for sure. If GM knows that it is going to have to pay big incentives to sell cars (and it does), then GM will build those incentives into the price of the car.

Yes, they say the new cars are "gotta have" cars that won't have to be incentivized. But what would YOU say if you were them?

Time will tell. As for me, I thought I would see a car here very competitive with the Ford Five Hundred/Mercury Montego.

We know little so far, but what I have seen so far certainly doesn't WOW me, and my last three cars have been GM mid-sizes (an Olds LSS, a Pontiac GP GTP, and a Chevy Impala LS).

b4z · January 2004

Looks like we have some refugees from the Impala and Intrigue board looking for a car that has the soul of the intrigue and is a few steps up in luxury(interior sespecially) over the Impala.

The OHC motor is key here.
At lest to me.
Don't want to know that they are downrating it to 240 hp though.
GM just doesn't get it.
They are so concerned about the interdivisional pecking order that they are scared to hit a home run.
I guess they don't want to step on the CTS's toes by giving the Lacrosse the same hp.

GM needs to realize that they are competing against Toyota and Honda for their survival.
Not Ford.

vcjumper · January 2004

Seems like it will only be available at the top trim level.. I wonder how much it will list for.
If its hilariously high like a Comp-G is with leather etc (and leather is standard on the top trim level on this car apparently), I'd rather just get a TL.
Headlights are kind of Sonata'ish?
Certainly this car is more interesting than a Camry and the top line engine on paper better (and in the CTS) is better than anything in the Camcorder. The top trim level should outhandle those cars (well the older Intrigues do, the later ones probably not).

Buick LaCrosse

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles