Buick LaCrosse

bigdaddycoats · May 2005

CXS has Magnasteer and brake modulated traction control.

62vetteefp · May 2005

Forgot that Magnasteer was part of the tuning and the ABS/traction control .

Of course for '06 ABS will be standard on CX and CXL also.

If the 3.6 was to go on the CXL I would think that magnasteer would be standard on the CXL. Again the cars would be virtually identical and no need for one of them.

thanks, gone a year and I start to forget.

vanman1 · May 2005

"CXS has Magnasteer and brake modulated traction control"

2 things I want as well as the fog lights. I would go CXS, the CXL is not a CXS with a 3.6L, there is much more there.

I think the CXL would be worthy of the 3.6L with the CX still offering base level value. Even if GM had to add a few hundred to the CXL base price it would be fine.

62vetteefp · May 2005

Vanman1, I am a bit confused on what you are saying.

First the differences between them are engine, fogs, full range traction control, magnasteer, suspension tuning, dual exhaust, 17's and gearing (and the rear label!) Lets assume 2006 and ABS is standard on both.

The delta in price is $3000 - $600(ABS) = $2400.

Are you saying that a CXL should have the 3.6 w/o dual exhaust, 17's, full range traction control and magnasteer?

I guess I cannot see a performance engine in a car w/o dual exhaust, full range traction control, magnasteer and 17's. Maybe you could drop the 17's but the car looks so much better and 17's should be standard on the CXL no matter what.

Next you mention a few hundred extra for the 3.6L? Believe me if it was only that much all the old engines would be gone. 3.6L has an all aluminum block and heads, expensive valve train and more to make it super quiet. Camcord charge about $1500 to go from an expensive OHC L4 to an expensive OHC V6. The price is about $1000-$1500 for the 3.6L over the 3.8. So $100 for fogs, $50 for full traction control, $150 for magnasteer, $100 for duals, $500 for 17's. Adds up to ~$2400.

ab348 · May 2005

If the only diff is the engine, why is the price $5k more here in Canada?

That's either one heck of an engine, or there is a big diff in equipment -- and I conclude that it isn't the same car with a different engine after checking out the equipment list.

I repeat:

The LaCrosse needs its configuration and pricing revised.

ab348 · May 2005

I agree with the points you make here.

You remind me of someone I used to know . Nice to see you again. ;-)

drwilsc · May 2005

As I have said before, another reason to put the 3.6 liter in the CXL is to combine 6-passenger seating with the 3.6 liter engine. You can not get the flip-and-fold bench seat in the CXS.

62vetteefp · May 2005

Leather is standard in US on CXL. Need to talk to Canadian GM marketing. they do their own pricing and contenting. they try to be similar in content but US tends to sell more highly contented vehicles than US and it is very cold up there in Canada and they tend to like cloth better.

62vetteefp · May 2005

Good point about not being able to get the 6 seater with the 3.6L. Hmmm, I wonder what the penetration is on CXL?

vanman1 · May 2005

Just put the 3.6L in the CXL as is (ABS is standard for 06) and leave the CXS as it as well. The CXS needs to have something to make it the premium level. I love the magnasteer on my Intrigue and the full traction control also.

I don't think ABS costs $600, that's what they charge and I don't think the 3.6L costs $2400 more than the 3800 either. Yes it's more expensive to make but the LaCrosse also has a higher than needed sticker, especially in the US. I think the 3.6L could be added to the CXL with a little additional $ in the MSRP.

62vetteefp · May 2005

misunderstanding. The PRICE difference between the CXL/CXS would be $2400 if you put ABS on the CXL. If you subtract the PRICE of the other CXS stuff you end up with about $1500 for just the engine alone which is about what Camcord charges for their V6. So the '06 CXL w/ ABS and 3.6 would be $27,100 w/o any other features (I still have a problem not having the dual exhaust but can live w/o the rest). Seems a bit high. That is why the 3.8 is still around.

Higher than needed sticker price? I guess you can price a couple ways. One is to add a percentage for profit over cost. The other is to figure out what volume you want and then price according to competition. Since the domestics do have at least a $1000 cost penalty over the transplants you would end up at least $1000 over the competition to make the same profit they do. This would be for case 1. Of course the LaCrosse was and cannot (plant capacity) build at the same volume as the Camcords. Therefore you can price over the Camcord and take the lower volume. I think you are right and that the volume is not where GM wants it. Therefore a lower price is probably needed to get the sales up. Hopefully for '06 it will get on the value pricing strategy and get a lower price with the incentives rolled in like the some of the trucks have gone to.

Of course all the above pricing is one reason why GM is in trouble. They have a built in american disadvantage. They have been in this country a long time and have to pay for their employees and retirees. Transplants have none of that. There are not many companies left in this country over 40 years old. Many are now going bankrupt and their retirees are losing most of their pensions. Just the way it is I guess. Cheaper for overseas and to start new.

imidazol97 · May 2005

The AP had a story this morning about Bethlehem Steel and other companies where they have escaped their responsibility to retirees and the government (US citizens ) is paying for retiree's pensions. Younger retirees were hurt most. Lost healthcare and life insurance. Older workers receiving $75K and $135K if I remember numbers right.

Other countries have healthcare and pensions handled by government. That along with the artificial exchange rate gives an advantage to the foreign companies in value as well in pricing--just like when they dumped goods into the US markets in the 80s just to keep their workers working.

Steel if related to auto building--so I hope this is on topic. Especially since in the Can Gm lose Billions discussion is lots of talk about GM going bankrupt in some way to escape contracts and pension obligations (and taxpayers pick them up).

vanman1 · May 2005

GM also builds in more room for incentives than other companies. You are right though, they have a huge cost disadvantage which is really why the 3800 is still around. I am sure they would sell mostly OHC powered cars and trucks if they weren't in the hole with the unions.

vanman1 · May 2005

One of the main reasons Toyota is likely building their new plant in Onatrio instead of Michigan is healthcare. Apparently that along is a savings of $3-4 / hour of labor.

:sick:

yurakm · May 2005

You wrote: Other countries have healthcare and pensions handled by government. That ... gives an advantage to the foreign companies in value as well in pricing

Instead of financing pension funds, foreign companies are paying higher payroll taxes and other taxes to cover the government pensions. More or less the same with health expenditures. Health care is much more expensive in US than in practically any foreign country, but this is named "inefficency".

johnclineii · May 2005

and before someone steps in and says this forum is named Buick LaCrosse and not health care or GM's problems, if these problems aren't solved soon, there may be no Buick nor GM nor even US auto industry. Look at what happened to the proud US television makers many years ago...RCA, Zenith made televisions here, in the USA of US parts. Those days are long gone. The ONLY televisions manufactured in the USA now are made by foreign manufacturers.

I don't know what the answer is, but part of it IS product. I looked at LaCrosse. I did end up buying an "American" car--a Ford Five Hundred. The reason I didn't replace my 00 Impala LS with a LaCrosse or an Impala was exactly what you are talking about above...content. I didn't like the omissions Mr. Lutz and company have made from the Impala, and I couldn't believe the omissions I found on the LaCrosse. Even the Five Hundred has some amazing ones (just that *I* can see--a Ford Taurus engine in a NEW 3800 pound AWD car--the new engine won't be ready for at least another year from now, prop rod for hood, no marker lights on interior of doors, no visor extenders, no glove box light, etc.).

I still bought the Five Hundred. Many others have gone on to so-called foreign pastures. Two things are at work here. It is not just cost/lack of features. It is also product.

Is the LaCrosse a great product that will, as Mr. Lutz invited comparisons, compete with a Lexus? Each potential buyer answers that question when they do or do not buy a LaCrosse. Or, more importantly, this fall, a Lucerne.

Buick, and GM's, future depends on those answers as much as, if not more than, resolution of the cost problems.

imidazol97 · May 2005

Which foreign car would you have looked at? Accord? I note in their discussions a few noticed automatic door locks are not there that lock and unlock without your doing anything, based on your setting. Auto headlamps are not there. A few on the group shout down anyone who suggests something should be there in a car now competing int he LaCrosse/LeSabre/Impala market. But did you check content on those brands?

Does the 500 have lighted steering wheel buttons? Another omission for Accord but it may have been added in 05.

I am seriously interested in what was in the 500 and not in all LaCrosse models? Were you looking at the two higher models?

johnclineii · May 2005

a. What was in the Five Hundred but not LaCrosse? Primarily All Wheel Drive and Volvo levels of safety.

b. What else did I seriously look at? The Mazda6 and Subaru Legacy/Outback. Both rejected due to being too small in the back seat and too noisy.

c. The Ford has automatic door locks and headlamps (though NOT daytime running lights, sigh), and the steering wheel controls? I am not sure whether they light up or not... I think they do but do not swear to it!

All I know is after 23,000 miles plus, it sure hasn't been a problem if they don't. Now I have something to look at after dark tonight!

imidazol97 · May 2005

Curious. Haven't followed stories. What safety items does the Five Hundred have that you compare it to Ford Volvo? I haven't been that impressed with Volvo since they did the "safety" demo with the Oldsmobile on top of it but they didn't tell that they had reinforced the roof!!!

62vetteefp · May 2005

Not sure people know this but the LaCrosse does not have th normal clunky visor extendors. You move the entire visor in and out to get door windo coverage. Easy to miss if you are not aware.

johnclineii · May 2005

...which is the same thing that you do with the Five Hundred's. And yes, the steering wheel buttons light up at night. Lastly, the entire body of the Five Hundred is essentially a Volvo. But this forum is to discuss the LaCrosse, so if you want to know more about the Five Hundred, see me over there.

I really, really wanted to buy another GM car...but it was not to be. Perhaps a Lucerne?

vanman1 · May 2005

Five hundred would be more attractive to me if it had a stronger V6 option, got rid of the CVT and had a more elegant shape. The Allure (LaCrosse) just looks better in almost every way to me from the outside and has the 3.6L option.

Lucerne is a disappointment only in the engine department with no 3.6L. Not sure what kind of mileage the V8 will get, but it will probably be priced out of my reach.

62vetteefp · May 2005

http://www.strategicvision.com/

the above link takes you to another independent quality rating. Lacrosse is under large cars and Camcord under mid but:

886 500 (large segment average 868)
886 Maxima (large segment average 868)
883 300 (large segment average 868)
875 G6 (midsize segment average 852)
874 LaCrosse (large segment average 868)
853 Camry (midsize segment average 852)
852 Accord (midsize segment average 852)

Now all the above cars were above or at average in their segment so they are not dogs but it does show how the domestics have this quality issue behind them on the new models. These are October/November bought vehicles so they are brand new models on the domestics and older models on the transplants. The domestics scores will only go up as they fix the early quality bugs.

vanman1 · May 2005

Perception is reality and the Japanese are in many people's minds the tops in quality.. I keep saying GM has to hammer home that quality is there, mileage numbers are there and the product is there. Stop selling the cars on price alone, show people the product is more than competitive.

My parents bought a LeSabre 2 years ago. Still only one issue, a sticky door handle. They love the car.

kevo · May 2005

I am a CXS owner since 2 Jan 05 with 3200 miles on the clock. Overall the car has been excellent. On 3 May I had the brake recall service accomplished. The part needed to complete the recall was not in stock, so the dealership provided a LaCrosse CX for a day. A few previous posts noted the differences with the quantifier "only". To me, that is too simplistic.

I cannot stress this enough, the CXS is a different car than the two lower versions. We test drove a CXL before the purchase and could notice a difference immediately. I had the CX for a full 24 hours and really got to notice the differences since I had become so familiar with our car. First, there is a huge difference in power delivery. Yeah, the 3800 is fairly powerful, but the feel (and bonus sounds) of the 3.6 is a marked improvement. The only way I can think to describe such an intangible perception is the 3.6 feels like an electric motor. You push the pedal, you go. Very little lag time between the two.

The feel of the suspensions is as different as the motors. My daily driver before the LaCrosse was a Camaro. Yeah, babies do that to you. The seat of the pants impression of the two lower models made me think "Grandfathers Car". As a 34 year old who is a little embarrassed to tell people I drive a Buick, I have to say I truly enjoy driving the CXS. On a particularly twisty route into Napa wine country, I completely quieted the little voice in my head pushing doubts about buying this car. Again, perception is hard to put into words, but I love the luxury/sport feel of this car.

I do have a few complaints about the car though. First, all of the commercials trumpet the QuietTuning. Yes, the car is very quiet, but that serves to amplify the typical GM squeeks I was hoping to get away from. I've got an intermittent squeek/rattle in the vicinity of the center air vents. Nothing bad, but at only 3200 miles, it pisses me off. Second, the location of the oil filter illustrates lack of cohesion in design. There is no way to remove the oil filter without dumping oil down the side of the block directly onto a frame section with A/C tubing and a wire loom on top of it. I don't like the mess, and I'm concerned about what oil will do to the cable in the loom over time. I'm a "do it yourselfer" and would have appreciated the engineer actually getting their hand in there and seeing what a stupid arrangement this is.

Everything else is all positive. The leather seat just keeps getting better and better with time. Note for those with child car seats- - the swoopy lines of the roof line make getting the car seat in and out slightly more difficult. Again, not that bad.

Hope this helps somebody

Kevin

alpha01 · May 2005

The Strategic Vision award is "Total Quality" and includes measures of customer service, which Honda and Toyota have been historically abysmal at. It is not quality in the sense of workmanship, or reliability over a certain period of time.

~alpha

vanman1 · May 2005

Great post. I have an Intrigue and although I like the 3800, there is something about the Shortstar in my Trig that I just love. A lot of your points describe it well though I'm sure the VVT on the 3.6L make it even better.

I bought my Intrigue when I was 31 (I'm 36 now). Everyone thought I was nuts buying a "OLDS" but I am never one to follow the crowds to Honda or SUVs or whatever. Buicks were not "old people cars" in the day of the Grand National or the 80's Regals so I never see them that way. Enjoy the car and keep us updated. I have an eye on he CXS for my Intrigue replacement.

fredvh · May 2005

Thanks alpha for the information. I was suspicious when I saw the results of that survey too. It certainly does not compare with long-term reliability and satisfaction surveys like the Consumer Reports owner-satisfaction studies.

62vetteefp · May 2005

You are correct, Strategic rates the total car experience. Also Consumer Reports would not have much long term data yet on the new cars. But GM vehicles are doing better at Consumer reports. Regal bests the Camcords. Also the JD Powers IQS2 rates the Regal and Century above the Camcord in recent years. It measures things gone wrong reported by the owner in the first 3 months of ownership. New data will be coming out this week which I hear will repeat this data. Will have to wait and see.

You can see this data at this web site. Takes a little work but you can pick any car you want and compare. Pretty cool how it works.

http://www.jdpower.com/cc/auto/jdpa_ratings/FindJdAwards.jsp

Now as far as how short term quality relates to long term quality. They are directly related. I am afraid I cannot get the data anymore though and it does not show up on the JD power website for some reason. But I believe the Buicks did better than Toyota in the long term data in recent years.

But new data is coming out tomorrow and we will see!!!

rwisem · May 2005

You are so right! it is interesting that Toyota puts a different body on a Camry, but keeps the mechanicals the same and charges 10 grand more for it, while Buick puts the same body on a car with largely upgraded mechanical systems for a lower premium.

As has been stated, the CXS has a different engine, different suspension tuning and different steering. It's the steering I notice the most. I used to own a 2001 Intrigue GLS and loved how it drove. I would often rent Buick Century's and noticed I drove them much more slowly and deliberately than my Intrigue. I finally figured out it was the steering - the ratio was noticibly slower, forcing me into "old man mode". As I understand, the CXS has an Intrigue steering ratio and the CX and CXL has the Century ratio.

I'm not saying this is necessarily bad - I like the quicker steering, but not everyone might - sounds like you appreciate it, too.

robchemist · May 2005

Based on the initial quality survey at JDPowers, the Lacrosse did quite well. The 2005 Lacrosse, Accord and Camry were virtually identical. Since just qualitative ratings (among the best, better than most, etc.), as opposed to numerical ratings with standard deviations (XX ± XX problems per vehicle) are given, there may be small but statistically significant differences between the vehicles. Our experience with the Lacrosse (a CX) to date is certainly consistent with the ratings at JDPowers - ca. 2000 miles, no problems.

62vetteefp · May 2005

Hopefully we will have some numbers by tomorrow

I played with the JD power site a bit more. If you look at the 2001 Century, Accord, Camry for long term dependibiliyt it shows Accord, Regal and Century tied and Camry was quite a bit worse. I do know that for 2001 and beyond a concerted effort was made to improve the quality of the Regal and Century and they improved tremendously for the short term quality measures beating the Camcord. The long term should also show this improvement.

There is not data of 2002 long term dependibility yet.

vanman1 · May 2005

Oshawa 1 where LaCrosse/Allure are made just finished 1st in North America in quality with only 85 problems per 100 cars. Nice to know you will get a quality car if you buy one of these Buicks.

62vetteefp · May 2005

http://media.gm.com/servlet/GatewayServlet?target=http://image.emerald.gm.com/gmnews/viewm- - onthlyreleasedetail.do?domain=74&docid=14928

this is a GM new release on how GM cars did in the latest JD Power Initial quality.

"Buick LaCrosse Highest-Ranked All-New Redesigned Launch Vehicle; Buick Century Highest in Initial Quality among Vehicles Built in North/South America"

dan165 · May 2005

I have a 2004 Grand Prix GT I bought when they just came out from Oshawa and it's been virtually flawless and rattle free for over a year and a half. Fit and finish is excellent.

When I hear people trash GM quality it makes my blood boil because while they may have had some bad apples in the past, their quality over the past few years has risen sharply in every way.

307web · May 2005

Obviously, they are quite lenient with their criteria of "all-new."

62vetteefp · May 2005

That is another term that gets bandied about and the domestics seem to take the brunt of the comment.

How "all new" was the last Avalon? How about the latest version? Just Camry's in new clothing. How about the Lexus ES300/330? Again Camry's. At least the LaCrosse has a new engine. Whoops that was in a Cadillac!!

Same with just about every new car that comes out. Can anyone give examples of any "all new" vehicles out there in the last couple years? The G6 is an Epsilon so it is not all new. Solstice looks to be all new but no, it has some parts that were on other cars. Darn. Anyone help here? maybe the 300? I do not know. How about the 500? Mustang?

alpha01 · May 2005

You should pick your examples carefully; the 2000-2004 Avalon rode on the 92-01 Camry chassis, the new Avalon uses a modified version of the current Camry platform. The 3.5L in the new Avalon made its debut in that car, and is NOT related to any current Camry engine.

In my opinion, the 05 Avalon is a good deal more ALL NEW than the LaCrosse is.

~alpha

307web · May 2005

The LaCrosse seems like a restyled Gran Prix in many ways.
I see websites even calling the Saturn Relay on its aging Venture/Lumina APV chassis "All-New!"
All-new is now a worthless term.

62vetteefp · May 2005

I think we all agree. There are very few examples of all new cars. I think the old W cars from 1988 were all new except the engine. I'm sure there are other examples but why would anyone spend the money on tools and engineering to come out with 100% "all-new"?

307web · May 2005

Well, I don't think a car needs to have100% all new parts, but it should have at least a signficantly redesigned drive train and platform not shared with older, pre-existing models to be considered all-new. Not simply a restyled body and interior and "refinements" of another similar model that has already been out on the market for years.

rwisem · May 2005

No question this term is over used. I disagree that a redesigned drivetrain is required. Good engine and transmission designs can serve well for many years with minor tweaks to take advantage of improvements in engine management systems.

To me the largest issue is the basic chassis or platform of the car. When this is changed, you have, essentially, a different car

When talking all new I think the most important comparison is to the last generation of that model. I think a good example is the current Malibu. It was not the first to use the chassis, but it is a completely different car from the '97-03 generation.

Under my suggestions, the Lacrosse is not all new, but it is significantly re-engineered and my experience is that it is much improved over the models it replaces, something that doesn't always happen in a re-design. ( think Honda Civic and Nissan Maxima)

vanman1 · May 2005

Lacrosse is all new aside from the base engine and the platform. Body and interior is brand new and the 3.6L is just a year old. It's as new as anything!

Of course some people like to discredit domestics no matter what and they are usually the same people who will forgive a Toyota engine sludge issue as just an anomaly.

alpha01 · May 2005

The distinction between new and non-new designs is related how to the Toyota sludge issue?

BTW, I think the Malibu analogy was spot-on. THAT is/was an all new vehicle, IMO.

Vanman1, you state "Lacrosse is all new aside from the base engine and the platform." those are some pretty major components. That's like saying a home is brand new because it has new siding and some interior renovations.

Frankly, your posts frequently lack objectivity, and I think its insulting that you think "people like to discredit domestics no matter what". Here's a thought- how bout people favor better vehicles over lesser ones, and in many cases, domestics arent the better ones. There are many domestic designs that have a good deal of merit and competitive advantages over others, its just that the General doesnt produce many of them. The LaCrosse is a good car at a too high a price competing against better cars in a very croweded segment.

~alpha

62vetteefp · May 2005

In the premium midsize Initial quality survey. The first 4 places were:
Century (Oshawa plant 2-best in America)
Impala (Oshawa plant 1-2nd best in America)
Grand Prix (Oshawa plant 2-best in America)
LaCrosse (Not all new but significantly upgraded :P )(Oshawa plant 2-best in America)

somewhere below:
Camry
Accord

62vetteefp · May 2005

Actually the seat frames are pretty much carryover also.

Also the platform is updated with front of dash sandwiched metal for quietness.

The W platform is a good platform. It has a front suspension almost identical to Camry/Lexus. It now has an all new aluminum cradle. The worst thing is that styling is somewhat constrained due to the need for a longer front overhang than what is "stylish" today. The 3.8L is significantly updated for smoothness and quietness.

Just the facts, man, just the facts.

62vetteefp · May 2005

Pricing will be adjusted as needed to get the volume it needs. GM is, as we know, revising pricing to have realistic MSRP's with lower incentives.

62vetteefp · May 2005

Just read that 3% of vehicles in the US today have indash navigation at about $2000. Should double in 5 years to 6%.

robchemist · May 2005

"All new" can also be constued as "high risk". Sometimes you get it right, sometimes you get it wrong. I am not going to argue whether the Lacrosse should be called "all new" as opposed to "highly modified", as this becomes an argument on semantics. Regardless of what you want to call it, they certainly seem to have gotten the initial production right. An example of what can go wrong when you generate an "all new", or perhaps "extremely highly modified" vehicle, is the 2005 Honda Odyssey. It had a dismal showing in the Powers report, and a Honda spokesman (Yuzuru Matsuo) even noted that they screwed up the vehicle. Thus, I think that companies have to always balance the risk between something new and "better", but also perhaps faulty, and something well understood. Personally, I am a very strong believer in the axiom "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". Although, at a certain point the benefits gained by going to a newer technology will certainly outweigh staying with an older and better understood technology.

If you have a subscription to the online Wall Street Journal, you should be able to find the article at the link below (make sure there are no spaces in Web address). Or, you can just do a search on articles with the word Honda in it, and choose the Powers report.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB111643165721937012-search.htmlvql_string=honda+%3Cin%3E%28- - article%2Dbody%29&collection=wsjie/archive

alpha01 · May 2005

"All new" can also be constued as "high risk". Sometimes you get it right, sometimes you get it wrong. I am not going to argue whether the Lacrosse should be called "all new" as opposed to "highly modified", as this becomes an argument on semantics. Regardless of what you want to call it, they certainly seem to have gotten the initial production right.

Completely agreed, and GM should be lauded for nailing the quality of this vehicle from the get-go.

~alpha

Buick LaCrosse

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles