Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Buick LaCrosse
This discussion has been closed.
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
~alpha
PS- by the time the LaCrosse debuts, the ES330 will look slightly different. 05 calls for a "freshening".
Part of my dislike for the Intrigue definitely has to do with styling, but ours was also a real piece of junk right from the first day. It was towed back to the dealer 3 times during the first 2 years of ownership. Failures during the first 60K miles included steering rack, water pump, starter (twice), various electrical problems, interior parts falling off, etc. For awhile we had a choice between headlights and dash instruments; the two would not work at the same time. It seems that the reliability has actually gotten better with age; it has around 80K on it now (mostly highway) and it's been reasonably good for the last 20K or so.
I really have no complaints about the interior of the LaCrosse; I'm really happy to see GM (and other mfrs) returning to interiors with contrasting materials and a more classy look, rather than the "make everything out of gray and/or tan plastic" method. I also think the exterior looks of the LaCrosse are better than the Intrigue (those long headlights on the Olds are hideous IMHO), but the real styling leaders now seem to be Chrysler and Ford, who have noticed that cars look more substantial when every exterior shape is not an oval.
But anyway, my #1 gripe about the Intrigue is simply that its reliability is worse than that of my 18-year-old Pontiac, which is inexcusable.
-Andrew L
The comparison is coming because GM has used the LEXUS as a MODEL for the LaCrosse in regards to QUALITY, SEAM GAPS, QUIETNESS, INTERIOR LUXURY etc. I don't think GM ever said it LOOKS like a LEXUS!
fastdriver
There are hints at the refined style, from the low profile tires and mouse-eye peek through the back of the opposite side wheels, but you can't see how the very short bumper overhang, peaked front fenders, and subtlety in-sweep side flanks all contribute to make the LaCrosse MUCH better looking than a Taurus...
But the Front is Executed well, better than the Taurus.
2003 Taurus
I do not see The similarities.
2004 Taurus is remarkably different
The question is, why couldn't GM do something a little more with Lacrosse than copy Taurus in the side view and Jag in the front? Trying to capture the current Taurus owners as they age?
Funny, I once bought new a 1977 Buick Century Custom when I was in my late 20's. I liked the looks of Olds Cutlass but wanted something a bit different as everyone drove a Cutlass at that time, so I went with the Buick version. Now that I am approaching the Buick demographics, I wouldn't think of buying a Buick-it skews too old for me!
The LaCrosse is coming in September.
fastdriver
Given that, GM pretty much HAS TO use Buick to battle the attack "coming from below" as the Koreans are NOT yet ready to do battle in "motorsports" where GM has Pontiac, nor can Cadillac afford to be distracted from 'top shelf' luxury competitors...
The OnStar HW may be cheap, but it still costs something ($200? $500?) and MAYBE it would make more sense to devote some of that toward to a nicer radio or richer interior trim or...
The bottom line on the LaCrosse may very well end up being a selling point -- as more and more vehicles edge toward the stratosphere I suspect "value" will need to be a reason to get ANY sedan.
~alpha
And I have yet to write the FIRST check for Sirius. They bill my credit card annually, and that's that.
The same stream can be listened to from coast to coast, I have CNN and NPR available ANYWHERE at the touch of the button, BBC or Fox if you'd rather. WSM and The Grand Ole Opry, too. The NBA, and soon, the NFL.
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
Need help navigating? kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
Share your vehicle reviews
chavis- You should note that the hideous ES330, Accord, and Camry are all sales and critical successes. Of course, there are those among us who realize that styling is a subjective consideration. Perhaps these are the people criticizing the LaCrosse for some of its more notable omissions. (Such as chest side airbags, NAV, lack of 3.6L option on CX or CXL models, etc..).
Personally, I think your Intrigue was a very attractive vehicle. But that didnt help it much, eh?
~alpha
~alpha
Personally, I don't want a car that is a "sales success" anyways unless it is drop dead beautiful. Sales figures compliment the manufacturer, not us buyers. That's why I don't really pay sales numbers any mind. I think a lot of people have the idea that since so many other people buy ia particular car, it must be good. That may be true somewhat, but I like to be different and I'm sure a lot of other people do as well.
Alpha, when we first got the Intrigue, people at gas stations and such didn't even know what it was. On the '98s, the word "Oldsmobile" was only in two places on the entire car- the right rear backup lamp which is translucent and the radio face. They used to ask who made it, etc. However, the car didn't sell especially well (which is fine by me).
Tennis, you have a point. Different things are important to different people. Styling happens to be on the top of my list. I just find it interesting that most publications usually agree on what looks good and what doesn't. That impression seems to trickle down to the public. For instance, everyone claims the 7 series is ugly, the 5 is better and the 6 looks good. To me, I think the 7 is the best looking out of the Bangle Butt era. I think the 6 series looks unfinished and the 5 is terrible. That's just an example.
The critical acclaim of the Camry and others has nothing to do with styling. Most family sedan buyers are conservative and most family cars are styled accordingly. The Mazda 6 was praised by the press and is styled aggressively but it hasn't been a sales success.
As for the 3.6, why the hell would the Lacrosse offer the 3.6 in lower models when camrys come with 157hp 4 bangers and Accords come with 160hp fours? Get real people. As for NAV, why would the lack of NAV affect the Lacrosse's sales when 95% of Accords and Camrys dont have the option? Also, the Impala, 6, Avalon, Galant and Passat do not have this option. I have seen one Camry with NAV since the 2003 model came out. It doesn't seem like a popular option amongst camry owners.
Buicks are supposed to have STRONG performance. The base engine is pathetically weak for this market segment. Not unlike the same mistake Ford is making with its Five Hundreds.
Just because Japanese midsizes come with 4 cylinders does not mean it is appropriate for upscale American marques.
Now, if there is a gas crisis or shortage, the American makers will have been wiser than many of us...
" The base engine is pathetically weak for this market segment."
That might be the funniest statement I've ever read in months.
Based on what? That engine will get the LaCrosse to 60 in under 8 secs. I didn't know that qualified as "pathetically weak." That's the same engine that powers the larger and more expensive Park Ave and LeSabre.
2)I dont buy a word of the following.
"As for the 3.6, why the hell would the Lacrosse offer the 3.6 in lower models when camrys come with 157hp 4 bangers and Accords come with 160hp fours? Get real people."
------------------
Is the LaCrosse competing against basic $20,000 Camry LEs and Accord LX 4s? Not at a starting price of $23,xxx, which has been the accepted rumor. At that price, the Camry LE V6 (with 210 hp and 220 foot pounds) and the Accord LX V6 (with 240 hp and 212 foot pounds) are available. So, using an apples to apples price comparison, if GM wanted to lead the pack, they would have offered the excellent 3.6L VVTi as an option on at least the CXL, if not the base CX.
3)"As for NAV, why would the lack of NAV affect the Lacrosse's sales when 95% of Accords and Camrys dont have the option? Also, the Impala, 6, Avalon, Galant and Passat do not have this option. I have seen one Camry with NAV since the 2003 model came out. It doesn't seem like a popular option amongst camry owners."
---------
The Camry came out with Navigation in 2002, if you want to be specific. Your impressions of which vehicles are sold with which options are just that- impressions. Show me numbers. On an upscale sedan, as Buick is portending this car to be, the latest in technology is expected. You'd think if a model such as the CXS was going to be positioned north of 30K (which it is expected to be), then NAV would at least be offered.
~alpha
Just my .02.
fastdriver
~alpha
Alpha, I disagree. It seems like people are now acting like the 3800 is a junk motor now that the 3600 will be available. The 3800 will provide equal or better performance than the 3.0L v-6 in the Camry. I don't know about the current CamCorders, but back in like '98, 70% of them were four bangers. So even though the six cylinders get all the credit, the measly fours are racking up the sales figures. It's interesting when people quote sales figures of the CamCorder against other cars who only offer V-6 power. If you wanted to compare apples to apples, almost every other V-6 only car out sells the Accord and Camry.
I dont recall ever seeing a comparison test of an Intrigue vs. the Camcord 4s. You'll never see a comparison test of the LaCrosse vs. the Camcord 4s either. Why? Because of the target within the segment. As I have already stated, the LaCrosse with the 3800 V6 will be starting at $23,000 plus. Given the CX's level of standard equipment (or lack there of) the most closely justifiable trim of the Camcords would be the LE and LX. Both the Camry LE V6 and Accord LX V6 cost in the $23,000 range, so this is the comparison that I feel is most valid, and that most buyers cross shopping the Camcords and the Lacrosse CX will make. I dont think the 3800 is junk at all. But I do think that the 3600 should have been made available as an option at least on the CXL. (And yes, I think the 3800 will be pretty even in terms of acceleration with the Camry 210hp 3.0L. But the Camry V6 is smoother than GMs 3800, AND if you want more guts in the Camry, you can move to the 3.3L 225hp 240 foot pound unit for $24,500 in the SE).
I dont really know how/why you state "So even though the six cylinders get all the credit, the measly fours are racking up the sales figures." No, the Camry and Accord are lauded because of many factors, their engines being one of them.
Its all good, youre free to disagree. I just think my argument holds more truth than yours.
~alpha
What would drew me to a Buick dealer, indeed, would be safety all around. Also, head rest design and most important in my list is bumper strength. In my research can not find big, medium or small sedans with "Good" ratings in 5 mph tests, according to IIHS. Except for some VW models and Toyota's Corolla, the rest received "Marginal" or "Poor" ratings. Car manufacturers know how to build strong bumpers that absorb hits and protect the body of the car. Not a priority to them though.
Regarding Buick's bumpers, Le Sabre achieved a "Marginal" and Park Avenue an "Acceptable". And these are large cars. We'll see about the La Crosse.
-This statement is based on what?
"The Lacrosse's base price may be higher, but base model Japanese cars do not come with a lot of standard features and the bottom line is that a loaded Passat/Camry/Accord/LAcrosse will run you $28K-$30K"
- Actually, you're wrong. The Camry LE 4 cylinder has all of the standard features of the LaCrosse CX, which will start about $3000 higher than the Camry. So does the Accord (which has ABS standard but not a power drivers seat). Additionally, the Passat does and the LaCrosse CXS will.. top $30K.
"As Chavis said, the magazines rarely test 4 cylinder versions of the top selling sedans when those models represent the overwhelming majority of sales."
-Motor Trend, Car and Driver, and Consumer Reports ALL had tests of 4 cylinder family cars in 2003, so I'm not too sure where this comment comes from.
The 500 has been widely criticized for its on-paper specs and relative lack of power. That said, the 500 isnt a competitor to the midsize sedans, the Futura is. The 500 will do battle with bigger vehicles, like the Avalon, Chrysler 300s, Amanti and GMs larger offerings (LeSabre, Bonne).
Most magazines do not claim the Passat the best midsize sedan on the market, just CR. They dont really emphasize peformance, but I would certainly agree with you- the 190hp V6 Passat has fallen behind the power field.
~alpha
http://www.conceptcarz.com/folder/vehicle.asp?whichpage=1&sor- tyBy=&pagesize=8&car_id=7833&vehicleTypeID=0&Prin- tAllPictures=true
http://www.edmunds.com/news/autoshow/articles/101248/page005.html- ?tid=edmunds.e.autoshow..leftnav.6.*
http://www.nctd.com/sneakpreview.cfm?ReviewID=53
I think the front looks like my 1996 Riviera did?
http://www.geocities.com/fastdriver2_99/96buick.html
fastdriver
when it comes to styling both of you give the impression that your opinions are the final arbitrator. personally i think the ES300 and the new TL (by a big margin) have better styling than the LaCrosse. of course this doesn't make me any more "right" than either of you.
as someone from automobile magazine stated "this is a lazy powerful engine".
GM should make the 3.6l standard across the board for the LaCrosse (especially if the ES300 is considered a competitor). Maybe the LaCrosse should just have a "detuned" version for the lower priced models.
GM was able to smooth out the edges in the malibu's 3.5L V6 pushrod engine, but it still isn't on par with the japanese V6 engines. this is more than acceptable in the malibu's segment, but for cars the LaCrosse is competing against, I don't think so.