Howdy, Stranger!

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





Buick Lucerne

1373840424353

Comments

  • kcwolfpack59kcwolfpack59 Posts: 122
    Is it just me, or do the newer Cavaliers have the same tail light and back end look as the Lucerne? Don't get me wrong. If I had the $ everyone in my family would have one. I am crazy about these cars. If Buick could improve on one thing, I would suggest a different tail light treatment, say one reminincent of the 1967 Deuce and a Quarter that went all the way across.
  • poncho167poncho167 Posts: 1,178
    The Cavaliars were discontinued in early 2005.
  • m1miatam1miata Posts: 4,556
    No not the Cavalier, though there is something about the whole front and back which looks familiar. Sort of like a bit of this n' that of a previously altered by Japan design version of a Euro design. I think I sort of like it. Something about those big eyes. Perhaps the sheetmetal should wrap around the front fender and with about half the width of the headlamp assembly, would look better. Front sort of reminds one of a Buick in the mouth area, though it could be an older Maxima too. I would place this as a drawing of the early to mid 90's era. Which was good for smooth rounded Euro like car lines. I think the redo on the DTS is a bit better. Especially the rear deck, which looks richer and the side view looks like the car is sitting more level. The front is a toss up for styling, with the Buick grill looking OK, but the lamps a bit overdone. I kinda see where they were going with the more sporty side profile, like a Passat, but the Altima captured and improved on the theme with better effect. The good side is that they are trying new looks. In person, the car looks pretty good. Better than the Cadillac version? Debatable. At some angles, IMHO, the LaCrosse wins the beauty contest over the Lucerne.

    Just an opinion-- Good, but not a home run. Value, for say a used one in a year or so, may be a home run.
    -Loren
  • sls002sls002 Posts: 2,788
    I think that the Lucerne's styling is nicer than the previous LsSabre, but not quite as nice as the Park Avenue. However, the Park Avenue's styling made it look heavy, while the Lucerne's styling makes it look smaller than it is.
  • m1miatam1miata Posts: 4,556
    Ya know, I looked at them today, and both the Lucerne and LaCrosse look pretty good. The back end, I was thinking looked familiar. Now I am thinking it is a larger Corolla butt. I owned a '98 and it like the '96 Camry had sort of the same lights and sheetmetal on the back. I liked that look. On the back of the Lucerne? It is OK. It will change over time. Overall, looks kinda interesting. The interior sure looks improved on GMs. Wow, they finally are doing something there.

    Will wait to find a used one on the lot to test drive it. Would like to eventual drive the V6 & V8. Like the used cars so I can open them up and test brakes more than you should do on a brand new car. Don't want to spoil the car for the eventual buyer.

    To own a V8 again would be a treat. My last one was 1965 Mustang 289. So as you may be guessing, even the car I bought used when say 18 years old, places me back wanting for a V8 for a very long time. I have had four bangers which were fun, and some nice V6, but always go for the gas mileage it seems. Oh, and those nasty 70's for gas prices and .... well somehow things pass all too quickly. Maybe I can eat less, live in my car of something, and buy more gas for a V8. :D Another thing is handling. I do not want a land barge. I hear the handling is crisper and sportier on Buicks now, though some like the LaCrosse or base Lucerne may not get all too great a review. Will drive it myself and see. I think some of the reviewers may get a bit harsh due to the image of a Buick in the past as a big softy for handling. My 1987 Olds. 98 Regency handled much better than my 1985 Mustang. But the Olds. Achieva was not quite as good as the Olds. 98.
    OK, I know, it was a glorified Cavalier. I have owned some strange cars, and I am a recovering weird car buyer :blush:
    -Loren
  • rake2rake2 Posts: 120
    Just make sure you buy a car with the Gen 7 OnStar system. Think they were put in beginning in March 06. Earlier versions do not support turn by turn.
  • m1miatam1miata Posts: 4,556
    AAA has maps :D I am never lost.
    Which room am I in now? Oh yeah, Lucerne. That's in Switzerland.

    Anyone buying a Buick with the 3.8 because they feel it will be more reliable four to eight years down the road? Is the Northstar a reliable engine for the long haul? And why didn't they put the 3.9 V6 in these cars, or the 3.6 V6.
    -Loren
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Crossroads of America: I70 & I75Posts: 18,085
    I can never figure out if you're really proGM, antiGM, etc., by your comments. I would buy the 3800 III because it's reliable as you describe just as some would buy a 4 cyl Camry or a V6 Camry or Avalon.

    You'd have to ask the company why they didn't put 3.9 or 3.6 V6s in the cars. I'm sure they did a consumer interest study. But I think you've posted before that a third motor choice in the Lucerne would help sales; I would agree. I see the 3800 III buyer (myself?) and I see the middle power buyer who doesn't want and doesn't need the V8 Northstar. If the 3.6 were offered, I'd probably test drive and compare mileage and pick the 3800 III if I'm buying a Lucerne.
  • 62vetteefp62vetteefp Posts: 6,048
    Because GM still had one more module building the 3800 in Flint they could not shut down due to UAW agreements. Who best to keep using it than a buick and one that already had it in the vehicle. Sorry, but there are many Buick buyers who love this engine. I used to hear from them all the time!!
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Crossroads of America: I70 & I75Posts: 18,085
    Could the Impala have used the 3800III? I'd buy another one in a flash because it now has a metal UIM. I'm not in car market yet, but I'll look for one when I am. I just drove mine to the lake to visit FIL today on two-lane mostly level country highway; 30.5 on way up against 30 mph headwind; 39.2 on way back with 15-20 tailwind. Passed several cars with ultra smooth downshifts and strong power for passing.

    Others want more powerful motors and that's good for them. I don't want to feed one that's too thirsty.
  • m1miatam1miata Posts: 4,556
    Not pro GM at all. Not anti- GM at all, except for recognizing many of their flaws over the years. Designs were excellent, as in proud to own Body b Fisher designs up to the early 70's. Then thing sort of fell apart. Current offerings, of those newer than say 2002, looked a bit more promising. In looking over the data in Consumers Report, it looks like after a few years the engine was not rated highly on the Cadillacs. That would be the Northstar. I am wondering if any other data backs this up. Was told that the Northstar is their stellar engine in a V8. Will try to get the JD Powers off the Edmund's site here for the years 2003 and older. The site is not working at the moment.

    What I do see from Consumer Reports data, is that the Buick line seems to be most reliable for years and years. The engines are rated well going back in time for a number of years. I know someone that had his Caddy blow up going up the grade we have here near the town. Of course that would be a survey of one ;)

    I owned a car with the 3.8 which was not reliable. BUT, the problems I understand got pretty much worked out over time. I had a 1987. By 1988 the transmissions and the strange engine problems got worked out -- I think. When it worked the engine was fine. Good gas mileage. Only 150HP back when, but pretty good torque. I learned to drive in a Buick LeSabre '71. Ah, the good ol' rear wheel drive and chrome years. I sort of like the Lucerne for interior, and in some ways the exterior is OK too. Kinda like the LaCrosse though. Really love the crash test scores for the Lucerne, and the chassis being a DTS.

    I may take a LaCrosse, Lucerne and the Azera for a test spin on the same day to see how they compare. Unless discounted, I am not terribly impressed with the Buick pricing, so would go for the end of year blow-out sale or just buy one used.
    -Loren
  • 62vetteefp62vetteefp Posts: 6,048
    Yes, it was already in the previous model. But the module could not have built enough for it and the others. since it is a Buick engine they got the short straw. I like the engine but the new ones would be better.
  • m1miatam1miata Posts: 4,556
    Well I got back in Edmund's site. Was down for a brief time. Anyway on this page:
    http://www.edmunds.com/used/2005/cadillac/deville/100380709/ratings_jdpower.html-
    I noted the reliability of the engine for 4-5 years period as not all that bad compared to what Consumer Reports magazine data would indicate. The current magazine report shows a major deterioration of reliability on several cars - Cadillac included. It is like they fall apart in around the fourth year on. I have used this magazine for data on reliability for years, but will be sure to always cross reference it now. Some things don't seem to add up.

    Is this Northstar really all that great, sort of over hyped, or not so good ( temperamental or easily trashed )? It is lighter in weight and suppose to be better I guess in other some ways?
    -Loren
  • poncho167poncho167 Posts: 1,178
    I would not take what Consumer Reports says too seriously. For years I have thought they were full-of-crap, and have this odd preference for Japanese cars (maybe because they are from California?). This weekend I actually looked in their best and worst magazine and read that they down graded the Chevy HHR for having center mounted power window controls, but when I looked over at the Chrysler PT Cruiser, there was no mention of their center mounted power window controls.

    I would look at CR for ratings on dishwashers, televisons, vacuum cleaners, and maybe lawn mowers, but that is about it.
  • m1miatam1miata Posts: 4,556
    Oh I just look more at the data gathered from the survey on each car. But when the data changed so from the 2005 magazine I did wonder. The difference was little between 2003 and 2005 magazine for about the same number of years of service for the Cadillac, I could not believe all the black dots suddenly appear in 2006. They say this is due to GM cars falling apart in years five on, but it did NOT look that way on the older cars in 2003 book, then again 2005 was tracking about the same, only to see something quirky about the 2006. If the cars fail in say year five, why did it not do this before?
    And the JD Powers older data would not indicate the mechanic to be gawd-awful. Something is wrong here.
    Before I would dismiss all CR data though, I would cross reference it with other data found on the Net. The MSN Auto and ConsumerGuide has some info. too. If it all looks bad, then I would say good-bye to that car.

    Yes, I agree about reviews. Perhaps they are better at toasters than what makes a good car. But I guess it is all in what people see a car as.
    -Loren
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Crossroads of America: I70 & I75Posts: 18,085
    I marvel at the blanket statement from CR that GM cars fall apart after 4-5 years!!! I see many cars from the 92-99 era H bodies running around our area. They have been traded in or sold and have used car owners who are using them. There are a boatload of them. For something that falls apart I haven't seen one on the side of the road yet.

    There are loads of Cavaliers and Impalas running around, FWD, RWD, Box versions. Lots of them.

    I did see a recent Vette sitting on I-70 overpass (white) that didn't make it to the cruise-in last Saturday afternoon. Guess those Vettes just aren't no good?
  • m1miatam1miata Posts: 4,556
    They have a graphic simple line chart of say Honda and Toyota and GM and Fords displayed. It indicates far more trouble areas as the years go by. The chart is not pretty. The worse one is GM, which starts having more and more problems per hundred cars as the years tick away in the 4 to 8 year range.

    Now they did not say the cars are broken down on the freeway, but indicate that you will have more problems. Could very well be true. Personally, I think the year 2002 on looks more promising for most GM cars for reliability. Would imagine the older the platform and engine, the better your odds. Lucerne is on a Deville chassis and the engines have been time tested. I might consider a Cadillac or Buick. Those two of GM fame seem to be pretty good in most ways, and if bought used, their owners tend to keep them in good running order, and nice a clean.

    Maybe the long term chart at CR will look more favorable for GM enthusiasts and first time buyers in a few years. The data JD Powers is collecting indicates Buicks are right up there with the Japan makes. We'll see. Cadillac is an interesting one. You look at some data which shows all these problems per 100 car data, with Cadillac near the bottom, yet the other data doesn't seem to back it up. So Buick is nearer the top and Cadillac is the bottom fish? Best to cross reference every bit of data these days. Seems like everyone's survey data is quite different. Maybe all the techno wizard stuff on a Caddy does make it worse than say a more basic Buick. If true, maybe I will avoid the Cadillac line. But I don't think Caddy is doing so badly on JD Powers surveys. And NO I will not be taking the CR magazine as gospel. I am like others no longer convinced it all makes sense. I do believe as a whole however, the older GMs of 1975-2000 say did, on a average of all their cars, have more problems per car than did the Toyotas and Hondas. This can be cross referenced with say JD Powers. Hyundais were bad too. Both Hyundai and GM have now improved.
    -Loren
  • My 94 Park Ave (bought new) has 154,000 miles on it.

    12 years of use = Tires,brakes,struts,alternator,and A-C recharge(2 times).
    ( A Reasonable list I think)

    But Engine,(3800 V-6 AND 4 speed transmision are A-OK,
    original and trouble free ! (Still gets 30 MPG highway.)

    Is 12 years enough to ask from a new car? I think so.

    Am looking to Lucerne or Caddy DTS to "retire" my'94 Buick.
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Crossroads of America: I70 & I75Posts: 18,085
    Isn't it great how dependable they are!

    I marvel at how irritated some people are with the dependability of Buicks that they come here to post against the known durability. I see so many of the 92-98 model years driven around our metro area. I haven't seen one by the side of the road.

    1993 leSabre 150K, struts, reman alternator

    1998 leSabre 130K, UIM, water pump (may not have been seeping, changed anyhow), struts, broken wire to load leveling air pump in rear. Still own and drive more than 2003 leSabre we also own.

    2003 leSabre 42K, no problems. Quiet, high gas mileage, roomy, powerful motor and trans combination with torque at lower speeds so I don't have to sound like a 6000 rpm electric router to take off quickly!!! Torque is where it's at, not horsepower at 6000 rpm!
  • 62vetteefp62vetteefp Posts: 6,048
    IQS is announced today. Be prepared for changes. Life as we know it will be different. Gods will fall. Upstarts will change the game.
  • larrymitlarrymit Posts: 80
    Consumer Reports reliability ratings aren't absolute ratings, they are ratings relative to other makes and models. A model with a "red dot" is one that has significantly fewer problems reported with a particular system. One with a "black dot" has significantly more problems than average. Consumer Reports says that all cars are much more reliable now than in earlier years. The ratings are just designed to give you an idea of how likely you are to have a problem with car X as opposed to car Y. By no means do they show that GM cars are broken-down on the side of the road after 4 or 5 years. (Also, problems reported by respondents to CR's survey are self-defined as "serious" to the respondent. One person might feel a door handle falling off in the first month of ownership is serious, while another might just consider it a normal part of getting the bugs out of a new car.)
  • m1miatam1miata Posts: 4,556
    Yeap, looks like Hyundai leaps over GM and Buicks in the latest Initial Quality Report.
    Looks like LaCrosse and Lucerne have some competition to consider.
    -Loren
  • adamcadamc Posts: 5
    Not good news for Buick. Perhaps the long term dependability study due out later this year will show a brighter side.

    Of course, JD Power has noted that long term dependability usually tracks initial quality ... so odds are this is an inkling of problems to come, as well.
  • Karen_CMKaren_CM Posts: 5,018
    A promotional magazine seeks to interview Buick Lucerne owners who love their vehicles. Please respond to jfallon@edmunds.com by Monday, June 26 with your daytime contact information and a few words about your ownership experience so far.

    Thanks,
    Jeannine Fallon
    Corporate Communications
    Edmunds.com

    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.

  • I sold my 1994 Pontiac Grand-Prix GTP with only 38,000 miles on it because it would cost me $900 on a new alternator then i would have to replace to timing belt again cost $1,000. Anything that broke on the car would cost more to fix than a Mercedes-Benz engine problem. SO when you say that all of these little things went how much did it cost. I thought that american cars are cheaper to work on then foreign cars. Also, after five years of pampering (garage kept and wax six times in the year) the paint started to bubble, fade, peal, rust with holes on the fenders, "quality". I must have been miss lead by people like you that GM makes good cars and things like a bad paint job on a $20,000 car is just normal and deal with it. When I sold its worth was only $4,000. This is suppose to keep me buying a GM vehicle! I would say no.

    Currently I drive a 2000 Toyota Solara SE V6. Have 80,000 miles on it and just change the oil, filter and rotate the tires. I get 30 mpg on the highway and 21 mpg in the city. The Grand-Prix only got 20 mpg on the highway and 13 mpg in the city. The Toyota's paint job is flawless and no rust.

    Clearly I like foreign cars. The whole family is slowly going foreign.

    So GM equals "Garbage Machine!"
  • rayainswrayainsw Posts: 2,507
    I see (on the 6 or 8 Forums here that I follow with some regularity) a post like this about once a week or so . .

    Typically, it is the first post (it is here) someone makes after signing up at Edmunds.

    Odd.

    I have no idea why this was posted in the Lucerne Forum – but my point is, perhaps the Host(s) \ Moderator(s) could create a Forum for exactly (and only) this sort of post:

    The New “I Am Mad About [ whatever automotive experience I’ve had ] And I Need To Vent” Forum?

    - Ray
    Movin’ on . . .
  • m1miatam1miata Posts: 4,556
    And I may add ConsumerGuide lists the typical cost of an alternator as $215 and the timing belt as $170 for that model of car. Just ignore that post on the Grand Prix.

    Basically, while I am never happy about paying to repairs, or needing them in the first place, GM and Fords usually have less expensive parts and repair bills. Not sure why consumers are not demanding longer warranties. The Buick one is at least 4 years. If Hyundai can do 4 yrs, then 10 years of drive train, perhaps the rest of the companies need to get on board the value wagon now. Just a thought. Even a 5year/60K on everything would be great.
    -Loren
  • 62vetteefp62vetteefp Posts: 6,048
    Looks like the poster was quoting actual repair quotes for some kind of foreign vehicle. They are usually quite a bit higher than domestic vehicles.
  • Typical cost of the alternator and timing belt is true, but the labor costs were astronomical! THAT IS A FACT. THAT SHOULD NOT BE IGNORED.

    In the case of longer warranties. I do not have an extended warranty on my Toyota and have no problems. Also and extended warranty is only a limited warranty. And we all know that when the extended warranty goes all the problems start. Expensive problems.

    So as I said in the beginning the cost of the parts are true BUT you forgot the labor cost for replacing these parts. DO NOT IGNORE THE LABOR COSTS!!!!
  • I just want to say that the Buick Lucerne is an excellent vehicle. It is a very nice car and I think that MORE GM vehicles should be made with the quality that the buick has. I Think it is a good start for GM. I would like to see my grandmother switch to the Lucerne after 10 Cadillac's that gave her some problems. But the competitors like the Toyota Avalon and Lexus ES 350 have the history of reliable and dependable vehicles. But I think for the money the Buick is a good car and should be looked at.
Sign In or Register to comment.