Howdy, Stranger!

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





2010-2011 Buick LaCrosse

1353638404168

Comments

  • cooleyddcooleydd Posts: 105
    Actually I also use the built in tire pressure system - but do not check it on a regular basis and yesterday I received my report from OnStar and decided to post. It would seem to me if it is the fault of the tires (Goodyears) it ought be considered a defect and should be replaced. Remember the Firestone problems.

    When You think about it and compare mileage driven and decrease in tire pressure it would mean that it looses about a lb. of pressure every thousand miles. For me this would be every 2 to 4 weeks. Not acceptable.

    Could one use one of the tire stop leaks to seal things - what would this do to the air pressure system.
  • cooleyddcooleydd Posts: 105
    If you change tires (an expensive option) what tire would you go to?
  • e_net_ridere_net_rider Posts: 1,380
    They may not advertise it anywhere. Your tighter requirements might make all of it top tier, no lesser fuel available.
  • e_net_ridere_net_rider Posts: 1,380
    There are products out there that claim they are TPMS safe, but I would not use them or any such product. It would seem very unlikely that you would get uniformity of it and not effect balance. And if it continues to shift it would be impossible to keep balance.
    I think most tires now have a liner that is to the inside of the tread as an extra precaution to keep from getting air between the carcass and the tread. So your major areas of seepage would have to be the sidewall or bead of tire.
    Some tires seem to be much worse than others at losing air.
    My last set of new were Khumo Ecsta P235R60/16 and were excellent on Aurora until they got about 4 years old. Rubber was starting to harden and as to air, only added in the fall as temperatures started falling, that is a colder cold inflation temperature.
    Although I've seen no reviews for these tires on our vehicle, I'm leaning toward a Continental or Michelin.
    I've read a couple of reviews about the RSA on our vehicle. I'm suspicious of the latest review because of timing which did nothing but rave about this tire. The other one rated it as worst tire he ever owned and would not put a free set on anything.
  • bwiabwia Boston Posts: 1,289
    edited October 2010
    According to my service manager OnStar takes it reading at about 2:00 AM in the morning when the tires are cold and temperatures at its lowest. As a test he set my psi at 34 and drove the car around for about half an hour and voila the driving temperature raised the psi to 35. Before I became aware of that I used to set my pressure at the recommended 35 psi but after a day's driving it would rise to 38. That I believe is responsible for the louder road noise.

    On the other hand, switching to nitrogen might be a better solution to regular air. In my Avalon I used nitrogen and I never had to worry about tire pressure again.
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Crossroads of America: I70 & I75Posts: 18,460
    > In my Avalon I used nitrogen and I never had to worry about tire pressure again.

    That probably was more a result of the tire brand and construction quality than of the gas inside the tire.

    80% of your air now is nitrogen. How is adding another 10% perhaps going to change the permeability factor of the tire carcass? The nitrogen game is a scam to make money. DO some searching online for the machines they sell to the shops that generate, supposedly, a higher nitrogen mixture from normal air for the shop to put into your tire and charge you for it. The ads are based on how much profit the shop can make from making you feel nitrogen in your tire is meaningful.

    CR did a study years back of tires and air loss. They stored tires and monitored pressures. The Michelin X-One had the lowest loss of any tire.
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Crossroads of America: I70 & I75Posts: 18,460
    My Cobalt is often not driven for days. When the monthly report is due, it takes a reading shortly after the car is taken out and on the road. I can tell by the mileage on the odometer at the time of the report generation. It doesn't take the reading with the ignition turned off sitting in the garage, in my assessment.
  • tom2246tom2246 Posts: 29
    On the C5 I went to Michelins. When I got the G35 I did the same thing ASAP, from GY. The Michelins are a harder tire so will be a bit different but will also last longer.
    On the C5 and G35 they are noticably quieter.
  • tom2246tom2246 Posts: 29
    What you are seeing is normal expansion from the heat generated on the road-tire friction. The lower the tire pressure from reccomended the lower your gas mileage - increased rolling friction. I would expect that if the tires were to maintain the 35# as normal the normal increase in pressure should be in the 2 -3 pound range when driving. IMO you should not have to drive the car to get to 35#. Also from my experience with the C5 when the car was cold it would heat-up to about 2-3 # more when pushed. I think the dealer was saying what they did to make you go away - IMO.
  • bwiabwia Boston Posts: 1,289
    edited October 2010
    Here is a 7-minute video that compares the 2011 Lacrosse to the 2011 Avalon and the Lacrosse wins hands down. Not sure what models but they were not top of the line.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26zmv7qG9CQ&feature=related

    -
  • So the Buick salesman liked the Buick better!? This tour was very superficial. I never for a second considered an Avalon as the target competition in the first place.
  • crankeeecrankeee Posts: 297
    Cooter: We have a 3.0L 2010 CXL and the 30.6 is right on what we have seen. 29 MPG at 75 and at 85 it drops to 27.5. At 70 the "instant" MPG is 31-32 and is variable but we drive at 65 rarely. The BIG plus is that the 3.0, rated at 255 BHP is only indicated for Regular 87 Octane fuel. The Cadillac versions of the 3.0 are uptuned, rated higher and many require premium methinks.We use Shell, Chevron and Exxon since the wife nixed BP in "her" car, and avoid the cheapies like the plague to protect those $200 fuel injectors! The upscale (read more $) models require premium for the higher HP engines that ad agencies like to market to big bucks buyers who need more numbers IMO. Good model, good engine choice and GREAT transmission programmed for mileage NOT drag racing in a Buick.
  • crankeeecrankeee Posts: 297
    We have had Michelin Ones from Costco and Sams for years - great tires with all important great service from both stores. We also have had air loss on certain alloy rims with other tires but NO loss on chrome plated rims. Advice in the past was to use rim/bead sealant on tires that seemed to stop the leaks. Cans with stop leak are not receommended unless specifically labelled as safe to tire changers, since older brands were flammable. Michelin makes great products in our experience, but there have to be other good brands- magazine reviews and tests are helpful.
  • e_net_ridere_net_rider Posts: 1,380
    Does anyone know why GM decided to scrap the 3.0L? It does seem to be a huge step down to the 4 cylinder.
    Will GM be dropping the 3.9 when the end of Lucerne and Impala occurs? I would have looked more closely at Lucerne if it had the 6 speed which should have helped city MPG significantly and highway some. Also of concern was that 2010 was supposed to be the last of Impala and Lucerne. And they cut option list tremendously on both models.
    Word is that Buick will bring a Park Avenue on board and the Impala reinvented around the super Epsilon chassis but that is not slated until at least 2015. That is a long way off and I have to wonder if they will keep building but strip more options.
    For 2010, the 3.6L was available in Impala and better mileage than 3.9. But to get the most options, you had to go with top model which only came with 3.9L. Go figure?
    It definitely makes me wonder why Buick did not offer 3.6 in Lucerne?
  • e_net_ridere_net_rider Posts: 1,380
    FYI, the propellant in those earlier ones is propane. It could lend new meaning to a cartoon of a tire captioned, "Blow me up."
    On the good side is that propane is a much larger molecule and if you blew balloons up with helium, air, & propane, the propane would stay inflated longest.
  • crankeeecrankeee Posts: 297
    3.0L was not "scrapped", it appears to be reallocated to different models within GM. The crossovers and certain Cadillac models still offer the 3.0 that, as you all know, is the same DI DOHC aluminum engine family as the 3.6L that they can charge more for due to higher output numbers. The Buicks probably did not need two V-6 engines with the I-4 intro, so the I-4 fit the low end models and the 3.6L was a better fit for the higher priced CXS (with no I-4 option).
    Seems to be more marketing and pricing driven than engineering or performance to this limited view individual with no inside track. The 3.0L with the new 6-speed is great in the 2010 Lacrosse and all reports are the 3.6L is more responsive with more bore size, higher tuning requiring premium fuel like Cadillac, and resulting in faster vehicle for higher priced models and targeted customers with more $ to spend
  • bwiabwia Boston Posts: 1,289
    edited October 2010
    If you look at video closely it shows a coin holder and a little cubby for a cell phone or keys. Well, my CXS does not have that coin holder (I wish I had one though) and I had never noticed that cubby before. All this time I thought it was a fuse box.

    Rainman, I don't know about you but many buyers cross-shopped the Avalon with the Lacrosse. The 2011 Avalon is a worthy competitor when it comes to ride, sophistication and handling but the exterior styling is too bland...and conveys too much of a granda image. The 2000 - 2004 Avalon XLS (generation 2) was the best Avalon and closest to a Buick, and by extension, the new Lacrosse.

    -
  • ab348ab348 Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, CanadaPosts: 2,264
    While I found the 2010 Lacrosse with the 3.0 that I drove to be perfectly fine, the engine has been castigated for its lack of low-end torque and generally disappointing output. Certainly if I was buying a car like a Lacrosse or CTS where the choice of either the 3.0 or 3.6 was offered, the 3.6 would be the choice.

    2014 Cadillac ATS4 2.0T, 1968 Oldsmobile Cutlass S Holiday Coupe

  • I use the well hidden and little drop down storage box for business cards. I don't have a coin holder in my 2010.

    When I bought, I needed a USA/UAW made (VIN# startinging with a "1"0 car and looked at Ford Taurus. Had to reject and US makes manufactured in Mexico etc. Defineltly no Japanese makes. I transfered/sold a lease on a Mercedes E350.
  • e_net_ridere_net_rider Posts: 1,380
    edited October 2010
    Maybe Buick wants us to get bags for silver and hang them from the rearview mirror. ;-)

    BTW, if you have HUD, the little covy hole next to the pull open does not exist.
  • e_net_ridere_net_rider Posts: 1,380
    Have you compared it to one with the 3.6L?
    I test drove one, maybe CXL fairly loaded, and it just did not get when I put my foot in. At the time I thought it had less acceleration than Malibu with 4 cylinder. But then that might have just been perception. Anyway it matched what many have said but then I just don't get it. If 3.0 & 3.6 have same stroke, just different bore, then torque should be proportional. Maybe you got one that was intended for Cadillac? Or maybe the one I drove was just doggy.
    My experience of driving Malibu Ecotec with 4 speed and 6 speed trannys was like having a very different engine. So, after driving Impala with 3.6 and 4 speed I expected 3.0L with 6 speed to be quite comparable. Not so. And the 3.6 will fly, have you checking speedometer if you put foot in it because you'll end up much faster than you realize. 101 is not an interstate, yet.
  • cooterbfdcooterbfd Posts: 2,770
    I've got the 3.6 in my CXS, and it only reccomends higher octane gas, but will run fine on 87. 87 is all I use.
  • gberpagberpa Posts: 44
    It does run fine on 87. But I did try 91 octane and got ~19% better mpg. The test was to short - highway miles but less than 100 miles on each- so I'm still going to run more checks.
  • bwiabwia Boston Posts: 1,289
    Does any one have problems with Homelink?

    I have followed the instructions in the Lacrosse manual (as well as online) but I cannot get Homelink to work. What am I doing wrong?

    I have a Genie garage door opener with the so-called rolling code and a two-button remote. I believe the opener was manufactured in 2006 but I’ve never been able to get it to work with my former car and now the Lacrosse. I’ve tried everything but the result is always the same. The garage door stays mum. Even my son-in-law an engineer and tech savvy could do no better.

    Bloggers any tips or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

    -
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Crossroads of America: I70 & I75Posts: 18,460
    edited October 2010
    Have you visited homelink.com?

    They have programming help and they have FAQs. I assume they have contact by email for phone where you could give your model for Genie along with your car model for additional help.

    Homelink:

    Process: Program a garage door
    Vehicle: 2011 Buick LaCrosse
    HomeLink® Location: Visor

    Door Opener: Genie CAUTION!

    Before programming HomeLink® to a garage door opener or gate operator, make sure that people and objects are out of the way of the device to prevent potential harm or damage. Your motorized garage door or gate will open and close while you are programming HomeLink®. Do not program HomeLink® if people or pets are in the path of the door or gate. A moving garage door or gate can cause serious injury or death to people and pets or damage to objects.

    Vehicle exhaust contains carbon monoxide, a dangerous gas. Do not run the vehicle's engine while programming HomeLink®. Exhaust gas can cause serious injury or death. When programming a garage door opener, it is advised to park outside of the garage.

    Do not use HomeLink® with any garage door opener that lacks safety stop and reverse features as required by U.S. federal safety standards (this includes any garage door opener model manufactured before April 1, 1982). A garage door that cannot detect an object signaling the door to stop and reverse - does not meet current U.S. federal safety standards.

    If programming a garage door opener or gate, it is advised to unplug the device during the HomeLink® programming and also if performing the "cycling" process to prevent possible motor burn-up.

    NOTE: Some vehicles may require the ignition to be turned on or to the second (or “accessory” or ACC) position for training and/or operation of HomeLink®. It is also recommended that a new battery be replaced in the hand held transmitter of the device being trained to HomeLink® for quicker training and accurate transmission of the radio frequency.

    For first time training, press and hold the two outer HomeLink® buttons, releasing only when the HomeLink® indicator light begins to flash after 20 seconds. (Do not perform this step when training the additional HomeLink® buttons.)
    Position the hand-held transmitter 1-3 inches away from the HomeLink® surface (located on your visor), keeping the HomeLink® indicator light in view.
    Using both hands, simultaneously press and hold both the desired HomeLink® button and hand held transmitter button. DO NOT release until the HomeLink® indicator light flashes slowly and then rapidly. When the indicator light flashes rapidly, both buttons may be released. (The rapid flashing indicates successful training.)

    Note: Some garage door openers may require you to replace step 3 with the “cycling” procedure noted in the “View Canadian Instructions” section.
    Press and hold the trained HomeLink® button and observe the indicator light.
    If the indicator light is solid/continuous, training is complete and your device should activate when the HomeLink® button is pressed and released.
    If the indicator light blinks rapidly for 2 seconds and then turns a solid/continuous light, proceed with the following training instructions for a rolling code device. A second person may make the following steps quicker and easier. Please use a ladder or other device. Do not stand on your vehicle to perform the next steps.
    At the garage door opener receiver (motorhead unit) in the garage, locate the “learn” or “smart” button (usually near where the hanging antenna wire is attached to the unit). If there is difficulty locating the training button, reference the garage door opener’s manual or contact us.
    Press and release the “learn” or “smart” button (the name and color of the button may vary by manufacturer). NOTE: Once the button is pressed, there are 30 seconds in which to initiate the next step.
    Return to the vehicle and firmly press and hold the trained HomeLink® button for two seconds and release. Repeat the “press/hold/release” sequence up to 3 times to complete the training process.
    Retain the original hand-held transmitter of the RF device you are programming for use in other
  • crankeeecrankeee Posts: 297
    edited October 2010
    We set up the remote in the 2010 Lacrosse CXL and after repeated tries we kept reading the manual and had to go to the next level. After coding in the setup, we had to take the cover off of our older (~2000) Genie Intellicode unit and push the "learn" button (small black pin type) within a few seconds of the coding in the car remote. Manual recommends two people due to timing of sequences. After a few misfires and jumping out of the car and on the ladder to the remote, it works!
    Very similar routine to setting up the code on a wireless remote unit to the opener.
    The opener has to learn, or pair with the sending device. good luck.
  • crankeeecrankeee Posts: 297
    The newer computer management systems can adjust for the lower octane due to Ethanol or just lower grade and prevent knocking by retarding timing advance by means of the prom/computer(s). The performance is affected, as posted by others, and therefore the mileage may go down also.
    We have tried midgrade and premium in 2010 CXL with 3.0L and the mileage approves marginally with midgrade that offsets the minor cost increase. The top tier fuel advice posted by others is what has really worked for us. The Shell, Exxon and Chevron seem to work best in this and previous GM models, with max mileage and smoother idle and performance. These new engines are great but VERY expensive to repair and service so using inferior fuels is a fools game IMO.
    Try Shell midgrade and see what you experience in the 3.6L and let us know.
  • crankeeecrankeee Posts: 297
    I agree the 3.6L has more get. The 350HP 327 we had would really run also but required aircraft fuel (Sunoco) to get the 11:1 compression to run right. This time we tried to avoid the models requiring premium for future availability as much as cost. Also had a 300ZX that absolutely had to have 91/93 octane and NO ethanol.
    The new Cadillac SRX and some of the later CTS models have the 3.0/3.6 choice. Methinks the marketing boys wanted V-6's in the Caddys and I-4 in Chevy and lower end Buicks with 3.6 going to higher cost models where drivers are more indifferent to requirement for high test fuels. As we age we have lost the desire to dragrace the other buick drivers HA!
  • crankeeecrankeee Posts: 297
    The choice of engines on the 2010 was either the 3.0L or the 3.6 and about 25 HP and similar MPG. With the I-4 announcement we knew the 2011 choice was I-4 using regular or 3.6 using premium with loaded models and higher price. Once we saw the high 30's we were in the CTS range and did not feel the need. The 3.0 in ours is great on the road and will easily do 30 MPG in the 65-70 MPH range which is what we wanted. The marketing gurus at the car companies do a great job with raising the prices as the numbers and options go up the curve. Great that we could fit in with our budget and get a good performing car. The 2011 SRX's are in the high 30's and the Lacrosse models are getting priced up to differentiate from the high 20's Regal models. so far so good with our choice.
    We hope the LT durability hangs in there like the old 3.8L V-6 and 327/350/400 CI GM engines of old that made GM the car we wanted. Enjoy the new car!
  • gberpagberpa Posts: 44
    How are you able to determine the mpg at these various speeds? By resetting the average mpg in the DIC and viewing the new short term values or by running it for a while at said speeds and filling the tank and calculating a true value? If the former, it would seem like variables such as road grade, wind speed/direction, etc would be important. I wish there was an instantaneous readout in the LaCrosse as in the 2010 CTS and even Impala. But even with the average meter, I have my doubts on the accuracy. In my (only) 1-2 k miles, I've noted differences between what the average mpg says in the DIC and what you calculate the old fashion way!
Sign In or Register to comment.