Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options

2011 Buick Regal

12357…15

Comments

  • Options
    elvissselvisss Member Posts: 14
    This dealer offered 24000 OTD for a base model if i buy tomorrow, the price is good.

    but i am really concerned about the engine performance, should i bite it?
  • Options
    overbrookoverbrook Member Posts: 275
    He his cutting $3k from the sticker price? That sounds very aggressive. I was able to get less than $1000 of MSRP on my car in late July.

    The car isnt slow compared to any other four cylinder sedan or crossover on the road. C&D got 0-60 in 8.7 secs which is faster than an Accord EX automatic. The only four cylinder car in this price range that is notably faster is the CC because it has a turbo 2L with considerably more torque. Even the much celebated Sonata is capable of only 7.8-8 secs to 60- hardly a major advantage that would noticed by the average driver. The Regal is slow compared to a V6 powered car, not compared to other midsize sedans with comparable power.

    The crossover segment is booming and almost every I4 powered crossover on the market is slower than the Regal and yet people manage to drive them every day without an issue. Everything from the Mazda6 to the Accord to the CR-V is no faster than the Regal.
  • Options
    elvissselvisss Member Posts: 14
    edited October 2010
    yes, the dealer is willing to give me a blue color one for that price.

    the only thing holding me now is should i wait for the turbo version which is going to coming out in Dec. I really hope the turbo one will give performance a much boost.
  • Options
    stephen987stephen987 Member Posts: 1,994
    It's a great price on a car that you admit you're not thrilled with. Buy the car you really want, if you can wait for the turbo.
  • Options
    dash5dash5 Member Posts: 421
    I would wait for the turbo. All the reviews I have read say the turbo is much more refined and enjoyable to drive.
  • Options
    dodgeman07dodgeman07 Member Posts: 574
    If price is a major factor, go for the CXL at $24K. That's a good deal. The turbo will cost you $30K minimum. Not worth that much extra $$ to me.
  • Options
    overbrookoverbrook Member Posts: 275
    well MT is the only magazine that has posted any performanc results for the turbo- 7.5 secs which is an improvement, but not a huge one. The turbo needs premium fuel as well and gets slightly worse fuel economy. The extra passing power would be nice but I dont do a lot of highway driving so the 2.4 works fine. Its much slower than my old car but the reality is its as fast as at least 40% of the cars on the road today- let's not forget most Accords and Camrys are four cylinders.
  • Options
    overbrookoverbrook Member Posts: 275
    Yeah, I would think supplies of the turbo are going to be tight for months so a deal would seem unlikely. They are supposed to hit dealers in November but it could be months before an adequate supply is built up.
  • Options
    overbrookoverbrook Member Posts: 275
    The turbo is faster but I would leave it at that. Both engines are refined and handling is impressive on the base car. You can get better handling (or at least more control) if you get the turbo with the IDC package and 19" wheels.
  • Options
    stephen987stephen987 Member Posts: 1,994
    edited October 2010
    Horsepower for the CXL turbo is comparable to the '06-09 Fusion 3.0 V6, so considering the Buick's greater curb weight I would expect 0-60 in the mid to high 7s. The big advantage of the turbo Buick is in torque, which would show up more in 30-50 mph passing times, and in "real-world driving."

    The GS, at a probable 260 hp, is another ball game entirely.
  • Options
    dash5dash5 Member Posts: 421
    Faster yes but I've read overall refinement as well. I'm trying to find the articles now:

    http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/reviews/healey/2010-09-09-test-drive-buick-r- egal_N.htm

    "Impatient? Wait only a couple of months until the 2-liter, turbocharged model hits showrooms. We got an hour in a very preproduction version, and it was as good as the non-turbo was bad."

    "In our minds, there's no point to the non-turbo, 2.4-liter car. In Buick's mind, the non-turbo's $2,500 lower starting price, $26,995, will make all the difference in sales, so that one's here to stay."

    http://www.autosavant.com/2010/06/02/first-drive-2011-buick-regal-turbo/

    "When I started the Turbo I felt as though I had found a paragon of four cylinder refinement. The Turbo’s drivetrain was quieter, less frenetic, and it shifted more smoothly than did the base car’s with the 2.4 liter direct injection four cylinder. The Regal Turbo is not only more refined than the 2.4 liter Regal, but far quieter and placid than GM’s former applications of the related 2.0 liter turbo direct injection fours found in the likes of the Cobalt SS Turbo."
  • Options
    dodgeman07dodgeman07 Member Posts: 574
    Faster yes but I've read overall refinement as well.

    I interpret your last paragraph differently. The main point the author is making refers to GM's former turbo's : "...but far quieter and placid than GM’s former applications of the related 2.0 liter turbo direct injection fours...".

    The DI 2.4L in the Regal is plenty quiet and refined.
  • Options
    overbrookoverbrook Member Posts: 275
    Have not driven the turbo obviously but I can tell you the 2.4L is plenty refined. I doubt there are any mechanical differences between the engines related to NVH- they are from the same architecture afterall. The 2.4L is as refined as any competing four cylinder in my book.
  • Options
    overbrookoverbrook Member Posts: 275
    I think its funny when auto journalists dismiss price differences in cars they drive for free. The USA today reviewer says the base car is pointless because it only costs $2500 less than the turbo. He ignores the facts that a) the turbo isnt even available yet b)$2500 means something to people who are actually paying for the car and c) the base car runs on regular and gets slightly better mileage.
  • Options
    overbrookoverbrook Member Posts: 275
    Just read it- I don't think highly of Healey's reviews in general, but this was one of his worst. His impressions of the car contradicted almost everything stated in other reviews. If he has that much trouble figuring out the basic controls perhaps HE has the problem and not the car. Other reviews raved about the refinement of the car and the transmission performance. As an owner I can verify the tranny is very smooth and always does the right thing. That was one of the most inaccurate and biased Regal reviews I've seen so far- in fact its the only negative review I've seen on the car.
  • Options
    dash5dash5 Member Posts: 421
    Mostly concerned about this sentence:

    "The Turbo’s drivetrain was quieter, less frenetic, and it shifted more smoothly than did the base car’s with the 2.4 liter direct injection four cylinder."

    I've learned to take reviewers words with a grain of sand. I'm not saying they are right or wrong, just something to consider when you're asking "Should I get the base or wait for the turbo." IMO if you have a choice, wait for the turbo. Test drive them both and make a decision.
  • Options
    dodgeman07dodgeman07 Member Posts: 574
    I gotcha. Depending on your driving style and environment, the turbo may well be the best choice. If you have a need for speed, drive in higher elevations or regularly have heavier loads, then definitely wait for the turbo.

    For my driving style, and at the lower elevations I drive in, the base DI 2.4L will be fine. I'm hoping to find a gently used CXL next year for $20K. If not, I may well end up in a Malibu or Cruze.
  • Options
    carfreak09carfreak09 Member Posts: 160
    Just got my December issue of Car and Driver and in it is a comparison test between the Regal CXL Turbo, Acura TSX V6, and the VW CC 2.0T R-Line. The Regal placed last and the CC placed first. In the article, they praised the Regal's looks inside and out, the solid structure, and the light steering.

    Their complaints mostly centered on the engine and the hefty weight. Here is one quote : "This Buick's 3772 pound mass explains most of the lethargy. But, jeez, how could the Regal's engine be thirstier then the Acura's monster V6?"
    And another quote: "Equally disappointing, there's a grittiness here that, combined with the turbo's part throttle hissy whistle, aurally wends its way too freely into the cockpit. It isn't that the engine is loud - it isn't. Rather, it's a murmuring metal-on-metal hubbub that registers the moment the starter is engaged. At any speed, this engine announces way too proudly that it's a four banger."

    They also mentioned that the car simply doesn't engage the driver handling wise like a BMW 3 series or Audi A3. And they complained you sink into the seats too much.

    Their verdict was: "All the right stuff is there; it just needs some finessing." They also suggested Buick needs to look no further then VW's turbo if they want to perfect it.

    In other words, it was another very good try, but GM still hasn't got the formula quite right.

    Here are the performance figures:

    0-60mph: 7.5 seconds compared to 6.0 for the TSX and 6.4 for the CC
    5-60mph: 8.3 sec compared to 6.2 for the TSX and 7.2 for the CC
    top gear passing power from 30-50 mph:
    4.4 sec compared to 3.1 for the TSX and 2.7 for the CC
    top gear passing power 50-70mph:
    5.1 sec compared to 4.1 for the TSX and 4.4 for the CC
    top speed was governor limited to a test topping 150 mph
    braking from 70 mph was the shortest at 172 feet
    the engine was the loudest at idle but the quiestest at full throttle
    average gas mileage over 900 miles was 27 mpg, not bad at all, but the VW pulled 29 mpg.

    Base price for the CXL Turbo is listed at $29495 and their car totaled $35185. The VW CC totaled $32200.
  • Options
    carfreak09carfreak09 Member Posts: 160
    Since the Sonata 2.0T was mentioned many times in here as a possible competitor to the Regal Turbo, those cross shopping these 2 cars should look at the same magazine I just mentioned. They did a short take on the Sonata SE 2.0T. They praised the "no waiting throttle response, turbo torque, impeccable road manners, and great value". Their test example was very green (only 367 miles) so performance figures should improve some, but it still did very well. 0-60 in 6.2 sec, 5-60 in 6.7 sec, top speed 153 mph, braking from 70 in 180 ft, and average fuel economy of 24 mpg (note: short take tests don't involve much more then performance testing so this number should be much higher under more normal circumstances). Base price was $24865 and as tested it was $27465.

    It should be noted that the Sonata's impressive horsepower is achieved on regular 87 octane gas. Quite impressive for a turbo motor!
  • Options
    elvissselvisss Member Posts: 14
    i pulled the trigger and bought a CXL two days ago, the price was just too good to pass, $23,200.

    Blue exterior, cashmere interior.

    For turbo, i might need to pay 3k more, which i really could not justify.
  • Options
    stephen987stephen987 Member Posts: 1,994
    edited October 2010
    That's a pretty deep discount for a new model in semi-short supply--CarsDirect is still showing them going for close to MSRP here in Georgia.

    At $23200 (close to $4000 discount) it's really competing with midrange Accords and Sonatas. In that particular company, the Regal's powertrain is merely adequate but the interior really stands out.

    Congratulations on your new ride--keep us posted on how you like it as the miles roll up!
  • Options
    prigglypriggly Member Posts: 642
    As far as Car and Driver is concerned, no one makes a car like the Germans.

    Have you ever seen one of their comparisons in which the German contender did not win?
  • Options
    carfreak09carfreak09 Member Posts: 160
    I think as far as anyone is concerned, the Germans tend to make the best handling most refined cars around, thus why even Buick touts the fact the Regal was bred on a German racetrack using a German designed platform. The fact remains, GM didn't get the formula right as far as weight and engine refinement. The Regal has 20 more hp and 51 more pound feet of torque than the CC but they had the same exact power-to-weight ratio and yet the CC was a full 1.1 seconds quicker to 60. That's a big difference. The drop in gas mileage isn't worth the minor improvement in speed over the 2.4. That being said, it's a gorgeous car and one of the best to come from GM in a long time. Hopefully, the GS model will get it right.
  • Options
    overbrookoverbrook Member Posts: 275
    exactly. If you think an Accord or Camry I4 is fast enough the CXL is fine for you. If you want more power or miss a V6 the turbo is the way to go. I do mostly city driving and I dont need 220hp even though it would be fun to have.
  • Options
    overbrookoverbrook Member Posts: 275
    German cars tend to be heavier than Japanese cars so the Regal's weight is hardly surprising. The CC and Passat are VERY light for some reason. If you look at other midsize German cars you will see weights in the 3500-3700lb range. Even the 335i is over 3600lbs and its technically a compact.
  • Options
    overbrookoverbrook Member Posts: 275
    That was your price before downpayment or trade? Was the dealer desperate? There arent even any good national promotions on the Regal yet so a $3k discount is substantial. PLease explain.
  • Options
    overbrookoverbrook Member Posts: 275
    Sounds like a typical C&D comparo although I havent gotten my issue yet.

    1. No previous reviews mentioned the 2.0T being unrefined. In fact it wasnt even called unrefined in the Cobalt SS when C&D tested that car
    2. No sane person would call the seats too mushy- they are very firm
    3. Part of the weight penalty is due to the 19s which I presume C&D had on their test car. They are optional
    4. If the Regal got 27mpg I'd like to know what the TSX managed
    5. The CC is extremely light and I don't know why. Its lighter than a 3 series or C300 or A4 FWD by a few hundred lbs in some cases.
    6. I don't see why a nose heavy FWD sedan would feel like a BMW 3 series.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    Um, the Regal is a German car, through and through. It was designed in Germany, built there and is imported from there. Car and Driver has had many good things to say about it as well. It just so happens that the CC is the better car, but both are outstanding.
  • Options
    dodgeman07dodgeman07 Member Posts: 574
    The CC is also a compact car that weighs in at nearly 3400lbs with the automatic. Not really that light for a compact car with 94cuft of passenger volume.

    Yes the Regal is heavier, but it's also a larger car.
  • Options
    carfreak09carfreak09 Member Posts: 160
    The CC and Regal are very close in size. Only 4 cubic feet of space separates them, and that's in the front seat. The rear seats have the same amount of space. In actual size, the Regal is less then 2" longer than the CC but the CC is wider. There really is no reason why the Regal should weigh as much as it does.
  • Options
    carfreak09carfreak09 Member Posts: 160
    The weight penalty for the 19s over the 18s is miniscule, like maybe 25-40 pounds total.

    The TSX V6 averaged 28 mpg, which is actually 1 mpg above its highway rating. That's impressive for a 3.5 liter V6 with 280 horses
  • Options
    dodgeman07dodgeman07 Member Posts: 574
    Don't get me wrong. A 3400lb Regal would be nice. It is true that GM does build vehicles that are a bit heavier than the competition. The sound deadening materials used, a la Buick "Quiet-Tuning" do add weight.

    That said, a TSX w/V6 auto comes in at 3660lbs. Hardly light and definitely not an attractive vehicle to me. The CC is nice car. My brother recently bought one and likes it. He and the local VW Service Manager are like best friends since it's in the shop once a month for repairs, recalls and enough squeaks and rattles to beat the band.
  • Options
    overbrookoverbrook Member Posts: 275
    edited October 2010
    In C&D Honda's tend to average better mileage combined than their EPA ratings which seems odd. This also happened with the Fit they ranked #1 in a recent comparo. The TSX's mileage isnt bad for a V6 but it starts at $35k while the Regal turbo starts at $30k- huge gap. I could live with one less 1mpg for 5 grand less.
  • Options
    overbrookoverbrook Member Posts: 275
    The CC is one of the lightest midsize German cars on the market. It's lighter than average and I'm willing to bet the 19s on the Regal added close to 100lbs in weight. GM lists the weight of the turbo as the same as the regular car which suggests most of the extra mass in in the optional wheels. C&D tested the Regal 2.4L and listed weight as 3670lbs.

    Other German cars similar in size to Regal (A4, C300, 328i) are in the 3500-3600lb range. An A4 quattro is about 3800lbs. The new S60 is 3900lbs and is 8" shorter than the Regal.
  • Options
    overbrookoverbrook Member Posts: 275
    C300- 3560
    C350- 3616
    A4 FWD- 3505
    A4 quattro- 3616
    328- 3362

    Of course the problem is those are all manufacturer curb weights of base models, not as tested weights. You could probably add 100lbs to those with automatics and larger wheels.
  • Options
    dodgeman07dodgeman07 Member Posts: 574
    The CC is a compact. I agree it's not a lot smaller than the Regal, but it is a compact car. The Regal barely squeezes in to the mid-size category at 111cuft of total interior volume but the CC, at 107cuft, is smaller yet.
  • Options
    berriberri Member Posts: 10,165
    Do you think the lighter weights of some of the competitors is because they use more aluminum and high tensile steel?
  • Options
    dodgeman07dodgeman07 Member Posts: 574
    That could be. I don't work for GM or know the composition of vehicle structures that well. I do know that, on average, GM vehicles tend to run about 5% heavier then I'd like to see.

    Over the last few years there has been a craze that associates "quietness" with quality and refinement. GM has gone to great lengths to make their vehicles quieter and more refined. Numerous sound deadening materials that GM uses add significant weight and I'm willing to pay the 5% penalty because I like a quiet driving experience.

    In the past, I'd look at the structure of the engine block, cylinder head(s) and, of course, engine configuration (I4, V6, etc) to help explain part of the weight differential. That's not such a big factor anymore with so much additional safety equipment and other legal or consumer mandated measures adding to the weight.
  • Options
    overbrookoverbrook Member Posts: 275
    No, its due to sound deadening and the newness of the platforms. If you look across the board you will find that totally redesigned models tend to weigh more. The new 5 series moved to a new platform and gained over 200lbs in the process. The epsilon 2 platform is only about 2 years old and is likely very rigid- this was confirmed in the C&D test. I dont know exactly what platform the CC is on but I'm willing to bet its several years older than the Regal's platform. The Passat is also very light and I'm not sure if the current Passat( debuted in 2006) was on a new platform when it debuted. Gm values rigidity and quietness over weight, sometimes to a fault. C&D noted that the CC experienced some vibration at times when cornering hard or hitting bumps. That low curb weight doesn't come without compromises. The Regal was also the quietest car at full throttle and @ 70mph.
  • Options
    prigglypriggly Member Posts: 642
    Let's face it, the new Buick Regal is just too slow with either of its engines.

    Although it may be refined and quiet and have a rich feature set, the acceleration is mediocre to poor with either engine. The turbo is little better than the non-turbo.

    GM has gone just too far with this engine downsizing to placate the government and it is not boding well for the future of the brand. It is simply not competitive with most of its competitors in its class.

    The car badly needs a six if not an eight and then it would truly be a force to be reckoned with. I personally would not buy it with the present mediocre acceleration capabilities.

    What a shame. Hopefully in future years this oversight will be rectified.
  • Options
    ab348ab348 Member Posts: 19,095
    What you are saying is simply ridiculous. The acceleration is not "poor". Even the base engine does 0-60 in the mid 8-second range.

    To say that it simply is not competitive is absurd. It is extremely competitive. Not everyone buys a car based on drag strip times and spec sheets.

    2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6

  • Options
    prigglypriggly Member Posts: 642
    The Regal is slower than virtually all cars in it competitive class, its other virtues notwithstanding. The Acura TSX, for example, is almost two seconds faster to 60 from a dead stop. That may not be to your fancy but it is a fact nevertheless.

    The Acura TSX does 0-60 in 6.1 seconds. Even the Sonata 2T runs rings around it. If the Regal with the turbo engine is to compete effectively with these and other cars it is going to have to do better than its present acceleration figures, like it or not.

    People may not buy a car based on "drag strip times" (an exaggeration if I ever heard one), acceleration is still one of the distinguishing points that differentiates the great ones from the also-rans.

    GM has unfortunately been demonstrating an unwise propensity lately towards underpowered engines in a number of its new vehicles and this will not auger well for the long run. Time to get out from under the heavy hand of government and build what the people actually want.
  • Options
    dodgeman07dodgeman07 Member Posts: 574
    edited October 2010
    Most buyers in this class have no idea of "acceleration times" for their vehicles nor are they true car enthusiasts. Car buyers tend to purchase what they like and what appeals to them.

    We'll have to wait and see what happens. To pronounce any vehicle "uncompetitve" based on a Road & Track mindset could only accurately apply to true sports cars. None of the cars in this class are sports cars and few of the buyers even read "Car and Driver" or peruse this type of website.
  • Options
    kaliforniakkaliforniak Member Posts: 51
    For a car that's loaded at 35K the Regal isn't bad when you take all the other cars at the same price. None of the other cars are really missiles. I for one need my car to be quiet, comfortable on top of being fast. If speed is the only criteria then everybody would go for muscle cars.

    Not that I don't understand why some people are complaining. For a car that's billed as a sports sedan, it's slow, especially all family sedans with their optional engine are faster. It really depends on what you want from your car. If you want a premium car with some spice then the Regal Turbo might be your thing. If speed is your cup of tea then go for a muscle car. No one car is going to fit all crowds.

    In my opinion, fast is a relative term for real drivers. My car does 0-60 in 10+ seconds so the Regal Turbo would be very fast for me, but not for my friend who drives a Mustang GT. Let's remember Buick is a premium brand not a sports brand.
  • Options
    carfreak09carfreak09 Member Posts: 160
    The TSX V6 is a slow seller. The main model is the four cylinder and with an automatic it has the same 0-60 times as the Regal Turbo.

    At any rate, you can expect to see downsizing in the engine department everywhere, not just with GM. It's the early 80s all over again. Mitsubishi completely dropped the V6 from its midsize Galant. Hyundai is downsizing the four cylinder on the compact Elantra from 2.0 to 1.6 liters and replaced it's midsize V6 with a turbo four. BMW dropped the V12 and downsized their V8s. Ford is planning on replacing base V8s in their pickups with turbo V6s. So get used to it. The fact is, automakers can't meet the new gov't fuel economy mandates without downsizing.
  • Options
    prigglypriggly Member Posts: 642
    The fact is, automakers can't meet the new gov't fuel economy mandates without downsizing.

    You hit the nail on the head. The government has no business telling the car makers what kinds of cars to build and what engines to put in them. That should be the job of the market place and the market place alone. The country is on a slippery slope where the autocratic government is dictating every facet of life now and that concept will not end well.
  • Options
    overbrookoverbrook Member Posts: 275
    There is never going to be a V8 in this FWD car and to suggest it needs one just to have adequate acceleration is absurd. As I have said numerous times, acceleration is on par with other four cylinder sedans in the $25k-$29k price range including Mazda6 and Accord EX. How does that continue to be overlooked?
  • Options
    overbrookoverbrook Member Posts: 275
    The government doesnt regulate engine size or type. It does set CAFE targets which will lead to SOME engine downsizing. I wouldnt expect rampant engine downsizing because there are tons of loopholes in the CAFE rules and newer transmissions and other technologies are allowing better mileage from V6 and V8 engines. The regal's mileage isnt even that great, although its impressive compared to recent Buick sedans. The Accord V6 now gets 20/30 which beats Regal so you dont have to downsize to get efficiency.
  • Options
    overbrookoverbrook Member Posts: 275
    First of all, the TSX 2.4 is rarely tested with an auto even though thats what people buy. I estimate that a TSX with the 5A tranny would do 0-60 in about 8 secs- less than 1 sec faster than the Regal. The TSX V6 is about 1 sec faster than the Regal 2.0T which is NOT surprising when you consider it has 280hp vs 220 in the Buick. Of course you failed to mention the $5k price premium for the TSX V6. The reality is the Regal GS will be priced like the TSX V6. In terms of price, the Regal turbo lines up with the TSX 2.4L.

    You mention the Sonata but didnt clarify that MT noted the Regal turbo was faster in the figure 8 in spite of being slower. What does that mean? The Regal overall is a better handling car even if it will lose in a drag race to the Sonata. Considering the sonata has 274hp and weighs 300lbs less than Regal its acceleration advantage isnt surprising.
  • Options
    overbrookoverbrook Member Posts: 275
    exactly, the speed value card can be played a lot of ways. For example, a $25k Camry V6 is faster than ANY German luxury sedan you can get for $35k including C300, 328 and A4. Does that mean no one buys those German cars? Of course not. With today's V6 offering in affordable family sedans you can outrun more expensive cars EASILY. The new 528i starts at $45k and is slower than a Camry or Mazda6 V6. I'm pretty sure buyers of the 5 series dont really give that much though though.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles