Howdy, Stranger!

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





2011 Buick Regal

1356725

Comments

  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Posts: 2,345
    What is this ridiculous attraction to keyless ignition switches? The way they work it is push and hold this, and wait for that, and move purse or wherever the fob is located if signal fails etc etc etc.

    Ask the guy in the runaway Lexus who lost his life along with his family's lives, (because he didn't know how to turn the car off) if he had wished for a normal key to....wait for it....imagine the possibilites....of...."turning the car off with a key!" Imagine! A key! How simple is that?

    Rather than attempt to boss you, my advice is to not get caught up as sheeple in all the hoopla and technological wizardry that adds complexity to our vehicles. Unneccessary complexity to the max. So-called smart-ugh-keys are at the top of this list.
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,415
    It is the same engine, and it is a quiet, relatively powerful, really good effort on GM/s part. Sure, there are issues. But really, the press has been overwhelmingly +. Does that mean it is trouble-free? Probably not. But relying on forum threads isn't the most reliable either. Trolls aside, the people who are unhappy are going to scream the loudest. Anyway, if you have hesitation, look at the Toyota example. Or all the press saying VW quality sucks. Right now, VW all of a sudden has some Consumer Reports recommended models. Everything changes all the time. Buy what you like.
  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Posts: 2,345
    Is that right, eh? VW? Wow. I love their diesels I must admit. But I have seen very VERY expensive repairs down the road outside of wty far too often on VW, Audi and MB to trust them. I'm afraid I don't hang off everything Consumers Reports says. I have seen them lay a "not recommended" on a very well known and dependable nameplate, practically on a whim of circumstantial evidence.

    But your point is well taken, buy what you like. But I find forums can help reveal truth from fiction if you are patient enough.

    I admit I am cautiously reserved more now hearing that the Nox 4 cyl is identical to the one in the Regal :( But I hear it has a better reputation than the 4 banger they use in the Malibu. Does make one wonder why GM is sourcing similar sized and config'd engines from all over the world.
  • dodgeman07dodgeman07 Posts: 573
    Hypocrisy? You've got to be kidding me.

    How about the 3-ton SUVs that get 12 mpg and have only a driver on board?

    Greg VW: Cars could always be started on sub-zero mornings and driven immediately, but allowing a couple minutes of warm-up IS good for the engine and always will be.
  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Posts: 2,345
    "How about the 3-ton SUVs that get 12 mpg and have only a driver on board? "

    Yup, I'm not arguing with you on that. And they too will have remote start.
  • bubalububalu Posts: 4
    Is Homelink available with any package or a dealer installed option? I can't find it for the Regal on the Buick website.
  • ab348ab348 Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, CanadaPosts: 1,804
    I got some seat time behind the wheel of a Regal last weekend. I thought it was pretty good, but I honestly don't understand some of the raves it gets in early reviews. For me, it had 2 major issues. The first was that the black interior is just not for me. I don't like black interiors generally, and this one is extra-dismal because of the lack of wood trim. It has piano black trim which looks for all the world like shiny black plastic, nothing more. The seats were good, there was adequate room up front, and the dash and controls were just fine -- better than that, in fact; I quite liked it, except for the coal-mine decor. There is a camel/cashmere version allegedly available, but none have yet made an appearance locally.

    The other, more significant issue is the engine. The base engine is barely adequate for a car with aspirations like this one. It gets around OK, but nothing more than that, and stepping down to pass on the highway generates a lot of noise but not a whole lot of immediate thrust. The turbo version available in a few months should rectify that. But for now, with a dismal black interior and a low-thrust 4-banger under the hood, the Regal gets a pass from me.

    2011 Buick Regal Turbo, 1968 Oldsmobile Cutlass S Holiday Coupe

  • prigglypriggly Posts: 642
    edited July 2010
    This recent trend to wimpy engines in some and seemingly increasing numbers of GM cars, no doubt mandated by ill-advised government interference and directives, does not bode well. This car is clearly underpowered with the base four cylinder and why add the complexity and extra cost of a turbo when a big six would provide a superior, more reliable and cheaper alternative? And probably with little, if any, fuel penalty.

    I have a 2006 Chevy Impala SS and would not have bought it if the eight cylinder engine had not been available. It is currently not. I get 25 mpg on the interstate at 70 mph.

    The history of government-controlled automobile companies is not a happy one and I do hope GM does not succumb to obscurity and mediocrity by regulation.

    (BTW, I have no problems with a "coalmine" interior!)
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,415
    The engine in the Regal is fine for most people. Unlike you, most people never use the extra power in their cars--and most would do pretty well with just 100 hp, It is almost unnerving how slowly most people pull away from lights, enter lanes from on ramps and so on.

    I think high output engines will always be available, but like Ford has proven with the Ecotech engines, DI plus turbo can give you as much or more power as more cylinders naturally-aspirated, and return higher mpg to boot. Like it or not, much higher mileage requirements are coming. If manufacturers could meet these standards with less complex, old tech engines, they would.

    You Impala is a pretty quick ride, and your particular example gets stellar mileage; most people find that 5.3 engine to get less than 20 mpg in mostly freeway driving. GM will be improving on those numbers with its new engines still to come. I suspect you will still find a lot of driving satisfaction in future years. Right now GM is still in recovery mode, and tha fact that they can get a car as good as the Regal to the American public so quickly after their downfall.speaks well for the much better stuff down the road.
  • ral2167ral2167 Posts: 642
    what are you talking about? if it wasn't FOR govt. controlled auto companies, GM would be out of business.
  • prigglypriggly Posts: 642
    edited July 2010
    I am talking about exactly what I said. Companies, any companies (including car companies), controlled and run by government are not known either for efficiency, innovation or quality. They don't have to be competitive because they are propped up by the taxpayer. Do you want a car company run like the post office??!

    GM desperately needs to get out from under the shackles of government and become properly competitive in a free market without relying on bailouts and taxpayer funds for its survival.

    The Regal is a commendable automobile in many respects. The normally aspirated four-cylinder engine is not one of them. The turbo may or may not be competitive. We'll see when it becomes available.
  • ral2167ral2167 Posts: 642
    Was it the government who designed the Pontiac Aztek?
  • prigglypriggly Posts: 642
    The Aztek has nothing whatsoever to do with current or future GM design/execution plans.
  • overbrookoverbrook Posts: 275
    Just got one last week, Granite Gray RL5 model. I've only seen about 3 on the streets so far, including one this morning. So far so good but I havent been on any long trips. I really like the interior and exterior styling, quietness and transmission performance. the car doesn't feel slow in normal driving but it may be a different story when trying to pass a semi on the highway. I wish more colors were available and I wish remote start was offered. The latter will be added next year though.
  • ral2167ral2167 Posts: 642
    seems to me dont you use the shiftronic transmission to get more oomph out of the 4 cylinfer when you need to pass a semi or something?
  • @bubalu, no homelink is not currently available.. When i got mine i thought it was going to have it due to the competitive features it has, unfortunately, homelink isnt one of them (unless the dealer can install it, which im not sure of)
  • @ral2167 the regal has a USB port as well as Aux port standard, located in the center armrest
  • prigglypriggly Posts: 642
    Buick expects the 2.0 turbo to do mid-seven-second 0-60 mph runs. The 2.4 will manage mid-eights. Fuel economy is estimated to be about 20 mpg city/30 mpg highway for the the 2.4 automatic, the turbo automatic's dropping to about 18/29 mpg."

    Read more: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/112_0911_2011_buick_regal/engines.htm- l#ixzz0vhpvMmwY

    "Mid-eights" for the 2.4 is not very impressive. For that matter, "mid-sevens" is not so stellar either.

    This car really needs a big six to give it the power and acceleration which would match the otherwise fine attributes but calling it a performance car with these puny acceleration times is intellectually dishonest.
  • overbrookoverbrook Posts: 275
    acceleration is on par with other four cylinder sedans with naturally aspirated engines. The Accord needs 8.7-9 secs to hit 60 with an automatic. Its no faster than the Regal even though its a lighter car. I think 0-60 for the turbo should be between 6.7-7 secs which is on par with the 9-3 2.0T which only had 221lb-ft of torque.

    The car is called a sports sedan based on its handling, not blazing acceleration. A TSX with an auto needs mid 7s to hit 60mph. There isnt going to be a V6 so anyone looking for one should probably go elsewhere.
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,415
    Here's hoping they pare some fat from the Regal in future iterations. It is puzzling to me that the GMC Terrain using the same 2.4 engine manages to get better mileage.

    I am not yet ready to pull the trigger, but I have been looking at mid-size sedans (something a bit smaller than the La Crosse). My list has included the 2011 Regal, 2011 Optima, Kizashi (that is a real fun drive for a 4), VW CC (a bit more pricey but worth it), maybe the 2011 2.0T Sonata. Each has +'s and -'s. The Regal is fast enough for me, but, like the Kizashi, most Regals seem to come with all black interiors--something I will not buy again. The Regal's mileage at 19/30 also seems low for a 4, and is almost certainly at the bottom of available mid-size 4 cylinder sedans. The AWD Legacy does significantly better than that.

    Now, I have been reading good things about the Chevrolet Cruze. A smaller car for sure, but trimmed out with quality materials and truly quiet like the La Crosse. It would be less $ and much better mileage than the Regal. Choices, choices.
  • kplacerkplacer Posts: 94
    edited August 2010
    I happened to just finish driving a Cruze about an hour ago at a GM event. I drove a Regal 2 weeks ago, so let me compare for you. The Cruze feels a bit smaller, but not by much. It has a huge trunk, as big or even bigger than the Regal. I was more comfortable in the drivers seat of the Regal but perhaps the Cruze has adjustments I did not take advantage of. The Regal is quieter and more refined feeling overall. The Cruze I drove had the turbo engine and it is potent! A little noisy but much more fun than the Regal in that regard. Unfortunately I did not get a chance to drive it on the highway so I cannot comment on passing power. I was unimpressed with the passing power of the Regal with the standard engine. The Regal had a black interior and like you I did not care for the color, though the overall design was good. The Cruse had a red and black fabric interior and was very nicely done for the price point, which I'm guessing is about $7000 less than the Regal.

    I think the Cruze is the better buy right now.

    They are
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,415
    Thanks! The Cruze is supposed to have soft feel materials on the doors, dash and console--plus, the leather interior puts leather (not vinyl) on the door trim and even a bit of leather trim on the dash. Unheard of in this class. I'd have to compare turbo to turbo to find out whether the Cruze is refined enough to substitute for a well-designed mid-size.
  • dodgeman07dodgeman07 Posts: 573
    Thanks for the review! The Regal and Cruze are two of the cars I'm considering for my next purchase.

    I'm curious regarding your comments about the Cruze being noisier. Was that under acceleration only? I've read a couple reviews that called the Cruze "Lexus-like" quiet.

    I believe your $7K price difference is on the money. Similarly equipped the Cruze should come in $7K less than the Regal. That's why I'm seriously considering it.
  • kplacerkplacer Posts: 94
    Yes, the Cruze interior treatment seems to put sections of whatever material is used on the seats in spots on the doors and dash. I failed to mention the door treatment in my initial post but what you say is correct, as the car I drove had door panels that were nicely done in black and red.

    My noise comment was mostly related to when under acceleration. It was quite raucous when I stepped on it in the Cruze, but only a little less so when I tried to pass on the highway in the Regal. The difference was that the Cruze actually shot forward where the Regal mostly made more noise but didn't seem to go that much faster. In regular driving the Regal did feel quieter subjectively, but I do not mean to imply that the Cruze was noisy like a Civic would be. It was quiet, just not _as_ quiet as the Regal.
  • prigglypriggly Posts: 642
    Hi kplacer!

    I found your comments on the new Regal and Cruze helpful interesting. I also find both of these cars intriguing.

    In my view the Regal is obviously the more upscale of the two but the base engine is inadequate. The upcoming turbo may be adequate. I'd prefer to see a new, high tech six in the Regal as the top-of-the-line engine but that is not an option.

    The Cruze probably is the better buy of the two in view of its quality, energetic turbo four, lower price and better fuel economy.

    GM obviously is turning out more desirable cars now than in previous years but I personally hope they are not developing a corporate culture of anemic engines simply to placate the extreme environmentalists and the government.
  • dash5dash5 Posts: 417
    Yeah the relatively weak engine is keeping me from trying this car right now. I will give the turbo a go though when it's available. I'm guessing GM gave it that engine because that's what sells for the Opel brand in Europe? I dont know really.

    In any case, the Regal is frustrating me because I feel like it's close to being a really solid choice in this segment but it's just shy of it. Less power and lower fuel economy than the new Korean mid sized Sonata and Optima, it's heavier, just as expensive or more so. That said I assume it's very smooth and quiet, so that's a big factor that will come out in test drives. I'm also guessing the interior is very nice as well, not sure how that will stack up against the competition.
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,415
    edited August 2010
    Opel uses even smaller engines in Europe. They also offer several torque-y diesels, which Europeans prefer. The 2.4 is a very good engine--well rated. This engine is used in many GM models now. GM is using it widely because smaller engines are the way of the world, and at 182 hp from 145 naturally aspirated cubic inches, it is not inefficient. It wasn't very long ago that V8s were putting out less than 200 hp, yet somehow people survived with that in the 1990s.. As Hyundai has shown, however, this size engine can give out even more power without resorting to turbos.

    The problem with it in the Regal and LaCrosse (for some people, but not for me) is that both cars are porky for their size. And 19/30 mpg looks not so good compared to other mid-size 2.0 to 2.5 liter cars. And the 18/29 mpg 220 hp Regal is still not going to look like a great bargain next to the 274 hp Sonata/Optima with 24/34 mpg. Also, though quiet, the Regal is not as quiet as the Lacrosse. The Regal will stand out in this class for its looks, details and handling.
  • gorphilgorphil Posts: 27
    I took delivery of my new Regal, stone with cocoa/cashmere, on July 13, 2010 and have driven it 1500 km. Except as noted below, the car is a pleasure to drive. Build quality is excellent and the powertrain is very smooth. I traded in a 2008 Allure/LaCrosse and the switch from a V6 to an I4 is not a problem. Presumably, the six speed transmission helps. While I have adjusted to most of the undesirable features listed below, prospective buyers may like to check them out before purchase.

    1, The outside mirrors are very narrow and restrict the field of view when they are set to check the blind spots.
    2. The ride is somewhat choppy, not unusual for a midsize car.
    3. The installed tires have a hard ride and transmit road noise to the cabin.
    4. The seats are quite hard and become uncomfortable after a couple of hours.
    5. The front head restraints are poorly designed. When they are set so they are level with the top of the head, as outlined in the owners manual, they touch the back of the head.
    6. The buttons on the console appear to have been setup for a RH drive car. For LH drive cars the commonly used buttons are farthest away from the driver.
    7. An odd rumbling/rattling sound has started coming from the area of the right front wheel when travelling over bumps at low speed. I will get this checked out soon.
  • overbrookoverbrook Posts: 275
    Regal's mileage suffers due to hydraulic steering and tranny programming. some reviews have noted a reluctance to downshift on the Equinox. I can tell you the Regal's transmission is flawless and shifts are barely perceptible.

    Friends of mine have a CC and the base model is really a base model. It does have dual heates seats and 17" wheels but that's it. You have to jump the luxury model to match the regal CXL features and that model is about $34k comparably equipped. That plus the 4 seat capacity make it a deal breaker for me. Even if you dont use the middle seat often there are times when it will come in handy.

    I've been in 2 cruze models so far and the interior is almost as nice as the Regal's. You can get a light interior with wood trim in the Regal.
  • overbrookoverbrook Posts: 275
    No one has seen official weights for the Cruze yet but its expected to be 3000-3300lbs. It's definitely not going to be faster than the Regal since power to weight ratios will be similar. The cruze is almost as large as the regal and it has a larger trunk though. I don't think the price gap will be as large as you think because the LTZ starts at $23k and tops out at $27k. comparably equipped the cruze might be about $4k less than the Buick. You pay less but lose the IRS and some features and get less of a warranty. For the money, the Cruze seems to be a great car though.
Sign In or Register to comment.