Howdy, Stranger!

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

Howdy, Stranger!

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

Did you get a great deal? Let us know in the Values & Prices Paid section!
Meet your fellow owners in our Owners Clubs

2011 Buick Regal

hpmctorquehpmctorque Posts: 4,600
Today I viewed pictures of the 2911 Buick Regal , which will be introduced in the second quarter of 2010, on Edmunds and another site. Both the exterior and interior styling look excellent to me. The engine lineup will include or consist of (it's not clear to me which) GM's 2.4 four and a direct injection turbo four.

The Regal will compete directly with an all-new Volvo S60 and the Acura TSX.

If Buick gets the handling and driving dynamics right, this new Regal could be a winner. I sure hope so since, you and now are part owners of GM, albeit indirectly. The biggest obstacle to success may be that so many people are prejudiced against American cars, and won't even consider one. That, and the perception that Buicks are for old people is another challenge.


  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Posts: 4,600
    I read in Automotive News that a V6 will not be offered in the Regal.
  • Here's a small review of the 2011 Buick Regal, including some photos and the original press release.

    "In Europe it is known as the Opel Insignia, but for the North American market General Motors decided to revive a name first used in 1973: the Buick Regal. Sales of the new sport sedan will begin in the second quarter of 2010, and its main competitors will be Acura TSX and Volvo S60. The 2011 Regal will be offered only in the CXL trim (additional ones will be added for the 2012 model year). The Regal CXL will be offered standard with a 2.4L Ecotec..."

    You can read the rest of the article here: 2011 Buick Regal and more Buick related articles here: Buick
  • So why no V6 option. Turbos are too complicated and I don't want to
    bother with primu fuel. Great looking car, but I'm not buying a turbo 4.
  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Posts: 4,600
    There's no V6 option because of the ever tightening fuel economy standards. It's not about customer preference.
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,437
    It always amazes me that people are willing to spend more for a well-equipped car, but don't want to spend a few cents more per gallon for premium. Be that as it may, all engines are complicated these days, and turbos are well-proven. I have driven turbo-ed cars since the mid-80's and have never encountered a durability problem. To each his/her own, but turbo power is going to be the norm now on anything that is non-hybrid, non-electric. Diesels have been turbo for a couple decades now. Now that things like turbo lag and engine oil coking have been eliminated, Buick has to provide this option to be competitive.
  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Posts: 4,600
    I hadn't thought about engine oil coking for a long time, but it was often cited as a negative for turbos in the '80s and early '90s. Can someone please remind me how this was dealt with? Is it no longer a problem with the new turbo engines, or is it only a lesser problem than in the past? Is it no longer necessary to cool a turbo engine down by idling for a while after a long drive at, say 80 mph, or rapid acceleration?
  • Is what got GM in this mess in the first place. Bigger V8's in camaros and vettes,
    and 40 grand Volts will never make a dent in fuel averages as they'll never sell enough of them to make a difference. I can get an Accord, Camery, and every mid-size car with a v6, and GM's not offering one (and expecting people to fork over 27K!) Another big mistake GM. Check the Opel option list, I'm sure a small
    V6 is offered in Germany. The Saturn Aura, the last generation of this car, had a V6 option.
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,437
    All manufacturers will be moving more toward direct injection, turbo'ed 4s. Fours in these size cars are becoming quite accepted and more prevalent already (VW CC, Audi A4, Acura TSX). They will offer a V6 option, but first they have to start building the Regal here, to make it financially feasible. The initial Regals will be imported to get it to market sooner, and at very unfavorable exchange rates. Once the factory is up and runnning here, you can have your V6. Meanwhile, you can buy a Lacrosse or Malibu. For many of the rest of us, I applaud GM for moving so quickly to issue a world class mid-size like the Regal when the company almost went under last year. I am a Ford guy, but it is quite clear to me that GM is introducing more new and revamped models more quickly than even Ford's stepped up pace.
  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Posts: 4,600
    Each has pluses and minuses, but one key advantage of the 4 over the 6 is lighter weight and, therefore, better weight distribution. That translates into better handling.
  • joey2brixjoey2brix Posts: 463
    Might make sense in a small sport coupe. But a turbo 4 in a 4 door family car is a stupid move. I have no need to pay 20 cents or more a gallon for premium gas
    and experience the lack of low end torque (while better in newer turbos) off the line when a simple small V6 will do the same job at equal MPG numbers.
    Even if the first few months of production are imported, why not import the V6 models, which are likely not big sellers in Europe anyway. The 2.8L V6 is an option in Europe. The car could also be imported from South America rather then Germany at a better exchange rate.
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,437
    Turbo 4s in a family car may not be your cup of tea, but they are the way the industry is heading. The new direct injection turbo 4s are powerful, have plenty of torque off the line, and are beginning to register better fuel economy than the equivalent 6 did. VW/Audi has proven for years now that a turbo 4 is more than adequate in a family car. Ford has one coming out soon, and it will be installed in the new Explorer. Not all of them use premium fuel, but I have never understood the reluctance of some people to pay 20 cents more per gallon when they somehow see fit to pay all that extra in the first place for a premium car.
  • joey2brixjoey2brix Posts: 463
    If I buy a turbo Porsche 911, I'd already be of the mindset to buy premium fuel for it. Buying a Buick Regal is trying to save money and not buy the Lexus. So goes with saving on my fuel costs without giving up power. Premium gas is pushing over over $3.25 /gal here in NY, 30 cents more then regular. If the 2.0T can run on 89 octane , I might take a look, but again the engine option won't be ready until the Fall.
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,437
    Most all turbos these days can run on regular gas. The computer makes the adjustment and you simply lose a couple hp for that tank. For you buying a Regal with a turbo engine might be trying to save money, but not for a lot of the rest of us. I can't imagine that the GS is going to sell for less than $35K. It will be loaded with all sorts of nice equipment. If I wanted to save money, there are plenty of mid-size cars that cost less than that.
  • For you buying a Regal with a turbo engine might be trying to save money, but not for a lot of the rest of us. I can't imagine that the GS is going to sell for less than $35K....If I wanted to save money, there are plenty of mid-size cars that cost less than that.


    The turbo engine is available in the CXL also and it should be below $30K. I don't want to buy premium fuel to get 220HP, so the Buick is off my list........ :(
  • biancarbiancar Mid-AtlanticPosts: 965
    Does the CXL non-turbo also take premium fuel?

    At any rate, by my math: at 12,000 miles a year, and 25 mpg (being conservative, although the Regal is supposed to get "up to 30" mpg, according to Buick site), that's 480 gallons a year. If gas prices go up some, at $3 a gallon for regular, that would be fuel cost of $1440 per year. Let's say premium is 30 cents more. That would mean fuel costs would be around $1584 per year. So $140 difference over a year's time, a bit more than $11 a month.

    I can't see that as making even the slightest dent in my thinking.

    Up it to 20,000 miles a year, and a 50 cent difference between premium and regular, then you've got $2400 a year for regular, $2800 a year for premium, or $33 a month more.

    Maybe I would take that a tiny bit into consideration, but if the car were otherwise what I wanted, not enough to make me not buy it.

    If I were driving 30,000 miles a year or more, then maybe it might begin to add up.

    For the average driver who puts on 12 to 15k miles per year, the cost of premium vs. regular just doesn't seem all that important.
  • Does the CXL non-turbo also take premium fuel?

    No it doesn't. It takes regular fuel.

    I agree that the cost difference the not huge. For me it's idea that I have to buy premium fuel to get 220HP. I typically burn about 15 gallons of fuel a week and keep my cars about 4 years. At $0.20/gallon more that's $624 over the entire timeframe. Not a big deal but something I'd rather not do.

    P.S. I'm looking for a car the size of the Regal that will deliver 35mpg Hwy mileage on regular fuel, so the Buick it not in consideration.
  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Posts: 4,600
    What Regal-size car delivers 35 mph highway today?
  • What Regal-size car delivers 35 mph highway today?

    We can start with the Hyundai Sonata, then there's the Chevy Malibu, Mercury Milan, Nissan Altima, Ford Fusion and many others.

    The new Regal is a small mid-size car that happens to weigh 2 tons. It's easy to get 35 MPG Hwy unless you're building Tiger Tanks.
  • jay_mjay_m Posts: 8
    Funny, my 03 Regal LS is rated 210 with the 3.8 motor.
    Well smoothed-out old tech motor, mileage ratings were ? 19/29?
    Or, did they change the way they predict mileage since then?
    My typical mileage is low-mid 20's, and high 20's on the highway.
    If you want a mid-sized econobox, you can get better mileage.
    I don't want to drive an econobox/penaltybox.

    Oh, yes: The 3.8 will go 250-300k miles typical. I don't see a turbo doing that many miles without repair of at least the turbo itself. That runs up the cost of ownership quite a bit.
  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Posts: 4,600
    Not one of those midsize cars is EPA rated at 35 highway. Check again.
  • The 2011 Hyundai Sonata need to check again. All of these cars can easily get 35 mpg hwy. EPA notwithstanding.

    The 2011 Regal can't..period.
  • e_net_ridere_net_rider Posts: 1,380
    I have not seen any specs on the vehicle, weight, size, etc. other than engines power. If as stated here in a post, 4000#, that would put it at the weight of the Lacrosse. Maybe there was something wrong with the one I drove, CXL loaded, but that 3.0 with 6 speed seemed very sluggish, especially compared to CXS with the 3.6L.
    I really don't get putting the 2.4 in the base model other than they likely shave about 300#. My 09 BU with 2.4 is only 3436# with 169HP. That is sufficient except when loaded, downshifts frequently in Appalachians, and a bit weak at highway acceleration.
    Pushing the extra power out of the Regal version will likely shorten life some. And as to mileage, the BU is great at speeds around 45 to 60 MPH. I'm guessing that they rated highway mileage at 65MPH as that seems a close match, but forget 70MPH. At that speed it is about 4MPG shy of rated. If rolling just under 80MPH, it drops to about 26 MPG, a loss of 7MPG from rated highway. Very close to what I was getting with Aurora V8 except it had lots of acceleration at that speed, was a much heavier vehicle, and far better ride. However I don't miss the extra 32 cents per gallon for premium.
    My real world everyday which is not really city, more like combined, is just over 25MPG.
    I'd bet this Regal costs more to run with the base because of weight and hopefully slightly larger interior. Someone posted expected costs for fuel. I suspect he is off quite a bit. On the BU, using numbers that are close to my real world, I'd use 453 gal., actually less than EPA assumption of 45% highway, rest city. A few years back the average driving was upped to 15000 per year. Price of flying and hassle probably contributed. The average may be down at this point, even with lower fuel prices simply because of the number of people out of work and people being frugal just because of uncertainty.
    I might decide to travel a bit more and could easily go through that figure, but will also figure with 15000 a year and with the change my gas consumption would jump to 560 gal.
    Then assuming a Regal with the 2.4L and what I'd expect mileage wise since it is a heavier car and would push a bit more air, my consumption might be 622 gallon per year.
    At todays gas prices, $2.50 = $1555 annual.
    Gas is not going to stay and it is just a matter of time before it gets back close to $5.00, likely before you pay the vehicle off.
    At $5.00 = $3110 per year. A little over $250 a month. To some that might be pocket change, however I considerate significant and would think of it as a windfall if I could pocket that.
    Just part of owning an auto though, however to tack on another $0.35 premium, what it was a peak, $18/month, no thank you. And turbos had been getting lower MPG than the non-turbo counterpart.
    Bottomline, I'd like to test drive a Regal, but likely will not because of the way equipment is grouped here at Edmunds. If that is real world options, it would force me to take a sunroof for anything other than base model.
    I don't need no stinkin sunroof. In only one high end application did I ever see one that did not add noise to the cabin and that was because it actually had the glass as an outer layer and a panel that closed and sealed as if the glass was not there. Regardless, such things get leaks whether air or water, no thanks again. And the glass is far heavier than the sheet metal further hurting MPG.
  • prigglypriggly Posts: 642
    Anyone know if the new upcoming Buick Regal comes with H.I.D. Bi-Xenon headlights?

  • gmcustsvcgmcustsvc Posts: 4,252
    2011 Regal CXL that began production last month will not have the H.I.D. Bi-Xenon headlights. However, the CXL Turbo that is scheduled to come out in the fall 2010 will have HID headlamps as an option. Thank you,
    Mariah GM Customer Service
  • prigglypriggly Posts: 642
    Thank you, Mariah.

    I am impressed that GM Customer Service monitors these boards!
  • jipsterjipster Louisville, KentuckyPosts: 5,618
    Saw the new Regal at the auto show a couple months ago... very impressed.
  • vanman1vanman1 Posts: 1,397
    The 2011 Buick Regal is on the way and I wanted to get things rolling here. I am very interested in this car (I never thought I would be interested in a Buick) but the initial reviews are outstanding and I love the look.
  • vanman1vanman1 Posts: 1,397
    Pages: 1 Photos

    2011 Buick Regal

    * Photos (13)
    * Videos

    Visit Our Buyer's Guide »
    Buick Regal

    * › Overview
    * › Specifications
    * › Price with Options
    * › Photos & 360° View
    * › Get a Free Quote

    News & Reviews

    * 2012 Buick Regal GS - Feature
    * 2011 Buick Regal - Second Drive
    * Buick Regal GS Concept - Video
    * Buick Regal GS Concept - Auto Shows
    * 2011 Buick Regal - Video
    * 2011 Buick Regal - Official Photos and Info
    * Buick Confirms Regal as Next Mid-Size Sedan - Car News
    * 2011 Buick Regal - Spied
    * Buick Regal Cielo - Specialty File

    Top Competitors

    * Acura TSX
    * Audi A4 sedan
    * Lincoln MKZ
    * Saab 9-3 sedan


    VEHICLE TYPE: front-engine, front-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door sedan

    ESTIMATED BASE PRICE: $27,500–$30,500

    ENGINE TYPES: DOHC 16-valve inline-4, aluminum block and head, direct fuel injection; turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 16-valve inline-4, aluminum block and head, direct fuel injection

    Displacement: 145 cu in, 2384cc/122 cu in, 1998cc
    Power (SAE net): 182 bhp @ 6700 rpm (2.4)/220 bhp @ 5300 rpm (2.0)
    Torque (SAE net): 172 bhp @ 4900 rpm (2.4)/258 lb-ft @ 2000 rpm (2.0)

    TRANSMISSIONS: 6-speed automatic with manumatic shifting, 6-speed manual

    Wheelbase: 107.8 in Length: 190.2 in
    Width: 73.1 in Height: 58.4 in
    Curb weight (mfr’s est): 3600 lb

    EPA city/highway driving: 18–20/29–30 mpg


    If General Motors hadn’t imploded, the Buick Regal wouldn’t have been a Buick; it would have been a Saturn. The Regal is essentially a European-market Opel Insignia—a mid-size sedan that competes with the Ford Mondeo, Honda Accord, and Volkswagen Passat over there—rebadged and rebranded for the U.S. and China. It went on sale in the latter country last December.

    In case people are worried about Buick’s offering what amounts to a gussied-up mid-size family sedan in the luxury field, that’s what Lincoln and Acura have done with the MKZ and TSX, respectively. We have to say the Buick is a classier piece than both of those. It’s handsome to look at and is hardly changed from the Insignia; only the grille, headlamps, taillight bulbs, badging, and side-mirror glass are different. Eighteen-inch wheels are standard, with 19s on the options list.
  • berriberri Posts: 9,750
    i think the new Regal has some good potential. However, I wonder if they are making a mistake rushing out a higher priced performance model months before a more mainstream model is available? I'm thinking that could give the car a reputation as "too expensive" before the mainstream (and volume) model hits the showrooms?
  • vanman1vanman1 Posts: 1,397
Sign In or Register to comment.