-September 2024 Special Lease Deals-
2024 Chevy Blazer EV lease from Bayway Auto Group Click here
2024 Jeep Grand Cherokee lease from Mark Dodge Click here
2025 Ram 1500 Factory Order Discounts from Mark Dodge Click here
2024 Chevy Blazer EV lease from Bayway Auto Group Click here
2024 Jeep Grand Cherokee lease from Mark Dodge Click here
2025 Ram 1500 Factory Order Discounts from Mark Dodge Click here
Comments
but i am really concerned about the engine performance, should i bite it?
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.
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.
The GS, at a probable 260 hp, is another ball game entirely.
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."
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.
"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.
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.
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.
It should be noted that the Sonata's impressive horsepower is achieved on regular 87 octane gas. Quite impressive for a turbo motor!
Blue exterior, cashmere interior.
For turbo, i might need to pay 3k more, which i really could not justify.
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!
Have you ever seen one of their comparisons in which the German contender did not win?
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.
Yes the Regal is heavier, but it's also a larger car.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.