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

Buick Lucerne: Engine & Performance

sls002sls002 Posts: 2,788
edited October 2014 in Buick
The January issue of Motor Trend has a test for the Car of the Year award. The 0-60 time for the Lucerne is 7.5 seconds. The DTS with the higher performance northstar and axle ratio is 7.1 seconds.
«1345

Comments

  • 62vetteefp62vetteefp Posts: 6,048
    My point is the model should have been available in September, when everyone else started selling the 06 models.

    I do see your point and agree but that is not the way the industry works today. Perhaps they should have waited one month and called it an '07 like the new GM SUV's? If a car is held until the first of the year they can call it the next model year.
  • prigglypriggly Posts: 642
    For anyone who actually owns or has driven the CXS, how good is the Harman/Kardon audio system and what is the subjective feel regarding acceleration?

    Too bad Buick thinks it has to pander to the faddish low profile tire crowd, isn't it? There is certainly nothing wrong with 16 or 17 inch (at the most) tires.
  • 62vetteefp62vetteefp Posts: 6,048
    Low profiles will not be faddish. Big wheels help the styling too much. Unfortunately the ride suffers. A big car like like the Lucerne needs big wheels.

    I tested out the HK system in a number of other cars before it was spec'd for the Buicks. It really is amazing. their Engineering facility is top notch.
  • sls002sls002 Posts: 2,788
    I don't think that the size of the wheel is as important as the tire design for ride. The 60 series tires on the base Lucerne should ride softer than the 50 series tires on the top of the line model. The top of the line Lucerne is intended to handle better at the expense of a firmer ride. The original equipment tires may not be as good as replacement tires from other manufacturers for ride.
  • bruneau1bruneau1 Posts: 468
    As I reported in a previous message, the ride of the 17" wheels and tires is better than the 18" No surprise here. However, the magnetic shocks do cope with ridges better than the ordinary ones. I doubt that Buick traditionalists will be much attracted to the CXS. It's not cushy enough, costs too much. The best deal is the CXL with the v-8. You can land in this with leather and dual power seats for $32,000, not taking into account any dealing, rebates or GM Card allowances. The sunroof makes the cabin claustrophobic in the front- I don't like them anyway. The V-6 feels lethargic dragging around over 2 tons- to get strong acceleration up a hill, the transmission had to downshift to 2nd. Adequate power, but certainly not exciting. I hope this car succeeds, but Buick needs to fill their dealerships with well priced base models for the Le Sabre faithful. I don't know if others will want to shell out 40,000 for the top model.
  • sls002sls002 Posts: 2,788
    The middle model has 55 series tires which should ride better than the 50 series on the CXS model. The CXS is far cheaper than the comparable DTS model.
  • jh1977jh1977 Posts: 40
    I currently own a 2001 Buick Lesbare, I'm a Lesabre faithful and I like the acceleration of the Lesabre. Why would I want to buy a Base Buick Lucerne (the successor to the Lesabre) when it has less power than my Lesabre. GM claims the Lucerne is a new car with new technology. The Base engine (3800)in the Lucerne is not a new engine. The 3800 has been a proven engine for GM over the last 12 plus years but its now an outdated engine. I can't see how the Base Lucerne will appeal to people under 60 years of age when you have the Impala, 300 Limited, Avalon and Charger (all full size cars) who have newer V6 engines with 240 or more HP compared to the Lucerne's 197 HP. The Lucerne's V8 engine is an option to the V6 but its more expensive, waste to much gasoline and is not really necessary for my driving needs. Please GM, give the Base Lucerne a modern V6 engine to complete with its rivals (Impala, 300 Limited, Avalon and Charger)in the full size car market.
  • jh1977jh1977 Posts: 40
    Thank you for your message, its very informative. I figured the V6 engine (3800) in the base Lucerne is lethargic. As a LeSabre faithful I would not buy the Base Lucerne sedan because of its current V6 engine being lethargic. I don't understand why GM didn't offer three engines for the Lucerne like chevy offers in the Impala. Chrysler offers four engines for its 300 sedans and three engines for its Charger sedans. The Lucerne needs a stronger V6 engine (a third engine) with a reasonable price to compete with the 240HP Impala 3LT/LTZ sedans, 250HP 300 Limited/Touring sedans and the 250HP Charger SE/SXT sedans. As for the Lucerne's V8 engine, I don't need a V8 engine for my driving needs and its above my price range. If GM wants the Lucerne to be a successful seller for Buick, it must keep Lesabre faithfuls like me and gain new people to buy the Lucerne. A split folding rear seatback for more storage capacity should be an option on the Lucerne.
  • I wasn't impressed with the audio until I played a CD. On FM radio, the stereo sounded as if it had a cheap bass boost with no mid-bass. I fiddled with the EQ and found no improvement.

    With a CD (happened to be country music -- not even my taste), the sound was truly excellent. The music was a nice complement to the Martha Stewart "inspired" sandwiches and wine they served last night.

    The sales guy couldn't believe I spent so much time with the stereo. He'll be really astonished when I bring my own CDs in before making the final purchase.

    Acceleration with the V8 was nice but not thrilling. I didn't get to redline though. Ride was smooth and quiet. I doubt the low-profile tires will be a problem.

    Other observations...

    Lumbar control was broken on the driver seat of the demo car. Doesn't bode well for overall quality. I also wish the interior looked richer. It's not offensive but no more impressive than a family car. The plastics feel cheap. Lack of telescope steering wheel is an odd oversight too, especially after Consumer Reports criticizes the Avalon on only this one item.
  • evandroevandro Posts: 1,108
    The 3,8 in the Lucerne is no less powerful than in the Le Sabre. SAE changed the norms on measuring HP and the numbers now are slightly lower than before.

    But I stated the same disappointment as you about the lack of power in both engines that power the Lucerne. The competition has better V6 engines, 5-speed autos and some even match the V8 power with a V6.

    If GM really means to make Buick the rival of Lexus, they need to work much harder than this.
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Crossroads of America I70 & I75 Posts: 23,701
    Compare torque figures for most drivers' use of the car in order to compare motors. The typical driver won't use above 3500 rpm in 99% of their driving. I don't.

    2015 Cruze 2LT, 2014 Malibu 2LT, 2008 Cobalt 2LT

  • finfin atlantaPosts: 594
    As a potential Lucerne buyer I continue to read with interest all the posts to date. Thanks, and please keep the comments coming.

    If the Lucerne has a performance issue, the problem appears to be the transmission. Only 4 forward gears as many have noted. And gear 4 is an overdrive for gas mileage, it has nothing to do acceleration. The horsepower (actually torque) is there, it's just a matter of getting it to the ground. A 5 or 6 speed is critical in this heavy sedan, and much of the competition has one.

    Beyond that, the car sounds like a winner at this point....
  • evandroevandro Posts: 1,108
    I wonder when GM cars will carry the new 6-speed auto developed with Ford. The 500 and Fusion got it already...
  • evandroevandro Posts: 1,108
    You mean the typical Buick driver doesn't use more than 3500RPM 99% of the time, right? :D
  • jh1977jh1977 Posts: 40
    You may be correct about the LeSabre and Lucerne having comparable engine HP. But per the Consumer Guide and Edmunds car reviews on the Internet, the 2005 LeSabre Custom/Limited is quicker in acceleration than the Base 2006 Lucerne.
  • johnclineiijohnclineii Posts: 2,287
    Actually the Fusion and Five Hundred's Six Speeds to date come from Aisin, a Toyota affiliate. The Ford Edge will be the first Ford to have that joint venture six speed....
  • evandroevandro Posts: 1,108
    The Lucerne is about 300lbs heavier than the Le Sabre. Not considering possible differences in gear ratios...

    So, yes, the Lucerne V6 is underpowered, even if the same engine was adequate in the Le Sabre and then.
  • evandroevandro Posts: 1,108
    I see. It seems that the new auto will only debut in the Saturn Aura and in the Lincoln Aviator and Ford Edge next year.

    Thanks.
  • sls002sls002 Posts: 2,788
    The LeSabre Limited weighed about 3600 lbs, while the base Lucerne is nearly 3800 lbs. The V8 Lucerne weighes around 4000 lbs. The V8 axle ratio is 3.11:1 and the V6 is 2.86:1. The 3.6 V6 would make more sense with a higher performance axle ratio, perhaps something like 3.5:1, the LaCrosse 3.6 gets 3.69:1 axle ratio.
  • Pulling two tons with only 4 gears is not the issue. My 4000-lb 96 STS with the Northstar and 4 gears gets to 60 in under 6 seconds. Perhaps the gear ratios are much different.

    I'd still love to see Buick grab the 3.6L engine and/or 5 spd from the modern STS. But I'm guessing they're trying to save a buck by using slightly older designs, which would be OK if performance didn't suffer.
  • rayainswrayainsw Posts: 3,029
    "I'd still love to see Buick grab the 3.6L engine and/or 5 spd from the modern STS. "

    The 5 speed automatic trans in the current 'modern' STS is a RWD only trans. 5L40 & 5L50. Will not help the Lucerne.

    Details here:

    http://media.gm.com/us/powertrain/en/product_services/r_cars/car%20eng%20trans.h- tml

    - Ray
    Still very surprised to see the max. TQ limit GM has published for their new 6 speed FWD trans. -

    6T70:

    “Rated for engines up to 315 horsepower and 280 lb.-ft. of torque”
    2016 BMW 340i
  • sls002sls002 Posts: 2,788
    I have said this before and I am saying it again: I think GM plans to have some RWD cars in the not to distant future which will probably replace the bigger, higher performance FWD cars. I expect the Lucerne and DTS to be replaced by RWD cars at some point. I also expect that the V8 Impala to be replaced by some RWD performance model too.

    However, they could develope a 6T80 version for higher performance models too...
  • bruneau1bruneau1 Posts: 468
    Yes, part of the problem with the 3800 in the Lucerne is the extra weight compared to the Le Sabre. The minor reduction in horsepower compared to the past is due to the new method of measuring horsepower. The torque is still there, but the transmission is calibrated to achieve fuel economy and therefore does not feel spirited in normal driving unless you constantly provoke downshifts. I wouldn't call it underpowered, just sufficient if you are a conservative driver. The 3800 is an old but reliable workhorse, but it's time to retire it if weight keeps increasing. The only way to know is to try it yourself and know your driving style and the loads you will carry. We don't all need the same thing.
  • bruneau1bruneau1 Posts: 468
    The 6spd. in the 500 and Fusion is not the new GM-Ford unit which will start appearing next fall. I am sure it will be a much better unit than what Ford is using now which has no way of holding a gear and is shift happy.
  • finfin atlantaPosts: 594
    Can't find the transmission gear numbers, but your STS acceleration probably comes from a 3.71 final drive ratio, the Lucerne uses a 3.11. Big difference. You also have a little more torque available in the engine at most any rpm.

    Given that the Lucerne uses the 3.11 there is no choice but to add gears for acceleration. A 5 speed would do wonders..... yes...
  • evandroevandro Posts: 1,108
    I am sure it will be a much better unit than what Ford is using now which has no way of holding a gear and is shift happy.

    Indeed. I've read many people complaining about it in the 500 and Fusion forums.

    Thanks.
  • sls002sls002 Posts: 2,788
    The STS version of the FWD Seville had 3.71:1 gearing. My SLS has the 3.11:1 gearing. I do not find that performance is bad. Fuel consumption is actually quite good, I averaged about 29 MPG based on the fuel added to the tank on a trip to the West Coast. The computer's average MPG at the end of the trip was over 30 MPG, but the computer's average varies depending on recent consumption. My 29 was for the entire 5000 or so mile trip.

    The SLS performance on 0-60 was rated at about 7.5 seconds, while the STS was rated a bit faster, about 7 seconds I think. The base northstar has more low end torque than the STS's high performance northstar.
  • finfin atlantaPosts: 594
    Yes on all counts, sls002. When you can get 29 mpg with that 3.11 final drive and cover 0 to 60 in about 7.5 seconds in a 2 ton car, you are successful. The new V8 Lucerne is 4000 lbs., and has that 3.11 final drive also. But only shows 25 hwy mpg. Seems like GM is moving backwards here as your car is 3 years old. Go figure...

    The Cad in the other post was an STS with the 3.71 gears, hence the faster acceleration. There is a world of difference in a 0.6 final drive change in any car, as you mentioned.
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Crossroads of America I70 & I75 Posts: 23,701
    Performance depends ont he relative ratios in the two lower trans gears, too. Does the 3.11 and 3.71 include the overdrive 4th gear or is that just the "differential" ratio?

    2015 Cruze 2LT, 2014 Malibu 2LT, 2008 Cobalt 2LT

  • 62vetteefp62vetteefp Posts: 6,048
    The SLS is rated at 26
  • rake2rake2 Posts: 120
    Just for the readers' information, picked up a CSX a little over a week ago, and on Tuesday had a trip from Philly to Pittsburgh, mostly highway miles. I got 22 mph cruising at about 74 mph. I'm hoping that once I get more miles on the engine, the mpg will improve. It has great acceleration at 70, which is good for passing. The ride is very smooth and quiet as well.
  • 62vetteefp62vetteefp Posts: 6,048
    CXS :blush:
  • finfin atlantaPosts: 594
    Just the final drive (differential) ratio. The overdrive gear will lower that number to produce highway mileage numbers acceptable to the manufacturer.
    Lucerne is 3.11 reduced by the overdrive gear IV as I read the information.
  • rayainswrayainsw Posts: 3,029
    "My 4000-lb 96 STS with the Northstar and 4 gears gets to 60 in under 6 seconds. Perhaps the gear ratios are much different."

    = = =

    What I could find in my back issue collection last night suggests that the FWD STS was a 6.8 sec. 0 – 60 sedan.

    R&T, Feb 1998 issue P 76 & 77:
    0 – 60: 6.8 \ 4050 #
    Final drive: 3.71 to 1

    C+D, Nov 1998:
    0 – 60: 6.8

    MT, Aug 1999:
    0 – 60: 6.8

    I do not recall ever seeing a published 0 – 60 time for these cars below 6.0 sec.

    The EPA ratings at the time were: 17 / 26.

    What is your source for a sub-6 second 0 – 60?
    My current sedan has been tested at 5.7 seconds for 0 – 60 by C+D.

    - Ray
    Intimately familiar with how much difference in feel there is between a high 6 second and a high 5 second 0 – 60 sedan . .
    2016 BMW 340i
  • rayainswrayainsw Posts: 3,029
    Lucerne Acceleration Performance:

    The original C+D test (1SG w/3.42 to 1 final drive) reported 0 – 60: 6.0 and 14.6 at 97 in the Quarter.

    The later C+D sedan comparison with a 1SE version of the STS (and 2.73 final drive) reported 0 – 60: 6.0 and 14.5 at 100 in the quarter.

    And the 30 – 50 and 50 – 70 mph times were actually better for the 1SE than in their previous test of the 1SG.

    Given Michelin Energy tires (not exactly designed for maximum dry grip) in size 235 / 50 x 17 on the tested 1SE vs Michelin Pilot HX MXM4 in size P255/45ZR-18 on the 1SG, I don’t expect that the 1SE would have better launch traction . . .

    Granted the 1SF test weight is quoted at approx. 150 pounds lighter (attributable to less extensive equipment, I expect)

    The braking performance for that 1SE was worse than the 1SG's . . 70 – 0 = 190 feet vs 177 in previous 1SG test. Exactly as I’d expect, given smaller tires and less bias toward ultimate traction in the tread compound and design.

    In at least a token attempt to bring this into a Lucerne context (and I actually believe it is relevant on this board) since there is no longer a FWD Seville (STS or SLS), and no Olds available at all (FWD or not), it seems to fall to the Lucerne to attempt to win sales for GM where people do want and appreciate the positive attributes of a medium sized FWD sedan. Things like a substantially smaller front & rear ‘hump’ than the STS . . .

    And the Lucerne acceleration in 6 cylinder form appears clearly less than stellar – and in V8 form, well it again appears to be somewhat less than many expect.

    I have driven both a 1SE and a 1SF (3.23 final drive) RWD 2005 STS. I would personally consider the 1SF level of acceleration acceptable in a $35 – 38K mid-sized sedan. But not what I perceived in the 1SE. Fugedabout the V6 in either the STS or the Lucerne (for me – Torque snob) regarding acceleration.

    So – the question (one important question) becomes: Will it sell anyway?

    We shall see . . .

    As someone pointed out above, GM may release a higher capacity 6 speed automatic for FWD eventually – if they do, it could be an aid in the cause. Allowing a better compromise between acceleration and high MPG \ low NVH at highway cruising speeds.

    Again – we’ll see.

    - Ray
    Wondering also if 2007 will see something like a Buick Lucerne GXP – or GS???
    2016 BMW 340i
  • alpha01alpha01 Posts: 4,747
    You state

    "Lucerne Acceleration Performance:

    The original C+D test (1SG w/3.42 to 1 final drive) reported 0 – 60: 6.0 and 14.6 at 97 in the Quarter.

    The later C+D sedan comparison with a 1SE version of the STS (and 2.73 final drive) reported 0 – 60: 6.0 and 14.5 at 100 in the quarter.

    And the 30 – 50 and 50 – 70 mph times were actually better for the 1SE than in their previous test of the 1SG. "

    But you are talking about the STS, right? Which one/year? The older FWD one? I apologize if Im the only one who finds your post confusing, but I enjoy this discussion (generally as an observer) and am totally missing your point.

    ~alpha
  • rayainswrayainsw Posts: 3,029
    "But you are talking about the STS, right? Which one/year? The older FWD one? "

    Sorry - Referring to the newer \ current STS here. RWD.

    Relevant to this discussion (I think) because of the context and (apparent) role of the new Lucerne as "top of the GM line of FWD". Used to be the Caddy STS & SLS.

    - Ray
    Always willing to be proven wrong . .
    2016 BMW 340i
  • sls002sls002 Posts: 2,788
    Yes, you are right, Car & Driver did get 0-60 at 6 seconds for both RWD STS models that they tested. Road & Track got 5.9 seconds. It is my feeling that the best performance would be with an axle ratio around 3:1, perhaps 3.08:1. The 2.73:1 axle ratio is not good for Autobahn cruising.
  • rayainswrayainsw Posts: 3,029
    "The January issue of Motor Trend has a test for the Car of the Year award. The 0-60 time for the Lucerne is 7.5 seconds. The DTS with the higher performance northstar and axle ratio is 7.1 seconds. "

    Oops - your post reminds me that there is a 'step up' FWD at GM. The DTS.

    For several reasons, I'd never consider it, but starting at $42K, it is "above" the Lucerne.

    One reason I follow this thread is that now (again, with Olds gone, and the Pontiac Bonne gone, and the STS \ SLS Caddy FWDs gone) this is the overall size I'd likely prefer when I trade my GP GXP.

    If a performance variant of the Lucerne, with more HP and more TQ (from this or some other V8) and a 6 speed automatic with manumatic \ paddle shift, a more performance oriented suspension, wheels & tires, etc. becomes available – I would at least look at it.

    - Ray
    Not likely in the market again until sometime next year . .
    2016 BMW 340i
  • sls002sls002 Posts: 2,788
    I don't see any changes coming for the Lucerne's engine lineup anytime soon. The 3800 will remain available until the 2009 model year. Assuming that the Lucerne is not replaced at that point, some replacement V6 is likely. My guess is that if a RWD sedan goes into production for Buick, it will replace the Lucerne. I don't see the 5.3 V8 becoming available in the Lucerne and will probably dissappear from the FWD Impala if a RWD GTO platform ever arrives. A RWD GTO platform would permit a RWD performance sedan/coupe at Chevy with a 5.3 V8. A RWD GTO platform may permit Buick to get a nice RWD sedan to replace the Lucerne, although the Buick sedan would need to be larger than the GTO platform. This is what went wrong with the zeta platform.
  • rayainswrayainsw Posts: 3,029
    “Yes, you are right, Car & Driver did get 0-60 at 6 seconds for both RWD STS models that they tested. Road & Track got 5.9 seconds. It is my feeling that the best performance would be with an axle ratio around 3:1, perhaps 3.08:1. The 2.73:1 axle ratio is not good for Autobahn cruising.”

    Although I have no access to a true Autobahn (sadly) I am curious about what you’re getting at here.

    My personal preference is low RPM at cruising speeds. My current Sedan shows approx. 1700 \ 2000 and 2250 RPM at 60 \ 70 and 80 MPH. And that gearing (2.93 to 1 final drive and low profile 18” tires) would likely translate into approx. 2800 RPM at 100 MPH and 3350 RPM at 120.

    Although I have never attempted cruising at those speeds, assuming that the wind & road NVH did not rise too quickly, my cruising at up to 80 suggests to me that sustained 100+ would not be a problem – if there was a venue allowing this safely & legally here in the South East US.

    When VW introduced their 8 cylinder 250+ HP version of the Passat (W8), they changed the final drive from 3.0 to 1 (Europe – with opportunity to travel on ‘real’ Autobahns at higher speeds than is currently legal here) to 3.5 (US).

    This (and other similar reading) leads me to believe that in a general sense, many Europeans generally prefer lower RPM cruising and US drivers prefer quicker acceleration. Thus, in this context, the 2.73 in your example would appear to be a more appealing option than 3.08 or 3.1.

    What am I missing?

    - Ray
    Hoping some day to actually drive a fun sedan on the Autobahn . . .
    2016 BMW 340i
  • sls002sls002 Posts: 2,788
    Basically, the horsepower requirement increases exponentially with speed. I think that the prime reason for giving the STS (FWD) a 3.71:1 axle ratio was so that it could reach 150 MPH. With a 3.11:1 axle ratio the top speed would probably have been less, although 150 is possible in third gear. My SLS will do 50 MPH @2000 RPM's in third gear and 72 in overdrive (4th). For cruising on the Autobahn, on does not want to be in a lower gear to cruise at 150 MPH. The STS should have been able to reach 150 MPH @5000 RPM's instead of 6000 RPMs.
  • bruneau1bruneau1 Posts: 468
    Who needs to worry about such possible speeds? Who cares? Where can one do that with legality and safety? Get real. What counts is how a car drives under normal and demanding conditions- and I don't mean 100 miles per hour. The Lucerne is a very nice vehicle and it needs to succeed or it is the end of Buick. They have only two cars and two suv types whose sales are dropping and a minivan which is scheduled to die when the Atlanta plant closes.
  • This is all very interesting to me. Thanks for the lively discussion.

    My source for 0-60 times of the older STS is my own test on a 110K mile 9-year old car using a G-Tech accelerometer. I know it's always better to compare 0-60s from the same source, i.e. the same magazine. So maybe my statement exaggerates the difference between the old STS and the new Lucerne. Still, I don't understand why the Lucerne can't have better acceleration or much better fuel economy. My STS gets 27 on long 70 MPH trips.

    My opinion is that the car magazines complain too much about 4 speeds now that 5's are more common. A 4 can be made to work well. I'm so happy with my STS that my first choice would be to buy another one new if I could. By the way, the FWD STS is great in snow. I went to look at the Lucerne which seemed on paper mechanically very similar. But it hasn't completely won me over... yet.

    Eric
  • jh1977jh1977 Posts: 40
    I agree with what you are saying except for the 3800 Engine in the Base Lucerne. The 3800 has been a great reliable Engine for GM cars for years, but now its time has past. GM should put a more modern engine in the Base Lucerne so it can compete with the V6 engines in the Avalon, Charger and 300 Limited full size cars. As we have heard or read in the news, GM is in the process of cutting jobs and closing plants. Toyota, Honda and other foreign manufacturers are gaining car market share in the U.S. To compete with the foreign car manufacturers and Daimler Chrylser, GM must began manufacturing quality built vehicles with modern technology, modern engines and attractive body styles for all of its car divisions (especially Buick) to appeal to a broad section of consumers, if not GM might go out of business. I would hate to see GM and Ford go out of business and the U.S. is left with only foreign car manufacturers.
  • vanman1vanman1 Posts: 1,397
    The base Lucerne needs the 3.6L as a base with a 5 or 6 speed transmission. More HP and a modern power plant for a modern car. I love the Lucerne otherwise but while the 3800 is smooth and efficient, the car would really attract me with better power.

    I also think the optics of 197 hp just looks awful on a near luxury full size car.
  • I would have probably bought a Lecerne, BUT!!!!!!!
    GM advertises them but has NONE for sale. I waited a month for a dealer anywhere to get one. They never showed up. Can't see one now. So I bought an Avalon. Toyota has those in stock!

    GM What a joke. They make a good car (so I have heard) they advertise the heck out of it and don't ship them.

    Just like Chrysler and the New Yorker 25 years ago.

    Won't american car makers ever, ever learn??.

    I would love to buy american. But I can't buy what I can't see.
  • bruneau1bruneau1 Posts: 468
    You are right. Too few out there and too few color choices available as yet. Another example of GM incompetence, and I have owned and liked a lot of GM cars. I grew up driving them. It is sad and irritating to see how far a once great corporation has fallen. And the down trip is not over. There are millions of middle class Americans who benefited greatly from working for GM and other American car makers. Too many stupid, arrogant, and greedy top executives have changed all that. Now GM contemplates selling GMAC- the only profitable part of their North American operations. Maybe they can do something stupid with the money- reinvest in Fiat or something. Sorry for the petulance. Buys Buicks before they are gone.
  • evandroevandro Posts: 1,108
    I think that GM has been riding on the good will of many customers for too long. Right now, there's no car in its portfolio that I'd buy. Either because a model that attracts me has an outdated engine or because it's too expensive. The competition is eager to win my business though, offering products with no-excuses interior, reliability and engines.
  • 62vetteefp62vetteefp Posts: 6,048
    The base Lucerne needs the 3.6L as a base with a 5 or 6 speed transmission. More HP and a modern power plant for a modern car. I love the Lucerne otherwise but while the 3800 is smooth and efficient, the car would really attract me with better power.

    But what would you think about a $1500 increase in the base price for just the engine?
This discussion has been closed.