Buick LaCrosse

alpha01

I highly doubt anyone will ever mistake this vehicle for an ES330. Why does this comparison keep coming up? These two cars are not targeting the same audience, and I doubt the LaCrosse will offer a driving experience like the Lexus does. Nobodys comparing the Ford Futura/500 to the Lexus so where is this coming from?

~alpha

PS- by the time the LaCrosse debuts, the ES330 will look slightly different. 05 calls for a "freshening".

a_l_hubcaps

alpha01-

Part of my dislike for the Intrigue definitely has to do with styling, but ours was also a real piece of junk right from the first day. It was towed back to the dealer 3 times during the first 2 years of ownership. Failures during the first 60K miles included steering rack, water pump, starter (twice), various electrical problems, interior parts falling off, etc. For awhile we had a choice between headlights and dash instruments; the two would not work at the same time. It seems that the reliability has actually gotten better with age; it has around 80K on it now (mostly highway) and it's been reasonably good for the last 20K or so.

I really have no complaints about the interior of the LaCrosse; I'm really happy to see GM (and other mfrs) returning to interiors with contrasting materials and a more classy look, rather than the "make everything out of gray and/or tan plastic" method. I also think the exterior looks of the LaCrosse are better than the Intrigue (those long headlights on the Olds are hideous IMHO), but the real styling leaders now seem to be Chrysler and Ford, who have noticed that cars look more substantial when every exterior shape is not an oval.

But anyway, my #1 gripe about the Intrigue is simply that its reliability is worse than that of my 18-year-old Pontiac, which is inexcusable.

-Andrew L

johnclineii

Alpha, THAT comparison keeps coming up because at the car's unveiling at the auto show, BUICK and Mr. Lutz themselves made that comparison. If the company didn't want it made, they shouldn't have suggested it.

fastdriver

alpha01-

The comparison is coming because GM has used the LEXUS as a MODEL for the LaCrosse in regards to QUALITY, SEAM GAPS, QUIETNESS, INTERIOR LUXURY etc. I don't think GM ever said it LOOKS like a LEXUS!

fastdriver

[Deleted User]

The LaCrosse looks way more like a 2003 Taurus than it does a Lexus. But then the Lexus ES330, good as it is, isn't the prettiest car around. The current Taurus styling, while not offensive, is just old and adorning a mediocre car. Buick is updating the current Regal, renaming it and hopefully will bring higher levels of quality and refinement to it. It will be another generation before the LaCrosse is really new.

rerenov8r

The still photos, even when snapped during a "hard drive" don't do justice to the LaCrosse.

There are hints at the refined style, from the low profile tires and mouse-eye peek through the back of the opposite side wheels, but you can't see how the very short bumper overhang, peaked front fenders, and subtlety in-sweep side flanks all contribute to make the LaCrosse MUCH better looking than a Taurus...

jchan2

looks nice, but is missing a better engine in the CXL version and a NAV system.

1487

what engine should the CXL version have? How could 240hp not be considered enough in this class? Thats more power than you'll find in a more expensive Es330.

theo2709

The CXL will have the iron block, pushrod 3800 V6 with 200 HP. Only the CXS will have the HF 3.6L available.

mbukukanyau

Is a La Crosse Short coming


But the Front is Executed well, better than the Taurus.
2003 Taurus





I do not see The similarities.
2004 Taurus is remarkably different

badgerfan

Please go back to post 302 to see why a lot of us think LaCrosse is a Taurus lookalotalike. Not that that is all bad, I happen to own and like the exterior looks of the current generation Taurus, though I can see why Ford is moving on with 500 this fall and Futura later on, as Taurus is getting long in tooth.

The question is, why couldn't GM do something a little more with Lacrosse than copy Taurus in the side view and Jag in the front? Trying to capture the current Taurus owners as they age?

Funny, I once bought new a 1977 Buick Century Custom when I was in my late 20's. I liked the looks of Olds Cutlass but wanted something a bit different as everyone drove a Cutlass at that time, so I went with the Buick version. Now that I am approaching the Buick demographics, I wouldn't think of buying a Buick-it skews too old for me!

badgerfan

In comparing the 2003 and 2004 Taurus, the major differences in your pictures are due to the lighting and angle of the pictures. The 2004 is a "staged" picture, while the 2003 is more a real world picture. In reality, the differences are only a minor freshening, with a different shaped grill and bumper. Otherwise, no changes from 03-04.

fastdriver

mbukukanyau-

The LaCrosse is coming in September.

fastdriver

lngtonge18

I must say I'm quite impressed with the pics of the LaCrosse. I actually like both the interior and exterior styling (though the front overhang is a bit much). It looks very classy and the center console design is quite similar to the Lexus ES330. I hope the materials look and feel as nice in person. The black looks particularly sharp with the chrome accents. Being that I'm a young 24 and have NEVER considered any GM products before, I think GM may have finally designed something appealing enough to grab younger buyers into the Buick fold. I come from a family that had a very bad experience with a 1979 Buick Century wagon. It was replaced with an 86 Accord and my family never looked back. I wouldn't touch an American car with a 10 ft pole and often steered others away from considering them. For the first time though, GM has designed a car that looks good inside and out and has grabbed my attention enough to consider it for my next car. And that's some high praise for this car's style since I'm risking giving my mom a heart attack when I tell her I bought a Buick, LOL. I'll take a black CXS with sunroof, heated seats, and concert sound 3 please. And GM, if you want my business DON'T add satellite radio and onstar to every car on the lot! I can't stand that stuff and I could care less about navigation systems. I really don't see why people are so obsessed about those things. I might use navigation a couple times if that, so it's hardly worth $2k to me. It's a cool trinket to look at, but a DVD entertainment system would be much more useful. Oh and GM, keep the CXS around the $29k price range. You gotta keep the pricing competitive if you want to steal my attention away from the value packed Koreans and Japanese.

rerenov8r

While it does seem ,uh, "ambitious" to think that the Koreans are reaching for the 'near luxury' market segment the fact is THEY ARE.

Given that, GM pretty much HAS TO use Buick to battle the attack "coming from below" as the Koreans are NOT yet ready to do battle in "motorsports" where GM has Pontiac, nor can Cadillac afford to be distracted from 'top shelf' luxury competitors...

The OnStar HW may be cheap, but it still costs something ($200? $500?) and MAYBE it would make more sense to devote some of that toward to a nicer radio or richer interior trim or...

The bottom line on the LaCrosse may very well end up being a selling point -- as more and more vehicles edge toward the stratosphere I suspect "value" will need to be a reason to get ANY sedan.

alpha01

Awesome posts today, man. I'm 22 and feel much the same as you. However, how can you not be all about XM? Its phenomenal! Points well taken with respect to OnStar and NAV, though. Reminder to those who havent: Enter to win a LaCrosse at Buick.com!!!

~alpha

lngtonge18

I totally agree with you about the Koreans. I'm sold on their quality and value (I'm a happy 2 time Hyundai owner) and would be comparing the XG350 and Amanti to the LaCrosse. It would be a stretch for me to go to a lower warranty car that costs more, so Buick better make the pricing and features tempting and they might want to consider uping the warranty to 4/50 to ease import buyers suspicions of lackluster quality.

lngtonge18

The main problem I have with XM is the fact its another monthly fee to pay. I'm aggravated enough by the number of checks I have to write so the thought of another one is very unappealing. I don't know. It just seems silly to me to pay $10 a month for radio access, not to mention the hardware costs.

johnclineii

silly? Not if you enjoy radio, as opposed to endless commercials, constant and incessant repetition and lack of variety. People once said they would never pay for tv, either.

And I have yet to write the FIRST check for Sirius. They bill my credit card annually, and that's that.

The same stream can be listened to from coast to coast, I have CNN and NPR available ANYWHERE at the touch of the button, BBC or Fox if you'd rather. WSM and The Grand Ole Opry, too. The NBA, and soon, the NFL.

Kirstie_H

I also have XM & love it. Either would've been great. But, let's keep that particular conversation in the XM & Sirius Satellite Radio discussion.

chavis10

I think the LaCrosse is just fine and competes well with its competitors. Maybe Nav will come down the road but who cares. It isn't offered now so if you can't live without it, don't get a LaCrosse. If the lack of navigation will make or break your purchase, disregarding the rest of the car, than you'll probably be missing out on a very nice vehicle. I personally think Nav is a toy. I'd be nice to have just to impress people, but I usually know where I'm going. anyway, what is up with the complaints of the styling? Compared to the plain and ugly designs out there, how can anyone hate on the LaCrosse? The ES330 is terrible looking. You want to talk about overhangs? Lets not forget the LaCrosse is still a W car so naturally, the front overhang will be longer than newer designs from its competitors. What about the Accord or Camry, they can hardly be classified as good looking. But wait, they offer Nav so they must be better. For once, a newly designed car is available WITHOUT fake metal trim. That stuff is just tacky (can anyone say Carmy SE?). It just seems like anything GM comes out with gets overly criticized. The LaCrosse looks especially sharp in the black. Also, thank goodness GM hasn't resorted to the high roof, narrow width, short wheelbase dimensions of current Toyotas. We own a '98 Intrigue and the LaCrosse will definitely major consideration this fall. The Intrigue possessed a style missing in the class at that time. I still think its a damn good looking car whenever it gets freshly washed. I couldn't see myself ever driving the boring looking Camry or the Accord with it's terrible taillamp treatment.

jchan2

Does anybody know what the bas price is for the CX version of the LaCrosse?

rctennis3811

Well, not everyone thinks the car looks better than an ES330. To me, they both look good and that's what counts. Styling is never a critical decision for me, as long as it's not HIDEOUS like an Aztek or Element. But for me, feature content is more important and I can't get a navigation in a car similarly priced, equipped, and powered as an Accord, Camry, etc. It may not be a big deal to you, but for some of us it is. But, I do have a very good feeling that they will eventually offer one in the LaCrosse.

alpha01

Very eloquently done.

chavis- You should note that the hideous ES330, Accord, and Camry are all sales and critical successes. Of course, there are those among us who realize that styling is a subjective consideration. Perhaps these are the people criticizing the LaCrosse for some of its more notable omissions. (Such as chest side airbags, NAV, lack of 3.6L option on CX or CXL models, etc..).

Personally, I think your Intrigue was a very attractive vehicle. But that didnt help it much, eh?

~alpha

fredvh

WHAT! The LaCrosse does not have side airbags? That would be a serious defect.

alpha01

The LaCrosse has optional Side Impact Curtains which afford protection of the head. This seems to be the GM norm- when Side Curtains are available, a seat mounted chest protecting unit is unavailable. Most other makes include chest protecting side airbags even when vehicles have side curtains. Im not in the medical profession, but I strongly feel that vital organs are contained in BOTH the head and chest regions.

~alpha

rctennis3811

I'm totally with you! EVERY organ in the body needs to be protected...

chavis10

Styling obviously has nothing to do with sales success. I personally don't like the way any Toyota looks except maybe the RAV4. My point is people seem so critical of GM product styling when the "best sellers" don't look like anything special and are often some of the ugliest cars in the segment. Sure, styling is subjective. Thank goodness it is. Some people however are just bandwagon riders. I doubt someone passionate about cars looks at a Camry and says, "Wow, this baby looks good." I'm sure it's a good car and a wise purchase, but I would never drop $$ on something that doesn't make me wanna take a second look.
Personally, I don't want a car that is a "sales success" anyways unless it is drop dead beautiful. Sales figures compliment the manufacturer, not us buyers. That's why I don't really pay sales numbers any mind. I think a lot of people have the idea that since so many other people buy ia particular car, it must be good. That may be true somewhat, but I like to be different and I'm sure a lot of other people do as well.

Alpha, when we first got the Intrigue, people at gas stations and such didn't even know what it was. On the '98s, the word "Oldsmobile" was only in two places on the entire car- the right rear backup lamp which is translucent and the radio face. They used to ask who made it, etc. However, the car didn't sell especially well (which is fine by me).

Tennis, you have a point. Different things are important to different people. Styling happens to be on the top of my list. I just find it interesting that most publications usually agree on what looks good and what doesn't. That impression seems to trickle down to the public. For instance, everyone claims the 7 series is ugly, the 5 is better and the 6 looks good. To me, I think the 7 is the best looking out of the Bangle Butt era. I think the 6 series looks unfinished and the 5 is terrible. That's just an example.

rctennis3811

Ahh! Gotcha!

1487

The ES330 is horrendous looking. The LaCrosse is definitely more stylish and can hold its own with any competing Japanese car. Most Japanese sedans fall into two categories, ugly or boring. The Camry, Sonata, XG300 and Accord are boring. The Maxima and Galant are ugly. The Altima and 6 are acceptable.

The critical acclaim of the Camry and others has nothing to do with styling. Most family sedan buyers are conservative and most family cars are styled accordingly. The Mazda 6 was praised by the press and is styled aggressively but it hasn't been a sales success.

As for the 3.6, why the hell would the Lacrosse offer the 3.6 in lower models when camrys come with 157hp 4 bangers and Accords come with 160hp fours? Get real people. As for NAV, why would the lack of NAV affect the Lacrosse's sales when 95% of Accords and Camrys dont have the option? Also, the Impala, 6, Avalon, Galant and Passat do not have this option. I have seen one Camry with NAV since the 2003 model came out. It doesn't seem like a popular option amongst camry owners.

johnclineii

The Buick is a BUICK. It is not a Camry or Accord, nor is it meant to compete against those cars.

Buicks are supposed to have STRONG performance. The base engine is pathetically weak for this market segment. Not unlike the same mistake Ford is making with its Five Hundreds.

Just because Japanese midsizes come with 4 cylinders does not mean it is appropriate for upscale American marques.

Now, if there is a gas crisis or shortage, the American makers will have been wiser than many of us...

chavis10

Whoa dude, WTF are you talking about? Why isn't a buick not meant to compete with Accords and Carmys? What exactly is it supposed to compete with? any midsize cars have to compete with the CamCorder because the sell the most and obviously, manufacturers have to sell cars to make money.

" The base engine is pathetically weak for this market segment."
That might be the funniest statement I've ever read in months.

Based on what? That engine will get the LaCrosse to 60 in under 8 secs. I didn't know that qualified as "pathetically weak." That's the same engine that powers the larger and more expensive Park Ave and LeSabre.

johnclineii

Lutz himself has identified the benchmark and the competitor as being the Lexus. That being the case, my statements stand. The marketplace will decide, not you or me.

alpha01

1)I could careless what you think of the styling of any of the cars in this class, but thanks for your strong opinions, which speak for you only and have nothing to do, as you said, with sales (or performance, safety, relability) or anything meaningful in a comparison of similar vehicles.

2)I dont buy a word of the following.

"As for the 3.6, why the hell would the Lacrosse offer the 3.6 in lower models when camrys come with 157hp 4 bangers and Accords come with 160hp fours? Get real people."
------------------
Is the LaCrosse competing against basic $20,000 Camry LEs and Accord LX 4s? Not at a starting price of $23,xxx, which has been the accepted rumor. At that price, the Camry LE V6 (with 210 hp and 220 foot pounds) and the Accord LX V6 (with 240 hp and 212 foot pounds) are available. So, using an apples to apples price comparison, if GM wanted to lead the pack, they would have offered the excellent 3.6L VVTi as an option on at least the CXL, if not the base CX.

3)"As for NAV, why would the lack of NAV affect the Lacrosse's sales when 95% of Accords and Camrys dont have the option? Also, the Impala, 6, Avalon, Galant and Passat do not have this option. I have seen one Camry with NAV since the 2003 model came out. It doesn't seem like a popular option amongst camry owners."

---------
The Camry came out with Navigation in 2002, if you want to be specific. Your impressions of which vehicles are sold with which options are just that- impressions. Show me numbers. On an upscale sedan, as Buick is portending this car to be, the latest in technology is expected. You'd think if a model such as the CXS was going to be positioned north of 30K (which it is expected to be), then NAV would at least be offered.

~alpha

rctennis3811

I totally agree with what you just said! That's just 1487's opinion which he likes to put out as FACT.

fastdriver

don't you think we should wait and see how the car does WHEN it comes out? Between now and September, a lot of things can change/happen. All this ridiculous "speculating" seems useless.

Just my .02.

fastdriver

roses

Chavis said: "Styling happens to be on the top of my list." I find that most of the time I'm driving I'm not particularly concerned with the physical appearance of my vehicle. In fact, I spend very little of my spare time actually looking at my car. I want the thing to run reliably for a lot of years. Styling, I think, contributes very little to the longevity of most production vehicles today. Most people can't afford what is undeniably pleasing to the eye. For the rest of us (86%), give me a car that's known for reliability (oops, I've just eliminated 90% of U.S. production).

alpha01

Um... what 'speculating'?

~alpha

mbukukanyau

rctennis3811

I like the one in the ads better, with the different chrome wheels.

chavis10

That's wonderful. But I wouldn't be caught dead in anything boring looking or ugly. If someone were to give me say an ES330 or any other Toyota product save the LS430 for free, I wouldn't even park it in front of my house. I'd go straight to a dealership and trade it in for something else. I don't think I was implying that you should spend a half an hour everyday staring at your car. That's simply dumb. However, if I'm going to spend my hard earned bucks, that car sitting outside had definitely better be good looking. I agree with mbukukanyau (btw, can we abbreviate your name, that's a headache to type), the LaCrosse is sick. It looks better than everything else in the class. You folks can agrue about no Nav or whatever else. I still might be driving one of these bad boys in the fall over the Accord, Camry, Altima that offer Nav and no style.

Alpha, I disagree. It seems like people are now acting like the 3800 is a junk motor now that the 3600 will be available. The 3800 will provide equal or better performance than the 3.0L v-6 in the Camry. I don't know about the current CamCorders, but back in like '98, 70% of them were four bangers. So even though the six cylinders get all the credit, the measly fours are racking up the sales figures. It's interesting when people quote sales figures of the CamCorder against other cars who only offer V-6 power. If you wanted to compare apples to apples, almost every other V-6 only car out sells the Accord and Camry.

alpha01

With regard to this "If you wanted to compare apples to apples, almost every other V-6 only car out sells the Accord and Camry." Show me numbers. (Given your assumption that 30% of Camcords are V6s, and they both sell about 400K units per year, thats still a whole 120K V6s sold for each model. Practically all of those would be private registrations since the fleet Camcords are basic 4s. So, how many private registrations did the Intrigue have in its best year? Or how bout the Regal?)

I dont recall ever seeing a comparison test of an Intrigue vs. the Camcord 4s. You'll never see a comparison test of the LaCrosse vs. the Camcord 4s either. Why? Because of the target within the segment. As I have already stated, the LaCrosse with the 3800 V6 will be starting at $23,000 plus. Given the CX's level of standard equipment (or lack there of) the most closely justifiable trim of the Camcords would be the LE and LX. Both the Camry LE V6 and Accord LX V6 cost in the $23,000 range, so this is the comparison that I feel is most valid, and that most buyers cross shopping the Camcords and the Lacrosse CX will make. I dont think the 3800 is junk at all. But I do think that the 3600 should have been made available as an option at least on the CXL. (And yes, I think the 3800 will be pretty even in terms of acceleration with the Camry 210hp 3.0L. But the Camry V6 is smoother than GMs 3800, AND if you want more guts in the Camry, you can move to the 3.3L 225hp 240 foot pound unit for $24,500 in the SE).

I dont really know how/why you state "So even though the six cylinders get all the credit, the measly fours are racking up the sales figures." No, the Camry and Accord are lauded because of many factors, their engines being one of them.

Its all good, youre free to disagree. I just think my argument holds more truth than yours.

~alpha

danielj6

I don't know what GM was thinking when it decided to name their new Buick "La Crosse". Looks don't matter to me. I really like the way the Taurus looks; however, there are safer cars around.

What would drew me to a Buick dealer, indeed, would be safety all around. Also, head rest design and most important in my list is bumper strength. In my research can not find big, medium or small sedans with "Good" ratings in 5 mph tests, according to IIHS. Except for some VW models and Toyota's Corolla, the rest received "Marginal" or "Poor" ratings. Car manufacturers know how to build strong bumpers that absorb hits and protect the body of the car. Not a priority to them though.

Regarding Buick's bumpers, Le Sabre achieved a "Marginal" and Park Avenue an "Acceptable". And these are large cars. We'll see about the La Crosse.

1487

First of all it is important to note than all Lacrosse's will be 6 cylinders, while the majority of Camcords are 4 cylinders and they always will be. Sure you can get an Accord/Camry V6 for $23K, but most buyers would rather have a 4 cylinder model with more options than a stripped V6. The Lacrosse's base price may be higher, but base model Japanese cars do not come with a lot of standard features and the bottom line is that a loaded Passat/Camry/Accord/LAcrosse will run you $28K-$30K. If you look at the pricing of the Regal, which is obviously inferior to the Lacrosse, it is about the same. GM believes that they shouldn't price V6 base model cars as low as Japanese four cylinder sedans and I can't blame them. As Chavis said, the magazines rarely test 4 cylinder versions of the top selling sedans when those models represent the overwhelming majority of sales. Lets remember that other models besides the 240hp Accord will be competing with the lacrosse, those models include the 200hp 500 and the 190hp Passat. Why is no one bringing up those models? Especially when most magazines claim the the Passat is the best midsize sedan on the market.

alpha01

"Sure you can get an Accord/Camry V6 for $23K, but most buyers would rather have a 4 cylinder model with more options than a stripped V6."

-This statement is based on what?

"The Lacrosse's base price may be higher, but base model Japanese cars do not come with a lot of standard features and the bottom line is that a loaded Passat/Camry/Accord/LAcrosse will run you $28K-$30K"

- Actually, you're wrong. The Camry LE 4 cylinder has all of the standard features of the LaCrosse CX, which will start about $3000 higher than the Camry. So does the Accord (which has ABS standard but not a power drivers seat). Additionally, the Passat does and the LaCrosse CXS will.. top $30K.

"As Chavis said, the magazines rarely test 4 cylinder versions of the top selling sedans when those models represent the overwhelming majority of sales."

-Motor Trend, Car and Driver, and Consumer Reports ALL had tests of 4 cylinder family cars in 2003, so I'm not too sure where this comment comes from.

The 500 has been widely criticized for its on-paper specs and relative lack of power. That said, the 500 isnt a competitor to the midsize sedans, the Futura is. The 500 will do battle with bigger vehicles, like the Avalon, Chrysler 300s, Amanti and GMs larger offerings (LeSabre, Bonne).

Most magazines do not claim the Passat the best midsize sedan on the market, just CR. They dont really emphasize peformance, but I would certainly agree with you- the 190hp V6 Passat has fallen behind the power field.

~alpha

mbukukanyau

fastdriver

and sounds good to me....

http://www.conceptcarz.com/folder/vehicle.asp?whichpage=1&sor- tyBy=&pagesize=8&car_id=7833&vehicleTypeID=0&Prin- tAllPictures=true

http://www.edmunds.com/news/autoshow/articles/101248/page005.html- ?tid=edmunds.e.autoshow..leftnav.6.*

http://www.nctd.com/sneakpreview.cfm?ReviewID=53

I think the front looks like my 1996 Riviera did?

http://www.geocities.com/fastdriver2_99/96buick.html

fastdriver

venus537

this will be hard for both of you to comprehend, but i do not like the styling of the LaCrosse. i really don't. while i don't think most magazines are going to share my opinion on its styling, i also don't think they're going to share your opinions either about how great you both think this car looks.

when it comes to styling both of you give the impression that your opinions are the final arbitrator. personally i think the ES300 and the new TL (by a big margin) have better styling than the LaCrosse. of course this doesn't make me any more "right" than either of you.

venus537

compared to the v6 engines from japan and germany, the 3800 is a "junk" motor. in terms of smoothness, refinement and overall performance (and outright accleration in some cases) the 3800 just doesn't compete well.

as someone from automobile magazine stated "this is a lazy powerful engine".

GM should make the 3.6l standard across the board for the LaCrosse (especially if the ES300 is considered a competitor). Maybe the LaCrosse should just have a "detuned" version for the lower priced models.

GM was able to smooth out the edges in the malibu's 3.5L V6 pushrod engine, but it still isn't on par with the japanese V6 engines. this is more than acceptable in the malibu's segment, but for cars the LaCrosse is competing against, I don't think so.

rctennis3811

Uh-oh..do I hear "flamewar"??? LOL