Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
Another observation the difference between 16" and 17" wheels on this car is nill. Took my favorite decreasing radius freeway clover leaf corner in both cars, tire squeal = exactly 60mph. BTW the CXL 4 holer I drove was stickered @ $32,225 with magna-steer and stabili-track and heated/cooled seats.
(sigh) two more days then I get the wife's cute little Pontiac Torrent back. Think the rental car company will do an even trade? I don't think so either. What's left to do in this car before I give it back? Oh yea, "try out" the back seat. Gotta go.....
Volvo - overhyped and overpriced.
Found a list of media impressions at
http://www.friendsofbuick.com/lucerne.html
Seems the experts like this Buick. I must say, I do too.
Any word on navigation screens, or is turn-by-turn navigation the answer?
Turn by turn is wonderful. Just push the button and the live person downloads the data and the car tells you where to go.
It is certainly pro-Buick (as I am), but I think more
importantly than media impressions, a huge amount
of accurate information is available on all current models!
Clearly, the design parameters seem to have the 4.6L North* in mind:
http://www.media.gm.com/servlet/GatewayServlet?target=http://image.emerald.gm.co- m/gmnews/viewmonthlyreleasedetail.do?domain=3&docid=26311
- Ray
Still holding out some hope for a 2007.5 Lucerne GS . . .
Just an opinion-- Good, but not a home run. Value, for say a used one in a year or so, may be a home run.
-Loren
Will wait to find a used one on the lot to test drive it. Would like to eventual drive the V6 & V8. Like the used cars so I can open them up and test brakes more than you should do on a brand new car. Don't want to spoil the car for the eventual buyer.
To own a V8 again would be a treat. My last one was 1965 Mustang 289. So as you may be guessing, even the car I bought used when say 18 years old, places me back wanting for a V8 for a very long time. I have had four bangers which were fun, and some nice V6, but always go for the gas mileage it seems. Oh, and those nasty 70's for gas prices and .... well somehow things pass all too quickly. Maybe I can eat less, live in my car of something, and buy more gas for a V8. Another thing is handling. I do not want a land barge. I hear the handling is crisper and sportier on Buicks now, though some like the LaCrosse or base Lucerne may not get all too great a review. Will drive it myself and see. I think some of the reviewers may get a bit harsh due to the image of a Buick in the past as a big softy for handling. My 1987 Olds. 98 Regency handled much better than my 1985 Mustang. But the Olds. Achieva was not quite as good as the Olds. 98.
OK, I know, it was a glorified Cavalier. I have owned some strange cars, and I am a recovering weird car buyer
-Loren
Which room am I in now? Oh yeah, Lucerne. That's in Switzerland.
Anyone buying a Buick with the 3.8 because they feel it will be more reliable four to eight years down the road? Is the Northstar a reliable engine for the long haul? And why didn't they put the 3.9 V6 in these cars, or the 3.6 V6.
-Loren
You'd have to ask the company why they didn't put 3.9 or 3.6 V6s in the cars. I'm sure they did a consumer interest study. But I think you've posted before that a third motor choice in the Lucerne would help sales; I would agree. I see the 3800 III buyer (myself?) and I see the middle power buyer who doesn't want and doesn't need the V8 Northstar. If the 3.6 were offered, I'd probably test drive and compare mileage and pick the 3800 III if I'm buying a Lucerne.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Others want more powerful motors and that's good for them. I don't want to feed one that's too thirsty.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
What I do see from Consumer Reports data, is that the Buick line seems to be most reliable for years and years. The engines are rated well going back in time for a number of years. I know someone that had his Caddy blow up going up the grade we have here near the town. Of course that would be a survey of one
I owned a car with the 3.8 which was not reliable. BUT, the problems I understand got pretty much worked out over time. I had a 1987. By 1988 the transmissions and the strange engine problems got worked out -- I think. When it worked the engine was fine. Good gas mileage. Only 150HP back when, but pretty good torque. I learned to drive in a Buick LeSabre '71. Ah, the good ol' rear wheel drive and chrome years. I sort of like the Lucerne for interior, and in some ways the exterior is OK too. Kinda like the LaCrosse though. Really love the crash test scores for the Lucerne, and the chassis being a DTS.
I may take a LaCrosse, Lucerne and the Azera for a test spin on the same day to see how they compare. Unless discounted, I am not terribly impressed with the Buick pricing, so would go for the end of year blow-out sale or just buy one used.
-Loren
http://www.edmunds.com/used/2005/cadillac/deville/100380709/ratings_jdpower.html-
I noted the reliability of the engine for 4-5 years period as not all that bad compared to what Consumer Reports magazine data would indicate. The current magazine report shows a major deterioration of reliability on several cars - Cadillac included. It is like they fall apart in around the fourth year on. I have used this magazine for data on reliability for years, but will be sure to always cross reference it now. Some things don't seem to add up.
Is this Northstar really all that great, sort of over hyped, or not so good ( temperamental or easily trashed )? It is lighter in weight and suppose to be better I guess in other some ways?
-Loren
I would look at CR for ratings on dishwashers, televisons, vacuum cleaners, and maybe lawn mowers, but that is about it.
And the JD Powers older data would not indicate the mechanic to be gawd-awful. Something is wrong here.
Before I would dismiss all CR data though, I would cross reference it with other data found on the Net. The MSN Auto and ConsumerGuide has some info. too. If it all looks bad, then I would say good-bye to that car.
Yes, I agree about reviews. Perhaps they are better at toasters than what makes a good car. But I guess it is all in what people see a car as.
-Loren
There are loads of Cavaliers and Impalas running around, FWD, RWD, Box versions. Lots of them.
I did see a recent Vette sitting on I-70 overpass (white) that didn't make it to the cruise-in last Saturday afternoon. Guess those Vettes just aren't no good?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Now they did not say the cars are broken down on the freeway, but indicate that you will have more problems. Could very well be true. Personally, I think the year 2002 on looks more promising for most GM cars for reliability. Would imagine the older the platform and engine, the better your odds. Lucerne is on a Deville chassis and the engines have been time tested. I might consider a Cadillac or Buick. Those two of GM fame seem to be pretty good in most ways, and if bought used, their owners tend to keep them in good running order, and nice a clean.
Maybe the long term chart at CR will look more favorable for GM enthusiasts and first time buyers in a few years. The data JD Powers is collecting indicates Buicks are right up there with the Japan makes. We'll see. Cadillac is an interesting one. You look at some data which shows all these problems per 100 car data, with Cadillac near the bottom, yet the other data doesn't seem to back it up. So Buick is nearer the top and Cadillac is the bottom fish? Best to cross reference every bit of data these days. Seems like everyone's survey data is quite different. Maybe all the techno wizard stuff on a Caddy does make it worse than say a more basic Buick. If true, maybe I will avoid the Cadillac line. But I don't think Caddy is doing so badly on JD Powers surveys. And NO I will not be taking the CR magazine as gospel. I am like others no longer convinced it all makes sense. I do believe as a whole however, the older GMs of 1975-2000 say did, on a average of all their cars, have more problems per car than did the Toyotas and Hondas. This can be cross referenced with say JD Powers. Hyundais were bad too. Both Hyundai and GM have now improved.
-Loren
12 years of use = Tires,brakes,struts,alternator,and A-C recharge(2 times).
( A Reasonable list I think)
But Engine,(3800 V-6 AND 4 speed transmision are A-OK,
original and trouble free ! (Still gets 30 MPG highway.)
Is 12 years enough to ask from a new car? I think so.
Am looking to Lucerne or Caddy DTS to "retire" my'94 Buick.
I marvel at how irritated some people are with the dependability of Buicks that they come here to post against the known durability. I see so many of the 92-98 model years driven around our metro area. I haven't seen one by the side of the road.
1993 leSabre 150K, struts, reman alternator
1998 leSabre 130K, UIM, water pump (may not have been seeping, changed anyhow), struts, broken wire to load leveling air pump in rear. Still own and drive more than 2003 leSabre we also own.
2003 leSabre 42K, no problems. Quiet, high gas mileage, roomy, powerful motor and trans combination with torque at lower speeds so I don't have to sound like a 6000 rpm electric router to take off quickly!!! Torque is where it's at, not horsepower at 6000 rpm!
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Looks like LaCrosse and Lucerne have some competition to consider.
-Loren
Of course, JD Power has noted that long term dependability usually tracks initial quality ... so odds are this is an inkling of problems to come, as well.
Thanks,
Jeannine Fallon
Corporate Communications
Edmunds.com
Currently I drive a 2000 Toyota Solara SE V6. Have 80,000 miles on it and just change the oil, filter and rotate the tires. I get 30 mpg on the highway and 21 mpg in the city. The Grand-Prix only got 20 mpg on the highway and 13 mpg in the city. The Toyota's paint job is flawless and no rust.
Clearly I like foreign cars. The whole family is slowly going foreign.
So GM equals "Garbage Machine!"
Typically, it is the first post (it is here) someone makes after signing up at Edmunds.
Odd.
I have no idea why this was posted in the Lucerne Forum – but my point is, perhaps the Host(s) \ Moderator(s) could create a Forum for exactly (and only) this sort of post:
The New “I Am Mad About [ whatever automotive experience I’ve had ] And I Need To Vent” Forum?
- Ray
Movin’ on . . .
Basically, while I am never happy about paying to repairs, or needing them in the first place, GM and Fords usually have less expensive parts and repair bills. Not sure why consumers are not demanding longer warranties. The Buick one is at least 4 years. If Hyundai can do 4 yrs, then 10 years of drive train, perhaps the rest of the companies need to get on board the value wagon now. Just a thought. Even a 5year/60K on everything would be great.
-Loren
In the case of longer warranties. I do not have an extended warranty on my Toyota and have no problems. Also and extended warranty is only a limited warranty. And we all know that when the extended warranty goes all the problems start. Expensive problems.
So as I said in the beginning the cost of the parts are true BUT you forgot the labor cost for replacing these parts. DO NOT IGNORE THE LABOR COSTS!!!!