By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
A 3.8 liter six that can't break 8 seconds getting to 60 mph? That's not particularly impressive in this day and age, there are even some fuel-sipping four-bangers that would leave that thing behind.
If I recall correctly, 'rumors' from Ford 'insiders' before the release of the '05 Mustang said the new car would have the 5.4l V8 and an IRS........we know how that turned out.....
Rocky
P.S.
3.9, 6.0, 7.0. IMO. It also could easily go 3.9, 6.2 and thats it.
I think that's what may happen. Some insiders have said that the Camaro will not use the 5.3.
Rocky
I have been stuck behind lineman truck doing 45mph in a 65mph zone they would not pull over and let people pass, their excuse is their union contract states that they only have to drive 45mph, they are on the clock getting paid by the hour, and every time they go on strike they have many outages from vandalism (chain pulled/dropped over main power lines right by a substation)
as far as I'm concerned 90% of the unions need to be done away with and investigated for corruption and do away with this getting paid for work not done, if you only work 3 hours then that is all you get paid for, if you need more money get another job, I held 3 jobs at one time, when I was able to work I saved enough to pay for a piece of land and build a house out of pocket, now live in a place that is totally paid for, nothing owed on it.
P.S. just got called , need to go pick up a friend, his brand new GMC truck just blew a tranny with about 8k miles on it , only has 1st 4th and reverse, he said it is making grinding noise, his roadside assistance well they said they can pick him up tomorrow morning.
Ironically, he was not upset at all. :confuse: I'd be ripped if that were my truck! :mad:
Actually, for that type of car ~8 seconds isn't that bad. FWIW, the V-6 Accord and Altima, with an automatic, would usually test out in the low 7 range. Sure, you can sometimes see these times in the low 6 range, if MT or C&D revs it up with one foot on the gas and one on the brake, and lets it take off. But in those types of tests I've seen the Impala 3.8 do it in around 7.3. So we're still only talking about a second of difference.
So yeah, the Accord and Altima are faster. And now that the Camry has a 3.5, I'm sure it's faster too. But a V-6 Altima, Accord, or Camry would also most likely cost a lot more than a 3.8 Impala.
I think the 3.9 Impala has been quoted around 7.8 seconds in 0-60, so it's really not much quicker than the 3.8. But it's also not as economical. The 3.5 base engine is supposed to be a pretty big improvement over the 3.4, though.
As for fuel-sipping 4-bangers? Well, not too many of them would be able to leave an Impala behind, and still be able to lay the claim to fuel-sipping!
Ouch! A similar thing happened to my uncle's '97 Silverado a few months ago. Except he lost reverse. I think he lost 2nd and 4th, too. The way the tranny shop explained it to me, in this case, it's actually the reverse that fails first, but somehow it takes the other two gears out with it when it does. Supposedly it's a fairly common problem.
I try to take stuff you read on the internet with a grain of salt, often because if you look around enough, you'll find problems with just about every brand. But then when it actually happens to YOU personally (or your uncle or friend) it really doesn't leave you with a warm, fuzzy feeling.
Just for fun I did a little digging at CU's website --
2005 Buick LaCrosse CXL 3.8L V6 4AT
3565 pounds, EPA rated 20/29
CU 0-60: 9.0 seconds
CU MPG: 12/30 (18 overall)
2006 Honda Accord EX 3.0L V6 5AT
3455 pounds, EPA rated 20/29
CU 0-60: 7.3 seconds
CU MPG: 16/32 (23 overall)
I realize the Buick is 8 inches longer, but I think the comparison is still pretty valid, and it is really hard to figure out how anyone can call the 3800 4AT "competetive."
This all sort of reminds me of youthful teenagers comparing the horsepower of their cars, when it's really the torque and gearing that are important to how they drive at normal speeds.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I've noticed that the LaCrosse in general just doesn't seem as quick as it should be. I'd seen tests of the 3.6 DOHC engine that put at 0-60 in around 8 seconds, which, considering that C&D or MT got a 2000 LeSabre from 0-60 in the same amount of time with the 3800, isn't that impressive. And just about every test I've seen shows that just about any previous-gen W-body with the 3800 has been able to do 0-60 in around 8 seconds.
So in some ways, the LaCrosse seems a step back, at least in 0-60. The 3.8 is now doing 0-60 in 9 seconds. And you need to get the 3.6 DOHC just to get the same 0-60 time as what a 3.8 did in, say, a 2004 Regal. Is the LaCrosse really that much heavier than those older W-bodies? Or did they change the gearing? :confuse:
I think I could still rationalize buying a Lucerne over an Accord or Camry, because even if those cars do many things better, the Lucerne still seems like a nice package overall to me, and I value the extra room it offers.
However, it is kind of hard to justify a Lucerne over an Avalon. While the base Lucerne starts at around $26K, before rebates, doesn't a base Avalon start around $27K? And while it would be stripped as far as Avalons go, you'd still get the 3.5 V-6, 5-speed automatic, a quicker 0-60 time AND better EPA ratings.
I still WANT to root for the Lucerne, but I find that to be a hard call. I still think the Lucerne is much more attractive looking than the Avalon, but, as Suzanne Somers discovered when she tried to negotiate her Three's Company contract, good looks will only get you so far. And sadly, at the rate Buick seems to be going, one day we might see that Harley Earl actor doing a ThighMaster commercial. :surprise:
Now maybe I've just gotten used to cars that, in their top gear, can just take off in that top gear instead of having to downshift, but I find all this hunting through the gears annoying. Since there's more gears for the engine to choose from, a downshift isn't as abrupt as, say, when my Intrepid shifts down from 4th to 3rd or my old truck goes from 3rd to 2nd. But the shifts come more often, and many times they just seem unnecessary.
Also, sometimes when you accelerate at highway speeds, like when you have to pass a slower moving car but there's someone coming up on you in the next lane over, it seems to hesitate a bit. Almost kinda like turbo lag. And it feels like the transmission doing it, and not the engine. This tranny definitely doesn't seem to have the quick reaction time of something like an old Torqueflite or THM350 or 400.
The thing also just seems kinda jerky, even at constant speed. Like maybe the torque converter is getting confused about whether to lock up or not? It's not blatantly obvious, and any passengers probably wouldn't notice it, but it just seems to buck a bit, like the tranny occasionally and inconsistently saps some of the engine's power.
Could it simply be that bigger engines just don't benefit that much from an extra gear or two? Or is Nissan's 5-speed automatic just not a very good one compared to Honda or Toyota? Or maybe these little idiosyncracies are just something you have to get used to?
set cruise control at 45 and tranny would constantly shift up and down, rental agency said they had same complaint on all of them.
The real question would be about the comparison of price that will actually get the Lucerne out the door and the Avalon out the door. I don't know about dealers in the east and west, but here the Toyota dealers and salespeople are ruthless.
The Avalon probably has a 1000$ pack of options on it and has a $299 dealer fee plus the southwest franchise fee of $250. The Lucerne probably has a markdown of $2000 and a rebate of (guessing) $1500 off the price. And it likely has few dealer addon tricks, at least in this area. A friend just bought a Corolla in a rush from the dealer and I haven't gotten her to talk about how much they packed the price. I tried to prep her in advance with ATV values from Edmunds and others, but she doesn't like to negotiate nor shop for cars. I offered to take her to a rural but large city across the border 30 miles away with both dealers of the brands she wanted. I explained if she walked in as a capture sale from our area she'd get a better price.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
He said that the GMC trucks are better built with stronger components (like Tranny's) and better quality than Chevy trucks :confuse: I don't know, I always thought they were the same thing... (Biting my tongue on a punchline here) Supposedly he wants something new by the weekend.
-Loren
been 5 days and dealer isn't returning calls and hasn't sent tow truck to get his truck.
Today he said that he is looking at getting a toyota, the GMC dealer can have their truck back.
He called his lawyer and the bank this afternoon.
the dealer is in breach of contract at the moment.
It is this attitude with Chrysler, GMC and Ford dealers in addition to the poor quality I have seen in their products that make me not buy any of their products and recommend to others to not buy them either.
Rocky
http://www.detroitnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060708/AUTO01/607080357/- 1148
Rocky
"Looks like giving the farm away isn't working anyomore for Dr.Z" :surprise:
The newspaper is claiming Honda pays $24 an hour ? I wonder if that is accurate ????
Rocky
Keeping my job, health benefits, 401K.. umm.. eating, paying the mortgage..
Being able to buy the services/goods you offer too.. Hey..
we are all connected here! Surprise!..
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
take that all you Camry and japanese car lovers. That's a quote from Edmunds.com. The Toyota is dull and more uncomfortable than the Chevy. It's music to my ears when journalists actually know what they're talking about, and speak the truth.
It's funny how you not only misquoted the article, but completely missed the entire point of the piece.
For one, the review is of the 2000 Impala, so the review is of older cars, not the current generation of either.
For another, you misquoted the article. It actually said this: "The only competitors we would in fact forsake for the new Impala are the Pontiac Bonneville, with a design that only a mother could love, and the Toyota Camry, because it's dull and more uncomfortable than the Chevy."
In other words, Edmunds ranked the Impala below virtually everything on the market except for the Bonneville and Camry. In addition to ranking the Impala below several domestics, this is what Edmunds said about the transplant and import rivals of the time:
Honda's Accord is more sophisticated in feel and simpler in design.
Nissan's Maxima is a true driver's car that is available with a stick shift.
Toyota's Avalon wins for its superior build quality and better interior materials, as well as its smooth-revving twin-cam V6.
The VW Passat has a more comfortable interior, a fun-to-drive nature, and an available manual transmission.
So this review slams the Impala, rather than praising it.
And Edmunds likes the most recent 2007 Camry model. If you can find a negative comment about the Camry here, please help me find it: "Vanilla has never tasted so good"
I know the Impala straddles two segments but it would be nice to see it against Accord, Altima, Camry and the like, just to see how it performs.
Well if the Impala is under everything except the Camry and Bonneville. That means the Camry is even worse than the Impala, so where does that leave the Camry?
I posted the Edmunds' review of the new model. (There have been a couple versions of the Camry released since that review for the 2000 Impala was written.) Did you find anything particularly negative in it?
I give you a straight answer: that left it at the bottom. But many people can't answer that question without avoiding the actual question and giving a nonanswer! :grin
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
The comparison was to the Gen4 Camry. You can't be serious that you are just now looking at 2000 MY vehicles - are you? Edmunds and most others now make the Gen6 Camry the leader in the midsized segment. You might need to come up to date a little. Like half a decade.
The Sonata is the best 'value' due to it's content and price.
The Gen6 Camry is the best in terms of content and performance. Unless you step up to the SS V8 the Impala, which is very niclely redone btw, is a slug though in comparision to the new V6 Camry.
In addition:
VSC - Not Available
Navi - Not Available
IIHS crash test - 2nd rate, not tops
The Impala still needs a little work to bring it up to the level of the Sonata, Accord and Camry ( in that order ).
MG TF for America
Nanjing Automobile Group, owners of the defunct MG Rover, has announced to build MG Rovers on three continents.
The idea is that TF roadsters will be made in, Birmingham, saloons will be made in China and, bizarrely, TF coupes will be made in a new factory in Oklahoma. The idea is to become a credible player in the US market.
However, analysts have expressed considerable scepticism. Speaking to the BBC, Jay Nagley of Spyder Automotive, said, "It took decades for the Japanese and Koreans to get to the point where they could start manufacturing in the USA, The Chinese want to do it instantly with a brand that means very little to American buyers, based on technology that is nearly 20 years old."
Article
He picked up a 2006 Toyota tundra double cab limited today,
the dealer filled the truck up and filled up my gas tank also.
As for the GMC he said his lawyer and the bank are now dealing with it, he said that his lawyer and the bank told him to not make any more payments on the GMC, his lawyer also stated that he thinks he will get all of his money back as truck is only 8 months old and dealer is in breach of contract.
I still haven't seen my buddy's new Sierra. A 2006 leftover, got it for a song. He knows I could care less about about GM vehicles so I don't expect him to come over and "Show it off" anytime soon. Hopefully this one won't let him down like the last one...
(I bet it wasn't waving an American flag from the antenna. How shameful!)
How unAmerican...
Junk yards are full of GMC, Chevy, Ford, Chrysler/Mercedes, American cars, local junkyard has exactly 6 Kias, 13 toyotas, 27 Nissans and 25 subarus the rest are american cars, they remove anything over 15 years old send them out to be melted down or buried.
FYI where I live we do not use foreign oil for gas, Washing, Oregon and California also do not use OPEC oil the oil they use to make the gas comes from Alaska.
Not sure about what other states use domestic oil.
Since Ford has already acknowledged and let slip that it's moving its operations to Mexico, Chrysler is owned by Daimler and GM is moving whole units to Shanghai. Who are you going to buy from now. Sheesh what a problem.
the buick with the 3.8 v6 "Braking and emergency handling are lackluster the V6 trails competitors in refinement and performance." buick 0 to 60 9.2 seconds
The Lucerne had the second slowest acceleration, it only beat a 2.4L 4 cylinder camery with automatic in acceleration by 0.4 seconds in 0 to 60.
The Lucerne had the longest stopping distance 155 feet on dry surface 175 feet on wet, everything else stopped in 10 to 21 feet shorter distance on dry and 18 to 36 feet on wet.
Lows listed for each car.
Accord: road noise
Camry: Thigh support, no folding rear seat
Azera: Fuel economy
Lucerne: Agility, emergency handling, braking, rough engine, Fuel economy, turning circle, no folding rear seat.
The buick had the largest turning circle, longest breaking distance, lowest speed in avoidance maneuvers (back end kept sliding)and got beat by at least 2 seconds by everything else with a v6, the camery hybrid with a 2.4L 4 cylinder beat it by 0.7 seconds, the buick was the only car with 4 speed automatic the others had 5 or 6 speed automatics.
I could actually forgive the turning circle, because the Lucerne has a long (by today's standards) 115.6" wheelbase. I wonder if the braking distance might be because of marginal base wheels and tires or something? You'd think it would be mostly in the brakes themselves, but tires can make a difference too.
I wonder how they got the rear-end to slide out so easily? I thought that was almost impossible to do with a FWD car? :confuse: I've only had two FWD cars in my life, an '88 LeBaron turbo coupe and a 2000 Intrepid, but in both cars the FRONT END would always break loose first. Again, here I'm guessing they could have put better wheels and tires on the Lucerne to make it handle better. Still, "could have" and "actually did it" are two different things.
Also, you'd think that they could have done something with the 3.8 by now to get better performance out of it. I remember C&D testing a 2000 LeSabre, and they got 0-60 in 8 seconds flat. I doubt a 2000 LeSabre is that much lighter than a Lucerne. And fuel economy, IIRC, was marginally better in the LeSabre. Something like 20/29 versus 19/28?
I think of all the cars in that test though, I might still go for the Lucerne, simply because of its larger size, which is more in line with what I'm accustomed to. But I do realize that people like me, who can still appreciate a car like that, are a dying breed. And if I were to get a new car, I'd probably consider a 4-cyl Altima or a 3.5 Charger before I'd take a 3.8 Lucerne. The Lucerne is roomier and has a nicer interior than either of those, but I just like the Altima and Charger more.
And if I did get a Lucerne, it would probably be one that's 1-2 years old. That'll help out the salesman and the car dealership, in 1-2+ years when I get another car. But it's not going to help General Motors.
I guess we'll have to buy the most suitable vehicle regardless of manufacturer, eh?
Some of the car fiend mags want cars that a hotrod ready; the Lucerne doesn't fit that image; if they wanted that they should have tested the CSX model. But if they did that the Lucerne might look too good.
Let us know the magazine.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
the 3.8 produces 197hp and they got 19mpg average the only car that didn't get better gas mileage tied it at 19mpg was the Azera with a 3.8 producing 263hp, the Azera had the same size tires and stopped in 134 feet dry and 144 feet wet.
the Azera and Lucerne are within 10Lbs of each other and both have weight distributation of 61/39.
I think that the stopping distance has more to do with how the brakes are set up as the Azera and Lucerene are so close in specs.
always see articles on expensive aftermarket brakes and how great they are, well if you have bald tires or really cheap tires that don't grip the road then you won't stop any faster, have to gave good breaks and good tires to get short stopping distances.
Uh, oh. You probably missed the memo, but CR is apparently part of some vast ________-wing conspiracy (right or left, I'm not sure, it depends upon who you ask) to destroy the "American" automotive industry (including the stuff made in Mexico and Korea.)
Apparently, the only fair sources of information about cars come from GM press releases and members of the Buick Owner's Club. If you don't like antiquated pushrods and outdated technology, then you're just part of the problem. Why blame GM when we can just blame you and me?