"..... Strip that interior down a notch, soften the suspension to Camry levels and well, it's going to be a follower instead of a class leader. The bigger V6 engine version of the 9-3 though was nice and something I'd have bought if it wasn't FWD."
What makes you think that because it says "Buick" on it the interior will be stripped down and have a soft suspension??? There is nothing "stripped down" or "soft" about my Lacrosse. As far as FWD, it will be available with AWD, as well.
I'll stick with non-Buick GM cars: i rented a brand-new Buick in california and it was the most horrible riding/handling car I have ever been in. Exquisitely Bad. Unbelievably Bad. I have repressed the model-name of the Buick, it was so bad.
My young son noticed the swooshy ride right away and complained. The vehicle later triggered him to emit a Richter-Scale barf-splosion on 101 just before we turned the car in at SFO where the only option for Hertz is probably to crush the car into a 3 foot cube.
As for the slow new-for-USA buick/opel with a 6-speed, it is nice to more manual transmissions offered but looks like zero Buicks will be on my radar any year soon.
Meh, I cannot stand the way Saabs drive. Torque steer city, aweful gearboxes and turbo lag.
Just the Buick name along with the small buying base who prefers manuals (Like myself), I don't predict a success. What sort of take rate do they expect?
i rented a brand-new Buick in california and it was the most horrible riding/handling car I have ever been in. Exquisitely Bad. Unbelievably Bad. I have repressed the model-name of the Buick, it was so bad.
A lot of it just depends on what you're looking for. There are probably still a good number of people who WANT a car like that, which tries to isolate you from the road and cocoon you away in silence.
I might be in the market for another car, and one car on my list is a 2002 Park Ave I found for sale. My 2000 Intrepid got whacked the other night, but the claims adjuster hasn't looked at it yet to see if it's a total or not. Right now, my wants are all over the map, as part of me wants to just get some cheap little econo-box, but part of me wants to get a bigger used car that's low in price, but I've even been throwing around the idea of a slightly-used Charger or G8. Now I haven't driven a Park Ave of that generation, so I dunno if I'll like it or not. I know it won't handle like my Intrepid did, but I'm sure it'll be better in terms of stretch-out room and comfort. Faster too, although a combination of faster + worse handling isn't necessarily a good thing! :P
The newest Buick I've driven is my Dad's 03 Regal, which is the more softly-sprung LS trim level. IMO, it's sort of a mixed bag. I like the acceleration, fuel economy, and front seat comfort, and the ride is nice. But I don't like the engine sound, and the handling seems a bit vague. I could get used to it though, if I had to.
Not something you would normally say about a car you would choose to buy. ;-)
The last time I drove a Regal, my impression mirrored the comments above concerning the rental. What an awful car. Seems a shame to call this new model by that name. Handicaps it right out of the gate.
The 9-3 is moderately entertaining to drive, even though it is wrong-wheel-drive. Not $30K entertaining, but entertaining nonetheless.
Once GM ordered the execution of the 5-door hatch in the 9-3 lineup, my interest ended. Any chance of a Regal 5-door? :-P
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Heck, my wife can drive her 2005 Buick LaCrosse like it's a Formula-1 racer. We have absolutely no problems with our Buicks and there will be PLENTY of them in our future.
Oh no! I didn't know something happened to the 'Trep! Is the car still driveable?
Anyway, my wife, who's a rather petite person, has no problems handling her LaCrosse though it may be sprung for a softer ride. The Fates must be tempting me because I went to get my morning coffee, and the cardboard collar on the cup features a full-color advertisement for a 2010 LaCrosse. Good God, that's a beautiful car! Gotta resist the temptation to give my wife a "December to Remember" Buick-syle!
Heck, I still see you as more of a Poncho or Mopar guy. Get a G8 GT while you still can. If not, go for the Charger. My co-worker loves her Charger R/T Hemi.
Oh no! I didn't know something happened to the 'Trep! Is the car still driveable?
Yeah, it happened just the other night. Someone pulled a hit-and-run on it in a restaurant parking lot. here's some pics of it, if anyone wants to see. It's still driveable, but the headlights and front turn signals don't work, and the idiot lights for the battery and check engine are on, so I'm guessing some wire got pinched or broken. It's really not THAT bad, but these days it doesn't take much to run up a repair bill. And a 10 year old, 150000 mile Intrepid ain't worth much.
If they do total it, I'm tempted to buy it back and just try fixing it myself. As long as whatever triggered the idiot lights isn't too big of an issue. That's the main thing that has me worried.
If I did replace this car with a GM product, that would be the first time in ages that the GM's have outnumbered the Mopars in my fleet!
The new vehicle is stated to range between 3450 and 3600 lbs depending on trim and the motor is de-tuned from the Saab version so as to use regular gas. It's a softer, less powerful and, heavier "Americanized" version of the Insignia and it's going to just not work at all on U.S. highways and with the way we drive.
Whoa hang on a minute. The Saab 2.0T makes 210 hp and the new Buick 2.0T is going to make 220 so no it is not detuned. The 9-3 is already designed to run on regular gas. Just go look at fueleconomy.gov every 9-3 is tuned to run on regular gas not premium.
The Saab doesn't have direct injection and the Buick is supposed to AFIK.
test drove that Saab 9-3 with that motor as well - and it was Toyota Corolla boring - it felt like everyone else's 4 cylinder econobox - though with better suspension and interior(500lbs more than a Civic for instance makes a huge difference that 30-40 extra HP doesn't cover).
What year 9-3 did you drive? That doesn't sound like any new body 2003 and 9-3 I have driven except for maybe a base linear model with the low pressure little t turbo. Those linear models only made 175 hp so yeah they feel a little down on power.
Plus what is more important in real world driving 0-60 or 40-60 and 50-70 passing? With the way the turbo is set up on the 2.0T and getting peak torque at 2,500 rpms passing speed is excellent.
Just look at the other vehicles in this class. Most have four cylinders and are FWD or FWD biased AWD with hp in the low 200 range.
The TSX four cylinder is just like that and the V6 TSX is stupid. Way too front heavy and doesn't handle well. The S60 that just went out of production had similar power. The A4 also has similar power.
The only two vehicles that don't fit that mold in the class are the C-Class and the 3 series. Even with Rear Wheel drive the C-Class has never been very sporty. The 3 series is obviously the most sporty but it is more money and the base motor only makes 230 hp so not a big difference really.
The newest Buick I've driven is my Dad's 03 Regal, which is the more softly-sprung LS trim level. IMO, it's sort of a mixed bag. I like the acceleration, fuel economy, and front seat comfort, and the ride is nice. But I don't like the engine sound, and the handling seems a bit vague. I could get used to it though, if I had to.
I'd imagine the Regal will feel like a sports car compared to a Park Ave, unless it's a Ultra model. I've put many miles on a my grandpa's '96 and '00 Park Ave (non-ultra) and they both flat out sucked. Quality was bad too. To many electrical issues to mention, intake problem, blown head gasket, oil leaks (the '00 was horrible, basically junk by 100k miles). My 01 Nissan Pathfinder felt like a sports car compared to those horrible Buicks. It had better acceleration and a much smoother/quieter engine with the 3.5 v6, and handled better too, with much better steering feel. Okay, the Buick road better and had comfy seats, plus plenty of room and good highway mileage. But IMO the bad far outweighs the good unless you can get it absolutely dirt cheap.
When my dad finally had to take the keys from grandpa (sad day), I volunteered to drive the Park Ave from Tampa to Ohio. After spending 15 hours in that POS, I don't know if I ever want to drive another Buick again.
The only way to avoid the engine sound of GM's 3800 is to avoid it. The 3800 Series III in my wife's '07 GP still produces garbage disposal like sounds, just like every 3800 that has preceded it it. Yeah, it's punchy at lower rpms, and relatively fuel efficient, but refined it is not. Plus it makes lots off horrible sounds at start up, between, the starter noise, and valve chatter or whatever is causing it. Kind has a "it might break at any moment" sound when the key is turned. I've noticed that with several other GM products I've had, including the 3.4 in an 01 Impala and the 5.3 in my '00 Suburban. Except the 5.3 would chatter like a diesel on cold startups thanks to GM's infamous piston slap.
Anyway, my wife, who's a rather petite person, has no problems handling her LaCrosse though it may be sprung for a softer ride.
Non of the W bodies handle particularly well, from a pillow soft Park Ave to a under sprung over damped Grand Prix. GM really did a number with the GP it rides like crap yet it's handling still feels floaty and numb. Heck, my 07 Expedition feels lighter on its feet in most situations other than flat out cornering where it's weight and higher center of gravity present themselves. The GP will about knock a tooth out over an initial impact, yet the front end will float and bobble over bumpy roads. I'm not saying the handling is unsafe, but it's far from rewarding. To me they just feel like the cheap cars which they are.
Heck, my wife can drive her 2005 Buick LaCrosse like it's a Formula-1 racer It is very bad, because of weak breaks, horrible suspension & etc. Buick is a good car for long drives in AZ.
I had that valve clatter or knocking sound on a Buick Rendevous I rented back in 2005. I am not sure what engine or year the Rendevous was though. It had about 5000 miles on it. I returned the car to the rental company for anther one when the clatter got really loud at start up.
The engine is out of a Cobalt SS and not the Saab, but the power to weight ratio is close to the base model Saab as a comparison. The SS has 260HP and weighs almost 500 lbs less. It's a small rocket by comparison.
It will have a softer ride. Maybe only a few % here and there, but it will be enough that the average person will sit in the Regal and then sit in an Accord and just not see the advantage with thew GM product. It's too much like everyone else's jellybean.
They need to put the high pressure turbo in it and give it a CTS like suspension as a minimum. They need to give the competition a slap across the face instead of merely trying to merge into the long line of other cars out there.
*** As for the OP, just go out and buy a first generation CTS with the 3.6VVT engine in it. Enjoy.
"Of the 220,000 vehicles GM sold since the promotion went into effect in September, about 653 customers have opted for the 60-day guarantee coverage instead of the $500 cash rebate. Of the 653 customers, about 140 have initiated returns or exchanges and 53 have completed the return/exchange process, for a return of less than 1 percent total."
I have a quite opposite experience. I rented a Buick Enclave and loved it. It beat the Toyota Sienna I rented in the 2nd half of the same summer vacation by a mile! It's much smoother, quieter, better riding, better looking than the Toyota.
The last Saab I tested was a 2005/2006 (can't remember exactly which) 9-3 Aero. Turbo lag was awfully noticeable unless you're already at highway speeds, terrible for passing at any lower speed than that. Everything else was fine save for the ridiculously hard to decipher upper-lower displays, and those screens were impossible to read under sunlight (alas, the same can be said about BMW).
I had an 06 TSX 4cyl and it was a much better handler than Saab, as good as any other front driver there was (even including Audis), excluding current much more sophisticated models in the market of course.
"......My 2000 Intrepid got whacked the other night, but the claims adjuster hasn't looked at it yet to see if it's a total or not. "
You OK???
I can tell you that my '99 Ultra was a good car. It rode fine, a little more harsh than my dad's old Town Car, but nice. Plenty of power with the blown 3.8, and 33 MPG on the highway if you took it easy. My uncle had a '97 and routinely got 29 MPG doing 80 all the way to Florida.
They need to put the high pressure turbo in it and give it a CTS like suspension as a minimum.
That sounds nice enough, but who would go to the Buick dealer looking for that? It seems to me GM is trying to "reinvent" Buick the same way they tried to reinvent Saturn a few years ago and Oldsmobile before that, and we know how those efforts turned out.
Oh yeah I'm fine, but thanks for asking. Fortunately the car got hit while parked out in a restaurant parking lot. No injuries, but unfortunately, no witnesses either. Claims adjuster came out yesterday, but said the damage was close. I won't know until Monday whether they want to total the car or not. On a brighter note, I was able to get the headlights working. However, I also noticed a wiring harness that was pulled loose, right behind the connection. I think that might be what's making the idiot lights come on. Even if they do total out the car, I'm thinking about buying it back, if it's cheap enough to do, and try fixing it myself. I have a friend who tests circuit boards for a living, and he said he can probably fix the wiring. And if not, I could probably just splice the wires and tape 'em up. A bit redneck-ish I guess, but if it keeps me out of a car payment for awhile, I'll take it!
I always have admired the 1997-05 Park Ave. I know they're often held as a symbol of what's wrong with Buick, but I've just found the style to be very attractive. Maybe it didn't cut it when it was brand-new and had an MSRP that could be pushed to $40,000, but I'm sure there were deep discounts.
The Cobalt SS motor is the Saab 9-3 motor just with a direct injection variable valve timing head and more boost.
Both of those engines have a square bore and stroke of 3.39/3.39.
I am sure later their will be a GS version with 250 or 260 hp and AWD but 220 hp and FWD is perfectly fine for the base model. I just keep the hipo version a 4 cyilnder and not the 2.8T V6. That engine is heavy and problematic in the Saabs. If they are going to offer the up motor as the 2.8T then it needs direct injection and VVT like the 3.6 so that it has over 300 hp and not just 280.
""First, the customers are thrilled the engineers and vice presidents are calling them. But it's also about as direct and unfiltered consumer feedback channel as any we've done."
Really important that only 10% of returnees bought a different brand. Others bought within the GM family of vehicles.
That's an interesting and seemingly new method of collecting feedback...gotta give credit to those who put it in motion, too bad it wasn't done years ago.
The 220hp 4-cyl in a Buick Regal is just fine. If you ask me, it is much better than the 260 3.0L V6 in the base Lacrosse. Why? The boosted four has 258 lb-ft, compared to around 220 lb-ft in the gutless V-6. GM should replace the 3.0L across all its models with the 220hp 4-cyl.
Big cars need torque. That engine has *none* until the turbo kicks in, and then it still has less. It's just not going to impress anyone the minute they cross-shop , say, an Accord.
I've driven both Mazda's and VW's direct injected turbo 4s and they are fantastic. Very little to no turbo lag and lots of power across the total rpm range. VW's was particularly impressive because it's only rated 200hp and 207 ft-lbs of torque, but all 207 ft-lbs are available from 1800-5000rpm. That's good enough to propel a Passat in under 7.5 seconds or so, which is nearly as quick as an Accord v6. Plus it's a very smooth and quiet engine. I'd expect the DI turbo 4's from GM and Ford to be very good. IMO, turbo lag was minimal and power was great.
Mazda's was incredibly strong with 280 ft-lbs of torque, but I expected it to be strong when I drove it. The VW just felt stronger than it's power ratings, it would definitely smoke my wife's 3800 powered GP, with same HP rating, and more max torque output. I'm guessing the turbo 4 is able to put out more power across a wider rpm range, plus 2 extra gears makes a huge difference. Plus the VW 4 is quieter and smoother than a raspy 3800 v6.
The 258 lb-ft from the 4-clinder is almost similar to the 3.6L in the LaCrosse CXS (259 lb-ft). This should give it brisk initial acceleration. Now if there is a turbo lag, that's a different issue. I still think it could make a better engine than the dissappointing 3.0L V-6 which is neither torquey nor fuel thrifty. It seems like an engine GM decided to use to justify the development costs, regardless whether the performance goals have been achieved or no.
Once again, General Motors has vowed to improve its market share in California.
In a state where vehicle sales have lagged well behind the rest of the nation, GM has suffered most. Through September it lost 2.7 points of share -- the biggest decline of any carmaker, according to the California New Car Dealers Association. By contrast, Ford gained 1.2 percentage points. GM's 11.4 percent share was fourth, after Toyota, Honda and Ford.
And that's after several California marketing offensives in recent years. The latest included a ritzy affair in Hollywood on Nov. 12.
....California blues Through September, GM's surviving brands suffered huge sales declines in California. change from '08 Buick – 42% Cadillac – 55% Chevrolet – 43% GMC – 48%
The Palladium affair didn't fit the image of a troubled company with lackluster sales. Guests bellied up to the bar and dined on Wolfgang Puck's short ribs, shrimp and elegant chocolate desserts.
...."Every 10 years GM says the same thing," said Steve Snyder, a Chevrolet dealer in Auburn, Calif., who is losing his franchise next year. "GM can bring all the execs they want to out here, but they must not only prove they have good products but also the right cars for California."
The truck/car ratio is even more skewed in California than it is in the rest of the nation, with some 80% of GM sales being trucks. So 2% of vehicle sales in California are GM cars. It's no wonder I never see any on the road. I wonder if the latest GM push will result in any upswing in its California sales.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I watched a Motorweek episode not too long ago that featured the new MS3. That thing had one of the ugliest launches I've seen in a long time. The front wheels looked so overpowered by the torque that by the time they hooked up, it was time to shift to second gear and the car bucked violently. It almost hurt to watch it as there must have been so much driveline damage done by such a hard launch.
I watched a Motorweek episode not too long ago that featured the new MS3. That thing had one of the ugliest launches I've seen in a long time.
I didn't drive MS3, but the now discontinued MS6 with AWD. On an extended test drive I found the powertrain to be great. Turbo lag was detectable but IMO was far from being an issue. I'd think with an auto-trans it would even less noticable. I've driven lots of great v6 vehicles and I don't recall any of them having as much power as Mazda's MS6 in the 2k-3k rpm range.
I've never seen a pretty launch with a powerful fwd car, particularly with a manual trans. I used to own a '98 Ford SVT Contour and back then with only 190 or so HP it was hard to launch. Torque steer wasn't a problem, but wheel hop was horrible. But really, how often do you perform a 4000+rpm launch from a dead stop? I was in my mid 20's when I had the Contour, don't think I'd be doing to many clutch "popping" these days, I just want power when I put my foot down.
The 258 lb-ft from the 4-clinder is almost similar to the 3.6L in the LaCrosse CXS (259 lb-ft). This should give it brisk initial acceleration. Now if there is a turbo lag, that's a different issue. I still think it could make a better engine than the dissappointing 3.0L V-6 which is neither torquey nor fuel thrifty.
I agree, the 3.0 is a waste IMO. The 217 ft-lbs of torque at 5,100 rpm is terrible in a heavy vehicle, plus no better fuel economy than the 3.6. Even worse, from the sources i've read, it sounds strained at high rpm. And people on these boards bash Honda for having stratosphere torque output. Ford's 3.0 Duratech that's been around for ever produces more torque at lower rpm w/o DI.
Granted, you'd have to look at a torque graph to really see how good the torque curve is, plus good gearing does compensate. I've driven a v6 Accord with a 5000rpm torque peak and still found it to be strong off the line. Good gearing along with a quick shifting trans can do wonders, but I've yet to drive a GM vehicle with good gearing and quick shifting. They are usually geared to tall and don't like to downshift.
At least the torque output is pretty flat across the total RPM range. Impressive that it really doesn't drop off until 6k rpm.
Compared to the pushrod 3.5, it produces a bit less torque, but the torque curve drops off sooner. At 6k rpm, the 3.0 is producing over 200 ft-lbs of torque and 240 or so HP vs. the 3.5 that has dropped under 200ft-lbs and maybe 210 or so HP.
At 5k rpm the 3.0 is around 217ft-lbs and a little over 200hp vs around 200hp and 200ft-lbs for the 3.5 at that rpm level. Looks like the 3.5 will be a bit stronger under 4000rpm, but weaker as you go above.
The truck/car ratio is even more skewed in California than it is in the rest of the nation, with some 80% of GM sales being trucks. So 2% of vehicle sales in California are GM cars. It's no wonder I never see any on the road. I wonder if the latest GM push will result in any upswing in its California sales.
Half or more of that 2% car sales are probably fleets. I think I read Ford sales have improved, so maybe some GM customers are going to Ford.
Gm is living on our taxpayer money.They just have insurmountable costs and can never ever be profitable.Why dont they just quit?Here`s a link which supports that:
Anything over 3K pounds with a 4 banger GM engine is a no-go for performance. Adequate for the Buick set, I suppose.
I dunno...the Buick set tends to prefer their cars to be more quiet and lazy. And even if they don't have a lot of hp or put out an impressive 0-60 time, they want them to at least take off with the slightest tap of the gas pedal. Most 4-cyl engines, even the more powerful ones, don't really do anything unless you tromp on 'em.
Comments
What makes you think that because it says "Buick" on it the interior will be stripped down and have a soft suspension??? There is nothing "stripped down" or "soft" about my Lacrosse. As far as FWD, it will be available with AWD, as well.
My young son noticed the swooshy ride right away and complained. The vehicle later triggered him to emit a Richter-Scale barf-splosion on 101 just before we turned the car in at SFO where the only option for Hertz is probably to crush the car into a 3 foot cube.
As for the slow new-for-USA buick/opel with a 6-speed, it is nice to more manual transmissions offered but looks like zero Buicks will be on my radar any year soon.
Meh, I cannot stand the way Saabs drive. Torque steer city, aweful gearboxes and turbo lag.
Just the Buick name along with the small buying base who prefers manuals (Like myself), I don't predict a success. What sort of take rate do they expect?
A lot of it just depends on what you're looking for. There are probably still a good number of people who WANT a car like that, which tries to isolate you from the road and cocoon you away in silence.
I might be in the market for another car, and one car on my list is a 2002 Park Ave I found for sale. My 2000 Intrepid got whacked the other night, but the claims adjuster hasn't looked at it yet to see if it's a total or not. Right now, my wants are all over the map, as part of me wants to just get some cheap little econo-box, but part of me wants to get a bigger used car that's low in price, but I've even been throwing around the idea of a slightly-used Charger or G8. Now I haven't driven a Park Ave of that generation, so I dunno if I'll like it or not. I know it won't handle like my Intrepid did, but I'm sure it'll be better in terms of stretch-out room and comfort. Faster too, although a combination of faster + worse handling isn't necessarily a good thing! :P
The newest Buick I've driven is my Dad's 03 Regal, which is the more softly-sprung LS trim level. IMO, it's sort of a mixed bag. I like the acceleration, fuel economy, and front seat comfort, and the ride is nice. But I don't like the engine sound, and the handling seems a bit vague. I could get used to it though, if I had to.
Not something you would normally say about a car you would choose to buy. ;-)
The last time I drove a Regal, my impression mirrored the comments above concerning the rental. What an awful car. Seems a shame to call this new model by that name. Handicaps it right out of the gate.
The 9-3 is moderately entertaining to drive, even though it is wrong-wheel-drive. Not $30K entertaining, but entertaining nonetheless.
Once GM ordered the execution of the 5-door hatch in the 9-3 lineup, my interest ended. Any chance of a Regal 5-door? :-P
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Anyway, my wife, who's a rather petite person, has no problems handling her LaCrosse though it may be sprung for a softer ride. The Fates must be tempting me because I went to get my morning coffee, and the cardboard collar on the cup features a full-color advertisement for a 2010 LaCrosse. Good God, that's a beautiful car! Gotta resist the temptation to give my wife a "December to Remember" Buick-syle!
Heck, I still see you as more of a Poncho or Mopar guy. Get a G8 GT while you still can. If not, go for the Charger. My co-worker loves her Charger R/T Hemi.
Yeah, it happened just the other night. Someone pulled a hit-and-run on it in a restaurant parking lot. here's some pics of it, if anyone wants to see. It's still driveable, but the headlights and front turn signals don't work, and the idiot lights for the battery and check engine are on, so I'm guessing some wire got pinched or broken. It's really not THAT bad, but these days it doesn't take much to run up a repair bill. And a 10 year old, 150000 mile Intrepid ain't worth much.
If they do total it, I'm tempted to buy it back and just try fixing it myself. As long as whatever triggered the idiot lights isn't too big of an issue. That's the main thing that has me worried.
If I did replace this car with a GM product, that would be the first time in ages that the GM's have outnumbered the Mopars in my fleet!
Whoa hang on a minute. The Saab 2.0T makes 210 hp and the new Buick 2.0T is going to make 220 so no it is not detuned. The 9-3 is already designed to run on regular gas. Just go look at fueleconomy.gov every 9-3 is tuned to run on regular gas not premium.
The Saab doesn't have direct injection and the Buick is supposed to AFIK.
test drove that Saab 9-3 with that motor as well - and it was Toyota Corolla boring - it felt like everyone else's 4 cylinder econobox - though with better suspension and interior(500lbs more than a Civic for instance makes a huge difference that 30-40 extra HP doesn't cover).
What year 9-3 did you drive? That doesn't sound like any new body 2003 and 9-3 I have driven except for maybe a base linear model with the low pressure little t turbo. Those linear models only made 175 hp so yeah they feel a little down on power.
Plus what is more important in real world driving 0-60 or 40-60 and 50-70 passing? With the way the turbo is set up on the 2.0T and getting peak torque at 2,500 rpms passing speed is excellent.
Just look at the other vehicles in this class. Most have four cylinders and are FWD or FWD biased AWD with hp in the low 200 range.
The TSX four cylinder is just like that and the V6 TSX is stupid. Way too front heavy and doesn't handle well. The S60 that just went out of production had similar power. The A4 also has similar power.
The only two vehicles that don't fit that mold in the class are the C-Class and the 3 series. Even with Rear Wheel drive the C-Class has never been very sporty. The 3 series is obviously the most sporty but it is more money and the base motor only makes 230 hp so not a big difference really.
link title
The SAAB is the lightest of that group and only the A4 has more torque probably because of the direct injection on the Audi.
I'd imagine the Regal will feel like a sports car compared to a Park Ave, unless it's a Ultra model. I've put many miles on a my grandpa's '96 and '00 Park Ave (non-ultra) and they both flat out sucked. Quality was bad too. To many electrical issues to mention, intake problem, blown head gasket, oil leaks (the '00 was horrible, basically junk by 100k miles). My 01 Nissan Pathfinder felt like a sports car compared to those horrible Buicks. It had better acceleration and a much smoother/quieter engine with the 3.5 v6, and handled better too, with much better steering feel. Okay, the Buick road better and had comfy seats, plus plenty of room and good highway mileage. But IMO the bad far outweighs the good unless you can get it absolutely dirt cheap.
When my dad finally had to take the keys from grandpa (sad day), I volunteered to drive the Park Ave from Tampa to Ohio. After spending 15 hours in that POS, I don't know if I ever want to drive another Buick again.
The only way to avoid the engine sound of GM's 3800 is to avoid it. The 3800 Series III in my wife's '07 GP still produces garbage disposal like sounds, just like every 3800 that has preceded it it. Yeah, it's punchy at lower rpms, and relatively fuel efficient, but refined it is not. Plus it makes lots off horrible sounds at start up, between, the starter noise, and valve chatter or whatever is causing it. Kind has a "it might break at any moment" sound when the key is turned. I've noticed that with several other GM products I've had, including the 3.4 in an 01 Impala and the 5.3 in my '00 Suburban. Except the 5.3 would chatter like a diesel on cold startups thanks to GM's infamous piston slap.
As for the warning lights, it could be anything. Most likely a jarred or severed ground.
Non of the W bodies handle particularly well, from a pillow soft Park Ave to a under sprung over damped Grand Prix. GM really did a number with the GP it rides like crap yet it's handling still feels floaty and numb. Heck, my 07 Expedition feels lighter on its feet in most situations other than flat out cornering where it's weight and higher center of gravity present themselves. The GP will about knock a tooth out over an initial impact, yet the front end will float and bobble over bumpy roads. I'm not saying the handling is unsafe, but it's far from rewarding. To me they just feel like the cheap cars which they are.
It is very bad, because of weak breaks, horrible suspension & etc. Buick is a good car for long drives in AZ.
It will have a softer ride. Maybe only a few % here and there, but it will be enough that the average person will sit in the Regal and then sit in an Accord and just not see the advantage with thew GM product. It's too much like everyone else's jellybean.
They need to put the high pressure turbo in it and give it a CTS like suspension as a minimum. They need to give the competition a slap across the face instead of merely trying to merge into the long line of other cars out there.
***
As for the OP, just go out and buy a first generation CTS with the 3.6VVT engine in it. Enjoy.
GM Engineers Call Customers Who Returned Cars (AutoObserver)
Everything else was fine save for the ridiculously hard to decipher upper-lower displays, and those screens were impossible to read under sunlight (alas, the same can be said about BMW).
I had an 06 TSX 4cyl and it was a much better handler than Saab, as good as any other front driver there was (even including Audis), excluding current much more sophisticated models in the market of course.
You OK???
I can tell you that my '99 Ultra was a good car. It rode fine, a little more harsh than my dad's old Town Car, but nice. Plenty of power with the blown 3.8, and 33 MPG on the highway if you took it easy. My uncle had a '97 and routinely got 29 MPG doing 80 all the way to Florida.
That sounds nice enough, but who would go to the Buick dealer looking for that? It seems to me GM is trying to "reinvent" Buick the same way they tried to reinvent Saturn a few years ago and Oldsmobile before that, and we know how those efforts turned out.
I always have admired the 1997-05 Park Ave. I know they're often held as a symbol of what's wrong with Buick, but I've just found the style to be very attractive. Maybe it didn't cut it when it was brand-new and had an MSRP that could be pushed to $40,000, but I'm sure there were deep discounts.
Both of those engines have a square bore and stroke of 3.39/3.39.
I am sure later their will be a GS version with 250 or 260 hp and AWD but 220 hp and FWD is perfectly fine for the base model. I just keep the hipo version a 4 cyilnder and not the 2.8T V6. That engine is heavy and problematic in the Saabs. If they are going to offer the up motor as the 2.8T then it needs direct injection and VVT like the 3.6 so that it has over 300 hp and not just 280.
""First, the customers are thrilled the engineers and vice presidents are calling them. But it's also about as direct and unfiltered consumer feedback channel as any we've done."
Really important that only 10% of returnees bought a different brand. Others bought within the GM family of vehicles.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
-----------------------------------------------------
A fool and his money are soon parted..........
What it "needs" is the Hennessy twin turbo version, at 425 hp
The sun ain't gonna shine on that cloud car anymore - sorry!
Mazda's was incredibly strong with 280 ft-lbs of torque, but I expected it to be strong when I drove it. The VW just felt stronger than it's power ratings, it would definitely smoke my wife's 3800 powered GP, with same HP rating, and more max torque output. I'm guessing the turbo 4 is able to put out more power across a wider rpm range, plus 2 extra gears makes a huge difference. Plus the VW 4 is quieter and smoother than a raspy 3800 v6.
I don't know if the 200-300 extra pounds will be a major issue, but the fact we are talking about GM, all bets are off.
Once again, General Motors has vowed to improve its market share in California.
In a state where vehicle sales have lagged well behind the rest of the nation, GM has suffered most. Through September it lost 2.7 points of share -- the biggest decline of any carmaker, according to the California New Car Dealers Association. By contrast, Ford gained 1.2 percentage points. GM's 11.4 percent share was fourth, after Toyota, Honda and Ford.
And that's after several California marketing offensives in recent years. The latest included a ritzy affair in Hollywood on Nov. 12.
....California blues
Through September, GM's surviving brands suffered huge sales declines in California.
change from '08
Buick – 42%
Cadillac – 55%
Chevrolet – 43%
GMC – 48%
The Palladium affair didn't fit the image of a troubled company with lackluster sales. Guests bellied up to the bar and dined on Wolfgang Puck's short ribs, shrimp and elegant chocolate desserts.
...."Every 10 years GM says the same thing," said Steve Snyder, a Chevrolet dealer in Auburn, Calif., who is losing his franchise next year. "GM can bring all the execs they want to out here, but they must not only prove they have good products but also the right cars for California."
http://www.autonews.com/article/20091123/RETAIL03/311239977/-1
The truck/car ratio is even more skewed in California than it is in the rest of the nation, with some 80% of GM sales being trucks. So 2% of vehicle sales in California are GM cars. It's no wonder I never see any on the road. I wonder if the latest GM push will result in any upswing in its California sales.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I didn't drive MS3, but the now discontinued MS6 with AWD. On an extended test drive I found the powertrain to be great. Turbo lag was detectable but IMO was far from being an issue. I'd think with an auto-trans it would even less noticable. I've driven lots of great v6 vehicles and I don't recall any of them having as much power as Mazda's MS6 in the 2k-3k rpm range.
I've never seen a pretty launch with a powerful fwd car, particularly with a manual trans. I used to own a '98 Ford SVT Contour and back then with only 190 or so HP it was hard to launch. Torque steer wasn't a problem, but wheel hop was horrible. But really, how often do you perform a 4000+rpm launch from a dead stop? I was in my mid 20's when I had the Contour, don't think I'd be doing to many clutch "popping" these days, I just want power when I put my foot down.
I agree, the 3.0 is a waste IMO. The 217 ft-lbs of torque at 5,100 rpm is terrible in a heavy vehicle, plus no better fuel economy than the 3.6. Even worse, from the sources i've read, it sounds strained at high rpm. And people on these boards bash Honda for having stratosphere torque output. Ford's 3.0 Duratech that's been around for ever produces more torque at lower rpm w/o DI.
Granted, you'd have to look at a torque graph to really see how good the torque curve is, plus good gearing does compensate. I've driven a v6 Accord with a 5000rpm torque peak and still found it to be strong off the line. Good gearing along with a quick shifting trans can do wonders, but I've yet to drive a GM vehicle with good gearing and quick shifting. They are usually geared to tall and don't like to downshift.
http://archives.media.gm.com/us/powertrain/en/product_services/2010/gmna/HPT%20L- ibrary/HFV6/2010%2030L%20LF1%20LaCrosse%20FWD.pdf
Compared to the pushrod 3.5, it produces a bit less torque, but the torque curve drops off sooner. At 6k rpm, the 3.0 is producing over 200 ft-lbs of torque and 240 or so HP vs. the 3.5 that has dropped under 200ft-lbs and maybe 210 or so HP.
At 5k rpm the 3.0 is around 217ft-lbs and a little over 200hp vs around 200hp and 200ft-lbs for the 3.5 at that rpm level. Looks like the 3.5 will be a bit stronger under 4000rpm, but weaker as you go above.
Half or more of that 2% car sales are probably fleets. I think I read Ford sales have improved, so maybe some GM customers are going to Ford.
link title
Then again, Buick has lost the performance edge long, long ago so nothing on the horizon speaks to the enthusiast afaic.
Regards,
OW
I dunno...the Buick set tends to prefer their cars to be more quiet and lazy. And even if they don't have a lot of hp or put out an impressive 0-60 time, they want them to at least take off with the slightest tap of the gas pedal. Most 4-cyl engines, even the more powerful ones, don't really do anything unless you tromp on 'em.