Buick LaCrosse

62vetteefp · March 2005

You can find the info at Buick.com, under LaCrosse. Then under Packages and go down to Power.

http://www.buick.com/lacrosse/features/

62vetteefp · March 2005

What is the opinion on the chrome package. It is available on the CXL and CXS. Includes fascia and bodyside molding inserts.

Do you like it? Should it be standard on all or standard on the uplevel only or available on the base CX?

62vetteefp · March 2005

"This is another example of an old habit of US car makers - combine a minor bit of styling with saving a couple of bucks.

Question for Buick/GM - WWLD [What would Lexus do]? "

Answer:there is no trunk lock on the ES330.

vanman1 · March 2005

3.6L is not unproven, it's been around in the Cadillac CTS for 2 years now. 3800 on the LaCrosse is rated below 200 hp which has bad optics to a car buyer. At least get it up to the 200-210 range.

verdi942 · March 2005

Thanks for the info, 62vette. I should have checked it out myself.

I'd still like to see an American nameplate on a Lexus-quality car.

imidazol97 · March 2005

http://www.media.gm.com/division/2005_prodinfo/powertrain/2005%20HPT%20Library/90%20Deg%20- V6/2005_3800_L26_Buick.pdf

http://www.media.gm.com/division/2005_prodinfo/powertrain/2005%20HPT%20Library/HFV6/LaCros- se/2005_36L_LY7_Buick_LaCrosse.pdf

This shows 200 hp in LaCrosse? Look at the torque curves for the two engines. Look at the horsepower at the higher rpms.

Driving the 3.6 may feel a lot peppier if they use a higher number overall drive ratio. If people pay for a higher engine, they usually would want more pep and lower gas mileage. I'll settle for a 3800 with high mileage and good torque...
Print out the two graphs. Use a ruler to go up to torque and horsepower readings at 2000, 3000, where I do most of my driving. The two torque curves look the same to me.

62vetteefp · March 2005

Lexus is the best out there for quality. It better be for the price. However Buicks are #2 and the old Century and Regal beat/or came close to the Camry in JD Power quality. People just do not believe it. Even Consumer Report says the Regal is the best for quality in the mid size market. Why was it not recommended? One good reason was when the car was tested by CR they bought a vehicle that was a not wanted car on a dealer lot. Base, base Regal with the first year old style Buick ride and handling. After the first year it was tightened up but it was to late. CR would not retest.

62vetteefp · March 2005

You are right, but the torque on the 3.6 peaks at a low 2000 RPM (fantastic for a DOHC due to fully variable valve timing on intake and exhaust) and basically stays flat (90% of the peak torque is available from 1600 to 5800 rpm) until the higher 240 hp takes over and continues on until 6000 RPM. This is one strong engine with a broad torque band and higher higher RPM HP. Both engines are good power trains (wish they both had another 20 ponies). But the 3.6L does it in a quieter, more refined manner. That is why they were both kept. The 3.8 for the OHV, time tested folks at 4 cyl pricing and the 3.6L for high technology, more noise refined buyers at the higher price due to higher cost.

imidazol97 · March 2005

>the torque on the 3.6 peaks at a low 2000 RPM (fantastic for a DOHC

Torque starts at 195 @ 1000 rpm vs 205 for 3800 at same speed. At 2000 rpm, a speed for many city street speeds the 225 vs 215 approx for 3800 could hardly be differentiated by most drivers.

A difference would come from gearing choices and torque converter ratios to make one seem much different from the other.

bigunit67 · March 2005

Was GM's failure to improve the 3.8 part of their "brain-challenged" decision making structure in recent times? Surely if Toyota can take a 3.5L V-6 and wring 280HP/260TQ out of it, the old 3.8 must have had a few ponies left to spare.

I know I'm comparing a DOHC and OHV engine specs in that argument, but it just seems odd that GM would cease upgrading their bread and butter car engine and let it ride for 10 years. Wasn't it the 95 or 96 model year when the "Series 2" debuted? I know Pontiac came out with series 3 a couple of years ago, but it only seemed to improve performance in the s/c vehicle.

Just curious what those of you that likely know more than I do have to say/think on the subject.

62vetteefp · March 2005

Series 3 is in the LaCrosse also. Did not increase HP. GP was a increased efficiency supercharger.

Series 3 added structural oilpan and other NVH improvements.

To take a OHV and change into a OHC would not work. Need to start from a clean sheet.

imidazol97 · March 2005

>structural oilpan and other NVH improvements.

What is a structural oil pan?

What are NVH improvements?

62vetteefp · March 2005

Sorry. The structural oil pan is a cast aluminum oil pan with gussets and strengthing ribs to give the block better stiffness. It also does not itself vibrate like a steel oil pan would.

NVH is Noise, vibration and harshness.

vanman1 · March 2005

3800 was updated again in 2003 I believe. I think GM is slowly moving away from the 3800 in favor of the 3500 (~200hp) and new 3900 (~240hp).

I would not be surprised to see the 3800 gone in 4-5 years in spite of what GM says.

hammen2 · March 2005

3800 does not meet some upcoming standard (ODB-III in 2009?) so it will be gone by then.

pat · March 2005

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/Comparos/articleId=105147/pageId=63175

Warning ... they weren't exactly thrilled with the LaCrosse ...

vanman1 · March 2005

I agree with the back seat complaint though it doesn't bother me as it's only kids that ever sit there. That said, I wonder if GM can fix this for 2006?

I have not tested the car but the handling / steering issues they speak of have not been mentioned here so I wonder about those comments.

They did have good things to say also, it wasn't all bad and the car is actually sitting on an older platform so it's at a bit of a disadvantage there.

Hopefully GM tweaks the car before I look at buying in 2-3 years.

verdi942 · March 2005

The Chrysler 300 is very good, although a little slow on the hills [calling Hemi?]; the Ford 500 is the bargain of the bunch though underpowered; the Avalon is the class of the group though quite pricey; and the LaCrosse....ah, yes, the LaCrosse is the - dare I say it - the "Hyundai" of the mid sized sedans. You know what I mean - lots of content [in CXS trim] on an obsolescent platform that's two or three steps behind the others. Worth buying ONLY at, say $25K or so. How does it happen that GM, still the largest vehicle manufacturer in the world, can't find the money to develop a Buick that stands out in that company?

bigunit67 · March 2005

I know they could not change it from OHV to OHC, but what I was wondering is wasn't there more HP and Torque that could have been wrung from that existing 3.8, or was it at max capacity? One would think there was more there, but my knowledge of engines is about a mile wide and an inch deep.

When they updated it in the mid 90's, it was more than competitive, but that began to change and they stood pat with the exisiting #'s...not a bad engine by any means but the public files that away in their quest for all things new and improved.

Thanks...

alpha01 · March 2005

I dont think the LaCrosse was the "Hyundai" of the group since "lots of content" wasnt really the case.

(This is a direct quote from the article)

"For $33,650, the LaCrosse skimps on the amenities. Our test car came to us without a CD changer, a sunroof or adjustable vents for the backseat. Head-protecting side curtain airbags were part of the deal, but torso-protecting side airbags for the front seat are not even an option."

~alpha

dan165 · March 2005

500 is totally underpowered. Based on that alone it should be 4th I think.

Buick is barely a full size sedan, no mention of that of course. Funny also that they say the interior is sub par in text but praise it in the video?

Obvious that the Toyota would win. Edmunds will always feel Toyota can do no wrong. I think the Toyota is a good car, but it's dull and looking and very expensive.

I would have picked the 300.

alpha01 · March 2005

"500 is totally underpowered."

So then you must think the LaCrosse CX and CXL are totally underpowered as well, given that they are slower than the Five Hundred. Funny, I dont remember you mentioning that before.

And Edmunds.com is hardly Toyota blinded- check out the Corolla's finish it its last comparison.

Check the specs on the Buick, outside its hardly "barely a full size sedan", its just the poor space efficiency that gets it. (The LaCrosse is longer than BOTH the 300 and Avalon, and wider than the Avalon as well, with its wheelbase but half an inch shorter.)

~alpha

307web · March 2005

I like the looks of the LaCrosse. Too bad it gets so expensive when well equipped and even then still doesn't have some of the high tech features like navigation systems and audio inputs for portable music devices (iPods etc.)
The upcoming Lucerne clearly looks like a rebadged Impala with portholes for much more money.

Things like this are why there is talk about GM dumping Buick or Pontiac.

http://money.cnn.com/2005/03/29/Autos/buick_pontiac_future/index.htm

vanman1 · March 2005

They didn't test the 3800, they tests the 3.6L with 240hp. The 500 has no other engine to my knowledge.

Longer does not mean bigger in cars. The Corvette is long but it has very little room inside.

;-)

Kirstie_H · March 2005

A reporter with a national newspaper would like to interview someone who considered one of the new domestic pass cars (Buick LaCrosse, G6, Ford 500, Mercury Montego, Malibu) but ultimately decided on Toyota, Honda or Nissan. Ideally, its someone whos been driving an import brand and just couldnt make the switch back to domestic for whatever reason. If you fit what the reporter is looking for, please email Kirsten Holguin at kholguin@edmunds.com by 3/31/05 with your contact information including a telephone number.

alpha01 · March 2005

For its exterior dimensions, the LaCrosse is classified as a Large Car. That GM placed a new name on a vehicle of old platform doesnt change the fact that its not a very space efficient design.

Whats your point about Edmunds.com not testing the 3800? You stated that the Five Hundred is underpowered. Since it can outrun the 3800 LaCrosse CX and CXL (which are a majority of the vehicles sales), I just called you on the fact that those models must also be underpowered by your logic.

~alpha

vanman1 · March 2005

The test was on a 3.6L, that is all I would be interested in and the 500 has no other engine choices. The CXL does have the power and refinement available.

1487 · March 2005

The lacrosse isn't a large car. Car sizes are based on interior volumes and the Lacrosse isnt a fullsize car. Anyone who says otherwise is wrong. The other cars have more room because of their high rooflines (500 and Avalon), long wheelbases (300) and upright profiles. The edmunds comparison was ridiculous and predictable. If they were going to allow the $37K Avalon to compete then they should have left Buick out of the comparison or waited until the Lucerne was out. The Lacrosse was facing a serious size disadvantage and it didnt stand a chance. The comments edmunds made about the sloppy handling were not backed up by other magazines. Most reviews said the car handled much better than previous Buicks and offered a nice compromise between ride and handling. Edmunds was determined to sink the car because its on an old platform and it was too small. Why not compare the lacrosse againt other midsize cars?

Anyone know how new the Avalons platform is? As far as I know the Avalon is a modified verion of the current camrys platform and the current camry is on the same platform as the two previous platforms.

imidazol97 · March 2005

Someone in Can Gm Survive ... group said the Avalon is based on a Camry chassis, but stretched (ala, LeSabre and Park Avenue shared same chassis with lengthened wheelbase). It used to be built on another chassis out of the stable of Toyo products, So it's 'new' because they put it on a different foundation.
A Camry is a Camry.

62vetteefp · March 2005

Avalon has always been based on the Camry.

vanman1 · April 2005

The Lucerne will do MUCH better vs. the Avalon. The Lucerne is a full size, LaCrosse is a large midsize in my opinion.

imidazol97 · April 2005

Yes. When I reread the other posts, the Avalon was based on the old Camry chasis. So now it's based on a new Camry chassis, rather than it's own chassis as the wording implies when it says it's based on a new design for the Avalon.

badgerfan · April 2005

I think you are cutting it pretty fine by categorizing the LaCrosse as a large midsize. If you compare Edmunds overall measurements for the four cars compared, the range in length variation is 3.9", width 2.3", height 2.7" and weight 198lbs, so in my book, they are all about in the same size range.

Fact is the LaCrosse is just a bit smaller due to its somewhat dated platform and roofline, which particularly cramps the rear seating head room.

imidazol97 · April 2005

I notice that the 500 and apparently the Avalon have higher roofs to make more rome for passengers who sit more upright in the car. These extra tall cars are not going to have as high gas mileage at 70 mph as a car with a more aerodynamic design. It's the Pacifica problem. Tall car, wide, almost like a minivan in aerodynamics; poor gas mileage results.

vanman1 · April 2005

I like the lower roofline and stance of the LaCrosse. If I wanted an SUV or a crossover, I'd buy one. I like "sleek" in my car.

badgerfan · April 2005

To each his own, but 2.7" in height variation between the tallest and lowest of these four choices doesn't seem like much to me.

robchemist · April 2005

The difference in height of the passenger compartment between the various vehicles is likely more than just 2.7". The actual height of the passenger compartment is the vehicle height minus the floor height. While I could not find the floor heights of the vehicles, I did find the ground clearances for each vehicle. If one assumes the ground clearance reflects the height of the floor, one ends up with the following passenger compartment heights.

Car Overall height Ground clearance Passenger compartment height (Relative height)

Lacrosse 57.4 6.5 50.9 (0.926)
Chr. 300 58.4 5.6 52.8 (0.96)
Ford 500 60.1 5.1 55.0 (1.0)
Avalon 58.5 5.3 53.2 (0.967)

Thus, there is a >7% difference in height between the highest and lowest vehicles. From my perspective, 7% is non-trivial. The other interesting feature, and one that we did not consider before buying the Lacrosse, is the significantly greater ground clearance of the Lacrosse. Relative to the other 3 cars, it has 18% (Chr. 300), 27% (Ford 500), and 23% (Avalon) more ground clearance. While this is disadvantageous in terms of overall passenger compartment height and volume, it can be very advantageous in going over large bumps, sharp driveway cuts, etc.

Note: The ground clearances were found by doing a Google search on "[Car] ground clearance".

badgerfan · April 2005

You can not accurately calculate cabin height by using ground clearance as the ground clearance is measured from the lowest hanging feature on the car. In no way is this related to the actual useable cabin height.

You also cannot use head room data as this depends on seat height data.

If maximum ground clearance is your criteria for picking a vehicle, then LaCrosse is your car.

robchemist · April 2005

As I noted in my previous post, it is an approximation that ground clearance and floor height are related. While there is clearly no absolute relationship between the two, unless a manufacturer is really stupid, ground clearance and floor height will be fairly similar. At least in a car, it would be less than smart to have a high floor and lots of stuff dangling far below the level of the floor.

Finally, as I noted in my previous post, we did not consider ground clearance when we chose to buy the Lacrosse - it was primarily its ride and quiteness that attracted us. For the type of roads we occassionally drive on in the hills of Colorado, the higher ground clearance will likely be an added benefit.

badgerfan · April 2005

I guess you haven't looked at a Toyota Camry tailpipe lately!

62vetteefp · April 2005

Roof height makes a big difference in styling. Many are going to a high seating position for comfort and be more like an SUV. The Lacrosse was going for smooth styling, completely opposite of the 500 and old Avalon. The rear part of the roof sweeps down. This forces the rear seat down to maintain rear headroom.

The old Avalon also have very upright side glass for more side clearance to the head. It is pretty unattractive from the rear. I think they fixed it on the new one but am not sure.

drwilsc · April 2005

Along the same lines of comparing the Lucerne, rather than the LaCrosse, to the $37,000 Toyota, I was a bit surprised that they did not choose the Hemi 300C V8 instead of a V6 version of the Chrysler. It would have hammered the Toyota (and all of the others) in the acceleration runs, and not cost any more than the Avalon.

imidazol97 · April 2005

My point was also that the front ends were squared out substantially more giving those cars higher air resistance than the more aerodynamic LaCrosse (and Avalon). Look at the front end of a 500--it looks like a miniature Explorer coming at ya'. The car does look like it stands much higher--like the Ford Volvo in certain models have a high-standing profile.

johnclineii · April 2005

And AWD Five Hundreds stand taller than do the FWD ones...

Just a point...

One reason I never seriously considered the LaCrosse, regrettably, is that there is no AWD offered....

imidazol97 · April 2005

I can't see the extra cost of AWD along with the maintenance, failures, gas mileage penalty, and ? for a small benefit in traction in snow in Central Ohio.
I've found front wheel drive more than adequate with good tires on it. That wouldn't be a reason NOT to buy a car for myself.

62vetteefp · April 2005

My father in law bought an AWD Rendezvous and regrets it here in Michigan. He drives about 2 1/2 hours north almost every weekend and is unhappy on the gas mileage. While AWD is great for some situations it is rarely needed, even here in Michigan. FWD does just fine. If there is to much snow most folks jst wait for it to be plowed away in a couple of hours.

Now if you live in the boondocks AWD or 4WD may be needed. Seems like those folks (I used to live out there) have at least one truck in the family for the snow.

verdi942 · April 2005

as a rental. Don't ask me the model as I simply needed that size and they gave me a loaded sedan that screamed "Buick wannabe" inside and out, standing still, and "'69 Special" when in motion. Tough on gas, too. Inferior in every way to my '02 Regal, which I love but was thinking of swapping for a LaCrosse soon.But you could BUY one for <$20K!

I take the point about the 3.6, $33K LaCrosse lacking many expected amenities, as noted in the edmunds article. You have to believe that Buick/GM considered all of the missing content and decided against including it. They are saying, "you customers won't care, anyway, and that money looks better in our pockets". Exactly the opposite of the Toyota mindset.

Whatever platform the Avalon rides on, it's clearly superior, in terms of space efficiency, to that of the LaCrosse. Just sit in one. As to tall cars wasting gas fighting the wind, the 500, 300, etc. seem perfectly capable of 20 to 30 mpg under a light foot. As does the LaCrosse. Even my tall 'n' flat Rendezvous can do that.

What kind of MPG did that AWD Rondy get?

johnclineii · April 2005

The fact you may not want AWD doesn't mean it shouldn't even be offered as an option. It's things like this that have Buick (and Pontiac) in the trouble they are in...

62vetteefp · April 2005

No, they said we have a huge cost disadvantage because we are one of the last companies to manufacture products in North America. Very little is made in this country. Just read an article that Bissel vacuum cleaners just moved off shore. They waited as long as they could but finally decided they needed to compete and fired their work force. Domestics have huge cost of non government paid health care and pensions. GM has been around 100 years and have all those retirees. Sure they are no where near perfect but they have done better than most of the other companies in this country. In fact maybe GM should go out of business, sell the factories to another company and just forget about the retirees and the union contracts. Toyota and the other "transplants" have very few retirees and the unions cannot get in. Suppose we could also complain that the union is overpaid. Goes on and on.

If it was even, GM and the other domestics could put in another $1000 of content. They cannot. Sorry for complaining but IMO things are not going well in this country. We are still the best place to live. Not saying I have any answers but the domestics do have some issues that will be very hard to get over.

verdi942 · April 2005

Toyota and the others have huge cost advantages over GM - BUT - GM still has 24% of the US market and builds a lot more vehicles worldwide than does Toyota. See Peter DiLorenzo's AUTOEXTREMIST website for good ideas about how GM needs to rationalize its business model. Too many nameplates selling full ranges of "badge-engineered" vehicles of mediocre design through too many dealers to compete properly where it counts - outstanding PRODUCTS. Maybe if they had passed on the Terrazza and Ranier, Buick could have been given the $$$ to design a 'clean-sheet LaCrosse. Now, LaCrosse is an excellent automobile; a MUCH better car than ANYONE [luxo vehicles don't count] was building as recently as 20 years ago. If it were coming in from overseas [do those non-union Mexican-built Rondys count?] you'd see a loaded CXS for <$25K, just to grab market share. I'm sure that's what Hyundai was doing last year. Then, over time, a younger US labor force might enter those North American UAW factories and give GM some cost relief in return for a share in future profits. Just my .02.

Buick LaCrosse

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles