Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Buick LaCrosse



  • 307web307web Posts: 1,033
    How is the Lucerne going to attract young buyers? Most likely buyers will be even older than LaCrosse buyers. It is a mildly restyled Impala that is bigger and more sedate than even a LaCrosse, plus it will likely cost more than a LaCrosse.
    I can't see how that is going to attract young buyers.
  • 62vetteefp62vetteefp Posts: 6,048
    "mildly restyled Impala"!!!??? how do you come up with this stuff? OHC V8!! Quieter than a Lexus. Better ride than a Lexus. Premium materials in the interior. Better quality than Lexus. Lower pricing than a Lexus or other premium marques.

    Besides who says what a young buyer is? Buick is not after kids graduating from college. Younger would be more like mid 50's where the money is. Lets be serious. Buick is not after 30 year olds as their main buyer base. They want to hit the sweet spot where the money is. Buick is for mature folks( and I mean mature in life not old) who want premium features and stying at a reasonable price. They do not need to go out and show off they have money but yet want to be able to go to the club or restaurant and come across as somebody confident in their life.

    LaCrosse is bringing in lots of buyers who have not bought domestic before. Median age is well down from the Century and Regal. Volume is slowly going up as people see the car on the road.
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Crossroads of America I70 & I75 Posts: 21,500
    The attempt by the nay-sayers is to negate anything postive from GM. I looked at LaCrossi at my dealer Saturday. Looks good to me. Haven't seen the Lucern other than pictures.

    Does anyone know the final drive ratio between the 3800 version and the 3.6 version? If I recall the LeSabre Touring model had a higher ratio just to make it peppier for people who wanted "Touring" model suspension. I suspect the 3.6 would have a higher ratio to make it snappier.

    The G6 looked good sitting next to Impalas and LaCrossi. I'll have to drive one when I get a chance after next week.

    2015 Cruze 2LT, 2014 Malibu 2LT, 2008 Cobalt 2LT

  • venus537venus537 Posts: 1,443
    no, i don't consider the malibu an aging platform. it's a big improvement over the previous model and i imagine that probably helped it score so well.

    do i consider it on par with the accord. no way! the quality of materials both inside and out are noticeably of cheaper grade. both the 4 and 6 cylinders are not as refined as the accords. the doors don't shut as solid. the glove box just flops open. the trunk sounds terrible when closed. in short, it's still not in the top tier of the accord and camry. not even with the altima and mazda 6.

    you can refer to lutz until the cows come home but his hot air rhetoric doesn't come close to matching reality.

    i have checked out the lacrosse line up. the lacrosse is ridiculously out classed by cars such as the TL and G35 at the high end and it doesn't match the accord with its entry model. there's nothing special about its interior quality. the trunk still shuts with a cheap sound. you guys/gals see something i don't see with this car. vastly improved over the regal? yes, but the benchmark? you got to be kidding me.

    the malibu, G6, cobalt and lacrosse are all better cars than their replacements but they're not considered the benchmarks against the competition. perhaps with the exception of the cobalt. I don't see the new impala and lucerne doing any better.

    like i said before, for me it's the saturn aura that looks impressive.

    if you think GM is number two in quality then are definitions of quality are vastly different. you're reading way too much into JDPs survey results. do you really think the century is the number one quality premium sedan? the people who drive the century may think it has great quality but how would passat drivers appraise the century? they would probably wish their cars were as trouble free but i suspect they couldn't wait to get back to driving their passats.
  • venus537venus537 Posts: 1,443
    Quieter than a Lexus. Better ride than a Lexus. Premium materials in the interior. Better quality than Lexus. Lower pricing than a Lexus or other premium marques.

    you know all that and the car isn't even out yet. be sure to let me know all about those road tests that support your claims when they come out. or is it so because bob says it's so?
  • venus537venus537 Posts: 1,443
    "Compare apples to apples when you post. The Century, Regal and Impala are all old previous generation models."

    bingo! exactly right! thanks for pointing out the fallacies of JP Powers conclusions. they're the ones who said these cars are the best in quality for premium sedans.

    i'm sure all the automakers find their results very useful. i'm sure honda and toyota mull over the numbers as it pertains to their vehicles. but i'm sure they could care less that a century driver scores his/her car as top notch in quality.
  • 62vetteefp62vetteefp Posts: 6,048
    Yes, Bob said it is so. that is why the LaCrosse is quieter than the ES330 in most attributes. The Lucerne will also.
  • 62vetteefp62vetteefp Posts: 6,048
    Thefirst JD Power data that I am referring to is the Intial Quality survey which basically measures things gone wrong. This is where VW has fallen on its face. They have lots of problems in the first 3 months. What the IQS2 survey does not measure is the quality of the interior and fits and finishes. This is where the old Century and Regal fell on their faces. The other survey I am referring to is the JD Power Dependability survey which measures things gone wrong after about 3 years. The survey has Buick as #2 for the 2004 calender year (~2001 vehicles). See the JD Power site for Regal, camry, accord and ES300. It ties with ES300 and Accord and beats Camry. These are facts and yes Toyota and Honda are fighting to get back to the #1 spots.

    LaCrosse is #4 in the midsize market for IQS2 and Camcord are below. Again fact.

    There are other surveys which measure the less quantifiable like material fell and closing sounds. One is the APEAL survey by JD Power.

    The LaCrosse and newer GM vehicles will do well here but the results and facts are not in yet. In fact the Malibu is #1 in its segment.

    For an excellent summary of all three surveys and results please see:
  • 62vetteefp62vetteefp Posts: 6,048
    Both cars use the same transmission.

    3.8 L has an axle rating of 2.86.
    3.6L has an axle rating of 3.69 for a bit more snap.
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Crossroads of America I70 & I75 Posts: 21,500
    3.8 L has an axle rating of 2.86.
    3.6L has an axle rating of 3.69 for a bit more snap.

    That's a big difference...
    I wonder if the rolling diameter of the larger wheels and tires on the 3.6L makes up for some of that higher revving!!

    I'll check up on the tire sizes on the two cars and check Michelin's site. I believe it has revolutions per mile for each tires size. I believe that's where I saw it when I was shopping various Michelins sold at different stores that were similar tires.

    2015 Cruze 2LT, 2014 Malibu 2LT, 2008 Cobalt 2LT

  • venus537venus537 Posts: 1,443
    The LaCrosse and newer GM vehicles will do well here but the results and facts are not in yet. In fact the Malibu is #1 in its segment.

    well we both know the malibu is not #1 in its segment in the refinement arena. so much for what you call facts.

    how can JDP ask a new car driver to rate these other aspects of quality without a REFERENCE? unless they drive competing cars the same amount of time as their own car they don't have a reference to judge from.

    the way you would do that would be to select a random number of drivers weeding out those who may have a strong bias towards and against a particular automaker. then herd them into a group of cars and let them have at it. better yet, have them drive all the cars over an extended period of time. then you ask them to rate the cars in overall quality.

    the closest we have to that situation would be the road tests of consumer reports. the testers keep the cars for an extended period of time and the weaknesses and strengths of a particular car become evident.

    the editors of consumer guide come to mind too. then their are the editors of edmunds with their comparison tests. i guess we don't want to go their since the lacrosse finished last in their comparison test.

    GM sedans are hardly considered the benchmark in quality under these situations. of course these evaluators are simply dismissed as GM haters.

    of course, since human beings are testing these cars it's impossible to eliminate all biases.
  • 62vetteefp62vetteefp Posts: 6,048
    Yes, so much for facts.
  • 62vetteefp62vetteefp Posts: 6,048
    To be honest I do not know much about the Malibu. Have not really looked at them since they are not in a segment I was interested in. Just saw the awards.

    Does anyone know when either Consumer Reports or Consumer Guide will have a report on the LaCrosse?

    Why was this car compared against the full size cars at Edmunds? That is the Lucerne :confuse: I see they marked it down primarily due to rear seat room (midsize vs. large? and ride/handling (most buyers and respondents seem to like the CXS that I have read) )

    I guess we could also go through the comments from others that use Edmunds.
  • robchemistrobchemist Posts: 37
    I am somewhat confused by your postings with respect to your use of the word "quality". Namely, you appear to be using quality in a way very different that JDPowers uses that word. In the JDPower survey, they are simply using the word quality to describe the lack of defects. They are not saying anything about how solid a door feels, how luxurious the plastic dashboard looks, etc. As far as I can tell, you are including many other aspects of a car in your definition of quality. Thus, you and JDPower are looking at 2 completely different things.

    In terms of the survey for quality and reliability, the JDPower and Consumer Reports (CR) survey are similar, except the JDPower survey is much more detailed. Both simply ask the owners of the vehhicle if there have been any problems over the specified time period.

    Finally, in theory, the CR approach to rating cars is wonderful, except it is as biased as any other human-based approach for evaluating subjective phenomenon. Presumably, the members of the ratings panel own cars, and they bought those cars based on their own biases as to what they percieve as best. These biases will also exist when they rate other cars. Thus, I think that the bottom line is that you need to test drive the various cars yourself and decide which car you like the most. In this way, you correct for you own specific biases. (If one wanted a purely un-biased report, one would only use quantifiable, empirical measurements - 0-60, 0-35, 40-60, etc. for accelaration, measure actual decibels under various situations for how quiet the car actually is, etc.) For example, one of the cars we looked at when we were considering mid-size vehicles was the Toyota Prius, largely based on its extremely high gas mileage and very positive CR review. I won't go into details of my experience in the car since they are posted elsewhere on this site, but let's just say that I think that Toyota would be more honest if they renamed the car "Yugo II". My biases (i.e., what I want out of a car) are clearly very different that the biases of the CR panel.
  • vanman1vanman1 Posts: 1,397
    "the lacrosse is ridiculously out classed by cars such as the TL and G35 at the high end and it doesn't match the accord with its entry model. there's nothing special about its interior quality. the trunk still shuts with a cheap sound. you guys/gals see something i don't see with this car".

    The problem again is apples and oranges. On the low end LaCrosse has a V6 and Camcords have 4 bangers. On the high end you are comparing entry level luxury to to a high end sedan. One could say the same comparing a top of the line Accord to the CTS.

    Even so.. with a potent 240hp 3.6L under the hood, I would hardly say its "ridiculously outclassed". I'll bet the 0-60 times and handling numbers aren't all that far apart.
  • 307web307web Posts: 1,033
    Truly low end Accords and Camrys don't cost nearly as much as even a base LaCrosse.
    You would have to at least compare a low end LaCrosse with an Accord LX V6 or a Camry LE V6 with few options.
  • 62vetteefp62vetteefp Posts: 6,048
    We have gone thru this before. Content is not the same and you need to add and subtract content but

    LE V6 - $23070
    XLE L4 - $23085
    XLE V6 - $26095

    CX V6 - $23495
    CXL V6-$25,995
    CXS V6-$28995

    If you look at the low end the V6 CX is competitive with the cloth XLE w/ L4 or LE w/ V6. That is what it was priced against.
    At the high end the CXS is a bit more expensive than a comparably equipped V6 Camry with Leather but the CXS is targeted somewhere between the Camry and ES330 at that level.

    If what GM is saying is true there will be a pricing adjustment downward to increase volume.
  • vanman1vanman1 Posts: 1,397
    This is why I keep saying people are trying to directly compare apples to oranges. The Camcords are easily compared to one another because Honda and Toyota build them in a more similar way. The are no LaCrosse 4 bangers so on the low end, the LaCrosse actually looks cheap.

    I do wish the 3.6L was the V6 on the CXL though. That said, the LaCrosse seems to be selling well now just the way it is and ABS will be standard on 06's.
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Crossroads of America I70 & I75 Posts: 21,500
    What are the incentives on LaCrosse now? How much bargaining beyond that is occurring and reducing the price?

    For the Toyota they probably are still adding a $295 fee for letting you buy the car and aren't negotiating below MSRP by much. Any incentives?
    All that and they probably are still acting like they're doing you a favor by letting you buy a car from them. After all no other car could get you from point A to B like their Toyota or Toyota Lexus can. That's the attitude I've always run into in their showrooms.

    2015 Cruze 2LT, 2014 Malibu 2LT, 2008 Cobalt 2LT

  • 62vetteefp62vetteefp Posts: 6,048
    Per carsdirect

    2005 CAmry has $700 customer rebate
    2005 LaCrosse has $1000 bonus cash + $500 customer rebate

    In comparison the Lesabre has the same forced GM wide $1000 bonus cash and $2500 customer rebate.

    the Buick Rendezvous has the same GM wide $1000 + $3500 customer rebate.

    Wow, I guess the LaCrosse really is not that incentivized compared to its sisters.
  • vanman1vanman1 Posts: 1,397
    GM needs to get this out to the masses better. I know too many people who would always say Toyota is #1.
  • drwilscdrwilsc Posts: 140
    I read in the paper today that the LaCrosse only received 3 stars out of 5 for side impact collisions. Most of the Japanese competition received higher scores (5 stars).

    Chew on this:

    Consumer Reports March, 2005:

    Honda Odyssey - Curb Weight 4615
    Fuel economy 19 mpg
    0-60 : 8.6 sec

    Buick LaCrosse CXL 3.8 liter - Curb Weight 3565
    Fuel economy 18 mpg
    0-60 : 9.0 sec

    To summarize: A minivan (with a modern engine) is more than 1000# heavier, gets better gas mileage, AND is faster. Kinda makes it hard to argue that the pushrod engine is anything other than seriously outclassed. No wonder GM is losing market share.
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Crossroads of America I70 & I75 Posts: 21,500
    >Honda Odyssey - Curb Weight 4615
    Fuel economy 19 mpg
    0-60 : 8.6 sec

    >Buick LaCrosse CXL 3.8 liter - Curb Weight 3565
    Fuel economy 18 mpg

    If you believe that is the mileage LaCrosse gets, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you...

    3800... 29 mpg rating, delivers 31-32 at interstate speeds. My Lesabre gave 40 on flat ground at 52 mph on 12 miles last Saturday. (No tail wind.)

    2015 Cruze 2LT, 2014 Malibu 2LT, 2008 Cobalt 2LT

  • drwilscdrwilsc Posts: 140
    I was merely saying what mileage CR said they got.

    I would also add that they clocked the 4 (four) cylindr Accord with auto transmission going form 0-60 in 9.0 seconds, identical to the 3.8 liter Lacrosse, shooting down any inplications that the base LaCrosse engine is somehow superior to the base Accord's engine.
  • 62vetteefp62vetteefp Posts: 6,048
    One thing about actual gas mileage. It all depends on how you drive the vehicle. If I drove my old vette like I do my minivan, ie same speeds, accelerations, etc. I would get much higher mileage on the vette.

    I would imagine that the CR guys drive the minivans differently than they do a LaCrosse sedan. I am just saying I would trust test schedule data over some random real world testing. Then again if I drove my minivan like a vette ( and I somewhat do!!) it would not ever meet the epa numbers (and I never do!! ;)
  • 62vetteefp62vetteefp Posts: 6,048
    Looked at Consumer Digest with slightly different data:

    LaCrosse 0-60- 8.5 21.7MPG
    Accord L4 8.6 25.2
    I am a bit surprised at how well the L4 does with only 160hp/161tq vs 3.8 200/230. They must really have a different gear ratio. About 10% difference in weight though. 3.5 mpg delta

    CXS 7.1 18.3 240/230
    Accord V6 7.0 22.4 240/212

    Interesting that in the Hi perf versions they have almost equal power and equal performance with the same ~ delta in mileage. 4.1 mpg delta Again gearing must really be in play. You must really have to wind up the 4 cylinder to get that kind of performance.
  • vanman1vanman1 Posts: 1,397
    Big deal.. a 3800 V6 LaCrosse also costs about the same as a 4 banger Accord.

    There is also a 240hp 3.6L available FYI.
  • alpha01alpha01 Posts: 4,747
    You guess poorly. CR runs each vehicle tested over the same loops for their highway and city numbers. CR also tests each of their vehicles for 5000 to 6000 miles on average prior to publication, and the break-in procedures as per the manufacturers are followed for the first x amount of miles.

  • batistabatista Posts: 159
    I don't believe the 4 cylinder Accord can beat the 3800 LaCrosse.
    The Series III 3800 is definitely slower than the Series II. My 01 Impala 3.8L was tested by Motor Trend Mag to reach 60mph in 7.7 sec and to say that the Lacrosse can accomplish this in 9.0 sec is unbelieveable. 9.0sec is embarassing for GM. I know the Impala is 100 pounds lighter but big deal.
    Didn't they rate the 2005 3800 Impala at 8.1 sec and the 2005 Lesabre at 8.8 sec?
    I guess GM made sure the 3.8L is significantly slower to 60 so that they can sell the higher end model for bigger profits.
This discussion has been closed.