Buick LaCrosse

vanman1 · May 2005

I was not aiming my comments at you.. but there are many people on this board who will always make up something to take away the credit of quality from GM and it makes me angry.

What does "all new" mean? It's not defined by any sanctioning body so how can you say I'm wrong in saying the LaCrosse is "all new"? Just because you think it means one thing doesn't mean I define the term in the same way. There are lots of parts and technology in every car that has been used before so I could say there is no such thing as an "all new" car. Certainly on a % of new parts the LaCrosse is a new car also.

In the end, Buick / GM has done a bang up job here on a new car regardless. Let's just leave it at that.

imidazol97 · May 2005

I just found in Washington Post.
Very carefully written. Not by Car & Driver type...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A8214-2004Dec17&- - - notFound=true

The author's style is refreshingly honest and straightforward for ordinary drivers.
His Camry review (03)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A9337-2003Feb1&n- otFound=true

venus537 · May 2005

"but there are many people on this board who will always make up something to take away the credit of quality from GM and it makes me angry"

my comments may make you angry but it's my honest opinion. i mean i'm not intentionally making something up.

reliability is only one aspect of quality. it appears that GM has closed the gap in terms of reliability. at least on their models with aging platforms.

but in other aspects of quality such as assembly quality, quality of materials and refinement i find GM sedans to be lacking. excluding cadillac.

do you honestly believe the more reliable century is overall a higher quality car than the less reliable passat? not by my definition of quality.

the drivers of the century, impala and grand prix may have found less problems than those of drivers of the accord, camry and passat but you have a hard time convincing me those GM cars are in the same league as those foreign cars in overall quality.

how well a car rides and handles, the car's interior ambience, how well panels line up and the refinement of the engine are part of quality too. even something as simple as how the glove box opens.

in today's market the consumer is expecting a reliable car. it's a given. it comes down to who designs the best overall engineered cars.

the 300M isn't such a huge hit because consumers believe the car is very reliable. no, i suspect it was the styling and horsepower that did it.

i suspect you believe consumers drive their accords and camrys because of their reputation for reliability. i counter that this wouldn't matter much if they didn't like how the cars were engineered.

hence, the impala and grand prix will still need heavy incentives to sell. i don't see the lacrosse doing much better. i think the saturn aura has potential though. i'm also looking forward to the ford fusion.

hopefully i haven't tuned you into the incredible green hulk because you've gotten so angry!

ab348 · May 2005

You make some good points. I have a friend who thinks he may want to buy a new luxury car. But he dithers because he is bedazzled by the stats that say a Lexus is more reliable than a Benz or a BMW. I tell him its not like any of those will leave him stranded by the side of the road every week, that the reliability stats mean nothing at that level, it's the experience of the car that's important. The Lexus is reliable but soulless. The Benz or the BMW are much more satisfying vehicles. But he thinks that because the stats are so important he will be making a mistake if he buys anything but the Lexus. It's nuts.

62vetteefp · May 2005

the drivers of the century, impala and grand prix may have found less problems than those of drivers of the accord, camry and passat but you have a hard time convincing me those GM cars are in the same league as those foreign cars in overall quality.

I think most would agree the feel and quality of materials in most GM's cars that were developed for cars before the '04 model year are lacking. The Century was designed a loooong time ago. But please look at the vehicles brought out after the CTS. The LaCrosse materials and fits and finishes are 2nd to none in its market. Door closing and glovebox closing efforts and sound have all been benchmarked against the competition. The Malibu and Cobalt, in their markets are also very competitive. The Impala, DTS and LuCerne will also be top notch.

To go back and revise a carryover vehicle in these areas is prohibitively expensive. You have to wait for a major remodel.

I only hope the new trucks are much better than what we have today. Trucks are what drives down the overall GM quality numbers and if not for them GM would be #1 for JD Powers quality instead of Toyota.

I believe and I think the data is/will show the overall quality will be competitive or better. Time will show.

Fits, finishes, quality of materials, appropriate gloss levels is one area that Lutz will not let the executives cheapen out anymore. He has said many times that he would rather put another $500 in the vehicle to make it competitive and beautiful than $1000 on incentives.

Do you consider the Malibu an aging platform? It beat out all the respective vehicles from Honda and Toyota.

62vetteefp · May 2005

JD Power supplies the actual quality data to the companies that pay for it. To the public they only allow press releases w/o these numbers and JD Power does not release them to the public. They also only put generic statements out like "Century #1 in American built cars". To really compare cars you have to do some work on their site and even then there are no hard numbers.

I went and took a look at LaCrosse vs. the ES330. The LaCrosse did significantly better. Lacrosse beat out the lexus in Mechanical and Feature and Accessory quality. Tied in Body and Interior quality and overall quality.

Go ahead and compare the data with the vehicles of your choice.

www.JDPower .com

Just the facts.

vanman1 · May 2005

We are not talking about a 10 year old Century model, we are talking about the LaCrosse and it IS absolutely on par with Camcords in terms of fit, finish and quality of materials. I have sat in them back to back and there is not a doubt in my mind.

Compare apples to apples when you post. The Century, Regal and Impala are all old previous generation models. Lets keep on the LaCrosse vs Camcords and even look at the new 06 Impala rather than make poor and unfair comparisons.

sv7887 · May 2005

Hi all,
How about looking at the long term numbers? The LaCrosse hasn't been around long enough to make a worthwhile comparison. I've had Buick cars before, an 86 Electra (which was horrendous in quality) and a '89 Park Avenue which was pretty decent. I started buying Lexus LS400/430's after. (Not a fair comparison, I know)

I still have my 1992 LS400 with 94K and haven't had to do much to it. I've done brakes and shocks..Otherwise all scheduled maintenance. Not a rattle anywhere. That's the Lexus difference. I know plenty owners with ES300's that have done well over 150K with few if any problems.

Mercedes ranks near the bottom in quality. They do have issues that can strand you. (Such as failure of Airmatic Suspension, and a messed up Comand System). BMW has done much better. Lack of soul is a very subjective argument. I'd rather have a car that is near bulletproof in quality.

I'm impressed with the latest improvements in Buick cars. The Lucerne looks like a winner if it's priced right. A V-8 with FWD is definitely an interesting option. The cabin in the LaCrosse looks quite nice. With a little more spice in styling, I'm sure they'll do well.

SV

62vetteefp · May 2005

OK lets look at long term numbers and facts from the 2004 JD Power Dependability survey of customers. ( not to mention the Consumer Reports Regal being #1 last year)

The Chevy Malibu, Chevy Tahoe and GMC Sierra HD took top segment awards in the study, and a total of 14 GM vehicles ranked among the top three in their segments  two more than last year. In addition, Buick remains the No. 1 non-luxury nameplate and finished in second place overall among all nameplates.

These are facts, not opinions (unless you count the customers as only having opinions) :confuse:

I know it will take time to convince people that the GM cars are better. Remember it took years to convince Americans that the Japanese cars had improved theri quality after that American went over there and taught them how to build quality products. It was our American smugness that would not let us believe that othere countries could build a better product.

GM has really improved their initial quality numbers in the last few years and in a couple years the long term dependability numbers will greatly improve over past models. The LaCrosse should have a great score, better than the Regal it replaced.

sv7887 · May 2005

Hi all,
I did look at the Long term numbers for the '01 Park Ave and Regal vs the ES300. The Lexus did better, but not by much. I know first hand that Buick makes a good car. My Park Ave was near flawless. (Water pump replaced at 35K and door sensor).

If you look at that article with the best factory quality Lexus was at the top of the list with the Tahara Japan plant. Having said all of that, I think Buick makes a great car. My '89 Park Ave was a great car, and I would easily recommend Buick to anyone. My only problem is the sharp depreciation these cars take. But the cheaper servicing cost will probably make up for that..It costs $108/hr to service my LS430 and LS400..

I think Buick is on the right track with cars like the LaCrosse and Lucerne. My son, who is graduating from college is eagerly awaiting this car. If GM is trying to attract a younger crowd, then they are doing a great job with the Lucerne. It has a great interior and an interesting powertrain in the FWD-V8 combo.

SV

307web · May 2005

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.

62vetteefp · May 2005

"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.

imidazol97 · May 2005

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.

venus537 · May 2005

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.

venus537 · May 2005

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?

venus537 · May 2005

"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.

62vetteefp · May 2005

Yes, Bob said it is so. that is why the LaCrosse is quieter than the ES330 in most attributes. The Lucerne will also.

62vetteefp · May 2005

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.
http://www.prnewswire.com/mnr/jdpower/20572/

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:

http://www.mynrma.com.au/carbuying_quality.asp

62vetteefp · May 2005

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.

imidazol97 · May 2005

>
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.

venus537 · May 2005

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.

62vetteefp · May 2005

26.7 for the 17" vs. 26.6 for the 16"

http://www.miata.net/garage/tirecalc.html

62vetteefp · May 2005

Yes, so much for facts.

62vetteefp · May 2005

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.
http://www.edmunds.com/new/2005/buick/lacrosse/100377820/ratings_consumer.html

robchemist · May 2005

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.

vanman1 · May 2005

"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.

307web · May 2005

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.

62vetteefp · May 2005

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.

vanman1 · May 2005

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.

imidazol97 · May 2005

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.

62vetteefp · May 2005

Per carsdirect http://www.carsdirect.com/research/toyota/camry/2005/std/incentives

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

http://www.carsdirect.com/research/buick/lacrosse/2005/cx/incentives

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

http://www.carsdirect.com/research/buick/lesabre/2005/custom/incentives

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

http://www.carsdirect.com/research/buick/rendezvous/2005/cx/incentives

Wow, I guess the LaCrosse really is not that incentivized compared to its sisters.

vanman1 · May 2005

GM needs to get this out to the masses better. I know too many people who would always say Toyota is #1.

drwilsc · May 2005

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.

imidazol97 · May 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

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.)

drwilsc · May 2005

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.

62vetteefp · May 2005

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!!

62vetteefp · May 2005

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.

vanman1 · May 2005

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.

alpha01 · May 2005

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.

~alpha

batista · May 2005

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.

62vetteefp · May 2005

No, I meant that they drive each vehicle differently on the same route. Maybe not too clear. If I drive away from a stop sign with a large V8 the car will take off quickly with little pedal tipin and I will use the power and get down the road quickly. A 4 cylinder vehicle to accelerate at the same rate would take a large amount of tipin and gas mileage would be worse. But I would not normally really mash the accelerator on the small car unless I needed to really get it going and therefore my MPG would be better.

IN other words if I try and keep up behind the truck my mileage would be much worse than if I drove it like the car wants to be driven.

62vetteefp · May 2005

Make sure you compare the 0-60 times between the same testers. Some testers just mash the pedal and go. Others rev up the engine and brake torque them. You need to compare with the same procedure. So compare between the same magazines. Did Motor Trend test the 3.8L LaCrosse? I would not compare MT times to Consumer Reports.

There should be very little difference between the series II and III engines. The only performance difference is back pressure from the quieter exhaust on the LaCrosse. Need to check the gearing differences. I would think the Impala and LaCrosse with the same engine would be very close.

batista · May 2005

The 2005 3.8L impala was tested (from what I remember) to 60 in 8.1 with Consumer Reports and the 2005 LeSabre reached 60 in 8.8 sec. again with Consumer Reports. What drwilsc wrote about 9.0 sec is correct. So they were all tested with the same publication and yet the times vary significantly.
The final drive ratio for the Impala is 3.05 and the LaCrosse is 2.86. The final drive ratio difference of the two is insignificant.

imidazol97 · May 2005

The tire sizes need to be compared... but the difference is 6% slower engine turn speed between the two ratios. That could lower speed slightly. Since most LAcRosse drivers aren't going to be hot-rodding quarter miles, the gas mileage is helped and that's more important.

vanman1 · May 2005

Get a CXS. 0-60 in about 7.5, maybe even less from what I hear.

62vetteefp · May 2005

I have not read these yet but here are some LaCrosse reviews.

http://www.theautochannel.com/vehicles/new/reviews/#2002-buick

62vetteefp · May 2005

As a GM dealer, we are eagerly anticipating the Pontiac Solstice, and it's
success. Do what it takes to make it right- from the start- and keep
everybody informed. A short wait now, is better than a problem later.
Patience is a virtue...
Slow & steady is the only way to get this ship on course. Please ensure Mr.
Lutz, et al. keep their eye on the ball. I think we are heading in the
right direction. What doesn't kill you, makes you stronger...
PS We are having tremendous success with the new Buick Allure (Lacrosse, to
those in the US), and the Chevy Cobalt.
Please contiinue the Good to Great movement.

bigdaddycoats · May 2005

Consumer guide got these results -

3.8 8.5sec.

3.6 7.1sec.

Those numbers seem to be about right.

link here -

http://auto.consumerguide.com/Auto/New/reviews/full/index.cfm/id/38328/Act/Roadtest/

vanman1 · May 2005

The 3.6 CXS is a fast sedan. I believe those #'s a better than the 3.5L 300.

imidazol97 · May 2005

I can believe the 8.5 seconds for the 3800. My LeSabre probably does about that. It's fast enough it scares me when I do pump it from a near stop; it scats surprisingly fast. It's a lot like the 3300 that was in the much lighter Century that I had. That car was quick.

Buick LaCrosse

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles