Buick LaCrosse

fastdriver · March 2004

rctennis3811-

"Uh-oh..do I hear "flamewar"??? LOL"

Isn't it nuts? The freakin car isn't even out yet and things are hot here. Should be REAL interesting once it hits the showrooms! ;-)))

Beauty IS in the eye of the beholder!

fastdriver

venus537 · April 2004

it's like Christmas when you're were a kid. the anticipation and excitement of a new car coming out.

badgerfan · April 2004

But most kids do not decide they don't like the present before they opened it up and played with it, or discovered it is a sweater instead of a toy.

Me, I have no interest in buying a LaCrosse, as it is packaged too much like the 2000 Taurus I already have, and also since I don't plan on replacing the Taurus for another 6 years.

If I was in the market for a sedan in the near future, I would more seriously consider Ford 500 this fall or about a year later Ford Futura if I wanted something smaller than the 500. Our next vehicle will likely be to replace my wife's 1996 Caravan in maybe a year or two or three.

1487 · April 2004

What the hell are you talking about?

My assertion that the majority of import sedan buyers prfer 4 cylinders is based on things I've read and my own observations. Whether you are talking about the Camry, Accord or Altima the majority of the sales are 4 bangers. I know that 4 cylinder models of these cars are tested occasionally but you have to admit that most of the road tests and comparos feature the V6 models because they perform better. CR is not the only magazine that claims the Passat is the best, or one of the best, sedans on the market. edmunds loves the Passat, as does Motorweek and Automobile. The Passat was just knocked off the Automobile Allstar list last year in spite of the fact that the car is 6 years old. I'm not saying I agree with that, but the press loves the Passat and it only has 190hp in V6 form.

Also, how is it that you already know the starting and fully loaded prices of the Lacrosse? Do you have info that we don't? You know for a fact that it will cost over $30K loaded?

alpha01 · April 2004

Im not really sure which statement of mine you're not understanding. My points in the past several weeks regarding the LaCrosse, which is a vehicle that I like, based on what I've seen on paper are that:

1) there are a few key features missing that I think might make a difference in this market. example- the larger V6 should be offered at least on the CXL model and not just the CXS, ABS should be standard on all models, side airbags would be nice, where is the CXS's NAV system, etc

2) the LaCrosse is probably not going to be cross shopped against 4 cylinder CamCords, but rather the V6 versions of those models which are more closely matched on MSRP with the LaCrosse models as per the generally accepted price range for the LaCrosse than the 4 cylinder models anyway [You're absolutely right. I dont know the final pricing on the LaCrosse - my assertion is based on things I've read and my own observations.]

3) contrary to what you have stated, the LaCrosse does NOT offer more standard features than the Camry LE and/or Accord LX

Regarding Edmunds.com love of the Passat:
http://www.edmunds.com/reviews/comparison/articles/101056/page011- - .html

"It made us a little sad to see the beloved car fall to fifth, even as it was the unanimous number-one pick for editors' personal driveways and a solid number two on our list of cars we would recommend to others. But when we looked at the high price of our GLX test vehicle ($31,540) alongside its modest engine performance, small backseat and minimal storage space, the result wasn't so surprising."

You are exaggerating a bit. It seems that the press is generally recognizing the current Passat for what it is- an excellent design that has been eclipsed by newer ones.

~alpha

Kirstie_H · April 2004

Given that the top Regal price for 2004 is right at the $30K mark, and the LaCrosse is alleged to be a redesign/improvement, doesn't it seem unlikely that the fully-loaded LaCrosse would be offered for LESS? Seems a reasonable assumption to me.

bigdaddycoats · April 2004

http://www.ai-online.com/issues/article_detail.asp?id=412

1487 · April 2004

That was a good article. I think the LaCrosse will be a hit. You can say what you want about the price or the lack of Navigation, but this car looks to be the equal of any Accord or Camry in terms of design and refinement.

venus537 · April 2004

looks like the interior was designed for old farts, i mean it's conservative. we'll have to see if this car delivers. i've heard this song and dance from gm before.

joey2brix · April 2004

The Buick camp at the NY Autoshow must have been the biggest ghost town of the show right after the Olds display which was almost shoved down an emergency exit hallway. No one even noticed the Lacrosse. GM better pray high gas prices don't kill SUV sales.

rerenov8r · April 2004

I don't want to contribute to too much drift, but I could not help but be flabbergasted by what I saw yesterday, Tax Day, April 15...

I had just sunk $30 / 16 gallons into fueling up my '01 Bravada, and having really nursed along the MPG in uncharacteristally heavy stop-n-go commutting ( there was a prairie burn that caused gawkers and few fender benders -- ARGH!!) I felt pretty good to stil have my AVG MPG above 18 MPG.

I went to a carryout place to pickup dinner and the only space open in the lot was between a HummerH2 & and an Expedition. These beasts literally TOWERED over the Bravada! To make matters worse the H2 driver was sitting in it and IDLING!!!

Why do I mention this in a forum about an upcoming sedan? Simple: I really doubt that folks will shift from SUVs into sedans. The feeling of being "dwarfed" is huge, probably 90% of SUV buyers don't give a damn about fuel economy, and with the ridiculous tax treatment that the 6000GVW+ SUVs get the owners actually feel like they are getting a bargin...

yurakm · April 2004

We will need a third car in 2.5 years, when our son will turn 16. Year 2007 models will be available than.

We have a 2000 Regal GS. We like it very much, and would consider another one.

LaCrosse is positioned as a natural replacement for Regal. However, it looks like a used 2000 Regal GS will have a better powertrain than LaCrosse.

Both the new 3.6l engine, and the old supercharged 3.8l have the same power, 240hp. However, the new engine have substantially less torque: 235 vs. 280 lb*ft.

To my understanding, for comparable acceleration, the driver needs to rev. the new engine to 6000 rpm. Of course, it depends also on transmission. However, it looks as LaCrosse will be noticeable slower in city, and somewhat slower on highway.

By the way, from 1997 till 2001 or 2002, Regal GS was practically the fastest cars, with most powerful 6-cylinder engine. To go faster, you need to buy a sport or lux. car with V-8. From 2002, Honda, Nissan, and other manufacturers are providing engines with the same or higher power. Including small 4-cylinder Subaru Impeza.

Gran Prix supercharged engine was upgraded to 280hp last year; nothing comparable will be available with LaCrosse.

mbukukanyau · April 2004

You sure know your GM powertrain! I am impressed

rctennis3811 · April 2004

Same here. The Buick lot at the Dallas Auto Show was DESERTED. But it's not their cars, just their location. Can you believe GM stuck them right next to HUMMER!?! Of course everyone's going to see the H2 rather then the LaCrosse!

venus537 · April 2004

in terms of smoothness and refinement i would say the new 3.6l will have it all over the powerful but "lazy" 3.8l engines. and out on the highway or when you're pushing your car on a curvy county road the 3.6l again will be more appealing.

the lacrosse ain't going to weigh as much as a hefty SUV or is it going to be expected to haul like a truck so what's the point of having blobs of low end torque. once the car gets moving it's horsepower that counts in the end.

if you really want to go to the extreme for low end torque you can get a tractor to cruise around.

alpha01 · April 2004

I wonder just how accurate those power and torque figures are. The same unit in the CTS/SRX is rated higher- significantly higher- but what exactly are the changes that GM made to bump DOWN the output of the LaCrosse application? What I'm saying- mfrs. have been know from time to time to dumb down numbers when NOT doing so might otherwise infringe on the status of other model lines.

~alpha

rctennis3811 · April 2004

Maybe the muffler/exhaust system is smaller?

alpha01 · April 2004

that "breathing" is the issue, but is the 3.6L in the LaCrosse so constricted as to lose 15 horses and 17 foot pounds torque? Seems like a lot...

(The CTS is rated at 255 and 252 respectively)

~alpha

yurakm · April 2004

May I ask you, please, to explain how to compare refinement of two engines? Is it a value we can measure, or some subjective impression?

SC 3800 have maximum torque at 3600 rpm. Not exactly low-end.

I use the power for:

- changing lanes moving from full stop at traffic light;

- passing with changing lanes in city traffic, at low speed, something like 25 to 45 mph. Need to do it fast, while there is still a "window" in traffic.

- merging on highways. Very few motorists yields to merging cars in New England.

- passing on highways, again with changing lanes and using small "windows" in traffic. The traffic is somewhat dense in Connecticut and around (Boston, NYC).

In all of these cases, I do not rev engine to red line. A burst of 3600-4000 rpm is more than enough. I have to watch the speed, though. For example, in performance shift mode my GS accelerates on highway from 75 mph to 96 mph in 2 seconds. This is way too much. GM deleted the mode starting from year 2001.

I do not understand why I need to push the car on a "curvy county road". I mean two-lane road, one lane in each direction. I definitely would not pass on curves. Big risk of a head-on collusion.

Our local roads are not only winding, but rather hilly. A powerful engine lets drive with constant speed. Most of cars are losing speed when driving uphill. For example, on CT route 15 (state highway). Especially between exit 59 and exit 58 in direction to NYC. This is not a safety issue, like merging or passing. However, not a pretty picture.

Driving uphill will not be a problem for LaCrosse with new 3.6l. I am not so sure, though, concerning the normally aspirated 3800.

venus537 · April 2004

i suppose you can call it speculative but most people would say OHC designs will be more free revving and responsive throughout the rev range emitting more "pleasant" sounds than OHV designs.

from edmunds on the lacrosse: "The 200-horsepower, 3.8-liter (3800) V6 returns to the lineup as the base engine, but the company says that engineers took extensive measures to ensure smoother, quieter operation"

apparently the engineers from GM believe the existing 3.8l could use some work in the refinement area.

this is just my speculation mind you, but GM decided not to supercharge the 3.8l engine for its top model because they believe the 3.6l would compete better with the competition.

i found myself not needing to rev past 4000 rpms in the driving conditions you indicated either.

dispencer1 · April 2004

Several people compared the LaCrosse to a Taurus, Lexus, etc. The LaCrosse does resemble a Taurus but it also resembles the present mid-size and full-size Buicks. It looks as if Buick went into the parts bin and threw together what was loose. You have the old oval grille and other bits and pieces. At least they didn't put the silly Roadmaster holes in the hood. The Cadillac 2005 STS illustrates a real design breakthrough and so does the XLR roadster. The LaCrosse just looks old hat. It could be any year from 1997-2004. I can't believe the folks on this list are so enthusiastic about it. I guess Buick wanted to continue to attract the people who bought the Century and Regal and keep the bland rounded Buick "look". It will make a comfortable rental car.

1487 · April 2004

yes the lacrosse lacks the compelling design of such class leaders as the camry and accord. The midsize sedan segment is known for avant garde styling.

johnclineii · April 2004

Hmmm. I never realized the Aztec was a midsize.

dispencer1 · April 2004

Why Buick - when they had the opportunity to launch a completely new car - made it look like an old one.
I understand that the interior is nice and the engines are better than the old 3.1. The car unfortunately just doesn't look either elegant or even sporty. I'm not crazy about the swoopy look of the Camry and Solara (last year's Solara was better looking) but when you put out a new car that doesn't really look like a new car it is strange.

johnclineii · April 2004

Or comforting to the old buyers, which matters not to new buyers when they had been paying exactly ZERO attention to Buick. Midsize buyers are allergic to high style. They do NOT want it.

alpha01 · April 2004

You do realize that your opinion on styling is just that- an opinion on a purely subjective (not objective) measure? My dad, at the NYIAS, thought the LaCrosse looked "really sharp". He wants an AWD vehicle, and I dont know that hed go back to GM, but that was what he said, nonetheless.

If the LaCrosse competes in ride, handling, NVH, safety, and reliability- AND is marketed correctly (seem to be doing a good job so far) I think it could be EXACTLY what Buick needs- a good midsize entry, NOT a ground-breaking, crazy hot, Queer Eye avant guarde design. Remember when Ford tried that for the 1996 model year?

~alpha

yurakm · April 2004

We have a Regal in our family, and would like to buy a second one.

The exterior of Regal exactly fits our tastes. A generic car which does not attract attention. Can label it bland, or "such a character". Substance only, no flash at all.

The best colors are maroon, followed by navy blue. For the same reason - the colors fly under radars. Both of our cars are maroon.

BTW, our second car is 98 Chevy Malibu, with even more generic exterior.

Probably, GM knows, that there are millions of peoples with similar tastes, and they make reasonably good customers? Who like discounts and rebates, but let GM save on advertisements?

dispencer1 · April 2004

Actually I think the Regal (and Century) are nice looking cars. I also have a Malibu (a 2001) and a 2003 Deville > I think the 2000-up Devilles were very nice looking -properly proportioned -nicest looking ones since the 1965-67 models. My mother in law (82) drives a '99 Century. I think that getting in is a problem -the roof seems too low -but that is subjective too. I had a 2000 LeSabre. I thought the design of the 1992-1999's was better (I had a '94).
Anyway - there are lots of people who like the design of the present Buicks. The company has branched out with the new SUV's and the van which are differently styled but I suppose that they know pretty much what Buick mid-size and full size buyers want and will continue to build cars that appeal to them. Who am I to knock success? It would be nice, however, if once in a while Buick tried something different to appeal to a different group of buyers. Remember the Grand National? I think that was the name of the Buick muscle car. The Deville was a 30k mile ex-rental car. It cost about as much as a new LeSabre so I thought it would be nice to try one out. It was certified and came with a 6 year 100k 0 deductible warranty and 4 new Michelins.

fastdriver · April 2004

yurakm-

HOW ARE YOU!! Since I never got the Regal, I don't go into the Regal topic here. Glad to see that your cars are holding up well. I agree with you. Not everyone wants edgy styling or look at me cars. GM seems to be doing okay for themselves.

I will be looking at the new LaCrosse as the lease on my Acura CL-S expires in September. Just not sure if I want to subsidize the oil companies when they play games with their gas prices. Might just get a Toyota Prius and get 50 miles per gallon instead of in the 20's on REGULAR gas!!!

fastdriver

PS Remember I had that red "Car of the Year" 99 Chrysler 300M! Pics in my profile above! ;-))

yurakm · April 2004

Hi! Glad to hear you! How are you?

I am fine. Bought a home since we eat together the Louis hamburgers :-). 3 stents were installed in my heart :-(.

Both our cars are fine.

No problems at all with Regal, except it was rear-ended once on Route 15. Nothing serious, only the muffler / pipes assembly and bumper cover were replaced. Just yesterday put a set of new tires @34k miles. Bridgestone Potenza E950.

The Malibu is a lemon. Replaced transmission in beginning of 2002, @ 47k miles, and replaced half of a/c the last summer. However, when in order, it runs very nice. Malibu was a mediocre car with OEM Affinity tires, but with Firestone Firehawk SH30 it has completely different character. I would say, almost sporty. Put the tires @37k miles. Currently the car has 64k miles on odometer. Good car for commuting through suburbs / city and for short trips. I am using the Malibu at least 95% of time, while the Regal is mostly my wife's car.

My son is growing, he is 13.5 already. This is why I started to research new cars, and went to the LaCrosse forum. We like our Regal, and would like to buy another one. LC looks as a natural extension. Have some doubts concerning the engine power, though. Any case, I am not in hurry: will need the third car only in 2.5 to 4 years...

P.S. When we met, you already had the nice Acura, not 300M.

yurakm · April 2004

I cannot remeber Grand National. We immigrated in 1996.

fastdriver · April 2004

yurakm-

WOW! Time flies! You never got to see "Christine" as I called my 300M based on a Stephen King novel/movie! You're lucky! ;-)) The Acura was just 3 years old on 3/28. The transmission went last June and Acura replaced it. It has a 7/100,000 mile extended warranty from Honda. Only have 30,000 miles on the car now. Lease is up in September. Looking forward to seeing and driving the LaCrosse. That's one brand that my brother carries at his dealership in RI.

When he sends me info on it, I'll scan it and send it on to you. He said that he thought they were going to be ordering them soon.

Glad you're doing better after your stents. My mom had two stents about 8 years ago and she's doing fine. She's 91 1/2 now and still going strong. Sometimes I think she has more pep than me! ;-))

fastdriver

dispencer1 · April 2004

I'll take back what I said about the LaCrosse. I saw it in person at the Albuquerque Auto Show and it looks really great - very elegant. The photos do not do it justice. It was a really nice looking silver grey.

Kirstie_H · April 2004

dispencer1, that's really great to hear. Very few members have been enamored of the LaCrosse having only seen photos, but what about it was misleading in the photos?

dispencer1 · April 2004

The photos need to show the side elevation of the car like the photos of the new BMW 6 Series that are in the auto magazines. A 3/4 view makes the car look compressed and makes it resemble a 2004 Grand Prix. It also seems to accentuate the trim, grille, various stuck on trim pieces, etc. The car is much better looking than either the Park Avenue or LeSabre without the round bulbous look.

theo2709 · April 2004

This has always been my favorite angle:

http://www.wieck.com/public/*2PV_065048

dispencer1 · April 2004

I agree that the broadside view is the best one but the car actually looks much better in person. Even the front view looks better when you can see the length of the hood. The photos make the hood look shorter for some reason.

mbukukanyau · April 2004

Rebates and discounts are actually just a #'s game, the car is worth what you pay for it. not what they tell you you are 'saving'. The only way you'd save is if you never paid anything out of pocket. then no money left you, so you saved, and got something in return.

So, when GM sell you a car loaded with rebates that is how much GM thinks their own car is worth. they are charging you full price. No savings.

dispencer1

What do you think of the Velite concept. Its a very hot design if you ask me.

dispencer1 · April 2004

I'm not familiar with it.

fastdriver · April 2004

dispencer1-

Take a look- Buick Velite-

http://f1.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/fastdriver2_99/album?.tok=phWnuB- BBO9HvHG2K&.dir=/caef&.src=ph

fastdriver

rctennis3811 · April 2004

That's my favorite angle too!

theo2709 · April 2004

And NO, it does not share the Grand Prix's roofline:

http://gm.wieck.com/forms/gm/PV__013319__.jpg

Look closely.

badgerfan · April 2004

I agree, it does not share the GP's roof line. It shares the Taurus roofline. See post 302. Spittin' image.

At least they copied a good looking car. I got one in my garage!

yurakm · April 2004

Thank you for explanation.

jchan2 · April 2004

This is my favorite angle too! Looks less Taurus like from that angle.

drwilsc · May 2004

I got a little mini-brochure on the LaCrosse at the Buick dealer. I was very disappointed to see that you can not get the flip-and-fold seat on the CXS trim, which is the only trim that has the 3.6 liter engine. I have 4 children and would like the car to fit the whole family (also have a minivan), but I can not see being happy with the old 3800 engine. Why would Buick not offer the combination of the 6 seater and the good engine?

theo2709 · May 2004

I agree, the 3.6L should be available on the CXL.

1487 · May 2004

they probably figure most buyers who are interested in 6 seats arent too concerned about multivalve engines. I would tend to agree with them on that.

yurakm · May 2004

I believe, GM will not make enough new engines. As with the late Olds Intrigue: At first the new tech 3.5l engine was available only with the most expensive trim. Later it propagated to all trims.

dispencer1 · May 2004

Why is the 3800 engine unpopular all of a sudden? It has a great reliability record, gets 30-31 MPG on the road, lasts 200k miles or more with standard oil changes. I've had this engine on three Buicks and never suffered any engine-related problems in 120k miles. 205 HP is plenty for passing in the 50-75 MPH range. On the other hand, I haven't had great luck with the 3.4 and 3.1 engines - I'll stick with a winner.

Buick LaCrosse

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles