Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Mainstream Large Sedans Comparison

13738404243134

Comments

  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    as a general rule more cylinders = more displacement = more torque spread over a wider band. Know of any 4 bangers over 2.5 liters or any V8s less than 4? Small truck V6s tend to be 'stroked' 4+ liter versions of some of the engines here - for a reason. And sure, different engine designs will certainly have torque curves and different HP outputs. And while torque can have an effect on drivability, it really has little to do with acceleration, otherwise cars in this class like the Lucerne 3.8 and the 500 DT 3.0 (DOHC) wouldn't be nearly so 'challenged'.
    The pushrod, however, is an antiquated 'technology' that would seem to only have applications in things like oversized V8s and is out of place in cars in this group. Not to worry, though, bet they will all finally be gone (except the V8s) within the next few years. Kind of depends on GMs ability to finance new engine production...
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Member Posts: 27,132
    >while torque can have an effect on drivability, it really has little to do with acceleration, otherwise cars in this class like the Lucerne 3.8 and the 500 DT 3.0 (DOHC)

    The extra torque works well to move a full-sized car because it's heavier. Put the 3800 that you know so little about into a light car and it moves because of the torque.

    Do you have any data to support your statement
    "oversized V8s and is out of place in cars of this group."? That sounds like an opinion.

    2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,

  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    "oversized V8s and is out of place in cars of this group."? That sounds like an opinion
    of course an opinion, in deference to gas prices, weight imbalances, and TS issues in FWD cars!
    and yes the only thing I KNOW about that old 3.8 is that it won't hold a gear on even a gentle incline with the cruise set on 70 - so much for all that 'usable' torque you like to talk about. The Lucerne, in ths case, simply weighs too much for 200 hp and the available torque it does have.
  • rockyleerockylee Member Posts: 14,014
    W/E captain. The 3800 is more than adequate to move the Lucey. The Bonneville was around the same weight and the 3800 was in it for years. :confuse: If this is such a problem for you then step up and get a real car like the Buick Lucerne Super. That car will have more than just a set of grape fruits in the pants. :shades:

    Rocky
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Member Posts: 27,132
    >that old 3.8 is that it won't hold a gear on even a gentle incline with the cruise set on 70 -

    Strange that my cars all can handle inclines on Interstates between here and Nashville and rarely, I mean rarely, downshift into third. There are a couple between Cincinnati and Louisville that are steeper than typical.

    I think you don't know what you're talking about and are just making up stuff to have something negative about the 3800. No problem. Now I've read discussions about the weak sister OHC motors with low torque high horsepower shifting up and down in the cars that require 6- and more speed transmissions for driveability. Indeed the X3 I rode to the Reds games in beside being rough-riding kept shifting up and down and it was only a 5-speed IIRC.

    2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,

  • tjc78tjc78 Member Posts: 15,854
    The Lucerne with the 3.8 is slow. The Bonneville for all its sporting pretentions was also not that quick either. In all boils down to progress. The 3.8 was fine 10 - 15 years ago when 200 HP in a large sedan was good. With the available technology the "bar" has been raised. Why would anyone want to drive an outdated slow to rev OHV engine, when you can get a free revving OHC engine with 70 more HP and better FE to boot. Its really a shame, the Lucerne is a nice vehicle but the powertrain options are just not there. Now, as I and other members of the forum have said, drop in the 3.6 and the six speed and you may have something.

    2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic / 2022 Ram 1500 Bighorn, Built to Serve

  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    then step up and get a real car like the Buick Lucerne Super
    assume that it then may keep up with an Avalon, Azera, or Maxima all at a penalty of a few mpgs? If I want a V8, then I sure as heck don't want FWD! Maybe the best thing to do is to wait for GM to replace the Lucerne with a V8 RWD model in 09/10 - just don't know if that will be before or after gas hits $5/gallon. :cry:
  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    The 3.8 was fine 10 - 15 years ago when 200 HP in a large sedan was good.
    this I'd agree with - because 10 or 15 years ago these cars didn't weigh near 4000 lbs. did they?
  • rockyleerockylee Member Posts: 14,014
    My 92' Bonneville SSEi weighed I believe 3800 lbs. but I could be wrong. :confuse:

    Rocky
  • rockyleerockylee Member Posts: 14,014
    Well the RWD Lucerne, will likely not make it to market until 2010, as a 2011 model. The Buick Velite Sedan could be here in 09' as a 2010 model built on the Zeta, archetecture. I would assume a Convertible will be out at the same time or the year after. ;)

    So yeah the 3.6 would be a better choice.

    The Lucerne should have this line-up.

    CX- 3800 V6 197-205 hp.

    CXL- 3.6 "High Feature" V6 with 255 hp.

    CXS- 4.6 Northstar with 292hp

    Super- 320hp Northstar V8

    -Rocky
  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    the V8 is a Northstar 'cammer' as opposed to the older pushrod V8 like is in the Impala? Didn't know that. The Northstar, IMO, one of GMs better efforts but does have HP and Torque characteristics similar to these high efficiency V6s. By the tone of some of these posts lately, I guess, a 20 speed auto, should be needed ;), that engine much much too 'peaky'
  • tjc78tjc78 Member Posts: 15,854
    I'll go for that, the cars have grown a bit.

    2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic / 2022 Ram 1500 Bighorn, Built to Serve

  • tjc78tjc78 Member Posts: 15,854
    Four engine choices? That would cost GM even more money. They lose on every car as it is. What I would do is:

    Kill the 3.8
    Standard on all models 3.6
    CXS or Super 320 HP Northstar option. Why do you need two V8's only 20 or so HP apart?

    2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic / 2022 Ram 1500 Bighorn, Built to Serve

  • jlindhjlindh Member Posts: 282
    I've got to agree with the captain with respect to the 3.8 and cruise control. I rented a brand new Grand Prix last weekend with the 3.8 series III. Not only did the car need to downshift on moderate hills when using cruise control, it had the maddening habit of needing to downshift when commanded to accelerate when using the cruise control. The downshifts were smooth enough, but the is not the kind of sophistication you'ld expect in the 21st century.
  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    advertising the Five Hundred at $6000.00 discounts! Guess this means that Ford finally has the 'Taurus' ready?
  • donl1donl1 Member Posts: 112
    In sunday's paper the local Ford/Mercury dealer had the Ford Five Hundred-Freestyle-Mercury Montego at $4000 below invoice. Going to be hard to move them after the 08's show up.
  • plektoplekto Member Posts: 3,738
    I'll tell you - the CXS doesn't DRIVE like it has only 20 more HP. Go drive one today - no really. Go drive it.

    Your jaw will drop - it's just nothing like a typical Buick.(basically it's a Buick DTS with the sport package - just for a LOT less than the Cadillac DTS)

    I have it on my top 5 list for cars to get this fall. And this despite the fact that I swore I'd never own a car with an automatic again.
  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    had thought that the Taurus was supposed to be available this month, guess Ford's running late again. You're right an extra 60 hp and hopefully a little more refinement could make that car a reasonable choice IMO. You would think that they would allow for a little extra time to clear the lots - maybe we'll see the Taurus in July or so and Ford doesn't have to 'sell' the cars that cheaply?
  • tjc78tjc78 Member Posts: 15,854
    What are you comparing it to? The poster mentioned 2 V8 options for the Lucerne (292 and 320). The current CXS V8 is 275 HP. Not sure where the 292 and 320 come in at. Is the "Super" Lucerne going to be built? Or is the CXS getting a bump in power?

    I drove the 275 HP CXS and if your comparing it to the 3.8 yes there is a huge difference. Not quite jaw dropping, but much different then say a few year old Park Av.

    2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic / 2022 Ram 1500 Bighorn, Built to Serve

  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    Not quite jaw dropping, but much different
    the current 275 Northstar is actually slower than most of the cars in this group - including the Avalon, Azera, Maxima, 300C, Impala SS, but it is a whole lot smoother/quieter and more powerful than the 3.8, of course. 292 hp, if this becomes a choice, would figure to keep up - 320 hp might outrun them - wonder what they are going to do about the torque steer and FE. - doesn't figure to be a 'free ride', and still is more properly RWD.
  • tjc78tjc78 Member Posts: 15,854
    No doubt the Avalon and Max are quicker, I remember from my test drives last year. I don't remember the Lucerne having TS in the 275 HP version I drove (couldn't say that about the Max). However, FE will continue to decline if all they do is bump up the power of the Northstar. They either have to shave some pounds or start thinking about the six speed from the Aura. I think you are on the right track, if they want to put that kind of power into the Buick just wait until the RWD platform is ready. V8 RWD cars sound like something GM can do well.

    2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic / 2022 Ram 1500 Bighorn, Built to Serve

  • allmet33allmet33 Member Posts: 3,557
    I don't know how good it really was considering I took a Bonneville out driving a 92 Tempo GLS with the 3.0 V-6. If I recall correctly, it was pushing maybe 145 hp. It was also a manual, but still...in 1st & 2nd gears, the two cars were dead even, but once I hit 3rd...just started pulling away. So...was that 3.8 REALLY that good? :confuse:
  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    my question is why does the Lucerne HAVE to weigh 4000 lbs? Sure the V8, adds 100 or maybe it's because of the iron block V6 3.8 in the CXL but while it is marginally bigger in exterior dimension, it is sure as heck smaller in usable interior space, compared to the Avalon (or the 500). Maybe a simple change to that aluminum 3.6 might get enough weight off so that FE can go up?
  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    the reason for your experience only has to do with one thing - weight. The 3.8, even back then, probably pushing more like 175 hp but also hauling around several hundred extra pounds. Ford, I believe, was still using the Vulcan pushrod 3.0 at that time, and it couldn't have dreamt of 145 hp although it would have had the MT advantage? Apple and oranges?
  • joe131joe131 Member Posts: 998
    A recent test in Car & Driver showed, in spite of EPA numbers favoring the CVT, the Nissan Versa did significantly better in MPG with a regular automatic, NOT the CVT. They explained it was because of so much internal friction in the CVT pulleys necessary to make them work right.
  • joe131joe131 Member Posts: 998
    Haha. Yeah, larger displacement motors usually have higher numbers for torque and horsepower than little motors (unless you mix turbo-, super- and normally aspirated motors. So what? That was not a point I was arguing.
    You misunderstood my posts.
    I was talking about the shape of the torque curves, not the maximimum numbers. The shape of the torque curves are going to vary among even similar sized and cylindered motors.
    Go back and read again.
  • tjc78tjc78 Member Posts: 15,854
    Wish I could answer that one. However, all I can say is that when you start with a platform that dates to the early 90s and just start tacking parts on you see the result. I am not sure if going to the 3.6 would help enough in the weight dept, however it certainly would be a start.

    2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic / 2022 Ram 1500 Bighorn, Built to Serve

  • tjc78tjc78 Member Posts: 15,854
    "Tempo never had a 3.0 V-6, right? "

    In its last few years it was an option.

    2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic / 2022 Ram 1500 Bighorn, Built to Serve

  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    torque curves are very rarely anything but flat, losing maybe 20% of peak at let's say 1.5 -2000 rpm, peaking at 3 or 4, and then trailing off again at 5 or 6, depending on the engine. Things like diesels will, of course, shift the whole curve 'left' as effective torque can be found almost at idle. Hybrids 'feel' quicker than they are becuase those supplemental electric motors in them provide maximum torque at 0 rpm. Overhead cam engines (in this group) will have the tendency to shift that curve right a bit depending on a number of factors including these high tech valve control systems.
    HP= (torque multiplied by rpm) all divided by 5252; so therefore HP curves tend to ascend rapidly and then flatten out at the top as rpm limits are reached. The point I was making that larger engines or 'stroked' engines by definition will almost always have a wide flat torque curves as would any of the engines in this particular group. If you can accept that torque is indeed a measure of instanteous twisting force available (lb. ft.) and it is what you feel in the seat of your pants when you intially hit the accelerator, you should also be able to accept that it is not a prime determinant of how fast a car accelerates, that would be HP, of course (or torque applied over time). Which is our 'Catch 22', the larger the engine, or the fact that it may use pushrods or may have a long stroke relative to its bore etc. can all serve to limit HP (because it is less willing to pick up revs) - while at the same time helping torque.
    There is an interesting article about this in one of the car mags. this month comparing the E320CDI MB diesel to the E350 - and it even says that the CDI (with 400+ lb. ft.)feels quicker (which makes sense). But is it? Not by a long shot, the testers preferring that revvy gas V6 which incidentally has about the same specs. power and torque wise (and technical sophistication) as the Toyota 2GR.
  • joe131joe131 Member Posts: 998
    You say, "...torque curves are very rarely anything but flat..."
    Huh? You must have a unique and very improper definition of flat.
    Torque curves for gas or diesel motors are NEVER flat. If they were flat they would not even be called torque CURVES.
  • plektoplekto Member Posts: 3,738
    No doubt the Avalon and Max are quicker, I remember from my test drives last year. I don't remember the Lucerne having TS in the 275 HP version I drove (couldn't say that about the Max).
    *****

    That's the Magnetic ride suspension at work. Essentially, it's a true Buick of old - Cadillac technology with some corners cut to make it a reasonably priced alternative for the average person. Cadillac body( DTS ), Buick interior and FWD to maximize interior space, Corvette suspension - though detuned to provide a luxury ride(Magnetic Ride), and of course, a bottom line that gives Mercedes and Lexus fits.

    Net effect: Feels like a late 90s Mercedes S420, has zero torque-steer, and is great in traffic - way faster around town than the 3800 or 3.6.(drives very S420 like - eerily so - big, heavy, and yet handles and moves well despite its bulk.
  • rockyleerockylee Member Posts: 14,014
    Four engine choices? That would cost GM even more money. They lose on every car as it is.

    GM, does not lose money on every car it sells.

    Kill the 3.8

    It will be gone by 2009.

    Standard on all models 3.6

    Which version ?

    CXS or Super 320 HP Northstar option. Why do you need two V8's only 20 or so HP apart?

    Just a idea as the Northstar comes with and without VVT.

    This is what the 2010-2011' RWD Lucerne will look like.
    (My Prediction):


    CX- 3.6 "High Feature" V6 with 255-275 hp (hybrid option)

    CXL-Same as above with trim enhancements. (hybrid option)

    CXS- 3.6 "High Feature" Direct Injection V6 with 300+ hp. (hybrid option?) w/ maybe optional 320 hp. VVT
    Northstar (while they phase them out)

    Super- NEW "ULTRA V8" with 380-450 hp.

    -Rocky
  • rockyleerockylee Member Posts: 14,014
    2010 LaCrosse

    http://www.gminsidenews.com/naias/revitalization/buickria/lacrosse.shtml

    That's if a Buick Velite Sedan doesn't come. This new LaCrosse, very well could see production. Buick, is going to be the new Lexus. ;)

    -Rocky
  • plektoplekto Member Posts: 3,738
    It looks like someone tool a Lucerne and sat on it. Squashed in the middle. Seriously ugly car.

    I mean - why can't they make something that looks at least reminiscent of a 60s or 70s Buick at least?

    Oh - wait - I know why! All of the designers come from the same 4-5 schools. Groupthink asthetics. Ack.
  • rockyleerockylee Member Posts: 14,014
    I actually like it a lot. :P

    Rocky
  • rockyleerockylee Member Posts: 14,014
    Many people say the G8 replaced the Bonneville but I always thought the Bonneville was bigger ? I know my 92' SSEi was a large automobile. ;)

    Rocky
  • rockyleerockylee Member Posts: 14,014
    I hear some say it's a luxury brand and other's say it's a sport's sedan. I guess Saab's have enough features still to be a luxury brand. However not really anymore than Buick, and only a few of us like myself believe buick, is a luxury brand but the BMW, Lexus, Mercedes, boys say otherwise. :confuse:

    -Rocky
  • cobrazeracobrazera Member Posts: 352
    Don't think they'll need to worry too much about the torque steer, the Northstar is a revver, not a torquer - though the 320HP version, I believe, may have that new invention of variable valve timing.
  • alexstorealexstore Member Posts: 264
    In my opinion this car looks like a mix of caddy STS and Lucerne. Aggressive design that will be toned down to match taste of majority of Buick buyers.
    One positive thing. Unlike design thieves from Korean brands, who steal parts from other brands and mix them together in their cars, this car is a GM.
    I also look forward to G8. It looks great.
  • rockyleerockylee Member Posts: 14,014
    Well is the G8 considered a large mainstream sedan ?

    Rocky
  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    guess you need to mind your own admoniton, read what I said?
    Using that 'wonderful' 3.8 pushrod as an example - what you will see is the flattened top of what appears to be a bell curve - showing about a 20% loss of torque at low revs, peaking at 3500 rpm or so, and then declining the same 20% or so on the high end (maybe 5 grand or so for that engine). Guess I would have to draw a typical (for these engines) CURVE for you or if you can envision the top quarter of a light bulb that somebody sat on? The important thing about these 'curves' incidentally is not necessarily how 'flat' they generally are, but where they are relative to engine speed - because the widths of the curves, and the torque drop-off within that width tends to be closer than you might think. And BTW that diesel 'curve', whoever sat on my 'curve' was a whole lot heavier!
  • dborthdborth Member Posts: 474
    Re # 2054 http://www.gminsidenews.com/naias/revitalization/buickria/lacrosse.shtml

    The photo link you posted reminds me of a school chums fathers 1955 "Roadmaster." 4 portholes and "Dynaflow", the ultra modern 2 speed automatic. The floor starter was a button above the top of the gas peddle.

    Jay Leno has a fully restored '55.
  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    rocky,
    how can Buick be the 'next Lexus' when not even Cadillac (as much progress as they are making) can do that? Tongue-in- cheek perhaps?
  • rockyleerockylee Member Posts: 14,014
    Well Cadillac's are more like a cross between BMW and Mercedes. I think you will find that Cadillac's do quite well as they are 2nd in luxury sales behind Lexus. Is their room for improvement ? Sure but Cadillac's target isn't Lexus. Buick's target is Lexus, and if these buick models show any indication of what the future could and should look like then Buick, will be a better styled, marginally better handling, more powerful Lexus. It also has Delphi's Magneride and that feature is flat out "AWESOME BABY"-excuse the Dick Vitale quote. :shades:

    -Rocky
  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    I guess my contention would be that while the 'Buick' name has a well established reputation especially amongst older folks, a 'performance' Buick will be a awfully tough sell in a younger demographic. There a whole bunch of 20 and/or 30 somethings that aspire to have those Lexus/BMWs/Benzes in their driveways, and in Lexus' case it is probably not the LS. IS/GS more likely. Kinda of the same thing we were talking about earlier with that Hyundai Genesis trying to compete 'over its head'. Could they both do it? I suppose. Would it sell, a different question!
    Just as there are many buyers out there that won't put a Hyundai in their driveway because of a 'cheap' Korean car perception, there are also many buyers out there that won't buy a Buick because of an 'old farts' perception. Whether either is actually true or not is not the point, is it?
  • tjc78tjc78 Member Posts: 15,854
    Without the Escalade Cadillac would be in lots of trouble. I don't have the figures to back it up, but would bet that Escalade counts for 50% or better of sales dollars.

    2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic / 2022 Ram 1500 Bighorn, Built to Serve

  • tjc78tjc78 Member Posts: 15,854
    Heck, I get my $%^)'s busted for driving an Avalon, I could only imagine if I bought the Lucerne instead. It doesn't bother me, but you are right aside from the GM/CV/TC, Buick may have the worst image as being for older folks. This is a tough thing to break, even the Avalon is having trouble.

    2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic / 2022 Ram 1500 Bighorn, Built to Serve

  • joe131joe131 Member Posts: 998
    Hahaha! Yeah, I read what you said.
    You said flat, and then went on to describe a shape that was not flat. What you meant was the curve had a flat (or nearly so) top during part of the curve.
    So what? None of what you said negates anything I said.

    (How flat your curve appears has a lot to do with how compressed or expanded is the number scale on the side of your graph when RPM is shown across the bottom. If you compress the torque numbers enough, most all curves will appear pretty flat for much of their length.)
  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    agreed, the Avalon used to have a median buyer age of 63 and a well deserved reputation as a 'grampsmobile'. But I guess as you well know, the 05+ Avalon would probably scare many 'old geezers' to death. While I'm not nearly that age - yet - the Avalon wasn't even on my shopping list 2 years ago, it was topped by the TL and G35. When I accidentally saw the Avalon on a dealer lot, I didn't even know what it was - after all, had never seen a Toyota with dual exhausts.

    The thing that I'm finding strange is that folks are beginning to hear about what the car actually is - comments like: that has that new Toyota twin cam in it doesn't it?
    And at a vehicle inspection recently, the inspector who thought for sure it was a Lexus: or others that wonder how much I paid for my BMW (which I guess it has a passing resemblance to from the rear). You're right, perceptions are hard to change, and take some time and I wonder if Toyota might not have made a mistake in calling it an Avalon in the first place.
  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    OK OK last post on the subject - try to explain TMBK how torque is related to HP, and you want to argue semantics and graph scales - not worth it
Sign In or Register to comment.