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

2010-2011 Buick LaCrosse

1222325272841

Comments

  • rainman5542rainman5542 Member Posts: 114
    I have the problem on my 2010 Lacrosse. I can tell you that at least one owner posted that the solution was a replacement of the entire exhaust system and a baffle. The problem is intermittant and would be unlikely to appear on a test drive especially since the dealer's salesman pulls the car out of the back lot for you and you never even once need to start the car.
  • cooterbfdcooterbfd Member Posts: 2,770
    Some people are like that. One of the biggest complaints about the Hummer H2??? Poor Fuel economy!! Duh!! 3 tons being flogged by a 6.0 liter V8 and only 12 MPG??? :confuse:
  • gfieldlacrossegfieldlacrosse Member Posts: 14
    Dear doc15,

    Can you tell me who your dealer is? I am going to take my CXS in for the exhaust clunking sound, and my dealer tells me that he can find nothing on the GM side to assist in diagnosing the problem. I told him I would see if you would give me your dealer contact info, so that he can contact your dealer directly to discuss.

    Thanks!
  • john178john178 Member Posts: 48
    Picked up my car today and dealer could not get car to make clunking sound when starting. Other than this annoying feature, I like everything about the car. With the earlier posts about this same clunking noise, I'm surprised GM has not issued a bulletin on this issue.
  • crankeeecrankeee Member Posts: 298
    Good observation. I'm sure you are aware of the competitive nature of the automobile market. Salesman and others with a vested interest in certain models may bash popular models - something like our political system.
    2010/2011 Lacrosse is a great model designed for balance of performance, mileage, total cost, appearance and overall content versus the competitors. Our 2010 CXL with the 3.0L DI/DOHC 6-AT is a perfect car for us. We conducted extensive research, test drives, consumer reviews and buyers reviews prior to purchase. We had to wait till model year end to maximize savings on our choice.
    Marketing people talk about Cognitive Dissonance, where by consumers begin to second guess their buying decision as soon as they pull the trigger. Box it up and take it back! Complain to customer service. Gripe about the little things that go wrong.
    UGH!
    Enjoy your new car and let the naysayers stew in their minor frustrations.
    Life is too short and has some REAL problems for many people.
    Regards to all - great website.
  • e_net_ridere_net_rider Member Posts: 1,380
    I took a look at those. I don't know how the scale is supposed to work, maybe some think it should be under Bell curve, that is 5 is average and you have to be 2 standard deviations above that to get an A, '10'.
    After reading through them it seems some were reluctant to assign a number more in line with their opinion.
    There is one '10' for a CXL AWD. It is pretty hard to imagine that his is perfect. Maybe his major concerns are tied deeply to the AWD and he has no other options, thus he has not run up against the concerns of others posting here. Also mileage is not stated, but regardless it would seem impossible to give a realistic score for reliability without having thousands of miles on vehicle. With trying to determine a score with only a few hundred miles I likely would have had to start with a 5. Without any trouble and as the miles accumulated I would raise it. If on the other hand I started having issues with that then I'd subtract according to number, severity, & mileage that problems arose. I might even toss in weight of satisfaction of fix by GM authority.
  • gberpagberpa Member Posts: 44
    I agree 110%!.
    Over a 2+ year period (I suspended purchase for awhile and repaired previous vehicle),
    I drove many sedans and a few suv/crossovers including direct competitors to the LaCrosse and some 30+-% the price of my fairly loaded 2011 CXS . I concluded this was one of the best overall considering the items you noted.

    Happy camper with only minor issues and far fewer at delivery than my prior high end
    korean import.
  • e_net_ridere_net_rider Member Posts: 1,380
    There is little doubt that most of us are likely not up to the challege of learning it well especially at the speed changes are coming forth, faster than medical improvements which is likely a challenge to doctors.
    I'm sure many who take tech courses related to computers end up part changers. But there are obviously some very smart people at the center of it with the changes to computing, even just in areas that pertain to phones.
    As of now I strongly suspect that GM has very few of those smart people in house simply because of issues with NAV, camera, and seat memory. And there seems to be a lot of others having issues not related specifically to those areas. Fortunately we have an open and shared voice through the internet and hopefully GM is listening. They will get far better feedback here than through some coded warranty repair from dealer, I hope. That is to say, I'm sure some have misinterpreted an issue as a problem. But by sharing here we may find answers.
  • e_net_ridere_net_rider Member Posts: 1,380
    I've noted you have few if any issues with your CXL. Perhaps you don't have issues with optional stuff because you don't have it?
    On the areas you noted:
    performance, I have to agree. It has enough spunk, although not as smooth as a DOHC V-8.
    Mileage, Certainly not bad for size of vehicle and available performance. Probably better than what you'd see in comparable V-8. I have mentioned that I hope it improves a little with break-in, but that is merely a hope not a criticism.
    Cost: I got mine fairly loaded so what can I say. There is very little that is really free. But I do expect what I paid for to work!
    Appearance: It is a great looking vehicle. It would look better without the factory scratch. And they could have put a nice rug in the trunk like the Malibu has.
    And nothing to do with any of these points is that I think the Malibu I had may have been quieter than my CXS by just a little. But then the Malibu was missing many of the options and features I have.
  • cooleyddcooleydd Member Posts: 105
    2010 Lacrosse CXS
    Miles driven actual - 259.0
    as per car - 258.8

    MPG Actual: 27.64
    as per car 27.8

    Average Speed per car 60.2

    Miles on car: 8927

    Fuel: Shell 91 octane.
    This was all on freeways except for maybe 30 miles to and from freeway and one pit stop. Cruise Control set on 69. Actual speed was from 50 to 80 mph on freeway.

    Passengers weight 380 lbs for 1/2 the trip and 250 for other half.
    Same freeway both ways (to and from). Almost no wind.
    Tires cold 35 lbs.

    Most of time on freeway the RPM was around 2000 + or -.

    Very confortable and quiet trip.
  • cooterbfdcooterbfd Member Posts: 2,770
    ".....Marketing people talk about Cognitive Dissonance, "

    Ummmm.....couldn't we just say "buyer's remorse"?? ;)
  • mmorencymmorency Member Posts: 2
    Horray for that! what's up with no coin holder?! Try putting coins into that tray in the center conole - that's tough enougt, then try getting the coins out when you need them! And Buick has to come up with a locking trunk solution. Any major city has parking attendant lots - and if you're buying this car, you at least occasionally leave it in attendant or valet lots. No protection at all for trunk contents!!! The valet function would be an easy thing to add to the config menu!!! How about it Buick?
  • e_net_ridere_net_rider Member Posts: 1,380
    Thanks for the info. It looks like it might be right on the EPA figure for highway. I'm still too far away from broke in to really tell but it looks like I'll be around 22 for my local driving. That sounds good compared to the 19 I was getting on V8. And that 8 being the reason I was hoping for a bit more than 27 on highway. The 8 got that.
  • e_net_ridere_net_rider Member Posts: 1,380
    I'm guessing that you are saying that it would need a pass code to take out of valet mode? What about rear seat entry into trunk? Switches to reveal the seats were moved during valet mode?
  • crankeeecrankeee Member Posts: 298
    Cooley: Great factual test of mileage on 91 Shell in real world road trip.
    We see similar results with 2010 CXL 3.0L with 2.77 final drive. Did a test today at steady 55MPH to get "instant" mileage for 10 minutes or so. no passengers, no wind, no A/C, no nothing! 36.1 MPG. Who drives 55? Point is; if fuel went to $10/gallon and we had to get serious, the Lacrosse will easily get your 28 MPG or more at 55-60 MPH in a pinch. Great car for the long haul.
    Thanks for the readings.
  • crankeeecrankeee Member Posts: 298
    rider: good point on seat access to trunk. The trunk access, with no lockout is a strange one for an american car designesd in China, Germany and lou Lutz's basement office. How do other models, like Mercedes, BMW, Lexus handle this issue. Most of ours have had limited security in trunk- but it seems to be an issue.
  • rainman5542rainman5542 Member Posts: 114
    My 2009 and 2007 Mercedes E350s had a slim key which fit inside the fob and was used to lock out valets or mechanics from both the glove box (where the iPod connector was located) and the trunk. The '07 didn't have fold down rear seats but my '09 did. I don't recall and lockout but manuvering a golf bag would have been tricky.
  • e_net_ridere_net_rider Member Posts: 1,380
    Very interesting!
    I had looked at the bottom side of mine, on the ground, and noted the paint on bottom side looked pretty weak. Also different things protruding which brought drag to my mind. Also it made me question quietness. I had an 84 Topaz diesel, no hot rod but 38MPG everyday and 48MPG on highway at 80MPH. Mileage not the point, but relative quiet. I long suspected Ford did a lot of extra body work to quiet it and cut vibration. One of the things done, I believe, is a thorough undercoating which created a rimple surface followed by a thorough painting. Years later I read that type of surface produces less drag than a smooth surface and I remember thinking, "What would a car look like if applied to the upper areas?"
    In the back of my mind I've considered finding one of those Ziebart shops.
    The other thing I wondered about, from looking at trunk pictures, was the location of the battery. Best location? What I know is that on circa 68 Mustangs Ford recommendations for powering up and performance were to move the battery to the right rear corner of trunk. Even with positraction that was the tire to most likely spin, so add some weight. That battery would have been relatively light compared to this one. The Topaz diesel had it over the left rear wheel and much heavier with 1200CCA. Does one really want that extra weight where the vehicle might likely encounter more road issues, the shoulder? And what if you have something that must be hauled and is a bit longer. No moving the driver seat max forward and back inclined way forward. On the surface it would seem there is a point or two to move the battery left.
  • crankeeecrankeee Member Posts: 298
    Good setup on E350 (and the old E types were great cars). The GM guys could easily put a locking system on the glovebox, trunk, and seatbacks. It appears to be a "we don't need that" decision rather than an oversight of all three IMO. We like that the trunk locks with the doors and the fobs seem to work as individually programmed- wife likes doors auto locked when in car for security. Some of the features are a little different due to the Chinese subsidiary input for their market tweaks with the Lacrosse. wonder if the German designed Opel based Regal has the same or different setup?
  • gmcustsvcgmcustsvc Member Posts: 4,252
    gfieldlacrosse,
    Will you please e-mail me with your complete contact information (including a telephone number to reach you), your user name, VIN, current mileage, and involved dealer? Please include a run down of your situation. I look forward to your response.
    Christina
    GM Customer Service
  • e_net_ridere_net_rider Member Posts: 1,380
    Another reason for the INST MPG, you can find that sweet spot a whole lot easier.
  • bwiabwia Member Posts: 2,913
    edited November 2010
    My 2011 CXS has crossed the 3,000 threshold and she is purring like a kitten. So far I have no reportable conditions (except for Homelink that I can’t get to work) and the car is driving even more smoothly than I expected. Not sure if it is the change to 93 octane or because the car is now fully broken in.

    After four months of driving I have learned to use most of the tech features and in particular I like the GPS, sound system and HID for night driving. I am not a fan of the heads-up display so I rarely use it. A couple months ago I got into the habit of driving in the sports mode but I’ve gone back to driving in the normal touring mode. Nonetheless, the transmission shifts are smooth and imperceptible behaving as though the car has learned my driving style.

    For the first time my wife has driven my CXS and she says her 2008 Malibu is more quiet and comfortable than the Lacrosse. I have to agree with that assessment as I have a strong affinity for the Malibu which has great seats and is extremely quiet on the open road.

    So far I have no maintenance costs. Since I started using 93 octane Shell fuel I have seen a 2 mpg improvement from 16 to 18 mpg city driving. As we all know gas prices have gone up but I am getting a $0.60 discount on my Stop & Shop card. A very significant savings, I would say, of $9.63 on my last tank of gas, so I have not yet felt the full impact of higher fuel prices.

    I like to change my oil every three months not because the needs it but because I do mostly city driving which is hard on any engine. And at the 3-month mark I had 2,500 miles on the odometer. At this pace I probably will exceed my normal 7,500 annual miles since I enjoy driving my CXS so much.

    In summary, the CXS exceeds all of my expectations and I am waiting with baited breath to see how it performs in the snow. The GY 19" tires are very good in the rain and I have grown accustomed to the slightly elevated road noise emanating from these tires.
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Member Posts: 27,132
    > like to change my oil every three months not because the needs it but because I do mostly city driving which is hard on any engine. And at the 3-month mark I had 2,500 miles on the odometer.

    What percent of oil life does your DIC say has been used? If it's not up to 50% I wouldn't change the oil for spring, summer, and fall. In winter with cold sump, long warmups you might find the DIC says oil life is used up quicker and a change at 2500-3000 is justified.

    2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,

  • rainman5542rainman5542 Member Posts: 114
    I'm at 3100 miles and it is 68% per the computer. I will change at 5,000 regardless and rotate my tires. When I did more highway miles, my MB E350 went 11,000 miles on Mobil One. I believe the CXS uses standard oil.
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Member Posts: 27,132
    >5000 and rotate tires

    I can understand that and especially the "rotate tires." My concern about the lower profile tires is the life and how well they remain round.

    2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,

  • crankeeecrankeee Member Posts: 298
    bwia: Too bad about the Homelink. My prior post with the "learn" button on the opener worked (finally) for us after many tries. Handy and it needs no batteries, so worth another try with the engineer kid in the car and you on the ladder. My wife desires everything to work perfectly soooooo...
    Good news on your pleasant ride. Our 2010 CXL is pretty much the same. GREAT mileage even at 80 and sits down well on the road with the ESC and the H-arm in the rear. 18" tires rumble just right for feedback from the road surface and the dual exhaust has just the right resonance for us. The interior at night is outstanding and the readings are all big enough to read w/o bifocals(HA!).
    Buick announced the hybrid(e.assist) for 2012 so that should help keep Lacrosse model around if gas spikes. Enjoy the car and the positive attitude.
  • e_net_ridere_net_rider Member Posts: 1,380
    edited November 2010
    Do you live where it is likely they have changed to winter fuel?

    In the past it was adding more propane to the mix because it vaporizes better. Not sure what is needed with more modern fuels, but propane has less power if you were running straight propane. It burns very clean and I'm not sure how it would effect MPG, but thinking it would lower it. Likely it is not just cold weather hurting mileage but the fuel as well. So likely better mileage in summer for sure.

    Now imagine that, a Malibu quieter than Lacrosse. I certainly wonder why. Is it less sound deadening material? The carpet in Malibu and trunk is thicker. I also question the sound deadening in the doors. Not that I know it is weak, but it seems that much of the door panel is used as a box for the speaker and thus wonder about construction. Crank up the bass and feel the panel, the lower portion anyway. If there is anything loose in that area it will likely add to distortion or generate sounds.
  • e_net_ridere_net_rider Member Posts: 1,380
    How do you get one of those cards?
  • bobinorbobinor Member Posts: 63
    "bwia: Too bad about the Homelink. My prior post with the "learn" button on the opener worked (finally) for us after many tries. Handy and it needs no batteries, so worth another try with the engineer kid in the car and you on the ladder."

    Funny. Not a comment about the LaCrosse but after I finally succeeded in getting the Homelink to operate my Genie door, I pried the battery out of the Genie remote since the foam battery cushioning had melted that 9-volt to the remote. It was only working perfectly for 14 years. It was just an old Eveready Classic - what performance!
  • e_net_ridere_net_rider Member Posts: 1,380
    Crankee,
    It sounds like you have the setup I was about to pull trigger on when the build it site indicated H-arm was no longer available, to be brought back later as option on CXS.
    Your combination is quite a bit different than how it came back. The later has 19" wheels and the full time suspension monitoring. You also might not have hyperstrut on front. Have you had the opportunity to compare yours against the ride of the later?
    I'm guessing that yours also came with Michelin tires. What is the recommended cold inflation for your tires?
    I have noted a couple of improvements with miles. This is the first I knew tires had a breakin period. The GY got a little quieter about that point. Also when cooler weather set in I noticed cold inflation had dropped 2# and ride is better at that point. I'm guessing that it allows more sidewall flex, especially laterally. But of course concerns of low pressure start to arise.
  • gberpagberpa Member Posts: 44
    edited November 2010
    Are they really using propane now? When I worked for an oil company, they used butanes for vapor pressure (read: ignitabilty) control in winter.

    On first driving, I thought the car was very quiet. Upon increasing speed as breakin is approaching end, it seems less so. However, I did have a minor front door issue (stuck out slightly), so there was an adjustment on the "striker plate"...wondering if this affected sound seal?!

    I do note how thin the carpets are compared to my prior Hyundai and also how thin and "cardboard" like feel the drive tunnel seems in the front passenger/drive.
  • crankeeecrankeee Member Posts: 298
    We chose the CXL with the then available 3.0L to avoid the I-4 option due to power concerns and also the higher cost 3.6L that required premium fuel along the lines of most rice burners. The H-arm was a bonus, not a plan, since we required Michelin tires on all of our cars and the 18" option on the CXL fit the bill - not the 19" GY setup with higher cost active suspension. Ours has normal GM rack & pinion setup- not hyper strut that came later. We have tires at 32# and they rise to 35# when hot. Usually run Michelin X,MXM4, Pilots at 36#, but low profile tires (1X on 18" not 2X as on 19") don't have sidewall "cushion" so 32# seems to ride better.
    The recently announced E.assist "standard" equipment for 2012 explains the move to I-4 setup, so we are pleased with the 3.0L V-6 choice. I-4 hybrid or 3.6L with premium seems to be the marketing plan down the road for Buick Lacrosse. The 3.0L is in the Cadillac SRX and some CTS models so service not an issue to us.
    Small Buick for mileage market, Turbo Regal for performance, Lacrosse for mid market and Super, Park Avenue or LeSabre for higher price point luxo buyers in coming years will round out the Buick stable in the new GM.
  • bwiabwia Member Posts: 2,913
    How do you get one of those cards?

    Simply fill out a short form (name, address, phone number, and email) at any Stop & Shop Supermarket and you are given a card on the spot. The card allows you to get discounts off groceries as well as discounts on gas. One catch, the gas must be purchased at designated Stop & Shop or Shell stations.

    Generally, the discounts are five cents off each gallon but if you buy $50 or more of groceries the discount can be high as $0.60 off per gallon. I look at it as a win - win situation. You have to buy groceries anyway. So why not buy it at Stop & Shop at a discount and at the same time get a further discount on gas prices.

    Obviously, that is Stop & Shop's way of competing with Wal-Mart but it won't be long before Wal-Mart launches a competing program of its own.
  • bwiabwia Member Posts: 2,913
    GM went public again today and this IPO is hot. The opening price was $33 and in the first 15 minutes 100 million shares were traded and the price had increased to $35 or by 6.33%.

    We all who took a chance on GM should be rewarded with the option to buy at least a 100 shares before the hugh institutional buyers.
  • mmorencymmorency Member Posts: 2
    wow. insightful comment on moving the buttons. Guess that's why GM didn't seek you out as a design engineer. In the design, it would have been very easy to install a lock-from-inside-the-trunk latch on the seat access panels. Nothing new with that approach. Second, yes, they should put a valet pass code in the software. something would be better than nothing, even if they don't have a lockout on the seat panels. As for the coin holder, plenty of room in that "ingenious" double cup holder. Don't get me wrong - I love my LaCrosse. But i agree it's probably a case of "nah, we don't need that" design.
  • bobinorbobinor Member Posts: 63
    I probably won't be as complete as bwia but here's my attempt to gauge the gas mileage of my 2011 LaCrosse CXS on a 1600 mile road trip this past week.

    My trip was from just south of Portland, OR to San Jose, CA returning to Portland from the Cailf. gold country in the Sierra foothills at Angels Camp. (2 days of great golf in shorts at Greenhorn Creek GC) Starting mileage on car was 624 so I was trying to be careful to not exceed the 68 mph break-in guideline. Typically, I set the cruise control to 67 mph on all freeway stretches. Yeah, it did go over for bursts.

    Total miles: 1586 with average gas consumption of 27.177 mpg

    I used mid-grade tier one exclusively: Shell, Chevron and 76. I checked and filled my 19" tires to 35# before leaving home. There was very little wind on any of the legs of the trip. Anyone who knows the route on I-5 between OR and CA knows the grades and dips you encounter. Siskiyou summit is ~4500 ft. Then there's Stagecoach Pass, Sexton Pass, Mt. Shasta, the Sunol Grade (2X), etc., etc. Just to give you all a sense of the elevation change challenges in such a trip that defeats great gas mileage that you might get in say, the mid-West.

    Speaking of mid-grade gas, the octane for such in Calif. is 89. In OR it is 91. Huh!

    The car was stuffed stem to stern. I thought I'd have a challenge getting as much as I wanted into the trunk. But that got filled to the brim and the rear seats were loaded, too. So I was able to take my wife in the passenger seat (creative packing = good move!).

    Best leg: Red Bluff, CA to Sunnyvale,CA 222 miles on 7.396 gals. = 30.016 mpg

    2nd best leg: Farmington, CA (near Stockton) to Rogue River, OR 386 miles on 13.048 gals. = 29.583 mpg

    Worst leg: driving within Silicon Valley,CA 4 days and then to Angels Camp with sightseeing, 288 miles on 12.896 gals. = 22.333 mpg

    Overall impression: I'm thrilled! These results far exceed my expectations for highway driving. I received numerous compliments along the way about the styling of the car which went a long way towards helping me see my way to the next car payment. The car is as much a cruiser as any other on the highway - a dream to drive! It handles nimbly (can I say that?) on mountain roads with sharp twists and turns. I love it!

    I'm sure I've left out some pertinent details I intended to convey but wanted to post this on the day we returned. If I think of those, I will post them later.
  • crankeeecrankeee Member Posts: 298
    Bob; Good report. We have note with 2010 CXL 3.0L that speed is biggest factor in MPG. Below 65 is the best but overall driveabilty is better at 75+ due to less shifting or searching for the right gear. bigger 3.6L may be better at that. 27.5-29 at 70-75 is normal for us but at 60-70 it improves to 30+ on regular. Best is at 55 - ~32 MPG but who can drive like that in America?
    Improves slightly with midgrade but wife feels it runs beter soooo..... we use midgrade with her aboard! Tremendous road car IMO. 16-18 in city driving (4300# car!) but it is really setup for highway cruising and mileage. Great choice- ENJOY.
  • bwiabwia Member Posts: 2,913
    Bobinor,

    Props for such a nice report! You are such a good writer by the ease with which you turn a phrase I would guess you might be an auto scribe. (sic). Moreover, in the short time you've joined this blog I have been drawn to your writing and I always look forward to reading your postings.

    Feed the forum!
    Phil
  • e_net_ridere_net_rider Member Posts: 1,380
    I see a newer filter number in the owners manual.
    I have ran across some discussion concerning it and some are having a hard time locating the new filter.
    What I have gleened so far is that it may be a replacement for the PF-49 and the new one is physically larger. Guessing, I'd say it likely contains more filtering media or maybe better.
    Searching on the new number I found there is a version of it that has letters at the end which indicates it is for engines having higher oil pressures and might have a premium price.

    Does anyone know how to get data on AC oil filters?
    There could be a lot more changes than just size. Valve type, pressure relief, media type, as well as how fine of filtering occurs might change with the new number.
    What concerns me is that cross reference charts by year, make, & engine are calling out the older AC number and if another brand is used they likely are comparing their's to the older AC.
    And some are really confused because their new vehicle came with the old filter even though the manual calls the new part number.
    I'll try to check what is on mine tomorrow.
    If I do the 3K swap to synthetic I'll need to start hunting a filter.
  • e_net_ridere_net_rider Member Posts: 1,380
    I am currently seeing about the same as you Bob. A little better than 22 on my local driving which is not truly city, but some combination of city and open road. The 27 was about what I saw on long run.
    I'll know more at time goes by. Scheduled for run to VA end of month, 120 miles, and I know what past vehicles have done on it.

    I do find the figures for a 2011 Impala questionable or at least making me wonder why we don't see maybe 1MPG better. Albeit the impala is about 500 pound lighter, but that should not effect open road much.
    They still use the 3.5L rated at 29 highway and the big 3.9L rated at 27 highway. I did not see anything about Impala getting six speed so those numbers seem impressive with the used final drive, especially the 3.9 with 3.29 ratio.
    Thanks for input since it seems real world numbers reveal truth.
  • bobinorbobinor Member Posts: 63
    snipsnip

    I'll have to wait to try out the shifting schemes at higher speeds until I pass the break-in period. That'll probably be a while since snow is predicted here and we'll use my wife's AWD Equinox then.

    But it's interesting you mention searching by the 5-speed, I presume, on the 3.0L. Gear searching and stumbling has been something I have been very cognizant of with my 3.6L 6-speed. It drives me nuts! Example from my road trip: I'm cresting a long grade having had the cruise set to 58 to get there. Once over the top I have to hit the brake (and cancel cruise) to limit my speed on the long downhill (4 miles of 6.5% grade). I'm trying my best to keep the speed steady at around 67 mph continually touching the brake to keep it there. As I do this I glance at the tach and it keeps jumping from 3000 rpm to 1800 rpm to 2400 rpm with very little change in actual speed. I thought, OK the car wants to downshift when I tap the brake at 68 mph so the revs go up to the ~3000 to help slow it down. But should it up-shift again when gravity sends the car to 63? The tolerance ranges seem to be quite small.

    I haven't really described this very well. As I re-read it it sounds almost like the car is doing what it should. But I continually am surprised how often I lurch a small bit whenever the gearbox decides to do its thing - at unexpected times even at slower speeds. Does anyone know if there is a spec for this 6-speed and what the shift patterns are? Maybe if I understood better how it is supposed to work I can tolerate its nuances.
  • e_net_ridere_net_rider Member Posts: 1,380
    It does sort of sound like it is working as designed. I recall similar with 09 Malibu 4 cylinder 6 speed. I don't travel through such terrain very often but will get a chance to see how 3.6 does beginning of next month.
    There were lots of complaints about Malibu shifting but not related to what we are talking about now. Shifting was fine for me with only tranny related concern being it slipped into 3rd gear when cold.
    I am having a bit of trouble locating lower shift points because it is so smooth with the shift. Hope that is not an issue.

    With the Malibu, it had the shift paddles, and when going down such a grade I manually kicked it to a lower gear. That was to save on brakes and not to overheat them so they would be available if really needed.

    I seem to remember other vehicles that did a bit of hunting on the downgrade.
  • crankeeecrankeee Member Posts: 298
    Bob: The new 6-speed( shared technology with ford & GM) seems to be programmed for mileage primairily since the unit upshifts very quickly and when any grade or demand is placed on the engine it has to downshift to compensate. We had this same pattern with an older 4.1L V-8 in a Cadillac. If we drove 75+ the RPM's were high enough to overcome the programs economy preference and the unit did not search. The new Lacrosse appears to have the same programming and the searching is minimized at 75-85 MPH, unless a major grade is encountered.
    Another feature that works on the Lacrosse is to use the gear selection tap mode and "lock" it into a gear on a grade (up or down) to preclude searching until the grade is overcome. We have not experienced the downhill problem you have. Our unit appears to hold the speed on downhill even w/o the cruise engaged. The programming favors mileage as the priority and to overcome it requires manual shifting. Ours has the 3.0L but I believe the stroke is the same so RPM's s/b close.
  • crankeeecrankeee Member Posts: 298
    Rider: We have the 3.0L and it requires the PF-49 in the manual as does the 3.6L in the 2010 model . I had the oil changed at 2000 and the dealer installed the PF-49 that is one of the smaller designs (same as PF-47 on 3.8L V-6). The 3.0 calls for 6 quarts with filter but that would change with any size change of filter (~1/2 Qt. with longer filter case design). Curious why they would change filter on a production engine - that's a new one. I will try to determine reason myself. Too much oil pressure (in absence of overfill) seems like a rare bird to me.
    Good catch - maybe their will be TSB out soon to clarify.
  • crankeeecrankeee Member Posts: 298
    ride: Check out the website knfilters.com for the 2011 vs. 2010 3.6L. The 2010 filter is the PF-48 match and is 3.75 inches high. The 2011 is longer at 4.78 inches. I saw no cross ref for an AC filter for the HP-2011 model for 2011 3.6L. all the K&N filters use pressure relief valves ( similar to Honda and others OEM). The web shows a PF-2129 filter for the 3.6L, but not on a GM site sooo.... it may or may not be right.
    K&N is top shelf, as you know so the longer filter for the 2011 3.6L vs the shorter (like PF-48) for the 2010 is probably correct. Clearance is an issue on some models but not the 3.0/3.6L since it is on radiator side of engine with no obstructions on ours. Curious why the change- keep digging.
  • e_net_ridere_net_rider Member Posts: 1,380
    edited November 2010
    The correct numbers were pretty vague in my memory as I wrote that. If I had the answer I would have posted and I'm curious why as well.
    My manual does not show 2010, but for 2011 the one shown for 3.6L is PF63, GM number 89017525.
    No 3.0L but 2.4 is shown using PF457G. I don't have any idea what the last letter designates.
    Oil capacity for 3.6 is shown as 5.5 quarts and 5.0 for 2.4L
    With the proper filter and proper fill I will make note of where it shows on dipstick.

    I did look at KN and application showed the filter you mentioned. The bypass valve is at 7-11 which I would think low. Ford traditionally used lower oil pressures than GM, generally. But newer engines could be very different. One example being Aurora engine in 96. It would typically show pressures up to 70 when cold, but once warmed to operating the oil pressure would drop to about 9 #. So I took a look at what KN showed, no bypass valve.
    I did the same thing with the PF-2129 and it has to bypass valve.
    I will stay away from aftermarket crossovers unless I find data showing its relative closeness to the OE filter data.
    Looking at other KN numbers for GM engines, earlier years, same or similar size, they often have no bypass valve. As I remember some GM engines have the pressure relief valve internally, either part of or near oil pump. An oil light would then mean immediate shutdown because you could have zero flow.
    A new thought, it could just be about capacity and extending the oil life reminder to a longer drain interval.
    Keep me posted.
  • crankeeecrankeee Member Posts: 298
    We have always used OEM parts when indicated. Fram filters for older GM, but always AC/Delco parts when in the warranty period. The new warranties are longer but lots of quibbling about customer maintenance schedule etc. so we stick to the dealer and OEM parts to preclude dodging and weaving & weasel wording tactics.
    Curious about the oil life monitor method of changing vs. miles/months as in past. The $20 to change the all important oil every 3-5000 miles seems like cheap safe- guard to engine protection. I prefer Castrol GTX with Hi-mileage version in cars with 80,000 or more. Great product and consistent quality reputation.
    Also, the 3.0L version calls for 6 quarts and has that cast aluminum oil pan we posted about previously. The rear H-arm members are cast as are the front a-arm suspension members. Pretty good upgrade for old GM- using high end (cost) suspension and engine parts IMO. Good development!
  • rainman5542rainman5542 Member Posts: 114
    I originally reported highway mileage on a 250 mile trip on I75. Conditions were 75 degrees, two passengers with golf bags and luggage. I'm guessing adding about 550 lbs to the car's weight. This stretch of interstate was fairly level, traffic was light to moderate. Tires at 34 lbs cold and using a blend of Reg & Midgrade, but not a designated Tier 1 fuel. I started at 1600 miles on the odometer. I got 24.5 mpg as measured by the car's electronics. This is the CXS with the 3.6L and Touring package. I wasn't satisfied after I read reports from others.

    Yesterday, with tires at 35# cold, 37 after several miles, ambient temp at 52 degrees, just a 225 lb driver, no passenger or luggage, my system reported 30 mpg at 70 mph using cruise control over a 25 mile stretch USING Shell premium gas. Since the cost of premium in NOT 20% higher than Reg gas, I will use Premium. The upgrade is currently about 10%.
Sign In or Register to comment.