Howdy, Stranger!

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





2011 Buick Regal

1232426282937

Comments

  • Most new cars on new platforms get heavier, especially European cars. The Jetta was an exception but VW cheapened the Jetta with helped lower the weight vs the last car. Look at the recent 5 series and E class, both jumped about 200lbs with their redesigns. The Rega is really an opel and thus its not a lightweight car. From behind the wheel you cannot tell though.

    You cannot compare Regal's weight to Sonata or Altima or Camry- those are lower end cars designed to start around $20k. If you look at cars that start closer to $30k and up like Maxima, TSX, ES350, TL, MKZ, etc. you will see curb weights closer to 3500lbs or more. The new S60 (with standard AWD) is almost 4000lbs and its 8" shorter than the Regal. An A4 quattro is close to 3700lbs.
  • ab348ab348 Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, CanadaPosts: 7,021
    Premium fuel is recommended but it will run on regular at some reduced level of output. Reports I have seen indicate it does not make a huge difference.

    2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6, 1968 Oldsmobile Cutlass S Holiday Coupe

  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,437
    However, most of them allow you to use regular, if that is your wish. The computer adjusts to the grade of fuel, and you lose a couple hp by not using premium, but companies like VW/Audi indicate it is fine to do so if you wish.

    However, if you have a really high performance turbo- or super-charged engine, like the 300+ hp 2.0 liter engines in some Subaru and Mitsubishi compact sports sedans, I wouldn't do it. The 220 hp 2.4 liter does not fall into that category.
  • almost all cars will run on regular in 2010. You lose power and efficiency if you dont use recommended Octane however. The engine will adjust but its not operating at peak on regular fuel. Most people I've ever talked to dont even know a car that recommends premium will run on regular and they are afraid to ever use lower octane gas.
  • cooterbfdcooterbfd Posts: 2,770
    "....What GM failed to do was give the Regal a diet. It's simply too heavy of a platform. "

    Having a Lacrosse, I believe that the extra weight is what makes the body so solid and sturdy.
  • zeenzeen Posts: 401
    I am considering the Regal and LaCrosse. The latter may be too big for my garage but I have to drive it first in any event. I'm assuming the 4 cylinder is way too weak for that car and shouldn't even think about it.
  • kernickkernick Posts: 4,072
    edited December 2010
    The regal's real issue is the weight of the car, not the engine. Its about 200lbs heavier than most of its competition and that makes it slower.

    When someone speaks of a weak engine in a vehicle, they mean weak relative to weight. Of course if you put a 4 cyl. 180hp engine in a 2,500 Lb vehicle it is not weak. If I'm looking at a vehicle over 3,500 Lb, I want an engine that is going to have some power - over 250ft-lb, preferably 300 ft-lb of torque and corresponding hp. I don't care what brand of vehicle it is in when the vehicle is costing over $25K- a VW, an Acura, or whatever. They're all over-expensive, boring vehicles. You might as well drive a minivan and get some utility.

    The Regal turbo sounds adequate. That should be the base engine in this vehicle, with something more like the Infiniti G37's engine as the upgrade, as it is a premium vehicle. Give it a premium engine, able to leave the less premium vehicles in the GM lineup in the dust! Otherwise the Regal sounds decent.
  • cooterbfdcooterbfd Posts: 2,770
    I never drove a four in the Lacrosse. I've yet to drive the Regal, yet rode in a Equinox for a test drive (same 182 hp 2.4) Seeing as how the Equinox and the Regal are about the same weight, it accelerated fine, but I thought my friend and his wife seemed to be on the throttle a little too much for it to go. Again, I was just a passenger, so it could be the way they drive (heavier foot).

    As far as the Lacrosse, for 2012 the 4's will have eAssist as standard equiptment:

    http://www.autoblog.com/2010/11/15/2012-buick-lacrosse-eassist-achieves-up-to-37- -m/
  • Cadillac sells the CTS and it offers 270hp standard with 304hp and 556hp optional. Its also RWD. Thats the G37 competitor. The regal starts at $27k and isnt competing in the same price class as the G37. You might say the G25 is a competitor and if offers only 218hp standard. The Regal is not the CTS- it costs less and offers less power. What you are asking for is a Buick version of the CTS which makes little sense.

    The majority of family sedans sold have four cylinder engines. This means the average midsize sedan has less than 175lb-ft of torque and about 3300-3400lbs of curb weight.
  • I would never buy the Lacrosse I4 now that we know about eAssist but the Lacrosse I4 is about the same weight as the Equinox- around 3800lbs. I dont even know if Buick officially lists curb weight of the base model but I remember hearing it was 130lbs lighter than the CX with the 3L V6. Bottom line is the Lacrosse wouldnt be noticeably slower than the Equinox.

    I think Americans will see 0-60 times stagnate or drop over time. More and more offerings are coming with smaller engines standard. The Venza has 187hp standard and weighs about 3700lbs without AWD. The new C250 will have 201hp standard in 2011. Even the Highlander offers and I4 engine standard.
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,437
    I don't think Americans will see 0-60 times drop or stagnate. All of the new DI and DI/turbo engines seem to meet or outperform their non-DI competition. For example the 3.7 liter V-6 for the Ford F150 beats both the Chevy and Dodge base V8s for both 0-60 and mpg. The tech is improving and will continue to do so. The 4 cylinder Lacrosse is at least as fast as the run of the mill V8 sedan from the early 90s. Even the best cars were pretty slow until the mid-50s. Anything under 10 seconds 0-60 was very fast. The 80s was really the pits as far as progress. It is laughable that people now find a 180 hp car too "slow" for normal driving. Makes me wonder just what sort of jackrabbit shenanigans you imagine you might have to be doing for overtaking, freeway passing, getting out of the way of bozos, etc. Most of you would crap your pants if you unleashed all the power of a 4 to 5 second 0-60 car in an avoidance maneuver. Buy what you want, but GM has an ear to the ground with their Regal and Lacrosse 4 cylinders. Most people who try them will say something like, "gosh, this is much more responsive than [that 3.8 V6 that was the only choice for full size GM cars for far too long]".
  • kernickkernick Posts: 4,072
    The regal starts at $27k and isnt competing in the same price class as the G37.

    Right not the base Regal. The Regal turbo with it's typical options is close enough in price, that if I were considering one, I'd cross-shop it with the Infiniti G37 which is only a few thousand more. I'd also throw in the Maxima at that price point. I'd even consider the much less expensive even when fully optioned, 6 cyl. Chrysler 200.

    You say they're not competitors; I would say they are, as they are within + or - 10% of each other.
  • G25 is exact match to Regal 2.0T - same price, same HP, same weight. It is smaller, looks uglier, has less features (no NAV) but handles probably better (did not try yet), is RWD and engine is V6 which has to be smoother and no turbo.
  • Agree 100% with this post. My first car was 1973 Buick Regal with a 350 4-barrel and a whopping 150HP pushing it's 3800lb curb weight. My best guess would put the 0-60 time at 11 seconds and I can guarantee it wasn't under 10 seconds. Never felt under-powered to me.
  • point is I dont think many people will think of G37 as primary competitor to EITHER regal model. G37 has far more power and costs more relative to Regal. Regal is primarily aimed at FWD competitors like TSX and CC which match up closely in price, drive layout and size.
  • I agree that the acceleration of modern I4 equipped models is more than acceptable. My point was that for years cars were getting faster and faster and hp figures were increasing dramatically. I think we are at the point where that will stop and automakers will focus on mileage instead. 10 years from now I dont think the average family sedan will be any faster than today. That said, today's family vehicles are definitely far more powerful and faster than what was available 10 years ago. CAFE rules and gas prices will keep a lid on hp going forward.
  • I agree with you about never considering the Lacrosse four banger now. If I wanted a complicated hybrid model, I would buy one. Why is GM forcing this added technology down our throats as standard?? Good god, I can't imagine the costs of repairing any problems after the warranty is up. I have my doubts about the highway mileage as well. They used a similar setup on the Vue and it offered little to no improvement. The smaller trunk sucks too. GM is making a bad decision here. It should offer an eAssist model, not make it standard. I hope they don't try this with the Regal.
  • I'm surprised Buick is making eAssist standard as well. Seems like offering it, in addition to the 2.4DI, would be the best move. I guess they only want to offer 2 powertrains in the LaCrosse.

    That said, the 37mpg hwy mileage listed for the LaCrosse is an eye-popping number and Buick will have a 5 year / 100,000 mile warranty on the powertrain.
  • you misunderstood- I would NEVER buy the 2011 Lacrosse since I know the eAssist version is coming. I WOULD buy that if I was interested in a large car like Lacrosse. I think Buick's strategy is perfect and makes MUCH more sense than the current CX Lacrosse with only 182hp. The eAssist gives the Lacrosse something that really stands out in the class.
  • Many wondered why the Lacrosse ever got the 2.4L in the first place, especially considering it only beats the V6 by 2mpg in the city and 4mpg on the highway. Now the Lacrosse will have a premium, efficient powertrain standard and the mileage difference vs the V6 is actually worth something. Plus, this sort of separates the car from Regal which is a good thing. It sounds like the 2012 model will start at $30k while the Regal will get a lower trim in 2011 that should be around $25k. Now, the two cars have almost the same starting prices which makes little sense.
Sign In or Register to comment.