Howdy, Stranger!

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





Howdy, Stranger!

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

Did you get a great deal? Let us know in the Values & Prices Paid section!
Meet your fellow owners in our Owners Clubs

2011 Buick Regal

1911131415

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: 11,286
    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.
  • cooterbfdcooterbfd Posts: 2,770
    "..... 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. "

    That, plus the small difference in the FE you note are 2 perfect reasons why make it standard.

    On a side note, I find it interesting that most test drives of the Regal 2.4 show it doing 0-60 in the upper 8's. Inside Line's test from a few days ago was waaaaay off; 9.8 sec's What gives Steve???
  • overbrookoverbrook Posts: 275
    ILs acceleration times are always slower than other magazines but the Regal's was particularly bad for whatever reason. Usually they are a few tenths behind other sources but this car was over 1 sec slower than C&D's recorded time for 0-60. Then again, they really didnt like the car much anyway so the lackluster performance numbers weren't a shock.
  • ab348ab348 Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, CanadaPosts: 11,286
    The Inside Line "test" of the Regal is mostly a hatchet job. Why they would do this, I do not know, although IL has had a history of trashing GM vehicles. However, even for them, the statements in that test border on the ridiculous. It is simply not credible.

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

  • cooterbfdcooterbfd Posts: 2,770
    Well, to one of our lovely hosts, what say you???
  • overbrookoverbrook Posts: 275
    agreed, they were more harsh than normal with the regal. Almost all reviews of the standard car seem to agree the car is attrative, well equipped, balanced and a little too slow. IL says the car is unacceptably slow, poorly assembled, devoid of steering or braking feel and full of mediocre materials. The review was BS. I just had a chance to check out a relative's C300 4matic and the interior is no better than the Regal's from a materials standpoint. The owner was very impressed with the regal based on interior and exterior appearance.

    They just tested the regal turbo on IL and didnt really repeat any of the complaints from the road test of the CXL model. They praised the German build quality this time around- total contradiction.
  • Kirstie_HKirstie_H Posts: 11,077
    Why would a forums host have ANYTHING to say about an article written by one of our editors? None of the hosts test drove the vehicle. None of us wrote, or had any conversation with the editor about, this vehicle. I haven't even read it.

    Use the help link at the top of the page, then choose "send us feedback."

    FWIW, I've heard complaints before about conspiratorial bias against GM vehicles. Oddly enough, the editor-in-chief owns a good number of vehicles, most of them GM models.

    MODERATOR

    Need help navigating? [email protected] - or send a private message by clicking on my name.

    Share your vehicle reviews

  • ab348ab348 Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, CanadaPosts: 11,286
    Maybe he has buyer's remorse. ;)

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

  • overbrookoverbrook Posts: 275
    Who is the Ed in Chief? Karl Brauer? Doesn't he own some old Chryslers and a Ford GT?

    Even if he owned mostly GM vehicles that really wouldn't make the Regal review any more logical or fair- especially considering he didn't write it.

    After sitting in and riding in a C300 that was likely close to $40k I can say the Regal gives up nothing aside from hp to more expensive rivals.
  • cooterbfdcooterbfd Posts: 2,770
    ".....Why would a forums host have ANYTHING to say about an article written by one of our editors?"

    Not that YOU would have any say, but being an Edmunds employee, one would assume you would have better access to the editorial staff, thus be able to query as to why the large discrepancy in acceleration times between your test car (provided, BTW by the mfr) and others. I'm sure everybody here understands that different cars tested in different climates and different altitudes can make times differ by a few tenths. But 1.3 seconds??? I think most of us here would call BS, and say we smell a rat. Not an intentional one mind you, but one that calls into question the actual car itself (like a rat stuck in the exhaust??).

    So, if you can, what say your editors???
  • Question: Who tested the new base Regal at 8.5 sec. 0-60? (1.3 seconds faster than Edmunds)

    I agree the writer of the IL road test was very, very harsh on the Regal but the 0-60 tests I've seen were all around 9.0 seconds with a high of 9.2 and a low of 8.7. The 9.8 second reading from IL was an outlier to high side for sure though.

    Is there really a road test documented on the 2011 Regal at 8.5 seconds 0-60?
  • overbrookoverbrook Posts: 275
    To my knowledge only MT, C&D and IL have provided instrumented testing of the base regal. C&D got 8.7 which is very close to 8.5secs in my book. MT got 9.1secs which is still considerably better than IL's result. As for the turbo, every source except IL has gotten 7.4-7.5 secs while IL got 8.4 secs. IL's times are usually the slowest around, but being 1 sec off makes no sense. Even though the Regal is heavy, that 0-60 is almost unbelievable, in fact, they beat that time with a FWD Terrain that weighs about 3800lbs and has the same engine.
  • overbrookoverbrook Posts: 275
    edited January 2011
    Regal just had best month by far in December with over 3000 cars sold. It will be interesting to see how it compares to TSX and CC this month.
  • metrospmetrosp Posts: 10
    Motorweek also tested it at 9.1 sec for the 2.4 L .

    On a personal note, I've been driving my 2.4 L Regal for 4 months and not once has it felt too slow even when merging on highways.
  • zeenzeen Posts: 401
    What's especially disturbing about the IL review is the gas mileage comment. For those of you who own one, has it been better than the 20mpg that IL states is the combined results for them?
  • Kirstie_HKirstie_H Posts: 11,077
    Incorrect assumption. The editorial staff are in California. I'm in Kansas City. I have zero access to them. Besides, if I were to query every objection to an editorial piece (instead of having those interested in the answer do so themselves), I'd do nothing but that. No thanks. I'll just stay here and host the forums.

    Overbrook, my point is that you simply don't know what vehicles the writer prefers or owns him/herself, regardless of who that may be. Claiming that the writer has a bias against vehicle brand X without knowing his/her actual preferences is... kinda lame and doesn't lend credibility to the allegation. I don't know what this particular editor likes or drives.

    MODERATOR

    Need help navigating? [email protected] - or send a private message by clicking on my name.

    Share your vehicle reviews

  • Kirstie_HKirstie_H Posts: 11,077
    Oh, and I noticed that many of you are commenting on the editorial piece in question - good going! That is actually the best way to voice your objection to the evaluation and have it directly linked to the article, available to anyone who reads it.

    MODERATOR

    Need help navigating? [email protected] - or send a private message by clicking on my name.

    Share your vehicle reviews

  • Gotcha - I'd seen the 8.7, 9.1 and 9.2 second data elsewhere. It's safe to asssume the IL test was a "flyer" and the Regal is a 9.0 sec 0-60 car which is fine by me. And yes, slower than the Terrain/Equinox is nuts.
  • overbrookoverbrook Posts: 275
    I've had my car for over 5 months and the power is fine. Would more power be nice? Yes. Do I really need more power to drive in urban traffic? No. Power is all about acceleration, the Regal will take longer to reach higher speeds but it can reach them. The car has no trouble keeping up with traffic at 80mph and you can still pass as long as you are conscious of how much time and space you need to do so. The auto media wants to pretend the car needs to be fast to be acceptable for daily use and thats just not the case. A huge percentage of midsize and compact vehicles on the road today are no faster than the Regal. That includes popular vehicles like the CR-V, Equinox, Escape, Civic, Corolla, Malibu, etc. All of these vehicles need 8.5-9.5 secs to hit 60 with automatics.
  • overbrookoverbrook Posts: 275
    Here is the simple bottom line that IL and some others cant wrap their heads around. The Regal CXL basically gives you more handling prowess and interior quality vs other similar midsize sedans for under $30k but the trade off is more curb weight which of course leads to slightly slower acceleration. Edmunds recently tested the 200hp Optima and the 177hp Accord SE and both needed over 9 secs to reach 60 and both are at least 300lbs lighter than the Regal. All things considered, the Regal's acceleration isnt that bad.
  • ab348ab348 Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, CanadaPosts: 11,286
    edited January 2011
    Buick rolled out the Verano at the NAIAS today and announced it will be available with the same engines offered in the Regal - the 2.4L naturally aspirated and the 2.0L turbocharged Ecotecs. That should make it quite the zippy compact!

    I have added a Buick Verano discussion to the Sedans board.

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

  • zeenzeen Posts: 401
    Metro (or anyone else who actually owns a new Regal):
    What kind of real world gas mileage are you getting? I'm about to pull the trigger on leasing one in the next 2 weeks
  • metrospmetrosp Posts: 10
    My driving is mixed city highway and I am getting 25 mpg according to MPG display in the car . I own the base 2.4 L not the turbo.

    I am filling up about once every 3 weeks which is nice.
  • zeenzeen Posts: 401
    Thanks. Not bad at all. Any other tips for a prospective purchaser? Are you happy with your option package? I'm moving from an Acura TL so my expectations are high (except for acceleration which I can live with)
  • I have added a Buick Verano discussion to the Sedans board.

    Thanks!

    Verano Forum

    :)
  • metrospmetrosp Posts: 10
    Zeen

    I purchased the CXL with the Navigation - I really liked the styling and the interior is excellent and very quite . The Regal is a smaller car than your TL but roomy enough for 4 people . If you are concerned with the acceleration of the 2.4 L you always have the option of buying the turbo with only a slight hit on gas mileage , at least according to the published EPA numbers.

    good luck and enjoy
  • zeenzeen Posts: 401
    edited January 2011
    Thanks. Actually, the Regal is about the same size (exterior) as the 2008 TL. The interior is slightly smaller.
  • I tried to use navigation system at auto show and could not figure out how to use controls near arm rest. It is counter intuitive - typical German design that is impossible to use by ordinary human beings. IMO these controls are unnecessary and just take place on center console that could be used to move cap holders forward and make place for armrest for passenger who needs it more than driver. Otherwise interior has excellent design and high quality materials are used, like in luxury car.
  • overbrookoverbrook Posts: 275
    in 100% city driving I am getting about 15-16mpg which isnt surprising. My Old car was rated at 17 and I routinely got about 14 in the city. The gas tank is huge so that helps with the range. Its listed at 18.5gallons but it takes more than that.
  • overbrookoverbrook Posts: 275
    aside from hp and lacking HIDs I dont see the Regal coming up short to the TL in any way. The materials are at least as nice and obviously you are getting some additional tech in a 2011 model year vehicles vs a 2008 TL. I would say handling has to be at least as good as the Acura and unlike the TL you will be using regular gas.

    I have every option except navigation. The stereo is great and I like the idea of having a 110v outlet in the backseat area- even though I haven't used it much so far. Since the car is from Europe the sunroof is VERY small which I dont like. Contrary to what some reviews have suggested, the dash is EASY to figure out and should be a no brainer for someone coming from an Acura considering how many buttons they use on the dash.

    There are small things on the car that arent even on many "luxury" models. Examples include the contrasting stitching on the door armrests and seats, the split fold rear seat with pass through (standard), the DIC in the instrument cluster that has 8 different screens plus the TOM that shows readings for each tire.
  • zeenzeen Posts: 401
    Thanks Overbrook. Very helpful.
    I may go with the basic Regal since I don't use my sunroof at all and I hear the stereo in the base Regal is pretty good. Most of the other options I can do without. The rear fold down seats are a plus for bike transport.
Sign In or Register to comment.