MM Review: 2011 Buick Regal
04-30-11, 07:52 PM
#1
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
MM Review: 2011 Buick Regal
A Review of the 2011 Buick Regal
http://www.buick.com/regal.html
IN A NUTSHELL: Gee, Grandpa, this sure isn't YOUR Buick.
After a recent full-length review of the all-new 2011 Kia Optima (which I was VERY impressed with for an under-$25,000 sedan), I wanted to (and felt I needed to) also do a review of the all-new 2011 Buick Regal....a competing 4-door sport-oriented sedan which is very similiar to the Optima in many ways, though the two do not share mechanicals in quite the same way that the new Optima and its corporate-brother Hyundai Sonata do. Still, the similarities between the new Optima and Regal are remarkable, considering that they come from two entirely different auto-manufacturers.
I have to confess that I've always, even in my youth, had a soft-spot for the Buick nameplate. The brand has had a Grandpa/Grandma image for decades (somewhat unfairly, IMO), that has been fostered primarily in the automotive press and among so-called "enthusiast" car types. It's true (and I won't deny it) that American-market Buicks owe a large percentage of their sales to middle-aged and senior citizens (primarily for their smooth rides and low noise levels), but that doesn't mean that younger people can't, or shouldn't buy them, by any means. You don't have to have arthritis, walk with a cane, wear a hearing-aid, or be part-senile to enjoy a nice, plush, soft-riding, comfortable car......especially when tired after a hard days' work, when some people like to relax and be comfortable on the long-commute home.
In China, people laugh at the American notion of Buick being primarily a Geezer-mobile. In that country (arguably the world's fastest-growing new-car market), Buicks are not only considered desirable as prestige cars, but GM operates Buick assembly plants there to meet the large....and growing....demand for them. Younger Chinese (if they have the money) are as likely as older ones to be seen in a Buick.
Indeed, in my own youth (the late 1960s and early 70s), I did not share the scorn for the Buick nameplate that a number of my high-school friends and classmates did (never mind the fact that Buick, at that time, made some rather impressive high-performance GS350/GS400/GSX muscle-cars that were built on the popular Chevy Chevelle-SS platform). GM, IMO, overall, had the best-detailed and best-interior cars of the period, though the acrylic-lacquer paint jobs faded almost overnight. One of my best high-school friends (I won't use his name here) drove around in his dad's big Olds 88 full-sized sedan, similiar to big Buicks of the time....he loved it, and I liked it myself. (His family later won a brand-new 1970 GTO in a local Pontiac-dealer contest). Unlike many teens of the period, I liked BOTH sporty/high-performance muscle-cars AND the big, luxury, soft-riding cars of the period. Indeed, before I was 20 years old, I had owned a used Plymouth Barracuda for sportiness and two used Buicks...a big-full-size, plush one and a smaller, mid-sized one. I actually liked the big one much more than the smaller one (its fluid-drive transmission-smoothness was legendary), even though the smaller one was in better overall condition. I retained my affection for the nameplate, even after I stopped driving Buicks and their quality went down in the 1970s.
OK...so much for my life history and youthful auto-passions......you didn't tune into this review for that, so let's get to the Regal itself. The original Regal was a mid-sized Buick that grew out of the old Skylark/Special line in the 1970s, and was sold alongside upmarket versions of the sister Olds Cutlass. A unique, all-black, limited-production Grand National turbo-V6 version was built in the mid-late 1980s (one of our CL members is currently restoring one). Later Regals were generally higher-trim versions of the popular mid-sized Buick Century. According to Consumer Reports, the Century and Regal had Much-Better-Than-Average reliability records in the 1990's, similiar to the Camry and Accord (which was unusual for an American-designed GM product). But the Century and Regal of that vintage, despite their reliability, were not, IMO, very pleasant cars....the trim was sloppily-done and oorly-applied, and interiors, like that of most GM cars of the period, were mostly cheap, bland, unimpressive plastic.
Buick eventually dropped the entire Century/Regal line, replacing it with the somewhat better-done First-generation LaCrosse. The LaCrosse's interior was far-better-looking on the surface, but, like other newer Buicks, had much of that same old GM interior-plastic underneath. The Second-Generation LaCrosse, especially the chassis and interior, was totally different from the first one.....I've already reviewed that car, and won't go into detail again here. After the new LaCrosse was introduced (and gained widespread sales-acceptance), Buick decided to bring back the formerly- discontinued Regal nameplate....but, this time, on a GM Opel-derived world-platform that was shared with several other models in Europe and Asia. The new Regal, unlike the one from the 1990s, is significantly more sport-oriented, driver-centered, and has an interior that is light-years ahead in trim quality/execution. Overall size/styling, as I mentioned, is similiar to the new Kia Optima, though the grille/front end is definitely taken from the slightly larger second-generation LaCrosse. Reliablity, of course, remains to be proved.....just as it also does with the new Optima.
Two versions of the Regal are offered in the American market for 2011...CXL and Turbo. The CXL uses a 2.4L normally-aspirated in-line Ecotec four with 182 HP and 172 ft-lbs. of torque; the Turbo uses a smaller 2.0L Turbo Ecotec four with 220 HP and 258 ft-lbs. The base CXL has only a 6-speed Sport-Shift automatic; Turbos offer a choice of the 6-speed Sportshift automatic or a conventional 6-speed manual (The competing Kia Optima offers a same-displacement 2.4L non-turbo, 2.0L Turbo, and a 6-speed Sport-Shift transmission, but includes a 6-speed manual on the base non-turbo LX version. Also like the Kia, the Regal only comes in a 4-door sedan. The two cars have roughly the same size and shape...they even have similiarly-shaped steering wheels, with two horizontal and two vertical spokes. The Regal, though, as befits the upmarket Buick nameplate, is priced a little higher than the Optima.....base prices are $26,245 for the CXL and $28,745 for the Turbo. However, a base CX model Buick LaCrosse starts at just a few hundred dollars more ($26,995) than a base Regal CXL....this could hurt some potential Regal sales with all but the most sport-oriented of Buick buyers. The LaCrosse, of course, unlike the Regal, comes with a choice of an in-line 4 or V6 powerplant and, if you pay a little more, AWD. Some Regals are Ethanol (E85) Flexible-fuel-Certified....distinguished by a green-and-chrome badge on the trunk-lid....others aren't.
I went down to a local Buick/Chevy/GMC shop today to look at the new Regal and thoroughly check it out (of course, I had already given one a quick-drive at the D.C. Auto Show). It's hard to find stand-alone Buick dealers any more.....most of them have either closed up shop or, in line with GM's new marketing policy, combined with Chevy and GMC franchises. Buick, of course, primarily due to its significant and loyal owner-base, survived the big GM axe-cutting when Pontiac, Saturn, Hummer, and Saab were eliminated, but GM still wants to consolodate the remaining divisions, including Buick, into fewer dealerships. I static-examined several Turbo and non-turbo Regal models, but, for the review, I test-drove a Stone (light gray) Metallic CXL Turbo model, with Cashmere (beige) Leather that listed for $31,940 (it was E85-certified). As expected, it was definitely not a car for the Buick traditionalist. It was an interesting comparison the the Kia Optima, but I did find a longer list of negatives with the Regal than I did with the Optima....details coming up.
MODEL REVIEWED: 2011 Buick Regal CXL Turbo
BASE PRICE: $28,745
OPTIONS:
T03 Package: $2445
DESTINATION/FREIGHT: $750 (about average)
LIST PRICE AS REVIEWED: $31,940
DRIVETRAIN: FWD, Transverse-mounted 2.0L Turbocharged in-line Ecotec 4, 220 HP @ 5300 RPM, Torque 258 ft-lbs. @ 2000 RPM, 6-speed Sportshift automatic transmission.
EPA MILEAGE RATING: 18 City / 28 Highway
EXTERIOR COLOR: Stone (light Gray) Metallic
INTERIOR: Cashmere Leather
PLUSSES:
Fairly refined Turbo 4-cylinder....except for exhaust noise.
Silky-smooth, refined 6-speed Sportshift automatic.
Smooth fore/aft shift-lever motion without annoying zig-zags.
Quick steering response (Yes....on a Buick).
Flat cornering without much body lean (again.....yes, on a Buick).
Firm but not uncomfortable, well-damped ride.
Wind noise well-damped.
Firm, Butter-smooth brakes...but with some free-play in the pedal.
Generally good underhood layout...but too many plastic covers.
E85 Ethanol versions available.
Excellent paint job.
Nicely-done chrome body trim.
Solidly-closing hood and trunk-lid.
Fairly solid-closing doors. (more so than on the larger LaCrosse)
Decent rear-vision despite the smallish rear-windows.
Well-finished trunk.
Butter-smooth, superbly-designed trunk hinges.
Excellent stereo-sound quality.
Clear, attractive, easy-to-read primary gauges.
Attractive Aqua-blue back-lit dash lighting.
Nice interior door-panel trim.
Fairly nice interior wood-tone trim.
Nice fabric headliner.
Good front head room.
Large up/down power-front-seat adjustment range.
MINUSES:
Tolerable ride comfort, but quite stiff by Buick standards.....Buick traditionalists will not like it.
Unpleasant, nasal-sounding exhaust noise.
Turbo's spunk not quite as strong as expected.
Brake pedal has about an inch of free play.
Some, but not excessive, road noise.
Poorly-designed/marked transmission-shift indicator lights do not match lever-position.
Flimsy-feeling large plastic grille.
Engine and battery have annoying plastic covers.
Exterior mirrors too small (IMO) and triangle-shaped.
Awful paint-color choice.....even Murphy's Funeral Home would find them too dull.
Cheap-looking/feeling seat leather.
Very tight rear-seat headroom from the drooping-roofline.
Fairly tight rear legroom.
Cheap-looking/feeling interior silver-painted plastic.
Too many similiar, confusing buttons in center-dash area.
Confusing, poorly-marked center-dash *****.
Complex stereo/climate controls.
Secondary dash-gauges smaller then necessary for quick-reading.
Hard-plastic, cheap-feeling sun visors.
Dated, conventional ignition switch with no push-button.
Sharp-feeling steering-wheel-rim stitching uncomfortable to hold.
No body-side moulding for parking-lot protection.
Smallish trunk lid from raked-rear roofline.
Non-locking gas filler-door.
Temporary spare tire instead of a real one.
Potential long-term reliability unknown.
Kia Optima competitor offers much longer warranty at a lower price.
Larger LaCrosse model has almost the same base price.
Hard to find stand-alone Buick dealerships....most are shared with other GM brands.
EXTERIOR:
Walking up to the new Regal from a distance, it looks somewhat like the slightly larger Lacrosse in the general styling theme, with roughly the same shape, humpback-whale roofline, and the classic Buick waterfall-style chrome grille in front. The chrome-and-black grille may look classy, but it has a very cheap, thin-plastic feel...it probably won't take much of a tap on something at low speeds to just shatter it. The sheet metal feels about average in solidness, but the hood and trunk lids both shut quite solidly, with a strong "thunk"...the 4 doors somewhat less-so. There are no body-side mouldings to ward-off parking-lot dings....a cost-cutting move. The paint job is quite well-done (GM has made enormous improvements in paint-quality in the last 6-7 years or so), but even a Mortician would find the the paint-color choice depressing (Buick, like some other automakers, seems to have a thing for funeral-colors). There is no lock for either the gas-cap or filler-door....another cost-cutting move. The twin outside mirrors lack the integrated turn-signal indicators that the Optima has, and they are, IMO, to small and triangle-shaped for optimum vision. The sharply-raked, droop-down rear roofline, like on the Optima, impacts some on the size of the trunk-lid, but, nevertheless, all but extremely-bulky items can be easily-loaded. All of the exterior chrome and trim (except the aformemtioned grille) seems well-done and solidly attached.
UNDERHOOD:
Open the solid-feeling hood, and a nice insulation pad is solidly-attached underneath. Solid metal spring/hinges and a nice gas strut holds the hood up for you. Underneath, in the engine compartment, the general layout is quite good, with the transversely-mounted 2.0L turbo-four fitting in with plenty of room to spare for reaching things on and around the sides of the block. But a big (and unnecessary) plastic engine-cover hampers top-engine access, and an equally-unnecessary plastic cover hampers access to the battery, to the right of the engine. Everything else, though (dipsticks, reservoirs, filler-caps, and hardware) is easy to reach.
INTERIOR:
Generally a pleasant interior as far as the general appearance goes, but some of the dash features could be improved. The Regal interior has nice wood-tone trim......something that most Optimas lack. The wood-tone and chrome trim looks decent, but the painted-silver-metallic plastic trim looks/feels cheap and tacky. The steering wheel is the exact four-spoke shape as the Optima's, but the leather stitching on the rim has sharp lumps on it that are uncomfortable to grip. The shift lever is slick and smooth, but has an bad detent-design.....more on that below. The sun-visors are solid-feeling but have hard, cheap plastic surfaces. The ceiling headliner is a rather nice fabric. The front seats are fairly comfortable and supportive, but the rough, grainy seat leather could look and feel a little better. The two primary-gauges, speedometer and tachometer, set in two large chrome-ringed tunnels, are clear, well marked, and easy to read (I also liked the aqua-blue panel-lighting). But the small fuel and temperature gauges, set in small tunnels between the two larger ones, are a bit too Munchkin-sized, IMO, for easy-reading. There is a wide range of up-and-down motion with the power-front seats, and one can lower the drivers'-seat cushion enough for even some NBA-size guys to have some headroom under the sunroof housing. Unfortunately, the back seat is quite another matter...the sharp droop-down of the rear roofline affects rear headroom much more than it does in the Optima....At my size (6' 2") I simply couldn't sit back there comfortably with the tight head and legroom, and tended to bump my head on the roofline getting in and out. The stereo sound quality was great (I believe my car had a Harmon/Karden unit).....just the thing for a great Alice Cooper tune like "Schools Out". The stereo controls, though, were confusing and integrated with a video-screen, even though the car was a non-NAV. There were too many same-color buttons grouped too closely together in the center-dash, and most were poorly marked......ditto for the *****. on-Star, of course, comes with the package...as it does with most GM products now. The door-panels had nice-feeling trim on them, and had silver-painted door-grips that made it easier to pull shut. The headlight switch, as in some American/European designed cars, was a rotary **** on the left side of the dash, rather than the familiar twist-stalk in those of Japanese and Korean design.
CARGO AREA/TRUNK:
Open the solid-feeling trunk-lid, which is somewhat on the smallish side due to the sharp rake of the roofline, and a rather nice, well-finished trunk awaits you, though I didn't see a cargo-net across the back, like with the Kia Optima. The smallish trunk-lid, though, because of the shape and cut-out down to the rear bumper (like on the Optima) will probably take all but the most bulky items. Inside, the trunk, as mentioned, is well-finished, with rather plush-feeling black carpet on the floor and a nice black soft-material on the inside walls. The cargo-room itself is not bad for the size of the car. The split-rear seat, of course, folds down for added cargo-space. Under the trunk floor is the usual (for non-off-roaders) temporary spare tire instead of a real one.
ON THE ROAD:
Start up the 2.0L Turbo four with a conventional key and side-column ignition-switch (upmarket versions of the Optima, in contrast get a push-button), and the engine comes to life with a fairly smooth, refined idle for a four. Even with the efficient 6-speed automatic, the 258 ft-lbs. of torque may be a little overrated.....it gives you a mild push in the back on acceleration, but not quite what I expected, even compared to the similiarly-sized VW/Audi 2.0 turbo four. The engine itself is fairly refined and quiet (the thick underhood insulation pad helps), but it emits an (IMO) annoying, flat, nasal-sounding exhaust drone in moderate-to-heavy acceleration. Unlike the Optima Turbo, which runs on regular, the Regal Turbo requires premium gas (or E85 Ethanol).
The 6-speed Sport-shift automatic, like the one in the Optima, is Silky-smooth, quiet, and refined.....but the design of the shift-lever detent is awful. The lever has a nice, slick fore-aft motion without any annoying zig-zags, but the detent is off from the lever-position itself when a gear is selected. With most levers, they stop right next to whatever gear you are in (P R N D, etc...). Not with the Regal.....you have to depend completely on the indicator-lights. For example, to get into Neutral, you have to pull the lever back actually past "N", next to the "D" positon before the "N" indicator will light.......it's the same for a couple of other gears as well. This, IMO, is a bad design....and it could possibly get children/pedestrians/pets hit and/or cars damaged. Neither the Optima nor the Regal offer paddle-shifts for the manual-mode....you must bump the lever fore/aft in the manual-slot.
As far as the chassis goes, if you are a Buick traditionalist and like the classic soft ride and low noise level, then forget it.....this car is not for you. Go down to the other end of the Buick showroom and talk a deal on a Lucerne before Buick (foolishly, IMO) phases it out of production later this year. But for those of you who like German sports sedans, that's another matter.....this car deserves a look. To some extent, of course, it IS a German sports-sedan (though with FWD), having a lot of Opel-engineering in it. Steering response, unlike old classic big Buicks like the Electra and Roadmaster, is quick and immediate, and, like the Optima, the steering has a butter-smooth action. Also unlike the old Buicks, there is very little body roll. And none of that pillow-cloud Buick ride here, either.....this car lets you know where the pavement imperfections are. Ride comfort is not what you would call harsh or uncomfortable, but it is definitely not traditional Buick. Even those who liked the old Regal/Century models, I think, are going to find this car too firm-riding....they will probably look at a LaCrosse or Lucerne instead. Wind noise, like most Buicks, is well-damped, but there is some minor-to-moderate road noise from the tires....the car is not library-quiet. The brake-pedal action is butter-smooth and German sport-sedan-firm once the brakes actually start to take hold, but there is a noticeable amount of free-play in the pedal at the top of its travel before you hit the firm part. It's not
sponginess in the usual sense....just a firm but delayed reaction. I didn't notice much of a problem with the brake pedal's location, or any significant hang-up problems with my big size-15 clown-shoe going from gas-pedal to brake.
THE VERDICT:
The best way to describe this car, other than its obvious similarity to the Kia Optima, is that it is simply a non-Buick. Yes, some of the interior wood-tone trim, chrome-waterfall grille, smooth automatic transmission, and a few other Buick touches remain. But Grandpa/Grandma and other traditional-Buick junkies of any age simply would not recognize this car....especially the first time they drove it on a bumpy road, flick-steered it through the twisties, or experienced the firm brake pedal. Yes, its chassis-dynamics and road manners are THAT different.
Of course, that is not necessarily a bad thing. Buick has been trying to expand its traditional senior-citizen (and a few of younger age as well) buyer base.....and those who are used to driving more sport-oriented sedans may finally have a reason to drop by a Buick showroom now. And I have no problem with Buick marketing a car like this. But at the same time, Buick shouldn't be turning its back on the loyal people who made it into the successful company it has been for decades...and that's just what it is doing by dropping the nice, big, plush, soft-riding Lucerne. Yes, the new second-generation LaCrosse, one step up from the Regal in the Buick line-up, is admittedly a superb combination of ride/steering/handling (I said so myself when I reviewed it). But it is just not the same car as the Lucerne. When the Lucerne is gone later this year, the last big, soft-riding Buick will be nothing but memories except for the used-car market. One thing, though, that could potentially hurt Regal sales, is that the slightly larger LaCrosse model starts at only a few hundred dollars more than the base Regal CXL......and the LaCrosse offers the V6 and AWD options that are missing from the Regal.
I know I spent a lot of time comparing the Regal to the Optima.....but, despite some differences, and originating in two different automakers, the two cars are remarkably similiar. Given the choice between the two, however, I'd probably take the Optima. It has a lower price in both turbo and non-turbo versions, a much longer warranty, a more user-friendly interior with less-complex controls, better workmanship and fit/finish in the interior parts, seems to be screwed-together a little more tightly, can use regular gas with the turbo, and has a far-better rear-seat (though I usually carry people in back). Otherwise, there isn't much difference between the two in basic layout and in the way they drive and handle. Both, of course, are far different from the Optima and Regal models they replace.......there isn't much doubt about that.
And, as always..........Happy Car Shopping.
MM
http://www.buick.com/regal.html
IN A NUTSHELL: Gee, Grandpa, this sure isn't YOUR Buick.
After a recent full-length review of the all-new 2011 Kia Optima (which I was VERY impressed with for an under-$25,000 sedan), I wanted to (and felt I needed to) also do a review of the all-new 2011 Buick Regal....a competing 4-door sport-oriented sedan which is very similiar to the Optima in many ways, though the two do not share mechanicals in quite the same way that the new Optima and its corporate-brother Hyundai Sonata do. Still, the similarities between the new Optima and Regal are remarkable, considering that they come from two entirely different auto-manufacturers.
I have to confess that I've always, even in my youth, had a soft-spot for the Buick nameplate. The brand has had a Grandpa/Grandma image for decades (somewhat unfairly, IMO), that has been fostered primarily in the automotive press and among so-called "enthusiast" car types. It's true (and I won't deny it) that American-market Buicks owe a large percentage of their sales to middle-aged and senior citizens (primarily for their smooth rides and low noise levels), but that doesn't mean that younger people can't, or shouldn't buy them, by any means. You don't have to have arthritis, walk with a cane, wear a hearing-aid, or be part-senile to enjoy a nice, plush, soft-riding, comfortable car......especially when tired after a hard days' work, when some people like to relax and be comfortable on the long-commute home.
In China, people laugh at the American notion of Buick being primarily a Geezer-mobile. In that country (arguably the world's fastest-growing new-car market), Buicks are not only considered desirable as prestige cars, but GM operates Buick assembly plants there to meet the large....and growing....demand for them. Younger Chinese (if they have the money) are as likely as older ones to be seen in a Buick.
Indeed, in my own youth (the late 1960s and early 70s), I did not share the scorn for the Buick nameplate that a number of my high-school friends and classmates did (never mind the fact that Buick, at that time, made some rather impressive high-performance GS350/GS400/GSX muscle-cars that were built on the popular Chevy Chevelle-SS platform). GM, IMO, overall, had the best-detailed and best-interior cars of the period, though the acrylic-lacquer paint jobs faded almost overnight. One of my best high-school friends (I won't use his name here) drove around in his dad's big Olds 88 full-sized sedan, similiar to big Buicks of the time....he loved it, and I liked it myself. (His family later won a brand-new 1970 GTO in a local Pontiac-dealer contest). Unlike many teens of the period, I liked BOTH sporty/high-performance muscle-cars AND the big, luxury, soft-riding cars of the period. Indeed, before I was 20 years old, I had owned a used Plymouth Barracuda for sportiness and two used Buicks...a big-full-size, plush one and a smaller, mid-sized one. I actually liked the big one much more than the smaller one (its fluid-drive transmission-smoothness was legendary), even though the smaller one was in better overall condition. I retained my affection for the nameplate, even after I stopped driving Buicks and their quality went down in the 1970s.
OK...so much for my life history and youthful auto-passions......you didn't tune into this review for that, so let's get to the Regal itself. The original Regal was a mid-sized Buick that grew out of the old Skylark/Special line in the 1970s, and was sold alongside upmarket versions of the sister Olds Cutlass. A unique, all-black, limited-production Grand National turbo-V6 version was built in the mid-late 1980s (one of our CL members is currently restoring one). Later Regals were generally higher-trim versions of the popular mid-sized Buick Century. According to Consumer Reports, the Century and Regal had Much-Better-Than-Average reliability records in the 1990's, similiar to the Camry and Accord (which was unusual for an American-designed GM product). But the Century and Regal of that vintage, despite their reliability, were not, IMO, very pleasant cars....the trim was sloppily-done and oorly-applied, and interiors, like that of most GM cars of the period, were mostly cheap, bland, unimpressive plastic.
Buick eventually dropped the entire Century/Regal line, replacing it with the somewhat better-done First-generation LaCrosse. The LaCrosse's interior was far-better-looking on the surface, but, like other newer Buicks, had much of that same old GM interior-plastic underneath. The Second-Generation LaCrosse, especially the chassis and interior, was totally different from the first one.....I've already reviewed that car, and won't go into detail again here. After the new LaCrosse was introduced (and gained widespread sales-acceptance), Buick decided to bring back the formerly- discontinued Regal nameplate....but, this time, on a GM Opel-derived world-platform that was shared with several other models in Europe and Asia. The new Regal, unlike the one from the 1990s, is significantly more sport-oriented, driver-centered, and has an interior that is light-years ahead in trim quality/execution. Overall size/styling, as I mentioned, is similiar to the new Kia Optima, though the grille/front end is definitely taken from the slightly larger second-generation LaCrosse. Reliablity, of course, remains to be proved.....just as it also does with the new Optima.
Two versions of the Regal are offered in the American market for 2011...CXL and Turbo. The CXL uses a 2.4L normally-aspirated in-line Ecotec four with 182 HP and 172 ft-lbs. of torque; the Turbo uses a smaller 2.0L Turbo Ecotec four with 220 HP and 258 ft-lbs. The base CXL has only a 6-speed Sport-Shift automatic; Turbos offer a choice of the 6-speed Sportshift automatic or a conventional 6-speed manual (The competing Kia Optima offers a same-displacement 2.4L non-turbo, 2.0L Turbo, and a 6-speed Sport-Shift transmission, but includes a 6-speed manual on the base non-turbo LX version. Also like the Kia, the Regal only comes in a 4-door sedan. The two cars have roughly the same size and shape...they even have similiarly-shaped steering wheels, with two horizontal and two vertical spokes. The Regal, though, as befits the upmarket Buick nameplate, is priced a little higher than the Optima.....base prices are $26,245 for the CXL and $28,745 for the Turbo. However, a base CX model Buick LaCrosse starts at just a few hundred dollars more ($26,995) than a base Regal CXL....this could hurt some potential Regal sales with all but the most sport-oriented of Buick buyers. The LaCrosse, of course, unlike the Regal, comes with a choice of an in-line 4 or V6 powerplant and, if you pay a little more, AWD. Some Regals are Ethanol (E85) Flexible-fuel-Certified....distinguished by a green-and-chrome badge on the trunk-lid....others aren't.
I went down to a local Buick/Chevy/GMC shop today to look at the new Regal and thoroughly check it out (of course, I had already given one a quick-drive at the D.C. Auto Show). It's hard to find stand-alone Buick dealers any more.....most of them have either closed up shop or, in line with GM's new marketing policy, combined with Chevy and GMC franchises. Buick, of course, primarily due to its significant and loyal owner-base, survived the big GM axe-cutting when Pontiac, Saturn, Hummer, and Saab were eliminated, but GM still wants to consolodate the remaining divisions, including Buick, into fewer dealerships. I static-examined several Turbo and non-turbo Regal models, but, for the review, I test-drove a Stone (light gray) Metallic CXL Turbo model, with Cashmere (beige) Leather that listed for $31,940 (it was E85-certified). As expected, it was definitely not a car for the Buick traditionalist. It was an interesting comparison the the Kia Optima, but I did find a longer list of negatives with the Regal than I did with the Optima....details coming up.
MODEL REVIEWED: 2011 Buick Regal CXL Turbo
BASE PRICE: $28,745
OPTIONS:
T03 Package: $2445
DESTINATION/FREIGHT: $750 (about average)
LIST PRICE AS REVIEWED: $31,940
DRIVETRAIN: FWD, Transverse-mounted 2.0L Turbocharged in-line Ecotec 4, 220 HP @ 5300 RPM, Torque 258 ft-lbs. @ 2000 RPM, 6-speed Sportshift automatic transmission.
EPA MILEAGE RATING: 18 City / 28 Highway
EXTERIOR COLOR: Stone (light Gray) Metallic
INTERIOR: Cashmere Leather
PLUSSES:
Fairly refined Turbo 4-cylinder....except for exhaust noise.
Silky-smooth, refined 6-speed Sportshift automatic.
Smooth fore/aft shift-lever motion without annoying zig-zags.
Quick steering response (Yes....on a Buick).
Flat cornering without much body lean (again.....yes, on a Buick).
Firm but not uncomfortable, well-damped ride.
Wind noise well-damped.
Firm, Butter-smooth brakes...but with some free-play in the pedal.
Generally good underhood layout...but too many plastic covers.
E85 Ethanol versions available.
Excellent paint job.
Nicely-done chrome body trim.
Solidly-closing hood and trunk-lid.
Fairly solid-closing doors. (more so than on the larger LaCrosse)
Decent rear-vision despite the smallish rear-windows.
Well-finished trunk.
Butter-smooth, superbly-designed trunk hinges.
Excellent stereo-sound quality.
Clear, attractive, easy-to-read primary gauges.
Attractive Aqua-blue back-lit dash lighting.
Nice interior door-panel trim.
Fairly nice interior wood-tone trim.
Nice fabric headliner.
Good front head room.
Large up/down power-front-seat adjustment range.
MINUSES:
Tolerable ride comfort, but quite stiff by Buick standards.....Buick traditionalists will not like it.
Unpleasant, nasal-sounding exhaust noise.
Turbo's spunk not quite as strong as expected.
Brake pedal has about an inch of free play.
Some, but not excessive, road noise.
Poorly-designed/marked transmission-shift indicator lights do not match lever-position.
Flimsy-feeling large plastic grille.
Engine and battery have annoying plastic covers.
Exterior mirrors too small (IMO) and triangle-shaped.
Awful paint-color choice.....even Murphy's Funeral Home would find them too dull.
Cheap-looking/feeling seat leather.
Very tight rear-seat headroom from the drooping-roofline.
Fairly tight rear legroom.
Cheap-looking/feeling interior silver-painted plastic.
Too many similiar, confusing buttons in center-dash area.
Confusing, poorly-marked center-dash *****.
Complex stereo/climate controls.
Secondary dash-gauges smaller then necessary for quick-reading.
Hard-plastic, cheap-feeling sun visors.
Dated, conventional ignition switch with no push-button.
Sharp-feeling steering-wheel-rim stitching uncomfortable to hold.
No body-side moulding for parking-lot protection.
Smallish trunk lid from raked-rear roofline.
Non-locking gas filler-door.
Temporary spare tire instead of a real one.
Potential long-term reliability unknown.
Kia Optima competitor offers much longer warranty at a lower price.
Larger LaCrosse model has almost the same base price.
Hard to find stand-alone Buick dealerships....most are shared with other GM brands.
EXTERIOR:
Walking up to the new Regal from a distance, it looks somewhat like the slightly larger Lacrosse in the general styling theme, with roughly the same shape, humpback-whale roofline, and the classic Buick waterfall-style chrome grille in front. The chrome-and-black grille may look classy, but it has a very cheap, thin-plastic feel...it probably won't take much of a tap on something at low speeds to just shatter it. The sheet metal feels about average in solidness, but the hood and trunk lids both shut quite solidly, with a strong "thunk"...the 4 doors somewhat less-so. There are no body-side mouldings to ward-off parking-lot dings....a cost-cutting move. The paint job is quite well-done (GM has made enormous improvements in paint-quality in the last 6-7 years or so), but even a Mortician would find the the paint-color choice depressing (Buick, like some other automakers, seems to have a thing for funeral-colors). There is no lock for either the gas-cap or filler-door....another cost-cutting move. The twin outside mirrors lack the integrated turn-signal indicators that the Optima has, and they are, IMO, to small and triangle-shaped for optimum vision. The sharply-raked, droop-down rear roofline, like on the Optima, impacts some on the size of the trunk-lid, but, nevertheless, all but extremely-bulky items can be easily-loaded. All of the exterior chrome and trim (except the aformemtioned grille) seems well-done and solidly attached.
UNDERHOOD:
Open the solid-feeling hood, and a nice insulation pad is solidly-attached underneath. Solid metal spring/hinges and a nice gas strut holds the hood up for you. Underneath, in the engine compartment, the general layout is quite good, with the transversely-mounted 2.0L turbo-four fitting in with plenty of room to spare for reaching things on and around the sides of the block. But a big (and unnecessary) plastic engine-cover hampers top-engine access, and an equally-unnecessary plastic cover hampers access to the battery, to the right of the engine. Everything else, though (dipsticks, reservoirs, filler-caps, and hardware) is easy to reach.
INTERIOR:
Generally a pleasant interior as far as the general appearance goes, but some of the dash features could be improved. The Regal interior has nice wood-tone trim......something that most Optimas lack. The wood-tone and chrome trim looks decent, but the painted-silver-metallic plastic trim looks/feels cheap and tacky. The steering wheel is the exact four-spoke shape as the Optima's, but the leather stitching on the rim has sharp lumps on it that are uncomfortable to grip. The shift lever is slick and smooth, but has an bad detent-design.....more on that below. The sun-visors are solid-feeling but have hard, cheap plastic surfaces. The ceiling headliner is a rather nice fabric. The front seats are fairly comfortable and supportive, but the rough, grainy seat leather could look and feel a little better. The two primary-gauges, speedometer and tachometer, set in two large chrome-ringed tunnels, are clear, well marked, and easy to read (I also liked the aqua-blue panel-lighting). But the small fuel and temperature gauges, set in small tunnels between the two larger ones, are a bit too Munchkin-sized, IMO, for easy-reading. There is a wide range of up-and-down motion with the power-front seats, and one can lower the drivers'-seat cushion enough for even some NBA-size guys to have some headroom under the sunroof housing. Unfortunately, the back seat is quite another matter...the sharp droop-down of the rear roofline affects rear headroom much more than it does in the Optima....At my size (6' 2") I simply couldn't sit back there comfortably with the tight head and legroom, and tended to bump my head on the roofline getting in and out. The stereo sound quality was great (I believe my car had a Harmon/Karden unit).....just the thing for a great Alice Cooper tune like "Schools Out". The stereo controls, though, were confusing and integrated with a video-screen, even though the car was a non-NAV. There were too many same-color buttons grouped too closely together in the center-dash, and most were poorly marked......ditto for the *****. on-Star, of course, comes with the package...as it does with most GM products now. The door-panels had nice-feeling trim on them, and had silver-painted door-grips that made it easier to pull shut. The headlight switch, as in some American/European designed cars, was a rotary **** on the left side of the dash, rather than the familiar twist-stalk in those of Japanese and Korean design.
CARGO AREA/TRUNK:
Open the solid-feeling trunk-lid, which is somewhat on the smallish side due to the sharp rake of the roofline, and a rather nice, well-finished trunk awaits you, though I didn't see a cargo-net across the back, like with the Kia Optima. The smallish trunk-lid, though, because of the shape and cut-out down to the rear bumper (like on the Optima) will probably take all but the most bulky items. Inside, the trunk, as mentioned, is well-finished, with rather plush-feeling black carpet on the floor and a nice black soft-material on the inside walls. The cargo-room itself is not bad for the size of the car. The split-rear seat, of course, folds down for added cargo-space. Under the trunk floor is the usual (for non-off-roaders) temporary spare tire instead of a real one.
ON THE ROAD:
Start up the 2.0L Turbo four with a conventional key and side-column ignition-switch (upmarket versions of the Optima, in contrast get a push-button), and the engine comes to life with a fairly smooth, refined idle for a four. Even with the efficient 6-speed automatic, the 258 ft-lbs. of torque may be a little overrated.....it gives you a mild push in the back on acceleration, but not quite what I expected, even compared to the similiarly-sized VW/Audi 2.0 turbo four. The engine itself is fairly refined and quiet (the thick underhood insulation pad helps), but it emits an (IMO) annoying, flat, nasal-sounding exhaust drone in moderate-to-heavy acceleration. Unlike the Optima Turbo, which runs on regular, the Regal Turbo requires premium gas (or E85 Ethanol).
The 6-speed Sport-shift automatic, like the one in the Optima, is Silky-smooth, quiet, and refined.....but the design of the shift-lever detent is awful. The lever has a nice, slick fore-aft motion without any annoying zig-zags, but the detent is off from the lever-position itself when a gear is selected. With most levers, they stop right next to whatever gear you are in (P R N D, etc...). Not with the Regal.....you have to depend completely on the indicator-lights. For example, to get into Neutral, you have to pull the lever back actually past "N", next to the "D" positon before the "N" indicator will light.......it's the same for a couple of other gears as well. This, IMO, is a bad design....and it could possibly get children/pedestrians/pets hit and/or cars damaged. Neither the Optima nor the Regal offer paddle-shifts for the manual-mode....you must bump the lever fore/aft in the manual-slot.
As far as the chassis goes, if you are a Buick traditionalist and like the classic soft ride and low noise level, then forget it.....this car is not for you. Go down to the other end of the Buick showroom and talk a deal on a Lucerne before Buick (foolishly, IMO) phases it out of production later this year. But for those of you who like German sports sedans, that's another matter.....this car deserves a look. To some extent, of course, it IS a German sports-sedan (though with FWD), having a lot of Opel-engineering in it. Steering response, unlike old classic big Buicks like the Electra and Roadmaster, is quick and immediate, and, like the Optima, the steering has a butter-smooth action. Also unlike the old Buicks, there is very little body roll. And none of that pillow-cloud Buick ride here, either.....this car lets you know where the pavement imperfections are. Ride comfort is not what you would call harsh or uncomfortable, but it is definitely not traditional Buick. Even those who liked the old Regal/Century models, I think, are going to find this car too firm-riding....they will probably look at a LaCrosse or Lucerne instead. Wind noise, like most Buicks, is well-damped, but there is some minor-to-moderate road noise from the tires....the car is not library-quiet. The brake-pedal action is butter-smooth and German sport-sedan-firm once the brakes actually start to take hold, but there is a noticeable amount of free-play in the pedal at the top of its travel before you hit the firm part. It's not
sponginess in the usual sense....just a firm but delayed reaction. I didn't notice much of a problem with the brake pedal's location, or any significant hang-up problems with my big size-15 clown-shoe going from gas-pedal to brake.
THE VERDICT:
The best way to describe this car, other than its obvious similarity to the Kia Optima, is that it is simply a non-Buick. Yes, some of the interior wood-tone trim, chrome-waterfall grille, smooth automatic transmission, and a few other Buick touches remain. But Grandpa/Grandma and other traditional-Buick junkies of any age simply would not recognize this car....especially the first time they drove it on a bumpy road, flick-steered it through the twisties, or experienced the firm brake pedal. Yes, its chassis-dynamics and road manners are THAT different.
Of course, that is not necessarily a bad thing. Buick has been trying to expand its traditional senior-citizen (and a few of younger age as well) buyer base.....and those who are used to driving more sport-oriented sedans may finally have a reason to drop by a Buick showroom now. And I have no problem with Buick marketing a car like this. But at the same time, Buick shouldn't be turning its back on the loyal people who made it into the successful company it has been for decades...and that's just what it is doing by dropping the nice, big, plush, soft-riding Lucerne. Yes, the new second-generation LaCrosse, one step up from the Regal in the Buick line-up, is admittedly a superb combination of ride/steering/handling (I said so myself when I reviewed it). But it is just not the same car as the Lucerne. When the Lucerne is gone later this year, the last big, soft-riding Buick will be nothing but memories except for the used-car market. One thing, though, that could potentially hurt Regal sales, is that the slightly larger LaCrosse model starts at only a few hundred dollars more than the base Regal CXL......and the LaCrosse offers the V6 and AWD options that are missing from the Regal.
I know I spent a lot of time comparing the Regal to the Optima.....but, despite some differences, and originating in two different automakers, the two cars are remarkably similiar. Given the choice between the two, however, I'd probably take the Optima. It has a lower price in both turbo and non-turbo versions, a much longer warranty, a more user-friendly interior with less-complex controls, better workmanship and fit/finish in the interior parts, seems to be screwed-together a little more tightly, can use regular gas with the turbo, and has a far-better rear-seat (though I usually carry people in back). Otherwise, there isn't much difference between the two in basic layout and in the way they drive and handle. Both, of course, are far different from the Optima and Regal models they replace.......there isn't much doubt about that.
And, as always..........Happy Car Shopping.
MM
Last edited by mmarshall; 04-30-11 at 10:43 PM.
04-30-11, 08:21 PM
#3
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
Thanks. 
Yes, there's no question it's a German sport-sedan, derived from an Opel (I thought I made that clear in the review). It drives, handles, and stops like one. If BMW 3-series jocks can accept the notion of FWD, this car may appeal to some of them. But Buick needs to put a little more spunk under the hood (the turbo is not as impressive as I expected), take that small amount of free-play out of the brake-pedal, and, IMO, redesign the dash-controls.
Its not your fathers Buick b/c its a rebadged Opel with Euro manners.
Last edited by mmarshall; 04-30-11 at 10:07 PM.
04-30-11, 09:15 PM
#5
Lexus Champion
nice review mike!
I wish my wife would like this car.
actually, I thought I read a review that said the car can't handle to power of the turbo....meaning it was TOO powerful.
here we go... from USATODAY.... http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/...ck-regal_N.htm
Review: Turbo seems too much for Buick Regal CXL
By Mark Phelan, Detroit Free Press
Updated 2/17/2011 11:54:16 PM |
100 | 11
Share
The 2011 Buick Regal CXL turbo has a bad case of "good enough."
2011 Buick Regal CXL turbo:
The executives who signed off on this hypothetically sporty version of the appealing Regal premium sedan dialed in an extra 86 pounds-feet of torque and 38 horsepower but didn't upgrade the car's suspension and steering enough to match that extra muscle.
The Regal CXL turbo has to compete with outstanding sporty sedans such as the Audi A4 and Volkswagen CC. One way Buick is trying to do that is to undercut its main competitors with prices starting at $28,745.
The Regal CXL turbo comes with an advanced 2.0-liter direct-injection turbocharged four-cylinder that produces 220 horsepower and a strong 258 pounds-feet of torque at an accessible 2,000 rpm. A six-speed manual or automatic transmission is available.
The test car was a well-equipped model with the automatic transmission that stickered at $31,440.
The Regal's sleek and attractive body does enclose a comfortable five-seat cabin that offers many appealing features. The Regal is a contemporary new take on a classic American brand, but subpar handling and fuel economy make the powerful CXL turbo model an also-ran.
The best sport sedans combine off-the-line acceleration with precise steering and responsive handling.
The 2011 Buick Regal CXL turbo has the power, but its steering and suspension struggle to manage the turbo's muscle.
The result is a car that looks great, but feels like it should be more responsive and enjoyable than it is.
Managing the extra power effectively requires changes at all four corners that this car didn't get. Torque steer and a squishy suspension diminish the Regal CXL turbo's appeal.
Perhaps the folks at Buick were saving the major ride and handling upgrades for the more powerful Regal GS that goes on sale later this year.
If so, they should also have saved the money they spent turbocharging the CXL.
•What? Turbocharged performance version of the four-door, five-passenger, front-drive, midsize Regal CXL.
•When? On sale now. A very high-performance Regal is likely next year.
•Where? Now built at Rüsselsheim, Germany, with similar Opel Insignia, but production switches next month to Oshawa, Ontario.
•Why? Gives Buick a sporty version of the Regal designed to have enough performance to compete for buyers with imported premium sport sedans such as the Audi A4 and Volkswagen CC.
•How? Drop a 2.0-liter powertrain into the Regal CXL, giving it 38 more horsepower and 86 more pounds-feet of torque than the normally aspirated 2.4-liter engine. Make some tweaks to the handling and add a few standard upscale features, including power passenger seat and rear parking assist.
•How much? Regal CXL turbo version starts at $29,495, including $750 shipping, a $2,500 premium over the non-turbo CXL. Test car: $32,190 with shipping and options including 19-inch wheels and tires and Interactive Drive Control System with Sport, Tour and Standard modes.
•How powerful? CXL turbo has a 2.0-liter four-cylinder rated 220 hp at 5,300 rpm, 258 lbs.-ft. of torque at 2,000 rpm mated to six-speed automatic transmission standard. Six-speed manual is a no-cost option for the CXL turbo.
•How big? 190.2 inches long, 73.1 in. wide, 58.4 in. tall on a 107.8-in. wheelbase.
Weighs 3,671 lbs. Passenger space, 96.8 cubic feet; trunk, 14.2 cu. ft.
•How thirsty? 2.0-liter automatic rated 18 miles per gallon in town, 28 on the highway, 22 in combined city/highway use. Manual rated 20/32/24.
Premium fuel recommended but not required. Buick says turbo will get advertised power on regular. Tank holds 18.5 gallons.
•Overall: Appealing package, powerful, chassis in need of more refinement.
I wish my wife would like this car.
here we go... from USATODAY.... http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/...ck-regal_N.htm
Review: Turbo seems too much for Buick Regal CXL
By Mark Phelan, Detroit Free Press
Updated 2/17/2011 11:54:16 PM |
100 | 11
Share
The 2011 Buick Regal CXL turbo has a bad case of "good enough."
2011 Buick Regal CXL turbo:
The executives who signed off on this hypothetically sporty version of the appealing Regal premium sedan dialed in an extra 86 pounds-feet of torque and 38 horsepower but didn't upgrade the car's suspension and steering enough to match that extra muscle.
The Regal CXL turbo has to compete with outstanding sporty sedans such as the Audi A4 and Volkswagen CC. One way Buick is trying to do that is to undercut its main competitors with prices starting at $28,745.
The Regal CXL turbo comes with an advanced 2.0-liter direct-injection turbocharged four-cylinder that produces 220 horsepower and a strong 258 pounds-feet of torque at an accessible 2,000 rpm. A six-speed manual or automatic transmission is available.
The test car was a well-equipped model with the automatic transmission that stickered at $31,440.
The Regal's sleek and attractive body does enclose a comfortable five-seat cabin that offers many appealing features. The Regal is a contemporary new take on a classic American brand, but subpar handling and fuel economy make the powerful CXL turbo model an also-ran.
The best sport sedans combine off-the-line acceleration with precise steering and responsive handling.
The 2011 Buick Regal CXL turbo has the power, but its steering and suspension struggle to manage the turbo's muscle.
The result is a car that looks great, but feels like it should be more responsive and enjoyable than it is.
Managing the extra power effectively requires changes at all four corners that this car didn't get. Torque steer and a squishy suspension diminish the Regal CXL turbo's appeal.
Perhaps the folks at Buick were saving the major ride and handling upgrades for the more powerful Regal GS that goes on sale later this year.
If so, they should also have saved the money they spent turbocharging the CXL.
•What? Turbocharged performance version of the four-door, five-passenger, front-drive, midsize Regal CXL.
•When? On sale now. A very high-performance Regal is likely next year.
•Where? Now built at Rüsselsheim, Germany, with similar Opel Insignia, but production switches next month to Oshawa, Ontario.
•Why? Gives Buick a sporty version of the Regal designed to have enough performance to compete for buyers with imported premium sport sedans such as the Audi A4 and Volkswagen CC.
•How? Drop a 2.0-liter powertrain into the Regal CXL, giving it 38 more horsepower and 86 more pounds-feet of torque than the normally aspirated 2.4-liter engine. Make some tweaks to the handling and add a few standard upscale features, including power passenger seat and rear parking assist.
•How much? Regal CXL turbo version starts at $29,495, including $750 shipping, a $2,500 premium over the non-turbo CXL. Test car: $32,190 with shipping and options including 19-inch wheels and tires and Interactive Drive Control System with Sport, Tour and Standard modes.
•How powerful? CXL turbo has a 2.0-liter four-cylinder rated 220 hp at 5,300 rpm, 258 lbs.-ft. of torque at 2,000 rpm mated to six-speed automatic transmission standard. Six-speed manual is a no-cost option for the CXL turbo.
•How big? 190.2 inches long, 73.1 in. wide, 58.4 in. tall on a 107.8-in. wheelbase.
Weighs 3,671 lbs. Passenger space, 96.8 cubic feet; trunk, 14.2 cu. ft.
•How thirsty? 2.0-liter automatic rated 18 miles per gallon in town, 28 on the highway, 22 in combined city/highway use. Manual rated 20/32/24.
Premium fuel recommended but not required. Buick says turbo will get advertised power on regular. Tank holds 18.5 gallons.
•Overall: Appealing package, powerful, chassis in need of more refinement.
Last edited by bagwell; 04-30-11 at 09:19 PM.
04-30-11, 09:36 PM
#6
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
Thanks.
I'd say that, yes, expanding their sales-reach somewhat with new products (like, in this case, a sport-sedan) is getting one's act together....but dumping the old faithful that kept the company going all these years, IMO, sure isn't.
I hope there will be more to come from buick. Seems like they are getting their act together.
04-30-11, 10:03 PM
#7
Lexus Champion
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Arizona
Posts: 2,673
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good review, and as I expected, the 220 HP is lacking. I would almost be willing to trade the power from the Optima @ 274 if it meant better gas mileage, but it doesn't. Same size engine, no better fuel economy, and it uses a turbo to get there? EPIC FAIL. 
And, much like the Sonata, it features a hideous body sculpting line, albeit one that sweeps up from the bottom as opposed to the arc through the handles. It's reminiscent of the Taurus doors that swept outward in order to facilitate the handles and maintain the windows - and that's a bad thing. Losing the sweep of the trunk that kept inline with the brake light from the concept (your pic 1, Mike) to the current one (your pic that shows the exhaust) is also a bad choice. It makes it look like an afterthought, much like that trunk, which made me immediately think of an Infiniti since that was their trend for a while (again, a bad thing).
I do like the fact that they didn't follow the trend of incredibly wide (and space reducing) center consoles, although I'm not sold on the accordion cover for what I presume to be the drink holder. I see that as just another place to look crappy if you don't clean it quite often since dust finds crevices, and an abundance of them only invites more opportunity.
For the shifter, I can agree that the straight is okay, but the "zig zag" as you put it doesn't bother me since it is designed to limit the ability when doing fake manual shifting to toss it to the wrong gear and serious gum up the works.
Since it's a GM product, it most likely will never see a place at the table (or in my garages), but it's always interesting to read about new designs and takes on things.
Big Mack
And, much like the Sonata, it features a hideous body sculpting line, albeit one that sweeps up from the bottom as opposed to the arc through the handles. It's reminiscent of the Taurus doors that swept outward in order to facilitate the handles and maintain the windows - and that's a bad thing. Losing the sweep of the trunk that kept inline with the brake light from the concept (your pic 1, Mike) to the current one (your pic that shows the exhaust) is also a bad choice. It makes it look like an afterthought, much like that trunk, which made me immediately think of an Infiniti since that was their trend for a while (again, a bad thing).
I do like the fact that they didn't follow the trend of incredibly wide (and space reducing) center consoles, although I'm not sold on the accordion cover for what I presume to be the drink holder. I see that as just another place to look crappy if you don't clean it quite often since dust finds crevices, and an abundance of them only invites more opportunity.
For the shifter, I can agree that the straight is okay, but the "zig zag" as you put it doesn't bother me since it is designed to limit the ability when doing fake manual shifting to toss it to the wrong gear and serious gum up the works.
Since it's a GM product, it most likely will never see a place at the table (or in my garages), but it's always interesting to read about new designs and takes on things.
Big Mack
Trending Topics
04-30-11, 10:03 PM
#8
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
Thanks.
Have you taken her to a Buick shop to see it? Or has she gone on her own?
If she is a classic Buick fan, she might find the chassis a little too hard-edged for her. Show her the new LaCrosse.....that combines excellent steering response with a very comfortable ride......something that is not often found outside of BMW and Mercedes designs. It also has V6 and AWD options that the Regal lacks.
Well, I respect their opinions, but I can't buy some of the conclusions these guys came to.
First of all, the turbo engine, to my senses at least, didn't feel like it was really running 258 ft-lbs. of torque to start with. I mentioned in the review that I thought the torque figure might be over-rated. The same-displacement VW/Audi 2.0 Turbo, for instance, with roughly the same HP/torque figures on paper, feels significantly stronger to me (I've sampled a number of them in different VW/Audi products).
From what I can tell, though, Buick didn't keep costs down by skimping in the chassis (actually, it's an Opel-designed chassis, not necessarily Buick). Where Buick did skimp a little is in some of its traditional weak points like hardware solidness, a lot of plastic parts, and by not providing powertrain options like the A4 and CC have.
Again, the turbo engine just doesn't feel that strong to me.
The test car was a well-equipped model with the automatic transmission that stickered at $31,440.
There's nothing sub-par, IMO, about the Regal's handling. These guys need to try and put a Lucerne through the slalom if they awant to see sub-par handling.
Again, I have to disagree on all counts.
I agree, if they would have used a V6 instead.
Why are they surprised? 
The Optima and Sonata offer the same thing....even the same-sized engines.
Sounds to me like they are talking about the present car as if it was a future model.
I wish my wife would like this car.
If she is a classic Buick fan, she might find the chassis a little too hard-edged for her. Show her the new LaCrosse.....that combines excellent steering response with a very comfortable ride......something that is not often found outside of BMW and Mercedes designs. It also has V6 and AWD options that the Regal lacks.
actually, I thought I read a review that said the car can't handle to power of the turbo....meaning it was TOO powerful.
here we go... from USATODAY.... http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/...ck-regal_N.htm
The executives who signed off on this hypothetically sporty version of the appealing Regal premium sedan dialed in an extra 86 pounds-feet of torque and 38 horsepower but didn't upgrade the car's suspension and steering enough to match that extra muscle.
The Regal CXL turbo has to compete with outstanding sporty sedans such as the Audi A4 and Volkswagen CC. One way Buick is trying to do that is to undercut its main competitors with prices starting at $28,745.
The Regal CXL turbo comes with an advanced 2.0-liter direct-injection turbocharged four-cylinder that produces 220 horsepower and a strong 258 pounds-feet of torque at an accessible 2,000 rpm. A six-speed manual or automatic transmission is available.
The test car was a well-equipped model with the automatic transmission that stickered at $31,440.
The Regal is a contemporary new take on a classic American brand, but subpar handling and fuel economy make the powerful CXL turbo model an also-ran.
The 2011 Buick Regal CXL turbo has the power, but its steering and suspension struggle to manage the turbo's muscle.
The result is a car that looks great, but feels like it should be more responsive and enjoyable than it is.
Managing the extra power effectively requires changes at all four corners that this car didn't get. Torque steer and a squishy suspension diminish the Regal CXL turbo's appeal.
The result is a car that looks great, but feels like it should be more responsive and enjoyable than it is.
Managing the extra power effectively requires changes at all four corners that this car didn't get. Torque steer and a squishy suspension diminish the Regal CXL turbo's appeal.
If so, they should also have saved the money they spent turbocharging the CXL.
•What? Turbocharged performance version of the four-door, five-passenger, front-drive, midsize Regal CXL.
The Optima and Sonata offer the same thing....even the same-sized engines.
•When? On sale now. A very high-performance Regal is likely next year.
•Where? Now built at Rüsselsheim, Germany, with similar Opel Insignia, but production switches next month to Oshawa, Ontario.
•Why? Gives Buick a sporty version of the Regal designed to have enough performance to compete for buyers with imported premium sport sedans such as the Audi A4 and Volkswagen CC.
•How? Drop a 2.0-liter powertrain into the Regal CXL, giving it 38 more horsepower and 86 more pounds-feet of torque than the normally aspirated 2.4-liter engine. Make some tweaks to the handling and add a few standard upscale features, including power passenger seat and rear parking assist.
•How much? Regal CXL turbo version starts at $29,495, including $750 shipping, a $2,500 premium over the non-turbo CXL. Test car: $32,190 with shipping and options including 19-inch wheels and tires and Interactive Drive Control System with Sport, Tour and Standard modes.
•How powerful? CXL turbo has a 2.0-liter four-cylinder rated 220 hp at 5,300 rpm, 258 lbs.-ft. of torque at 2,000 rpm mated to six-speed automatic transmission standard. Six-speed manual is a no-cost option for the CXL turbo.
•How big? 190.2 inches long, 73.1 in. wide, 58.4 in. tall on a 107.8-in. wheelbase.
Weighs 3,671 lbs. Passenger space, 96.8 cubic feet; trunk, 14.2 cu. ft.
•How thirsty? 2.0-liter automatic rated 18 miles per gallon in town, 28 on the highway, 22 in combined city/highway use. Manual rated 20/32/24.
Premium fuel recommended but not required. Buick says turbo will get advertised power on regular. Tank holds 18.5 gallons.
•Overall: Appealing package, powerful, chassis in need of more refinement.
•Where? Now built at Rüsselsheim, Germany, with similar Opel Insignia, but production switches next month to Oshawa, Ontario.
•Why? Gives Buick a sporty version of the Regal designed to have enough performance to compete for buyers with imported premium sport sedans such as the Audi A4 and Volkswagen CC.
•How? Drop a 2.0-liter powertrain into the Regal CXL, giving it 38 more horsepower and 86 more pounds-feet of torque than the normally aspirated 2.4-liter engine. Make some tweaks to the handling and add a few standard upscale features, including power passenger seat and rear parking assist.
•How much? Regal CXL turbo version starts at $29,495, including $750 shipping, a $2,500 premium over the non-turbo CXL. Test car: $32,190 with shipping and options including 19-inch wheels and tires and Interactive Drive Control System with Sport, Tour and Standard modes.
•How powerful? CXL turbo has a 2.0-liter four-cylinder rated 220 hp at 5,300 rpm, 258 lbs.-ft. of torque at 2,000 rpm mated to six-speed automatic transmission standard. Six-speed manual is a no-cost option for the CXL turbo.
•How big? 190.2 inches long, 73.1 in. wide, 58.4 in. tall on a 107.8-in. wheelbase.
Weighs 3,671 lbs. Passenger space, 96.8 cubic feet; trunk, 14.2 cu. ft.
•How thirsty? 2.0-liter automatic rated 18 miles per gallon in town, 28 on the highway, 22 in combined city/highway use. Manual rated 20/32/24.
Premium fuel recommended but not required. Buick says turbo will get advertised power on regular. Tank holds 18.5 gallons.
•Overall: Appealing package, powerful, chassis in need of more refinement.
Last edited by mmarshall; 04-30-11 at 10:08 PM.
04-30-11, 10:08 PM
#9
Lexus Test Driver
Great review. Very thorough and subjective. I'm glad Buick is offering cars like this, even if they aren't really their "own." It's certainly better than what we've had before.
Oh, it just hit me where I've seen the tail of the new Civic before... ^^^ Imagine that, Honda mimicking Buick! hehe
Oh, it just hit me where I've seen the tail of the new Civic before... ^^^ Imagine that, Honda mimicking Buick! hehe
04-30-11, 10:18 PM
#11
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
Thanks.
Buick has offered non-Buick designs before, from the Opel Kadett and Opel GT of the 1960s to the Izusu-Opel of the 1970's to rebadged versions of the Chevy Vega/Monza and later Chevy TrailBlazer.
This is the first time, though, since the GS350/400 of the 1960s and Grand National of the 1980s, that they have offered a first-class sports machine.....and those earlier attempts were better, of course, in a straight-line than they were in the twisties. They tried a two-seat Reatta (a Buick design) in the late 1980s-early 90s, but the result was a disaster.
I have mixed-feelings on that. Yes, it's nice to have some new products, but some of the old ones, IMO (and the traditional customers) don't necessarily deserve to go.
Mimicking? Its hard to imagine two cars from different manufacturers mimicking each other more than the new Regal and new Optima do....for reasons I discussed in the review
I'm glad Buick is offering cars like this, even if they aren't really their "own."
This is the first time, though, since the GS350/400 of the 1960s and Grand National of the 1980s, that they have offered a first-class sports machine.....and those earlier attempts were better, of course, in a straight-line than they were in the twisties. They tried a two-seat Reatta (a Buick design) in the late 1980s-early 90s, but the result was a disaster.
It's certainly better than what we've had before.
Oh, it just hit me where I've seen the tail of the new Civic before... ^^^ Imagine that, Honda mimicking Buick! hehe
Its hard to imagine two cars from different manufacturers mimicking each other more than the new Regal and new Optima do....for reasons I discussed in the review
Last edited by mmarshall; 04-30-11 at 10:24 PM.
04-30-11, 10:33 PM
#12
Lexus Test Driver
Maybe it's a stretch. Or actually, the Regal's rump reminds me of the forgotten Aurora.
04-30-11, 10:50 PM
#13
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
Thanks.
Well, normally I agree that fore/aft shifters are better and less-annoying to use, but this fore/aft shifter was, IMO, badly-done, because the detents don't line up with the lever-position in certain gears. A design like this is just as liable to cause an incident, if one is not very careful, as the situation you describe.
I probably wouldn't choose it over the Kia Optima, either. The new Optima was very impressive for the price....I'm sure you saw my write-up on it several days ago.
For the shifter, I can agree that the straight is okay, but the "zig zag" as you put it doesn't bother me since it is designed to limit the ability when doing fake manual shifting to toss it to the wrong gear and serious gum up the works.
Since it's a GM product, it most likely will never see a place at the table (or in my garages), but it's always interesting to read about new designs and takes on things.
Big Mack
Big Mack
