Review: 2009 Buick LaCrosse CXL
12-29-08, 07:03 PM
#1
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
Review: 2009 Buick LaCrosse CXL
A Review of the 2009 Buick LaCrosse CX/CXL.
http://www.buick.com/ngis/buick/lacrosse/
In a Nutshell: Definitely non-sporting, but that doesn't mean you have to be Grandma or Grandpa to drive one.
.jpg)
Buick, of course, is not normally a popular brand at CL among sport-sedan enthusiasts (except, perhaps, with the 20-year-old Regal Grand National), but there's been a fair amount of talk and posting lately on CL with the 2010 LaCrosse, its relation to the 2009 model it will replace, and how much different the new model will (?) be. I can't comment a lot on the new model, except for the few pictures I've seen of it, although it does seem to have some Cadillac CTS-derived touches to it, so I will save that for a later date when it becomes available. In the meantime, however, I thought I'd get in a review of the current 2009 LaCrosse, which will probably be its last year. That will give you at least an idea of what the present car is like, so you can have some apples to compare with the future oranges.
Buick introduced the present-generation LaCrosse in 2005 to replace the former mid-sized Century/Regal models. The relatively slow-selling, supercharged 3.8L Regal GS model was not replaced by an equivalent model of the LaCrosse.....all LaCrosse models have generally been normally-aspirated, although a new 5.3L V8 Super model is available this year (more on that below). Like the Century/Regal models before it, the Lacrosse has enjoyed a better-than-average reliability record, which is good for a GM American-designed vehicle. At one point, Consumer Reports had the Century/Regal briefly tied with the Toyota Camry/Honda Accord in reliability.
For 2009, three basic models of the LaCrosse are available......CX, CXL, and Super. The CXS model, with the more advanced 3.6L V6, has been dropped. All LaCrosse models come with a silky-smooth 4-speed automatic. CX and CXL models come with the old push-rod 3.8L V6 that had its roots in the early 1960s, though admittedly much tweaked and improved since then. Still, it is one of the oldest automotive engines still currently in production....and, to some extent, it shows (again, more on that below). The Super model (which, to date, has not sold well), comes with the same 5.3L transversely-mounted V8 found in the sister Chevy Impala SS and Pontiac Grand Prix GTP. The Super also comes with a slightly more aggressive suspension, power-steering system, and wheels/tires than the CX and CXL models. However, for the review, I chose a CXL model instead of the Super, for two reasons. First the Super has not sold well.....it has not appealed to a wide audience yet. Second, its sister GM cars with the same drivetrain (Impala SS, Grand Prix GTP), according to other reviews (not mine), have had noted torque steer from all that power (300 HP/325 ft-lbs. of torque) being channeled through FWD. Even Cadillac, with its powerful, front-drive Northstar FWD V8s, has not been not immune from at least some torque steer. Nissan, though, seems to be able to combine relatively powerful engines on the Altima with front-drive without having the steering wheel yanked out of your hands when you accelerate hard, and Acura, to a lesser extent, on the Acura TL Type-S.
Buick, lately, has been targeting Lexus quality and fit/finish in its ad campaigns (another reason why I'm doing a Buick review in a primarily Lexus forum) and has adopted a "Drive beautifully" slogan, similiar to Lincoln's "Travel Well". Lexus, to some extent, has opened itself up to more competition here by having the quality and ride-comfort standards on its vehicles drop slightly in recent years, and Buick, of course, is taking advantage of that. But, while the LaCrosse is indeed a nice car, it would be stretching it a bit to call it a Lexus...and I'm simply being honest here. The Buick powertrain, for one, despite the silky-smooth transmission, is simply not comparable with that of a Lexus. And Buick does not offer AWD on its regular cars like Lexus does, either.....you have to get a Buick Enclave to get AWD, a relatively big, heavy, car-based SUV, although the Enclave's rich-looking interior is nothing to laugh at. The Lacrosse, overall, is a big improvement over the Century/Regal and the dull, cheap, bargain-basement-plastic interiors that those twins shared. The Century/Regal may have been reliable, but their interiors, especially compared to the nicely-detailed Buicks of the 1960's I grew up with, were, IMO, a joke.
Of course, no Buick review, at least from me, would be complete without mentioning how badly the auto press has panned the vehicles from this famous nameplate. Every car, of course, has its ups and downs, its good points and bad. But the auto press, for years, unfairly, has painted Buicks as virtual Grandpa/Grandma vehicles that have little or no appeal to those under 60 or so. I strongly disagree with that assessment....I always have. It is true that Buicks DO appeal to many older people, but it is just as true that you don't have to have one foot in the grave to own or drive one...or to even desire one. In my neighborhood, a townhouse development, there are several new Buicks owned by those who are either younger or middle-aged adults. In my own youth, I had two used Buicks before the age of 20 (I couldn't afford a new car back then)....and I liked them both, especially the big, plush-riding Electra. The smaller one, a Skylark, had a two-speed automatic that was a joke, but that was its only major shortcoming, besides the lousy GM acrylic-lacquer paint used back then. (Of course, like ANY teen-ager of the time, I also liked the 60's vintage pony/muscle cars, and I also owned a Plymouth Barracuda). In China, today, one of the world's fastest-growing auto markets, Buicks are regarded as prestige vehicles (similiar to that of Lexus in other markets), and, in China, you are considered high on the social ladder if you drive a Buick. GM has opened Buick assembly plants in China and still cannot meet local demand, even with China's vast labor pool. However, it must be noted that (and GM execs have admitted this), GM puts more effort into its Chinese-market Buicks than it does here in the U.S., simply because the Chinese public demands it. And, last, of course, it is no secret that the future of both GM and Buick (at least in the American market) is iffy, right, now with the Congressional bailout money. Few people would want to buy a vehicle that will lose its factory service/warranty coverage shortly by going out of buisness....but, of course, a more likely scenario would be only temporary bankrupcy before GM restuctures itself and gets off to a fresh start.
So....the LaCrosse at least LOOKS like something from an upmarket-vehicle nameplate, and, unlike 80s/90s vintage American Buicks, has hardware that doesn't feel like it will fall right off in your hands. But, is it built like one, and does it drive like one? Read On.
Model Reviewed: 2009 Buick LaCrosse CXL
Base Price: $28,760 (includes freight)
Major Options:
Driver Confidence Package: $1095
Stabilitrak Stability Control: $495
Power Sunroof: $900
Bluetooth Phone System: $50
Destination/Freight: N/A
List price as reviewed: $31,300
Drivetrain: FWD, Transversely-mounted 3.8L SFI V6, 200 HP @ 5200 RPM, 230 ft-lbs. torque @ 4000 RPM, 4-speed automatic transmission (no manual Sport-shift).
EPA Mileage Rating: 17 City, 28 Highway
Exterior Color: Quicksilver Metallic
Interior: Titanium Leather
PLUSSES:
Excellent, easy-to use, Buick website.
CX model a somewhat better bargain than CXL.
Excellent GM 5/100 drivetrain warranty.
Good riding comfort, by today's standards.
Well-done brakes.
Relatively good EPA mileage ratings.
Comfortable seats.
Silky-smooth automatic transmission.
Nice fore-aft transmission shifter.
Fairly good exterior sheet metal quality.
Good underhood layout.
Standard OnStar emergency system.
Nice paint job.
Solid, well-insulated hood.
Roomy, well-finished trunk.
Well-designed trunk hinges.
Fairly good front/rear legroom.
Nice soft-touch interior dash/door trim panels.
Widespread, attractive interior wood-tone trim.
Several interior cloth/leather color choices.
Bench-seat/column-sfift versions available, if desired, for maximum front-seat room.
Excellent stereo sound quality.
Nice, easy-to-use stereo, climate, and trip-computer buttons/*****.
Traditionally good GM air-conditioning.
Easy-to-adjust air vents.
Clear, easy-to-read gauges and displays.
Better-than-average reliability record.
MINUSES:
Unfairly tagged by the auto press with an AARP/geezer image.
"Drive Beautifully" Buick ad slogan a little overrated.
Ancient, push-rod 3.8L V6 shows its age.
4-speed automatic transmission could use another gear.
Lack of manual-shift gate hampers quick manual-shift action for up/downgrades.
Sloppy handling.
Poor steering response.
Marked body roll.
Slight wind noise with the sunroof (?).
Sunroof cuts into interior headroom.
Unimpressive interior leather.
Relatively noisy click-clack turn signals.
Rigid, non-swiveling outside mirror.
Non-locking gas cap.
Quirky security system.
Temporary donut spare tire.
Overly-dull paint colors, except for Red Jewel Tint Clearcoat paint.
Extra charge for (you guessed it) Red Jewel Tint Clearcoat.
Somewhat flimsy fold-down rear-seat latches.
Manual-tilt/telescope steering column sits a little low for tall people, even at full-up.
Lacking in several traditional Buick exterior trim touches.
GM/Buick future in doubt with the bailout money.
EXTERIOR:
The LaCrosse exterior, as you approach it and walk to it, is contemporary Buick with the big, chrome oval-shaped grille (rather nicely done, BTW, although of typical GM chrome-plated plastic) that is more-or-less similiar to those on the larger Enclave and Lucerne. The LaCrosse's headlights, however, are very different, being of the four-round-individual type found on some older Jaguars, older Lexus GS models, Acura Integras, and pre-2000 Celicas. The paint job is very good, even borderline excellent, paint jobs being one area where GM has improvemed enormously in the past few years. There was virtually no orange peel, the finish was smooth and glossy, and the paint applied evenly. Too bad that Buick, like so many other manufacturers today, contracted with Murphy's Funeral Home for the paint colors themselves. Only the Red Jewel Tintcoat keeps you from nodding off to sleep; with Buick having the annoying Euro-manufacturer policy of charging extra for it.
The exterior itself, IMO, looks pretty good, although styling, of course, is a matter of individual taste. Chromed plastic/vinyl is liberally used for many of the exterior trim functions, yet is not done to excess, like on the Buicks (and other cars) of the late 50s. I didn't care for the feel of the vinyl used to cover the rear bumpers, however....it felt thin and unsubstantial. I also didn't care much for the non-locking gas-filler door and non-swiveling outside mirrors...two obvious bean-counter tactics (the larger Buick Lucerne DOES have swiveling mirrors). At least the mirror housings, unlike those on many other domestically-designed cars, have what feels like quality plastic. The sheet metal and doors are reasonably solid...again, an improvement on some of its domestic competitiors. Most of the outside hardware and trim feels of reasonably high quality, although you can feel the difference between what Buick uses and the superb hardware that you find on, say, an Acura RL.
Yet there are some things the Lacrosse (and other Buicks) now lack that are Buick traditions and, except for high-performance, sporting Buicks like the old Grand National, are needed on a Buick....a Buick, IMO, just isn't a Buick without them. One is whitewall tires. Another is vinyl roofs. Another is the red/white/blue shield stand-up hood ornament. All three are missing, though the traditonal "portholes" are in the front fender (now with chrome-plastic hardware instead of metal, of course). And Buick, in another move I disagree with, traded the classy red/white/blue shield logo for the chintzy, cheap-looking (IMO) chrome-outline shield logo.
Look below the beltline, and you will see nice, fairly smooth-riding 55-series all-season tires (more on that below). The CX model gets even smoother-riding 60-series rubber; the Super gets more aggreesive 50s. 60-series tires, and their riding comfort, are almost extinct now on most passenger cars, auto designers having sacrified more and more each year to the gods of quick steering/handling. Handling, though, on this car, DOES pay a price......more on that below.
UNDERHOOD:
Open the reasonably solid and well-made hood, and two nice gas struts (expected in a 31K car, of course) hold it up for you. A nice, thick insulation blanket covers the whole bottom of the hood. The ancient, 3.8L, push-rod V6 (most manufacturers got rid of push-rod engines years ago) goes back to the Buick Skylark of the early 60's (my own 1965 Skylark had the 300 cubic-inch V8, not the V6). That V6 engine had a reputation, because of the crankshaft design and cylinder-firing order, of somewhat rough, unrefined operation. Buick, of course, has had some 45 years to work on it, refine it, and make a number of engineering changes, but it still shows its age, to some extent.....more on that below, in the ON THE ROAD section. It has become a fairly reliable powerplant in the meantime, though, of course, not as reliable as the famous Dodge/Plymouth in-line Slant Six.
The thick underhood insulation, of course, comes in handy with this engine, helping to absorb some of its NVH. And the engine itself, modified over the years for sideways (transverse)/front-drive installiation, fits in under the hood pretty good.....I had few complaints, other than the even cheaper-plastic-than-usual engine cover that hid the top of the engine. But the overall underhood layout is pretty good...the engine block leaves room to reach components around the sides. The alternator is behind the sideways-mounted block, on the left, but is fairly easily reachable because it is up on top with no covers. The battery is on the left, uncovered, with conventional terminals (GM having dropped the side-terminal batteries). The ignition modules are also easily reachable, as are dipsticks and reservoirs.
INTERIOR:
Some CL members have complained about the present Lacrosse's interior being too "retro", "conservative", "too much" wood-tone trim, and "too much" like older Cadillacs. I disagree....partly, because I don't see anything wrong with that type of interior. It sure beats the ultra-cheap interior of the car it replaces, the Century/Regal. In fact, Buick went to this kind of interior on its newer models partially due to repeated customer complaints on the last-generation Century, Regal, Lesabre, and Park Avenue Interiors....it was one of the major objectives of Bob Lutz's new management style at GM when he came in and took over.
That said, the LaCrosse's interior, of course, is not perfect......it isnt on any car, so I'll get the flies out the ointment first. The power-sunroof (a $900 option), eats up a significant amount of both front and rear headroom for tall persons....and causes some wind air noise at speed (more on that below). The seat leather, as in many new cars these days, is too textured and and too vinyl-like for my tastes....the plush, cloth seats in the lower-priced CX model actually feel significantly nicer. The leather-covered steering wheel, with its big, rough stiches, is not particularly comfortable to grip. The steering-column buttons are OK, but could use some better plastic. The latches that hold the split-rear seats up in place are not well-made....they require a semi-slam to catch. The fabric pull-down rings for the rear seats are small and hard to grip. The green turn-signal indicator arrows click a little on the loud side......perhaps as a aid to the hearing loss of many older people who drive Buicks. The manual tilt/telescope steering column, even at the full-up poisition, could use some more up-travel for big, tall people.
But that's about it for the interior complaints. Ordinarily I would complain about foot-operated parking brakes, which I often find awkward and inconvienent, but, since Buick offers a full bench-seat version of this car with a column-mounted shifter for more front-seat room (my car did not have it) that necessitates a foot-pedal, I realize that it would be silly and impractical for Buick to have two completely different parking-brake designs for the same car, so I won't list it as a complaint this time.
The rest of the interior, IMO, is pretty well-done, especially for a mass-produced domestic-designed car. One of the best parts of it, IMO, is the BIG, dash-wide strip of wood-tone material (plastic, of course, not real wood) that covers the entire dash. Wood-tone also covers the shifter handle and parts of the door panels. You won't find the unpleasant hard-surface plastic on the dash or door panels of this GM car, even though they are on some other highly-regarded GM sedans like the Saturn Aura and Chevy Malibu. The LaCrosse uses flexible, soft-touch material on door panels, dash, arm rests......almost everywhere in the interior. If GM had been doing interiors like this for the last 20 years instead of cheap junk, it might not be in the sorry position it is in today.
The gauges are clear and easily read. The digital displays for the trip computer are easy to read, and the buttons for them are fairly clear, solid, and easy to operate, The stereo and climate control buttons/***** are clear, simple, easy-to-use, and work instinctively (BMW/Audi/Mercedes, take note). All of the control systems, on this non-NAV-car, were simple and easy to operate; perhaps, again, to make it easier for older people who have difficulty multi-tasking and using complex systems....old or young, it was a pleasure using them. The stereo sound is great....borderline superb. The buttons/hardware used inside was not quite as solid or fluid-operating as on some cars (Hondas, especially), but were clearly better-than-average for a domestic-brand car. The air vents are simple and easy-to-operate. Legroom, front and rear, was not NBA-grade, but was fine for all but the tallest adults. The dual sun-visors are well-done and made with quality, plush-feeling surfaces...this is an area where many manufacturers are now stinting in.
CARGO AREA/TRUNK:
The trunk lid is fairly well-designed, and the rear roofline, though somewhat slanted in the modern styling tradition, doesn't cut into the size of the trunk lid too much. Open the lid, and you are greeted with nice, articulating, scissors-type hinges that allow the lid to go up vertically for more head and loading clearance. The cargo area, overall, is pretty well-finished, with a nice, fairly plush grade of dark gray carpeting. There is room for any reasonable amount of luggage/packages, and the usable area is well-shaped and space efficient. There are no remote trunk-releases for the split-rear seats; you have to use the small, inconvienent finger-pull-straps on the rear seat itself, and the latch that holds the seatbacks up in place is rather flimsy and poorly-designed....you have to give it a good whack to get it to hold. The center of the rear seat doesn't have a pass-through for long items in the trunk, but the left-rear seat can, when folded, can accomodate them instead. Another cost-cutting move lies under the trunk floor.....a small, temporary donut spare. A 31K car (or even the base LaCrosse CX model), IMO, deserves better.
ON THE ROAD:
You have a choice starting up the 3.8L V6....a conventional key/fob and steering column-mounted ignition switch or a remote-start fob (fortunately, standard on all Lacrose models). To use the remote-start fob, hit the "Lock" button twice, then hit the remote start button. The Twice-Lock feature, of course, is a safety-security measure intended to secure the car and keep someone from jumping in and taking off with the car before you get there. But, stopping and getting out, it can be rather quirky. I locked myself in, didn't go through the routine correctly getting out, ended up using the regular door-sill pull-up buttons to open the door, then tried to re-start the engine, and set off the burglar alarm like an idiot. The salespeople had to come out and shut it off for me.....and show me the proper procedure for using the fob to get out. It's actually pretty simple...but I don't remember the details.
Anyhow, back to the engine. The V6 starts up smartly, either with the ignition switch or remote starter, and settles into a fairly smooth, quiet idle. Buick engineers have worked on this engine for decades, and have gotten much of its initial vibration out. But a small amount of it is left....it is not Lexus-smooth, although the thick underhood insulation I mentioned earlier does help.
But the engine's age, and basic design, still shows. On the road, the V6 is fairly smooth and quiet, but, again, a small amount of unrefinement still shows. And its 200 HP rating, with 230 ft-lbs. of torque, is well below that of a number of competitors, especially the Nissan/Infiniti V6s that make as much as 320 HP/ torque or over....essentially that of the LaCrosse Super's 5.3L V8. Most of the 3.8L's steam seems to be at lower RPM's....typical of old push-rod engines. At heavy throttle, you get a mild but noticeable shove in the back as most of the torque is concentrated down low, but then the engine noticeably starts to runs out of breath above about 3500 or so. The old supercharged versions of this engine, of course, kept their steam higher into the RPM range, but are no longer used in Buick products.
The 4-speed automatic transmission shifts silky-smooth, like most contemporary GM units, but could benefit from another gear or two. The rather tall overall final-drive ratio keeps the engine RPM down at cruise speeds, which helps with its refinement and noise level a little, too. The tall gearing also helps with the fairly good EPA mileage ratings for an engine this size...it is rated at 28 Highway, but 30 or more is probably easily achievable with a light foot and constant, moderate speeds. The wide gear spacing is a result of the tall gearing/overdrive ratio combined with a need for a short first gear to get the car moing from rest, even with V6 torque. So, with only four speeds, the spacing (and RPM drop between gear changes) is significant. A fifth or sixth gear would help somewhat, but more complex transmissions, of course, mean more production costs. Bean-counting on something as cheap as a swivel mirror or a locking gas cap is rather silly, of course, but when you are talking the kind of money that automatic transmissions cost, and GM's critical need to cut BIG costs, maybe the bean counters can be excused a little here. The wood-tone transmission shifter worked reasonably smooth and slick, and had the nice straight fore-and-aft motion I like, without the anonnying zig-zags that some manufacturers use. Perhaps due to additional transmission cost-cutting, or the fact that this is generally a non-sporting car, there is no separate manual-shift gate for the transmission, but up/downshifts for hill climb and descent are done reasonably well by just slipping the lever back easily or bumping it forward to the next gear (the lever can be brought all the way back to first gear if needed).
Ride comfort, as expected of a Buick, was quite good by today's standards...a direct result of the softish suspension and non-aggressive tires with the recommended 30 PSI. Riding comfort like this is getting more and more uncommon in today's cars, as the designers worship at the altar of sportiness...it was nice to experience it once again (though my own Subaru Outback rides acceptably well for my tastes). Unfortunately, the flip side to a soft ride, especially with non-German cars, often means poor handling, and the LaCrosse delivers it in spades. Steering response was quite slow (again by today's standards), and the body rolled like a beach ball. The optional ($495) stability control, which my test car had, would probably keep the heavy understeer from getting too far out of hand, but, even with it, rest assured.....this is no sport sedan. I tried some heavy steering manuvers with the system turned both on and off, and none of them produced anywhere near sharp cornering. With this car, you simply have to slow down for sharp curves, period.
Noise control, at cruise, with the sunroof, left a little to be desired. Buick makes a big deal of its "Quiet Tuning" in ad campaigns, with multiple-paned glass, effective seals, and quiet-running tires. Road noise levels, in fact, were quite low on all road surfaces, in the Buick tradition, but a rather small but significant amount of wind noise was heard at speeds of over, say 45-50 MPH. The salespeople said it was because of the sunroof, that non-sunroof Buicks run quieter. I'm not convinced. GM has been making sunroofs......and quiet-running cars......for decades. More likely, it was a small defect in the sunroof's outer sealing.
Brakes were one of the car's strong points.........I was generally pleased with them. The pedal (surprising for a Buick) had almost the solid-feel of a German sedan, with almost no sponginess or free play. Reaction and brake response was immediate, although the brakes themselves did not stop with Porsche 911 authority....and the nose-heaviness of the car, like with most relatively big FWD cars, naturally puts a disproportinate share of the load on the front brakes. There was no problem, either, with the brake/gas pedal placement, which, in some cars, can cause problems with my big, size-15 clodhoppers hanging up on or under the pedals as I shift them from gas to brake and back again.
THE VERDICT:
If you are used to driving BMWs, and you want a sharp-handling sports sedan, this is not the car for you......my strong advice is to look elsewhere. But, not everyone is in the market for that.........some people still place riding comfort on a high level, although car designers, because of pressure from the automotive press, tend to ignore that more and more these days, regardless of consumer desires. This car, despite its poor handling and unsuitability for narrow, twisting roads, delivers about as much ride comfort as you can still find in a mid-size car these days (enjoy it while it lasts). The simplicity and user-friendliness of most of the dash controls is first-rate....a model, IMO, for many of its competitors, which can be quite frustrating at times. The GM drivetrain warranty is excellent. The paint job, now, is close to Lexus territory. The seat, despite cheapish leather and a lack of side support, are comfortable, and don't have the hard, rigid, park-bench cushions that many cars do today.....again, perhaps aimed at an older crowd with sore bodies. The interior trim surfaces are much better than the typical GM junk of past years. And, it has a relatively good repair/reliability record to boot...better then most German cars.
But, there are needed improvments as well. The antiquated push-rod 3.8L V6 is long overdue for a replacement....I have no idea why GM has kept it this long. Last year's LaCrosse CXS model, with its much nicer (though maybe less reliable) 3.6L OHC V6, has apparantly been dropped....I could not find it any more either on Buick's excellent web site or in the literature. The transmission, once GM gets its financial house back in order, needs a redesign with more gears and a manual-shift gate....but keep that silky-smooth shift action. Put a real spare tire in the trunk. And put in better rear reat-folding latches that don't require old, weak people to slam them back.
I'd also like to make another major observation before I close here. My test car, a CXL model, started at 28K and listed at over 31K with options. That's not a huge amount of money for a relatively upmarket sedan nowadays (V8 Super LaCrosse models, of course, can run much more), but I couldn't help noticing that the entry-level LaCrosse CX model, by contrast, seemed like somewhat of a bargain in comparison. After driving and reviewing the CXL, and then looking the CX over, I became more and more convinced that the CX, for many people, especially with a limited budget, was the way to go. Some basic CX models there, on the lot, without a lot of options, listed for several thousand less than my CXL test car. The CX model has the same drivetrain, chassis, and interior trim as the CXL model, with the exception of cloth seats and 60-series tires, which will probably ride even smoother than the CXL's 55-series. I mentioned earlier that I liked the CX model's plush cloth seats even more then the CXL's "leather". Most of the CX models in stock also did not have the optional sunroof, which may (?) have been the source of that wind-noise issue, though I'm still not convinced the sunroof design itself was to blame.
So, there you have it....the 2009 LaCrosse. I plan to take a quick, static look at the all-new 2010 model at the D.C. Auto Show in Feburary, if Buick sees fit to bring one down from the big Detroit show. I'll post any comments I have, of course, on it.
http://www.buick.com/ngis/buick/lacrosse/
In a Nutshell: Definitely non-sporting, but that doesn't mean you have to be Grandma or Grandpa to drive one.
Buick, of course, is not normally a popular brand at CL among sport-sedan enthusiasts (except, perhaps, with the 20-year-old Regal Grand National), but there's been a fair amount of talk and posting lately on CL with the 2010 LaCrosse, its relation to the 2009 model it will replace, and how much different the new model will (?) be. I can't comment a lot on the new model, except for the few pictures I've seen of it, although it does seem to have some Cadillac CTS-derived touches to it, so I will save that for a later date when it becomes available. In the meantime, however, I thought I'd get in a review of the current 2009 LaCrosse, which will probably be its last year. That will give you at least an idea of what the present car is like, so you can have some apples to compare with the future oranges.
Buick introduced the present-generation LaCrosse in 2005 to replace the former mid-sized Century/Regal models. The relatively slow-selling, supercharged 3.8L Regal GS model was not replaced by an equivalent model of the LaCrosse.....all LaCrosse models have generally been normally-aspirated, although a new 5.3L V8 Super model is available this year (more on that below). Like the Century/Regal models before it, the Lacrosse has enjoyed a better-than-average reliability record, which is good for a GM American-designed vehicle. At one point, Consumer Reports had the Century/Regal briefly tied with the Toyota Camry/Honda Accord in reliability.
For 2009, three basic models of the LaCrosse are available......CX, CXL, and Super. The CXS model, with the more advanced 3.6L V6, has been dropped. All LaCrosse models come with a silky-smooth 4-speed automatic. CX and CXL models come with the old push-rod 3.8L V6 that had its roots in the early 1960s, though admittedly much tweaked and improved since then. Still, it is one of the oldest automotive engines still currently in production....and, to some extent, it shows (again, more on that below). The Super model (which, to date, has not sold well), comes with the same 5.3L transversely-mounted V8 found in the sister Chevy Impala SS and Pontiac Grand Prix GTP. The Super also comes with a slightly more aggressive suspension, power-steering system, and wheels/tires than the CX and CXL models. However, for the review, I chose a CXL model instead of the Super, for two reasons. First the Super has not sold well.....it has not appealed to a wide audience yet. Second, its sister GM cars with the same drivetrain (Impala SS, Grand Prix GTP), according to other reviews (not mine), have had noted torque steer from all that power (300 HP/325 ft-lbs. of torque) being channeled through FWD. Even Cadillac, with its powerful, front-drive Northstar FWD V8s, has not been not immune from at least some torque steer. Nissan, though, seems to be able to combine relatively powerful engines on the Altima with front-drive without having the steering wheel yanked out of your hands when you accelerate hard, and Acura, to a lesser extent, on the Acura TL Type-S.
Buick, lately, has been targeting Lexus quality and fit/finish in its ad campaigns (another reason why I'm doing a Buick review in a primarily Lexus forum) and has adopted a "Drive beautifully" slogan, similiar to Lincoln's "Travel Well". Lexus, to some extent, has opened itself up to more competition here by having the quality and ride-comfort standards on its vehicles drop slightly in recent years, and Buick, of course, is taking advantage of that. But, while the LaCrosse is indeed a nice car, it would be stretching it a bit to call it a Lexus...and I'm simply being honest here. The Buick powertrain, for one, despite the silky-smooth transmission, is simply not comparable with that of a Lexus. And Buick does not offer AWD on its regular cars like Lexus does, either.....you have to get a Buick Enclave to get AWD, a relatively big, heavy, car-based SUV, although the Enclave's rich-looking interior is nothing to laugh at. The Lacrosse, overall, is a big improvement over the Century/Regal and the dull, cheap, bargain-basement-plastic interiors that those twins shared. The Century/Regal may have been reliable, but their interiors, especially compared to the nicely-detailed Buicks of the 1960's I grew up with, were, IMO, a joke.
Of course, no Buick review, at least from me, would be complete without mentioning how badly the auto press has panned the vehicles from this famous nameplate. Every car, of course, has its ups and downs, its good points and bad. But the auto press, for years, unfairly, has painted Buicks as virtual Grandpa/Grandma vehicles that have little or no appeal to those under 60 or so. I strongly disagree with that assessment....I always have. It is true that Buicks DO appeal to many older people, but it is just as true that you don't have to have one foot in the grave to own or drive one...or to even desire one. In my neighborhood, a townhouse development, there are several new Buicks owned by those who are either younger or middle-aged adults. In my own youth, I had two used Buicks before the age of 20 (I couldn't afford a new car back then)....and I liked them both, especially the big, plush-riding Electra. The smaller one, a Skylark, had a two-speed automatic that was a joke, but that was its only major shortcoming, besides the lousy GM acrylic-lacquer paint used back then. (Of course, like ANY teen-ager of the time, I also liked the 60's vintage pony/muscle cars, and I also owned a Plymouth Barracuda). In China, today, one of the world's fastest-growing auto markets, Buicks are regarded as prestige vehicles (similiar to that of Lexus in other markets), and, in China, you are considered high on the social ladder if you drive a Buick. GM has opened Buick assembly plants in China and still cannot meet local demand, even with China's vast labor pool. However, it must be noted that (and GM execs have admitted this), GM puts more effort into its Chinese-market Buicks than it does here in the U.S., simply because the Chinese public demands it. And, last, of course, it is no secret that the future of both GM and Buick (at least in the American market) is iffy, right, now with the Congressional bailout money. Few people would want to buy a vehicle that will lose its factory service/warranty coverage shortly by going out of buisness....but, of course, a more likely scenario would be only temporary bankrupcy before GM restuctures itself and gets off to a fresh start.
So....the LaCrosse at least LOOKS like something from an upmarket-vehicle nameplate, and, unlike 80s/90s vintage American Buicks, has hardware that doesn't feel like it will fall right off in your hands. But, is it built like one, and does it drive like one? Read On.
Model Reviewed: 2009 Buick LaCrosse CXL
Base Price: $28,760 (includes freight)
Major Options:
Driver Confidence Package: $1095
Stabilitrak Stability Control: $495
Power Sunroof: $900
Bluetooth Phone System: $50
Destination/Freight: N/A
List price as reviewed: $31,300
Drivetrain: FWD, Transversely-mounted 3.8L SFI V6, 200 HP @ 5200 RPM, 230 ft-lbs. torque @ 4000 RPM, 4-speed automatic transmission (no manual Sport-shift).
EPA Mileage Rating: 17 City, 28 Highway
Exterior Color: Quicksilver Metallic
Interior: Titanium Leather
PLUSSES:
Excellent, easy-to use, Buick website.
CX model a somewhat better bargain than CXL.
Excellent GM 5/100 drivetrain warranty.
Good riding comfort, by today's standards.
Well-done brakes.
Relatively good EPA mileage ratings.
Comfortable seats.
Silky-smooth automatic transmission.
Nice fore-aft transmission shifter.
Fairly good exterior sheet metal quality.
Good underhood layout.
Standard OnStar emergency system.
Nice paint job.
Solid, well-insulated hood.
Roomy, well-finished trunk.
Well-designed trunk hinges.
Fairly good front/rear legroom.
Nice soft-touch interior dash/door trim panels.
Widespread, attractive interior wood-tone trim.
Several interior cloth/leather color choices.
Bench-seat/column-sfift versions available, if desired, for maximum front-seat room.
Excellent stereo sound quality.
Nice, easy-to-use stereo, climate, and trip-computer buttons/*****.
Traditionally good GM air-conditioning.
Easy-to-adjust air vents.
Clear, easy-to-read gauges and displays.
Better-than-average reliability record.
MINUSES:
Unfairly tagged by the auto press with an AARP/geezer image.
"Drive Beautifully" Buick ad slogan a little overrated.
Ancient, push-rod 3.8L V6 shows its age.
4-speed automatic transmission could use another gear.
Lack of manual-shift gate hampers quick manual-shift action for up/downgrades.
Sloppy handling.
Poor steering response.
Marked body roll.
Slight wind noise with the sunroof (?).
Sunroof cuts into interior headroom.
Unimpressive interior leather.
Relatively noisy click-clack turn signals.
Rigid, non-swiveling outside mirror.
Non-locking gas cap.
Quirky security system.
Temporary donut spare tire.
Overly-dull paint colors, except for Red Jewel Tint Clearcoat paint.
Extra charge for (you guessed it) Red Jewel Tint Clearcoat.
Somewhat flimsy fold-down rear-seat latches.
Manual-tilt/telescope steering column sits a little low for tall people, even at full-up.
Lacking in several traditional Buick exterior trim touches.
GM/Buick future in doubt with the bailout money.
EXTERIOR:
The LaCrosse exterior, as you approach it and walk to it, is contemporary Buick with the big, chrome oval-shaped grille (rather nicely done, BTW, although of typical GM chrome-plated plastic) that is more-or-less similiar to those on the larger Enclave and Lucerne. The LaCrosse's headlights, however, are very different, being of the four-round-individual type found on some older Jaguars, older Lexus GS models, Acura Integras, and pre-2000 Celicas. The paint job is very good, even borderline excellent, paint jobs being one area where GM has improvemed enormously in the past few years. There was virtually no orange peel, the finish was smooth and glossy, and the paint applied evenly. Too bad that Buick, like so many other manufacturers today, contracted with Murphy's Funeral Home for the paint colors themselves. Only the Red Jewel Tintcoat keeps you from nodding off to sleep; with Buick having the annoying Euro-manufacturer policy of charging extra for it.
The exterior itself, IMO, looks pretty good, although styling, of course, is a matter of individual taste. Chromed plastic/vinyl is liberally used for many of the exterior trim functions, yet is not done to excess, like on the Buicks (and other cars) of the late 50s. I didn't care for the feel of the vinyl used to cover the rear bumpers, however....it felt thin and unsubstantial. I also didn't care much for the non-locking gas-filler door and non-swiveling outside mirrors...two obvious bean-counter tactics (the larger Buick Lucerne DOES have swiveling mirrors). At least the mirror housings, unlike those on many other domestically-designed cars, have what feels like quality plastic. The sheet metal and doors are reasonably solid...again, an improvement on some of its domestic competitiors. Most of the outside hardware and trim feels of reasonably high quality, although you can feel the difference between what Buick uses and the superb hardware that you find on, say, an Acura RL.
Yet there are some things the Lacrosse (and other Buicks) now lack that are Buick traditions and, except for high-performance, sporting Buicks like the old Grand National, are needed on a Buick....a Buick, IMO, just isn't a Buick without them. One is whitewall tires. Another is vinyl roofs. Another is the red/white/blue shield stand-up hood ornament. All three are missing, though the traditonal "portholes" are in the front fender (now with chrome-plastic hardware instead of metal, of course). And Buick, in another move I disagree with, traded the classy red/white/blue shield logo for the chintzy, cheap-looking (IMO) chrome-outline shield logo.
Look below the beltline, and you will see nice, fairly smooth-riding 55-series all-season tires (more on that below). The CX model gets even smoother-riding 60-series rubber; the Super gets more aggreesive 50s. 60-series tires, and their riding comfort, are almost extinct now on most passenger cars, auto designers having sacrified more and more each year to the gods of quick steering/handling. Handling, though, on this car, DOES pay a price......more on that below.
UNDERHOOD:
Open the reasonably solid and well-made hood, and two nice gas struts (expected in a 31K car, of course) hold it up for you. A nice, thick insulation blanket covers the whole bottom of the hood. The ancient, 3.8L, push-rod V6 (most manufacturers got rid of push-rod engines years ago) goes back to the Buick Skylark of the early 60's (my own 1965 Skylark had the 300 cubic-inch V8, not the V6). That V6 engine had a reputation, because of the crankshaft design and cylinder-firing order, of somewhat rough, unrefined operation. Buick, of course, has had some 45 years to work on it, refine it, and make a number of engineering changes, but it still shows its age, to some extent.....more on that below, in the ON THE ROAD section. It has become a fairly reliable powerplant in the meantime, though, of course, not as reliable as the famous Dodge/Plymouth in-line Slant Six.
The thick underhood insulation, of course, comes in handy with this engine, helping to absorb some of its NVH. And the engine itself, modified over the years for sideways (transverse)/front-drive installiation, fits in under the hood pretty good.....I had few complaints, other than the even cheaper-plastic-than-usual engine cover that hid the top of the engine. But the overall underhood layout is pretty good...the engine block leaves room to reach components around the sides. The alternator is behind the sideways-mounted block, on the left, but is fairly easily reachable because it is up on top with no covers. The battery is on the left, uncovered, with conventional terminals (GM having dropped the side-terminal batteries). The ignition modules are also easily reachable, as are dipsticks and reservoirs.
INTERIOR:
Some CL members have complained about the present Lacrosse's interior being too "retro", "conservative", "too much" wood-tone trim, and "too much" like older Cadillacs. I disagree....partly, because I don't see anything wrong with that type of interior. It sure beats the ultra-cheap interior of the car it replaces, the Century/Regal. In fact, Buick went to this kind of interior on its newer models partially due to repeated customer complaints on the last-generation Century, Regal, Lesabre, and Park Avenue Interiors....it was one of the major objectives of Bob Lutz's new management style at GM when he came in and took over.
That said, the LaCrosse's interior, of course, is not perfect......it isnt on any car, so I'll get the flies out the ointment first. The power-sunroof (a $900 option), eats up a significant amount of both front and rear headroom for tall persons....and causes some wind air noise at speed (more on that below). The seat leather, as in many new cars these days, is too textured and and too vinyl-like for my tastes....the plush, cloth seats in the lower-priced CX model actually feel significantly nicer. The leather-covered steering wheel, with its big, rough stiches, is not particularly comfortable to grip. The steering-column buttons are OK, but could use some better plastic. The latches that hold the split-rear seats up in place are not well-made....they require a semi-slam to catch. The fabric pull-down rings for the rear seats are small and hard to grip. The green turn-signal indicator arrows click a little on the loud side......perhaps as a aid to the hearing loss of many older people who drive Buicks. The manual tilt/telescope steering column, even at the full-up poisition, could use some more up-travel for big, tall people.
But that's about it for the interior complaints. Ordinarily I would complain about foot-operated parking brakes, which I often find awkward and inconvienent, but, since Buick offers a full bench-seat version of this car with a column-mounted shifter for more front-seat room (my car did not have it) that necessitates a foot-pedal, I realize that it would be silly and impractical for Buick to have two completely different parking-brake designs for the same car, so I won't list it as a complaint this time.
The rest of the interior, IMO, is pretty well-done, especially for a mass-produced domestic-designed car. One of the best parts of it, IMO, is the BIG, dash-wide strip of wood-tone material (plastic, of course, not real wood) that covers the entire dash. Wood-tone also covers the shifter handle and parts of the door panels. You won't find the unpleasant hard-surface plastic on the dash or door panels of this GM car, even though they are on some other highly-regarded GM sedans like the Saturn Aura and Chevy Malibu. The LaCrosse uses flexible, soft-touch material on door panels, dash, arm rests......almost everywhere in the interior. If GM had been doing interiors like this for the last 20 years instead of cheap junk, it might not be in the sorry position it is in today.
The gauges are clear and easily read. The digital displays for the trip computer are easy to read, and the buttons for them are fairly clear, solid, and easy to operate, The stereo and climate control buttons/***** are clear, simple, easy-to-use, and work instinctively (BMW/Audi/Mercedes, take note). All of the control systems, on this non-NAV-car, were simple and easy to operate; perhaps, again, to make it easier for older people who have difficulty multi-tasking and using complex systems....old or young, it was a pleasure using them. The stereo sound is great....borderline superb. The buttons/hardware used inside was not quite as solid or fluid-operating as on some cars (Hondas, especially), but were clearly better-than-average for a domestic-brand car. The air vents are simple and easy-to-operate. Legroom, front and rear, was not NBA-grade, but was fine for all but the tallest adults. The dual sun-visors are well-done and made with quality, plush-feeling surfaces...this is an area where many manufacturers are now stinting in.
CARGO AREA/TRUNK:
The trunk lid is fairly well-designed, and the rear roofline, though somewhat slanted in the modern styling tradition, doesn't cut into the size of the trunk lid too much. Open the lid, and you are greeted with nice, articulating, scissors-type hinges that allow the lid to go up vertically for more head and loading clearance. The cargo area, overall, is pretty well-finished, with a nice, fairly plush grade of dark gray carpeting. There is room for any reasonable amount of luggage/packages, and the usable area is well-shaped and space efficient. There are no remote trunk-releases for the split-rear seats; you have to use the small, inconvienent finger-pull-straps on the rear seat itself, and the latch that holds the seatbacks up in place is rather flimsy and poorly-designed....you have to give it a good whack to get it to hold. The center of the rear seat doesn't have a pass-through for long items in the trunk, but the left-rear seat can, when folded, can accomodate them instead. Another cost-cutting move lies under the trunk floor.....a small, temporary donut spare. A 31K car (or even the base LaCrosse CX model), IMO, deserves better.
ON THE ROAD:
You have a choice starting up the 3.8L V6....a conventional key/fob and steering column-mounted ignition switch or a remote-start fob (fortunately, standard on all Lacrose models). To use the remote-start fob, hit the "Lock" button twice, then hit the remote start button. The Twice-Lock feature, of course, is a safety-security measure intended to secure the car and keep someone from jumping in and taking off with the car before you get there. But, stopping and getting out, it can be rather quirky. I locked myself in, didn't go through the routine correctly getting out, ended up using the regular door-sill pull-up buttons to open the door, then tried to re-start the engine, and set off the burglar alarm like an idiot. The salespeople had to come out and shut it off for me.....and show me the proper procedure for using the fob to get out. It's actually pretty simple...but I don't remember the details.
Anyhow, back to the engine. The V6 starts up smartly, either with the ignition switch or remote starter, and settles into a fairly smooth, quiet idle. Buick engineers have worked on this engine for decades, and have gotten much of its initial vibration out. But a small amount of it is left....it is not Lexus-smooth, although the thick underhood insulation I mentioned earlier does help.
But the engine's age, and basic design, still shows. On the road, the V6 is fairly smooth and quiet, but, again, a small amount of unrefinement still shows. And its 200 HP rating, with 230 ft-lbs. of torque, is well below that of a number of competitors, especially the Nissan/Infiniti V6s that make as much as 320 HP/ torque or over....essentially that of the LaCrosse Super's 5.3L V8. Most of the 3.8L's steam seems to be at lower RPM's....typical of old push-rod engines. At heavy throttle, you get a mild but noticeable shove in the back as most of the torque is concentrated down low, but then the engine noticeably starts to runs out of breath above about 3500 or so. The old supercharged versions of this engine, of course, kept their steam higher into the RPM range, but are no longer used in Buick products.
The 4-speed automatic transmission shifts silky-smooth, like most contemporary GM units, but could benefit from another gear or two. The rather tall overall final-drive ratio keeps the engine RPM down at cruise speeds, which helps with its refinement and noise level a little, too. The tall gearing also helps with the fairly good EPA mileage ratings for an engine this size...it is rated at 28 Highway, but 30 or more is probably easily achievable with a light foot and constant, moderate speeds. The wide gear spacing is a result of the tall gearing/overdrive ratio combined with a need for a short first gear to get the car moing from rest, even with V6 torque. So, with only four speeds, the spacing (and RPM drop between gear changes) is significant. A fifth or sixth gear would help somewhat, but more complex transmissions, of course, mean more production costs. Bean-counting on something as cheap as a swivel mirror or a locking gas cap is rather silly, of course, but when you are talking the kind of money that automatic transmissions cost, and GM's critical need to cut BIG costs, maybe the bean counters can be excused a little here. The wood-tone transmission shifter worked reasonably smooth and slick, and had the nice straight fore-and-aft motion I like, without the anonnying zig-zags that some manufacturers use. Perhaps due to additional transmission cost-cutting, or the fact that this is generally a non-sporting car, there is no separate manual-shift gate for the transmission, but up/downshifts for hill climb and descent are done reasonably well by just slipping the lever back easily or bumping it forward to the next gear (the lever can be brought all the way back to first gear if needed).
Ride comfort, as expected of a Buick, was quite good by today's standards...a direct result of the softish suspension and non-aggressive tires with the recommended 30 PSI. Riding comfort like this is getting more and more uncommon in today's cars, as the designers worship at the altar of sportiness...it was nice to experience it once again (though my own Subaru Outback rides acceptably well for my tastes). Unfortunately, the flip side to a soft ride, especially with non-German cars, often means poor handling, and the LaCrosse delivers it in spades. Steering response was quite slow (again by today's standards), and the body rolled like a beach ball. The optional ($495) stability control, which my test car had, would probably keep the heavy understeer from getting too far out of hand, but, even with it, rest assured.....this is no sport sedan. I tried some heavy steering manuvers with the system turned both on and off, and none of them produced anywhere near sharp cornering. With this car, you simply have to slow down for sharp curves, period.
Noise control, at cruise, with the sunroof, left a little to be desired. Buick makes a big deal of its "Quiet Tuning" in ad campaigns, with multiple-paned glass, effective seals, and quiet-running tires. Road noise levels, in fact, were quite low on all road surfaces, in the Buick tradition, but a rather small but significant amount of wind noise was heard at speeds of over, say 45-50 MPH. The salespeople said it was because of the sunroof, that non-sunroof Buicks run quieter. I'm not convinced. GM has been making sunroofs......and quiet-running cars......for decades. More likely, it was a small defect in the sunroof's outer sealing.
Brakes were one of the car's strong points.........I was generally pleased with them. The pedal (surprising for a Buick) had almost the solid-feel of a German sedan, with almost no sponginess or free play. Reaction and brake response was immediate, although the brakes themselves did not stop with Porsche 911 authority....and the nose-heaviness of the car, like with most relatively big FWD cars, naturally puts a disproportinate share of the load on the front brakes. There was no problem, either, with the brake/gas pedal placement, which, in some cars, can cause problems with my big, size-15 clodhoppers hanging up on or under the pedals as I shift them from gas to brake and back again.
THE VERDICT:
If you are used to driving BMWs, and you want a sharp-handling sports sedan, this is not the car for you......my strong advice is to look elsewhere. But, not everyone is in the market for that.........some people still place riding comfort on a high level, although car designers, because of pressure from the automotive press, tend to ignore that more and more these days, regardless of consumer desires. This car, despite its poor handling and unsuitability for narrow, twisting roads, delivers about as much ride comfort as you can still find in a mid-size car these days (enjoy it while it lasts). The simplicity and user-friendliness of most of the dash controls is first-rate....a model, IMO, for many of its competitors, which can be quite frustrating at times. The GM drivetrain warranty is excellent. The paint job, now, is close to Lexus territory. The seat, despite cheapish leather and a lack of side support, are comfortable, and don't have the hard, rigid, park-bench cushions that many cars do today.....again, perhaps aimed at an older crowd with sore bodies. The interior trim surfaces are much better than the typical GM junk of past years. And, it has a relatively good repair/reliability record to boot...better then most German cars.
But, there are needed improvments as well. The antiquated push-rod 3.8L V6 is long overdue for a replacement....I have no idea why GM has kept it this long. Last year's LaCrosse CXS model, with its much nicer (though maybe less reliable) 3.6L OHC V6, has apparantly been dropped....I could not find it any more either on Buick's excellent web site or in the literature. The transmission, once GM gets its financial house back in order, needs a redesign with more gears and a manual-shift gate....but keep that silky-smooth shift action. Put a real spare tire in the trunk. And put in better rear reat-folding latches that don't require old, weak people to slam them back.
I'd also like to make another major observation before I close here. My test car, a CXL model, started at 28K and listed at over 31K with options. That's not a huge amount of money for a relatively upmarket sedan nowadays (V8 Super LaCrosse models, of course, can run much more), but I couldn't help noticing that the entry-level LaCrosse CX model, by contrast, seemed like somewhat of a bargain in comparison. After driving and reviewing the CXL, and then looking the CX over, I became more and more convinced that the CX, for many people, especially with a limited budget, was the way to go. Some basic CX models there, on the lot, without a lot of options, listed for several thousand less than my CXL test car. The CX model has the same drivetrain, chassis, and interior trim as the CXL model, with the exception of cloth seats and 60-series tires, which will probably ride even smoother than the CXL's 55-series. I mentioned earlier that I liked the CX model's plush cloth seats even more then the CXL's "leather". Most of the CX models in stock also did not have the optional sunroof, which may (?) have been the source of that wind-noise issue, though I'm still not convinced the sunroof design itself was to blame.
So, there you have it....the 2009 LaCrosse. I plan to take a quick, static look at the all-new 2010 model at the D.C. Auto Show in Feburary, if Buick sees fit to bring one down from the big Detroit show. I'll post any comments I have, of course, on it.
Last edited by mmarshall; 12-29-08 at 07:22 PM.
12-29-08, 07:21 PM
#2
Lexus Fanatic
iTrader: (20)
nice review mike, thanks.
question: why would one buy a car like this over, say, the new chevy malibu?
question: why would one buy a car like this over, say, the new chevy malibu?
12-29-08, 07:28 PM
#3
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
Sure...anytime. 
The main reason, as I see it, would be riding comfort. Secondary reasons would be softer seats and interior trim........in other words, those who want cushinness in ride and trim would choose this car. Buicks also have, in general, better reliability records than Chevies and most other GM products. But, I agree with you.....the Malibu and its Saturn Aura twin are nice cars. Both would be high on my consideration list if I were to look at an American-badged FWD car.
I would buy a Buick (like I did in my youth) just to show the arrogant people in the auto press that you don't have to be 70 years old to have one.
question: why would one buy a car like this over, say, the new chevy malibu?
I would buy a Buick (like I did in my youth) just to show the arrogant people in the auto press that you don't have to be 70 years old to have one.
Last edited by mmarshall; 12-29-08 at 07:33 PM.
12-29-08, 07:35 PM
#4
Lexus Champion
I didn't know that Buick dropped the 3.6L. You'd think that would be the engine to keep in this car if they are targeting Lexus - A modern V6 for performance, smoothness and efficiency.
The 4 speed automatic seems outdated too, even though it's smooth and no doubt durable.
I wonder if these things just aren't important to the "typical" Buick buyer?
The 4 speed automatic seems outdated too, even though it's smooth and no doubt durable.
I wonder if these things just aren't important to the "typical" Buick buyer?
12-29-08, 07:44 PM
#5
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
I didn't know that Buick dropped the 3.6L. You'd think that would be the engine to keep in this car if they are targeting Lexus - A modern V6 for performance, smoothness and efficiency.
The 4 speed automatic seems outdated too, even though it's smooth and no doubt durable.
I wonder if these things just aren't important to the "typical" Buick buyer?
The 4 speed automatic seems outdated too, even though it's smooth and no doubt durable.
I wonder if these things just aren't important to the "typical" Buick buyer?
Same with the 4-speed slushbox.....probably just cost-cutting in this critical financial time period for GM. I mentioned that in the review.
As far as them being important to the "typical" Buick buyer, which, despite the fact that younger people DO buy them sometimes, is around age 65, probably not. Older people usually drive sedately, and don't care much about precise transmission control in every gear or high-RPM power/smoothness in the engine.
12-29-08, 07:46 PM
#7
Lexus Fanatic
iTrader: (20)
i wouldn't be surprised if the avg age of a buyer of one of these buicks is about 60 and doesn't care about or even understand technology at all. no interest in ipods, or navigation, or direct injection, etc. the car should be roomy, smooth, comfortable, and quiet. in short, a buick.
but why the heck buick EVER wanted tiger woods as their spokesperson is beyond me!
but why the heck buick EVER wanted tiger woods as their spokesperson is beyond me!
Trending Topics
12-29-08, 07:52 PM
#8
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
i wouldn't be surprised if the avg age of a buyer of one of these buicks is about 60 and doesn't care about or even understand technology at all. no interest in ipods, or navigation, or direct injection, etc. the car should be roomy, smooth, comfortable, and quiet. in short, a buick.
but why the heck buick EVER wanted tiger woods as their spokesperson is beyond me!
12-29-08, 07:59 PM
#9
Lexus Champion
It's telling that GM offers the modern drivetrain goodies in the Chevy Malibu and Saturn Aura, but not on the more "upscale" Buick.
They're content with the current buyer and will continue to appeal to that demographic. Nothing wrong with that - They do it well.
They're content with the current buyer and will continue to appeal to that demographic. Nothing wrong with that - They do it well.
12-29-08, 08:07 PM
#10
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
The Malibu and Aura are both newer designs than the LaCrosse. The all-new 2010 LaCrosse will, my guess, have a 6-speed tanny just like they do. But, as I mentioned earlier, GM's precarious financial situation, right now, may be limiting some of what they can do at the moment.
12-29-08, 08:14 PM
#11
Lead Lap
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: MD
Posts: 4,511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think its ironic that they have competitive comparison on their site. The more upscale Luzerne is def. an relatively attractive vehicle, but the powertrain is a joke. A 227 HP, 230 Trq. 3.9L is the only option unless you get the $40k Super. I guess that is reasonable. But the Northstar V8 sure is weaker than the 5.3L in the Lacrosse. How can the compete with Lexus when their powertrains suck. I get that old people don't need (and some shouldnt have) alot of power. But can we have this lack of power efficiently?
12-29-08, 08:25 PM
#13
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
I think its ironic that they have competitive comparison on their site. The more upscale Luzerne is def. an relatively attractive vehicle, but the powertrain is a joke. A 227 HP, 230 Trq. 3.9L is the only option unless you get the $40k Super. I guess that is reasonable. But the Northstar V8 sure is weaker than the 5.3L in the Lacrosse. How can the compete with Lexus when their powertrains suck. I get that old people don't need (and some shouldnt have) alot of power. But can we have this lack of power efficiently?
12-29-08, 08:28 PM
#14
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
Two reasons. First, I probably don't have the smarts to know how to use and download one properly. Google, in most cases, provides acceptable images that are easily transferrable and posted. Second, my computer laptop, although perfectly adquate for the reviews I do, is somewhat limited in its capacity.....I don't know if it could handle something like that.
12-29-08, 08:44 PM
#15
Lexus Fanatic
The new 2009 Buick La Crosse CXL. The elderly everywhere rejoice. LOL
looks like the same old buick styling and features ( meaning behind the times). Many of the fetures and ammenities have been offered by other manufacturers for a while now. I guess I might just be straight up biased . I usually cant even stomach to drive an american car let alone praise one
looks like the same old buick styling and features ( meaning behind the times). Many of the fetures and ammenities have been offered by other manufacturers for a while now. I guess I might just be straight up biased . I usually cant even stomach to drive an american car let alone praise one