mmarshall

Yes, the last-generation Enclave was, in some ways, an oxymoron. Its interior trim, IMO, even outdid the Escalade for looks on the surface....but, as you note, underneath that rich-looking surface, it was cheap GM plastic. One must also remember that the last-generation Enclave has been in production for almost 10 years......longer than any other current American-market Buick. It represented the old GM, and was designed and put into production before the bankruptcy/bailout, and re-organization. It also was less-reliable than most current Buicks.

SW17LS

Looked like cheap GM plastic on the surface to me too lol

Toys4RJill

Motor Trend liked the new Buick Enclave, but they didn't love it rave about it. Meanwhile as this new Buick is being released, the older 2017 models are offering 17% off the MSRP. The MSRP prices must just be inflated? These discounts are just huge.

SW17LS

Thats very common with American cars. Chrysler products are the same way. It’s factory to dealer incentives. There’s not that much dealer profit in one.

Johnhav430

I think my dad's 2017 Envision was 39,xxx list, and the selling price less sales tax was 31,xxx. He was successful in removing all the dealer add ons including registration, conveyance, the charges pre-printed on the bill of sale, vin etch and pinstripe. I guess the reason they removed the registration fees was they wanted this car gone off the lot on a Saturday, and he said no hurry, he would go to DMV the following week at his leisure and get the tags himself. I know car dealers do make money as long as you drive off the lot, but imho they got squeezed by my dad....and to put things in perspective, he actually really liked the new Honda Civic, he simply liked it. And he could not get all of the above waived at the Honda dealer, they tacked on some $400 fee out of thin air pre-printed on the invoice, and would not remove, and my dad was not willing to pay it...again as mentioned the car has Michelin Premier LTXs which impressed me, they're not cheap tires at all. Even Lexus puts B traction and B temp rated tires on the NX200 turbo (imho anything less than A A or AA A is sub-par as UTQG is self-reported)

Toys4RJill

I have seen this before. New LX has B temperature.

mmarshall

Even with that kind of discount, though, you are still not talkling about an inexpensive vehicle here. Loaded 2017 Premium versions, with accessories, can list for well over 50K....almost as much as a loaded Lincoln MKX. (Remember when I reviewed the current-generation MKX...a top-of-the line, loaded version, you thought the 60K sticker was outrageous even for the Lincoln nameplate). Plus, you've stated in your posts how much better you like the new one. Yes, the new one will (probably) be more expensive out the door, but it will also have the slick new 9-speed transmission, the new engine start/stop system that (apparantly) doesn't drain the starter or battery (it uses line-pressure-accumulation in the transmission), and what you consider better looks inside and out.

Johnhav430

I would say that motor has seen better days, as it dates back to 2008 (maybe it got DI in '09) I believe. If anything, the 2018 has even less torque than a 2009. Known oil consumption issues, low fuel economy, the stop/start would be a definite plus, but not much else about the motor....my .02 12 mpg gets old....now if it were 400 ft. lbs., 12 mpg might be acceptable....

Coleroad

GM's 3.6L has changed architecture a few times since 08. You had the llt, lfx, lgx. The oil burn problems are from lack of pcv maintenance. The fixed orifice valve they used can plug pretty easily. This caused oil to be drawn into the clean side of the system, and ingested into the intake. The fix is pretty simple, pull the valve every oil change, and clean it. For some reason even dealerships don't see the pcv system as needing maintenance. Oil catch cans aren't needed if you keep the pcv system working properly. Improper working pcv systems cause excessive oil use, reduction in oil life, excessive sludge buildup, excessive crankcase pressure that blows seals.
Gm, 3.6l plugged pcv valve.
My 3.6 with 26,000 miles. For a gdi engine that is low carbon buildup. Mine had the pcv valve kept cleaned. I haven't noticed any oil usage between changes.
A lfx engine from another member on camaro 5, only 25,xxx miles. A ton more buildup. Said he had never cleaned his pcv valve, and that it burned oil, a quart about every 700 miles.

mmarshall

Well, the GM 3.6L V6 won a spot on Ward's 10-Best engines...though the award was specifically given for the Chevy/Cadillac-tuned version of it, and not necessarily the Buick-spec. Still, it's the same internal mechanicals.

http://wardsauto.com/2016/2016-winne...ohc-v-6?page=1

While any engine, of course, can fail, as far as reliability goes, this engine has been in production now for some 10 years, so it's not like buyers, today, are a bunch of Guinea-Pigs for its development. That's a lot of time for early design problems to be worked out. Indeed, Consumer Reports gives most 3.6L-equpped vehicles good (or at least decent) engine-reliability ratings. We're not talking the kind of junk-reliability we saw with the Quad-Four, the old 350 diesels, or the Cadillac Catera's 2.8L V6.

The 3.6L in my Lacrosse, though of course too new to gauge for reliability, is doing quite good in the fuel-consumption department. I have no trouble getting the EPA ratings, and am averaging 22-23 MPG overall, on 87 octane, with a fair amount of stop-and-go suburban driving. On the highway, it can easily hit 30...quite good for a big car and engine this size. No doubt, of course, the cruise-cylinder shutdowns, 300-lb. lighter weight from the previous generation, efficient 9-speed transmission, and seamless stop/start system for the engine at idle are all helping.

Toys4RJill

I highly doubt there are widespread issues with the GM 3.6. It's been around awhile and it is used in a lot of models.

Johnhav430

Just my .02, Ford went one way (Eco Boost), GM the other. And because torque does not sell cars, GM slides with torque being even lower on a 2018 than a 2009 (they play this game when they drop the motor into Caddy and Camaro), and they advertise HP numbers at an unusable rpm. Vehicles of this size benefit from torque (remember the old days when people guessed a tractor trailer must have over 1000 HP to be able to do what it does, and then were shocked it was only (today) 400 or even less? Because the motor develops 1700 ft. lbs. or greater and all the while delivers 7 mpg (excellent considering the work achieved).

edit ps: I would definitely say the 87 octane requirement is sweet....having to shop for premium (2 of our cars) is like being a 2nd class citizen unless there's a Costco nearby...I wasn't always a turbo fan, but I guess I threw in the towel and from a practicality standpoint say you're either in, or out...flat torque is pretty beneficial to many vehicles today...

mmarshall

GM uses small 1.5L turbo fours in the Malibu and some similar-sized vehicles, which is more or less Ecoboost-style.

Power, in general (whether HP or torque) does not sell the majority of vehicles...it is the auto press and enthusiasts that are mainly interested in it. The majority of the buying public usually puts reliability first.


Vehicles of this size benefit from torque (remember the old days when people guessed a tractor trailer must have over 1000 HP to be able to do what it does, and then were shocked it was only (today) 400 or even less? Because the motor develops 1700 ft. lbs. or greater and all the while delivers 7 mpg (excellent considering the work achieved).

Many of today's turbos can get along with 87 octane...although my guess is that, with 87, the engine computer, to control pinging/detonation, simply won't allow as much compression or boost. You can save a fair amount of money with 87, if the engine will handle it.....in my area, currently, 93 octane is above $3.00, while 87 runs roughly from $2.30 to $2.50. Yesterday, with my Giant Food discount points, I paid $2.19 for Shell 87, while 93 at that very same station was a almost a dollar more...$3.15

Just as an aside note (and I've posted on this before)...no offense, but I'd avoid cut-rate brands like Costco. While it is true that gas (and octane) itself is usually the same no matter where you buy it, the quality of the detergent-additives (or no additives) can vary enormously from the cut-rate to the major-name-brands. In general, Shell and Chevron tend to have the best additives....Chevron's Techroline has an especially good reputation.

With semis, it's not just the engine torque, but also the transmission. Large semi-trucks typically have well over a dozen gears...and Jake-Brakes, which work through engine-compression.

mmarshall

Agreed.....but the handwriting may be on the wall. Big Brother and his regulations have all but killed off traditional V8s for everything except a few dedicated high-performance cars, mega-luxury cars, and work-trucks. Traditional V6s may be next...so enjoy powerplants like this while they last.

SW17LS

I actually don't think thats really the case at all. Look at all the vehicles that sell with poor reliability records...