Whoops! Buick Canada Reveals Existence of V6 for Regal GS

Cool on one hand but  on the other. 

The Turbo 4 is a better engine as its torque is delivered lower, the V6 while having more HP, has only a smidge more torque than the 4 banger. They really need to stop the stupid design of high revving engines to create horsepower that is useless in most driving and give the torque that scoots off the line and up to speed and holds. 

Yea, the my engine is bigger than yours fans will still pay a premium for the V6, but I honestly do not see it as much of an improvement over the Turbo 4.

26 minutes ago, dfelt said:

The Turbo 4 is a better engine as its torque is delivered lower, the V6 while having more HP, has only a smidge more torque than the 4 banger.

Not really... the Sportback AWD and TourX will have more torque than the V6:  "Power for the Regal comes from a turbocharged 2.0L four-cylinder. Output is rated at 250 horsepower and 260 pound-feet of torque for the front-wheel drive Sportback. Opt for the Sportback AWD or TourX and torque rises to 295 pound-feet."

8 minutes ago, Paolino said:

Not really... the Sportback AWD and TourX will have more torque than the V6:  "Power for the Regal comes from a turbocharged 2.0L four-cylinder. Output is rated at 250 horsepower and 260 pound-feet of torque for the front-wheel drive Sportback. Opt for the Sportback AWD or TourX and torque rises to 295 pound-feet."

So you're saying that this V6 powered regal will have 295 lb-ft of torque if they get the V6 compared to 260 on the turbo 4. Yet we know this Turbo 4 can also be had with 295 lb-ft of torque as they do it on the ATS.

 I still wonder as the ATS Turbo 4 is way more fun to drive than the V6 ATS.

Yes, but the turbo four bumps up to 295 lb-ft on the Regal for the Sportback and AWD, which means it's more torque than the GS 3.6L... but horsepower seems to sell even though that's not what's moving the car.

It probably has the v6, maybe because the new GM crossovers with the fancy AWD and the lacrosse have the 3.6 mated to that new system.

IMO don't call it a GS unless it has a TURBO VEE SIX.

why not the 3.0 TT?

I'll take the lag free option thanks.

8 hours ago, dfelt said:

Cool on one hand but  on the other. 

The Turbo 4 is a better engine as its torque is delivered lower, the V6 while having more HP, has only a smidge more torque than the 4 banger. They really need to stop the stupid design of high revving engines to create horsepower that is useless in most driving and give the torque that scoots off the line and up to speed and holds. 

Yea, the my engine is bigger than yours fans will still pay a premium for the V6, but I honestly do not see it as much of an improvement over the Turbo 4.

V6 will handle abuse better.....

You know what would really make a better GS?

You combine the two ideas of the turbo 4 and V6 and make the GS a turbo V6...and charge a premium for it making sure the interior is worthy of the premium price tag giving Buick some needed excitement while at the same time making sure there is some room and distance between the V6 Chevy Impala and the V6 Buick Lacrosse which all have the same V6 engine and not one of the three cars (Regal, Lacrosse, Impala) really making a solid case to buy either of them between them. All three in the same showroom all get lost with each other and not one standing tall against the other to shine or offer something.....DIFFERENT from each other!

All three will probably have the same boring 3.6 V6 producing the same 300 or so horsepower output.

The Impala will hold the price advantage with it being the least costly option while the Lacrosse over the Regal will be the bigger option while looking  very similar.

With a turbo version of the V6 in GS Regal form, there is a different element to that trio. And it gives Buick a much needed spicier offering in their model line-up.

A turbo V6 GS trim for Buick should also be an option on ALL of their CUVs as well!!!

The regal is much smaller than the lacrosse and impala. The V6 version should be just about as quick as an ATS V6

53 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

The regal is much smaller than the lacrosse and impala. The V6 version should be just about as quick as an ATS V6

Not that much smaller Im presuming. The Regal is closer to the Malibu's underpinnings Im assuming which is smaller than the Impala, but not considerably smaller and Im guessing and assuming that the Regal will be a tad bigger than the Malibu itself making the Regal a tad smaller than either the Impala and Lacrosse. 

And...OK.. the V6 Regal  will as quick as an ATS V6 which is great!

Why not make the V6 Regal a turbo and make it that much quicker than an ATS V6?

GM/Buick wants to use the GS name, why not go full on and make a REAL GS?

That Buick Skylark GS above was one of the fastest original muscle car era muscle cars.   (A Skylark could be argued that it eventually became a Regal....)

So...why does GM still insist on under delivering when they bring on historical name plates?

For me at least, they should leave out the GS bullshyte and give a V6 Regal a different trim name...

GS, GSX, GN, GNX should either be revived ONLY with WORTHY successors which would REALLY give Buick a boost in image or just plain forget about that past and start with NEW nomenclature!

a REGULAR 300 horse regular corporate V6 Regal sounds boring enough, maybe Regal V6 should just as well be its trim name and cut out the BS need to re-kindle any thoughts of excitement....

The Sportsback  Χ  naming they are doing now seems to be pointing to the future. GREAT!

OK....on with the future and forget the past if Buick is to sully the GS name as I think a corporate V6 engine option is not worthy of the GS name...

So... I really have 2 issues with this...

1. A corporate V6 option is not what I think the Regal and Buick needs to spice up their line-up and image.

2. A corporate V6 option on the Regal is not worthy of the GS name.

On 4/8/2017 at 6:17 AM, oldshurst442 said:

Not that much smaller Im presuming. The Regal is closer to the Malibu's underpinnings Im assuming which is smaller than the Impala, but not considerably smaller and Im guessing and assuming that the Regal will be a tad bigger than the Malibu itself making the Regal a tad smaller than either the Impala and Lacrosse. 

A

The new Regal and Malibu have the same wheelbase, more or less the same overall length (the Malibu is about 1/2 longer). 

@Cubical-aka-Moltar

Thanx!

But....I did research on my own too....

What I found out was:

Regal will be 192.8" long

Malibu is 193.8" long

Lacrosse is 197.5" long (car&driver website)  or 198" long (Buick.ca website)

Impala is 201" long.

All have 73" of width but the Lacrosse is said to be 74"

Between the Regal and the Lacrosse, we are looking at a 4.7/5.2 inch difference depending what source is correct and visually speaking even if comparing side by side, not at all a big difference...

So...my rant through my though processes seems to hold water without trying to semantic the hell out of  my point of view...

Which is:

1. too many models (3) sharing the same more or less exterior dimensions give or take, sharing the same interior specs more or less give or take and sharing the same bloody corporate V6 in the same more or less give or take price range and more or less give or take market niche...

2. A corporate V6 option is not what I think the Regal and Buick needs to spice up their line-up and image.

3. A corporate V6 option on the Regal is not worthy of the GS name.

If the Regal is 73 x 193 and the LaCrosse is 74 x 198… I don't remotely get the point of having 2 models there.

Lag is little of a problem.

also the 4 will take as much or more abuse as it is built to meet the same warranty standards.

I own 3 HF V6 and one eco turbo and all do a nice job. I would love to see both in this car.

Some of you need to get caught up and learn the Turbo is a very viable and fun engine. 

IMO...this  move will render 1 out of the 3 or even 2 out of the 3 obsolete, especially when big/biggish midsized sedans are falling victim to CUV and SUV sales!

I also said earlier that a Buick CUV with a turbo V6 with a trim called a GS could benefit Buick...

I think they should just nix the idea of a V6 Regal GS and just go the Envision GS route! The Envision is where Buick's money will come from.

2 minutes ago, balthazar said:

If the Regal is 73 x 193 and the LaCrosse is 74 x 198… I don't remotely get the point of having 2 models there.

I suspect the LaCrosse is not for long. I get the feeling they just used it to fill a gap till a new larger replacement is ready. 

I just get the feeling they changed direction on product when the White Space was announced.

just call it a gut feeling.

In the interim it will fill the need for those who want a trunk.

I would not get worked up on the GS as it is not really a profit center like the up level luxury package will be. 

Option make money and big profit. Just look at Denali. Low cost to fit them out and large mark up for profits and never has to really change the engineering.

Well...what Hyper mentions is that the Impala rendered the Lacrosse obsolete, and in turn the Malibu has rendered the Impala obsolete and not any of those 3 sell as much as their CUV/SUV counterparts and now, GM is introducing yet another 4rth model into the mix with the corporate V6 under the hood. OK, the Malibu does not and will not have it...

And sure turbo engines can be fun...turbo the V6 and drop it into a Buick for some pizzazz!

It worked for Cadillac to some degree with the TTV6 XTS....

Drop the XTS all together and give some of that excitement back to Buick!

Mid size cars have grown and by designing them to be 4 cylinder only like a Sonata is, you need less hood space, you get more space in the cabin.  As they stretch out these wheelbases, you get something like a Malibu that has interior space close to an Impala and thus the Impala becomes pointless, just like Azera and Taurus become pointless.

Regal is big enough to replace the Lacrosse, large sedans are shrinking and never coming back.  I don't see the need for a V6 Regal, it won't be any faster than a turbo 4.

5 hours ago, hyperv6 said:

Lag is little of a problem.

also the 4 will take as much or more abuse as it is built to meet the same warranty standards.

I own 3 HF V6 and one eco turbo and all do a nice job. I would love to see both in this car.

Some of you need to get caught up and learn the Turbo is a very viable and fun engine. 

Some of us have tried many turbo 4s.  I used to be sold on the technology.... Northstar like power from a 4 cylinder sounds great on paper, but in practice it is a much less satisfying drive.   And yes, I know that the Northstar is no longer the state of the art in V8s, but they do still provide a satisfactory power delivery.

Even the old/current regal could have taken the HF V6, Buick just decided not to sell it that way.  The Insignia was sold with a Turbo 2.8 V6 that has the same external engine dimensions as the current HF V6. The engineering effort from GM would have effectively been zero.

By that measure, the Malibu could have a V6 also. There are no platform constraints.

1 hour ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Some of us have tried many turbo 4s.  I used to be sold on the technology.... Northstar like power from a 4 cylinder sounds great on paper, but in practice it is a much less satisfying drive.   And yes, I know that the Northstar is no longer the state of the art in V8s, but they do still provide a satisfactory power delivery.

 

Even the old/current regal could have taken the HF V6, Buick just decided not to sell it that way.  The Insignia was sold with a Turbo 2.8 V6 that has the same external engine dimensions as the current HF V6. The engineering effort from GM would have effectively been zero.

 

By that measure, the Malibu could have a V6 also. There are no platform constraints.

Some of own these and live with them daily.

The Turbo will run circles around the V6 Bu all day. Yes I have a 3.6 Bu and while a nice car not that much fun to drive. Also the 3.6 is the one that needs oil while the turbo uses not a drop. 

The reality is GM needs MPG and if it is even 1 gallon per mile they will take it. 

This is not a matter of what they could do or really want to do but more of what they have to do.

The cruel reality is they will sell 4 to 6 time the Malibu's vs the Buick models so they have toon to work with MPG.

Yes there is a difference in mpg as the turbo does get more mpg. It also has more torque and a flatter diesel like torque curve. 

You don't have to like it but it is what it is.

13 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

The regal is much smaller than the lacrosse and impala. The V6 version should be just about as quick as an ATS V6

Wrong. Sitting inside the new lacrosse, it doesn't have much room. When all is said and done, lacrossE only has a smudge more real space. Impala is going to have the edge in space on both. 

8 hours ago, hyperv6 said:

Lag is little of a problem.

also the 4 will take as much or more abuse as it is built to meet the same warranty standards.

I own 3 HF V6 and one eco turbo and all do a nice job. I would love to see both in this car.

Some of you need to get caught up and learn the Turbo is a very viable and fun engine. 

It'd be much better with 2 more cylinders (turbo 4 Malibu driver speaking)

8 hours ago, smk4565 said:

Mid size cars have grown and by designing them to be 4 cylinder only like a Sonata is, you need less hood space, you get more space in the cabin.  As they stretch out these wheelbases, you get something like a Malibu that has interior space close to an Impala and thus the Impala becomes pointless, just like Azera and Taurus become pointless.

Regal is big enough to replace the Lacrosse, large sedans are shrinking and never coming back.  I don't see the need for a V6 Regal, it won't be any faster than a turbo 4.

Gm's six pot has no torque. Never has and in the new Acadia it doesn't either (I know the Acadia is still porky)

v6 turbo option would lend some upmarket cred to buick

2 hours ago, hyperv6 said:

Some of own these and live with them daily.

The Turbo will run circles around the V6 Bu all day. Yes I have a 3.6 Bu and while a nice car not that much fun to drive. Also the 3.6 is the one that needs oil while the turbo uses not a drop. 

The reality is GM needs MPG and if it is even 1 gallon per mile they will take it. 

This is not a matter of what they could do or really want to do but more of what they have to do.

The cruel reality is they will sell 4 to 6 time the Malibu's vs the Buick models so they have toon to work with MPG.

Yes there is a difference in mpg as the turbo does get more mpg. It also has more torque and a flatter diesel like torque curve. 

You don't have to like it but it is what it is.

..... Once the torque kicks in....

Like I said. I'd rather have the lag free version.

NO turbo has no lag... It's physically impossible.

2 hours ago, hyperv6 said:

Some of own these and live with them daily.

The Turbo will run circles around the V6 Bu all day. Yes I have a 3.6 Bu and while a nice car not that much fun to drive. Also the 3.6 is the one that needs oil while the turbo uses not a drop. 

The reality is GM needs MPG and if it is even 1 gallon per mile they will take it. 

This is not a matter of what they could do or really want to do but more of what they have to do.

The cruel reality is they will sell 4 to 6 time the Malibu's vs the Buick models so they have toon to work with MPG.

Yes there is a difference in mpg as the turbo does get more mpg. It also has more torque and a flatter diesel like torque curve. 

You don't have to like it but it is what it is.

Hopefully the insistence of ridiculous cafe increases will get beat back for awhile. 2.0 t 4 pot is a great choice but should only be the base mill in any Buick. 

Gm's done well with 4t but the advantage of a 6 is smoother engine  

They aren't going to put a twin turbo V6 in a Buick, that is saved for top end Cadillacs.  And look at what they charge for an ATS or CTS with a twin turbo V6, they are into the $70k range, a twin turbo Regal would be like $50k, no one is buying a $50k Regal because they struggle to sell $29k Regals.  

I would guess by 2022 the 3.6 V6 is dead, it is too thirsty to keep up with CAFE.  CAFE is calling for 4-5% per year increases until 2025.  Everyone is going to continue with engine down sizing and mild hybrids to get the numbers up. 

Fusion sport 2.7v6 far cheaper than caddy

Fusion sport 2.7v6 far cheaper than caddy

12 hours ago, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

  The new LaCrosse has the same wheelbase as the Regal and Malibu.

The 2017 LaCrosse has a 114.4" wheelbase, which is 3" longer than the Regal's.

1 hour ago, regfootball said:

Fusion sport 2.7v6 far cheaper than caddy

Which is still $35-40k, and the Regal costs more than a Fusion.  They'll probably want $45k for the 3.6 V6 Regal, a turbo would go $5k over that easily.  Why not make a Enclave Avista 3.0TT and price it at $76,000, they would sell more of those.

10 hours ago, KevinW said:

The 2017 LaCrosse has a 114.4" wheelbase, which is 3" longer than the Regal's.

Yes, I thought I read the '18 Insignia/Regal was on the longer wheelbase..but it has the same 111.x wheelbase as the Malibu.   I assume the next Impala will be on the longer wheelbase, as it is currently only 111.x also (as is the XTS IIRC).

12 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

..... Once the torque kicks in....

Like I said. I'd rather have the lag free version.

NO turbo has no lag... It's physically impossible.

Go drive many of the 3.6 models from 2011-2016 and you find much throttle lag. GM really did something wrong on many of these models. My Terrain has it. Nox have it the Canyon and Colorado had it and several other models. 

You can hit the gas and it is dead for 1-2 seconds which can be a thrill when you are trying to be a Yellow light. It is much longer than any present day turbo. 

Second my 2.0 can hit max torque at 1800 RPM and hold it till 5300. The only issue I have if I try to beat a yellow light is not lighting the tires up through the intersection. Yes try to spin thje tires rolling at 40 MPH with any automatic 3.6 and see if you get traction control to kick in. I have even done it over 50 MPH.

You can toss anything you like here but I can go out to my garage at any moment and disprove your thoughts with the very engines we are speaking about. You may have driven them but I own and live with them daily.

While I may own more 3.6 models the Turbo is much more a pleasure to drive.

Now to clarify the new Denali has the new 3.6 and it is fixed. There is no lag or throttle response issues. Many 15-16 owners have traded for the new engine and tranny on the forum.

There was a fix call a Pedal Commander that would let you dial out the throttle issues for $299. It appears normally on the DI versions. My 08 for the most part did not have this issue but it can at time drop the throttle at time but no where as bad. The Denali with the new engine is sweet and has good response and shift measures.  

The observations here are my own and also those of the many owners who have complained about the same thing on the forums. So this is no an isolated deal. 

As for the V6 in the Regal yes they could have done it but the MPG would have been down. Many cried for the Insignia with the TT also but they failed to grasp it was a $60K car new in Europe we were already struggling just to sell the GS here at $40K.

The truth is they need to find a way to sell a normal sedan at a reasonable price to the average customers. GS models are great but they do not carry the load. You are going to sell the 5% of the model in these cars no matter what.  

12 hours ago, regfootball said:

Hopefully the insistence of ridiculous cafe increases will get beat back for awhile. 2.0 t 4 pot is a great choice but should only be the base mill in any Buick. 

 

Gm's done well with 4t but the advantage of a 6 is smoother engine  

 

I think there will be a slight pause in the CAFE but I do not see the companies changing their strategy. They are just looking to buy time. 

I agree the V6 has a smoothness to it that is one true advantage to anyone willing to be honest. That is as long as it is a 60 degree engine. The 43 even with balance shafts can still have an edge to it. 

I would love to see the Turbo 4 standard and a V6 as an option in many models as to give people a choice. 

The real issue coming up is the stop start systems. While they work fine there is not much public acceptance to them. Most people just do not like them. Yes it is not always legitimate complaints but an unhappy customer is not a buying customer and going to a six may require the stop start with no shut off. Hmmmm what is one to do. 

I know there is nothing wrong with stop start but to me I would rather leave it in my golf cart LOL! Younger buyers may be more receptive but they are not the majority of the buyers yet. 

Apparently I'm not allowed a preference. I find the experience behind the 3.6 V6 to be much more satisfying than a 2.0t in nearly all situations. The same holds true for similar situations in other brands. 

And I am in fact quite stupid and have never driven any of these cars.

Drew, I will take a v6 over a turbo 4 any day of the week.

Also, if the Regal and the LaCrosse are so close dimensionally, the next LaCrosse should have the same dimensions of an Impala to give everyone (especially GM) some real space difference and a reason to either stay at a Regal or really move up to a LaCrosse.  There is no good reason a midsize and a large car should be so similar externally or inside the cabin.  Too many buyers will orphan the LaCrosse and buy Regals instead.  I know we live in a time where the crossover is king, but I am not sure that a wagon is necessarily going to make much of a difference in the sales tables when Buick already has THREE crossovers.

A V6 in every (non-small) car and crossover please.  4 cylinders just don't cut the mustard.

Why can't they put some real balls in this car?

5 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Apparently I'm not allowed a preference. I find the experience behind the 3.6 V6 to be much more satisfying than a 2.0t in nearly all situations. The same holds true for similar situations in other brands. 

And I am in fact quite stupid and have never driven any of these cars.

Stop playing the victim. 

You can believe what you want but I will call you out if you drift from the truth. 

Since I own both engines involved and even own more 3.6 models I should have a right to defend the turbo when it is being put down for untrue reasons. I would think owning and driving one for 8 years would give me a little more insight over someone that just drove one here and there. 

If you want an informed opinion on a medical issue do you speak to  a Doctor or someone who has put a band aide on. 

I have no problem if you don't like the Turbo just prefer the V6 but when you give reasons that are not true. 

To better qualify this I just bought my last 3.6 two weeks ago so I have nothing against that engine either as the latest version is the best refined one so far. 
By the way I never called you stupid. Trust me if I felt that way I would have no problem doing so. I will say you are not accurate in your assessment due to your limited time with the product. 

The only advantage on this is I have for the last 9 years owned these engines and bought a few more and have first hand experience. I do not disagree based on opinion but based on experience. 

I was once a never a 4 or turbo guy and I have been converted as I have spent enough time with this engine to know what it can do and how well it can hold up. Spinning this thing to 23 PSI and never having enough traction due to the FWD is enough to tell  me the advantages of this engine as it will do things the V6 never would do. 

All I say is be honest and I would like to see both engines offered. Make the V6 a higher cost option to those who just have to have it and leave the Turbo standard. 

The transmission in my 3.6L truck is very reluctant to downshift, and I am not just talking about hooning.  I am talking about trying to get up hills, of which there are plenty round here.  Once it does though, it gits.

Start Stop still needs plenty of work. Had a loaner from the diesel and both the wife and I did not like it. Yes it did it's job fine in terms of turning off at a stop and back on when you lifted your gas foot. Sucky thing is that it is not silky smooth. It is very abrupt and just not a pleasant experience. 

While I see no advantage to the V6 over the Turbo 4 in terms of performance like in the ATS which I have driven plenty of since they have both versions in the loaner mix at the cadillac dealership I use, I do agree with everyone that the V6 is smoother than the turbo.

I also in regards to lag just get into the habit of pressing the gas pedal sooner to get it to spin up which does make it pull harder than I notice in the V6.

12 hours ago, ocnblu said:

The transmission in my 3.6L truck is very reluctant to downshift, and I am not just talking about hooning.  I am talking about trying to get up hills, of which there are plenty round here.  Once it does though, it gits.

I take it that you have the six speed?

The 8 speed has resolved much of the down shift and low end complaints.

On ‎4‎/‎8‎/‎2017 at 9:23 PM, Drew Dowdell said:

..... Once the torque kicks in....

Like I said. I'd rather have the lag free version.

NO turbo has no lag... It's physically impossible.

There are ways to spin a turbo constantly to create no lag. It definitely costs fuel to do that though. It's one way the GT keeps its turbos spooled up AND gets abysmal mileage. I believe there are also electronic ways to spool them.

I also don't really know how you feel so much lag in these small turbo motors. I've felt next to none in the couple I've driven. At least nothing you'd notice in daily driving situations. I've never stood on the pedal and felt like I was waiting any amount of time. If anything I was waiting for a down shift before hearing the turbo spinning.

15 hours ago, hyperv6 said:

Stop playing the victim. 

You can believe what you want but I will call you out if you drift from the truth. 

Since I own both engines involved and even own more 3.6 models I should have a right to defend the turbo when it is being put down for untrue reasons. I would think owning and driving one for 8 years would give me a little more insight over someone that just drove one here and there. 

If you want an informed opinion on a medical issue do you speak to  a Doctor or someone who has put a band aide on. 

I have no problem if you don't like the Turbo just prefer the V6 but when you give reasons that are not true. 

To better qualify this I just bought my last 3.6 two weeks ago so I have nothing against that engine either as the latest version is the best refined one so far. 
By the way I never called you stupid. Trust me if I felt that way I would have no problem doing so. I will say you are not accurate in your assessment due to your limited time with the product. 

The only advantage on this is I have for the last 9 years owned these engines and bought a few more and have first hand experience. I do not disagree based on opinion but based on experience. 

I was once a never a 4 or turbo guy and I have been converted as I have spent enough time with this engine to know what it can do and how well it can hold up. Spinning this thing to 23 PSI and never having enough traction due to the FWD is enough to tell  me the advantages of this engine as it will do things the V6 never would do. 

All I say is be honest and I would like to see both engines offered. Make the V6 a higher cost option to those who just have to have it and leave the Turbo standard. 

I gave Turbo-4s a chance.... I really did believe they were a decent replacement for a larger displacement V6.  But the power delivery just isn't as good. Too long to wait to spool up... even on the light duty ones.   Are turbo-4s an improvement over non-turbo-4s? Absolutely... but they are still no V6.  A V6 still has a baseline level of torque there that a that a turbo-4 doesn't.  V6es have a level of refinement that 4s cannot match. 

I also want to be clear. This is not just GM products I'm objecting to.  I'd rather have a V6 explorer than a 2.3T Explorer. 

As far as CAFE, GM can turn their V6es into 4-cylinders and back in less than a single revolution of the crank. Much less lag than a turbo. 

36 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

There are ways to spin a turbo constantly to create no lag. It definitely costs fuel to do that though. It's one way the GT keeps its turbos spooled up AND gets abysmal mileage. I believe there are also electronic ways to spool them.

I also don't really know how you feel so much lag in these small turbo motors. I've felt next to none in the couple I've driven. At least nothing you'd notice in daily driving situations. I've never stood on the pedal and felt like I was waiting any amount of time. If anything I was waiting for a down shift before hearing the turbo spinning.

When you drive such a wide variety of vehicles like I do, you notice it.

I am more forgiving to Turbo-V6es because they still have a baseline torque that comes on sooner. They aren't a true V8 replacement either, but they are more satisfactory than a Turbo-4. 

On 4/7/2017 at 6:42 PM, regfootball said:

It probably has the v6, maybe because the new GM crossovers with the fancy AWD and the lacrosse have the 3.6 mated to that new system.

IMO don't call it a GS unless it has a TURBO VEE SIX.

why not the 3.0 TT?

Agree 100%.  make the 3.6 an option on lesser Regals and give the GS a version of the 3.0TT, even detuned to 350HP it would be a beast for what it is. 

It's a really simple thing to figure out.  Go test drive two Ford Explorers... one with the turbo 2.3 and one with the V6.  Drive them normally, not as race cars.  Drive them in normal traffic... take them on a jaunt on the highway for a bit. Try and pass someone at highway speeds. 

Head on over to the Buick dealership and drive a Regal GS back to back with a V6 Lacrosse...

Then head over to Kia... try out an Optima Turbo and then a Cadenza.  Which one handles daily driving in a more competent way? 

I'm trying to imagine what kind of pig the new Traverse is going to feel like with the 2.0T spinning under the hood of the base models.  It will probably be more pig-like than the much heavier current traverse with the V6. 

18 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

When you drive such a wide variety of vehicles like I do, you notice it.

I am more forgiving to Turbo-V6es because they still have a baseline torque that comes on sooner. They aren't a true V8 replacement either, but they are more satisfactory than a Turbo-4. 

Mt brother had a Fusion 2.0 rental a few years ago while his CTS was in the shop and had a 3.6 13 Impala for work.  Back to back, the turbo had WAY more torque off the line, but the V6 had stronger top end, but a less torquey feel.  Average FE was pretty similar though.  Modern turbo 4s are not what the used to be in the 90s.  My old Talon auto with the larger manual turbo was dead until 4k RPMs, then punched you in the back.  In my bug there is the slightest hint of turbo lag, but man that engine pulls once the turbo hits (which there is rarely any lag) it is a little rocket for what it is.  Now, torque was my old modified 00 GTP.  THAT had low end torque, but also a roots SC.  That said for 400ish in mods, I ran high 13s in that beast.  that said, top end was absolutely horrible when stock, but did get considerable better with the mods. 

3 minutes ago, Stew said:

Mt brother had a Fusion 2.0 rental a few years ago while his CTS was in the shop and had a 3.6 13 Impala for work.  Back to back, the turbo had WAY more torque off the line, but the V6 had stronger top end, but a less torquey feel.  Average FE was pretty similar though.  Modern turbo 4s are not what the used to be in the 90s.  My old Talon auto with the larger manual turbo was dead until 4k RPMs, then punched you in the back.  In my bug there is the slightest hint of turbo lag, but man that engine pulls once the turbo hits (which there is rarely any lag) it is a little rocket for what it is.  Now, torque was my old modified 00 GTP.  THAT had low end torque, but also a roots SC.  That said for 400ish in mods, I ran high 13s in that beast.  that said, top end was absolutely horrible when stock, but did get considerable better with the mods. 

"....off the line...."

That's the key that I'm getting at.  If you're flooring it every time you leave the stop light, sure, the Turbo may be better... but that's not a normal situation. People just don't drive like that.  I'm in NYC this week in my underpowered Encore... and I still don't drive like that. 

Buick took a bunch of us out to a track to drive GSes for a day.... it was just about the most boring day of track driving I've ever had. Sure they handled well in the corners, but I could watch a full episode of House of Cards on the straight-aways. Something as mundane as a Camry V6 or Cadenza feels much faster and effortless in its acceleration though neither of them would handle turns like the GS does.  

5 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

"....off the line...."

That's the key that I'm getting at.  If you're flooring it every time you leave the stop light, sure, the Turbo may be better... but that's not a normal situation. People just don't drive like that.  I'm in NYC this week in my underpowered Encore... and I still don't drive like that. 

Buick took a bunch of us out to a track to drive GSes for a day.... it was just about the most boring day of track driving I've ever had. Sure they handled well in the corners, but I could watch a full episode of House of Cards on the straight-aways. Something as mundane as a Camry V6 or Cadenza feels much faster and effortless in its acceleration though neither of them would handle turns like the GS does.  

You don't have to floor them.  i don't my bug unless I want to go in a hurry (just like an NA motor), and I didn't have to the 2.0 Fusion either.  The ease of getting going really impressed me there and it was stronger even at part throttle off the line that the Impala.  Most DOHC do suffer some softness in the low end generally and that has always been an issue. 

Oh, I am not surprised your Encore feels under-powered because every GM i have driven with the 1.4 turbo fel weak and the auto trans was always reluctant to downshift, even if you are losing speed at full throttle while climbing a hill. 

42 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

It's a really simple thing to figure out.  Go test drive two Ford Explorers... one with the turbo 2.3 and one with the V6.  Drive them normally, not as race cars.  Drive them in normal traffic... take them on a jaunt on the highway for a bit. Try and pass someone at highway speeds. 

Head on over to the Buick dealership and drive a Regal GS back to back with a V6 Lacrosse...

Then head over to Kia... try out an Optima Turbo and then a Cadenza.  Which one handles daily driving in a more competent way? 

I'm trying to imagine what kind of pig the new Traverse is going to feel like with the 2.0T spinning under the hood of the base models.  It will probably be more pig-like than the much heavier current traverse with the V6. 

That is probably all true, but manufacturers are still going to go with the turbo 4 because they get better gas mileage, weigh less, and take up less space.  If a car is designed for 4 cylinder only they can cut weight on the body and cut space under hood and apply that to the cabin.  And even on something like an E-class wilhich is made to fit a V8 they dropped that 3.5 V6 in favor of 2.0t because of fuel economy regs, emissions regs and displacement tax.  It isn't about what the consumer wants it is about meeting regulations to a lot of these cars.

1 minute ago, smk4565 said:

That is probably all true, but manufacturers are still going to go with the turbo 4 because they get better gas mileage, weigh less, and take up less space.  If a car is designed for 4 cylinder only they can cut weight on the body and cut space under hood and apply that to the cabin.  And even on something like an E-class wilhich is made to fit a V8 they dropped that 3.5 V6 in favor of 2.0t because of fuel economy regs, emissions regs and displacement tax.  It isn't about what the consumer wants it is about meeting regulations to a lot of these cars.

There are other ways to get there.... GM and Honda's active displacement works really well.   The ATS-V is essentially a turbo-4 at highway cruise.

2 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

I gave Turbo-4s a chance.... I really did believe they were a decent replacement for a larger displacement V6.  But the power delivery just isn't as good. Too long to wait to spool up... even on the light duty ones.   Are turbo-4s an improvement over non-turbo-4s? Absolutely... but they are still no V6.  A V6 still has a baseline level of torque there that a that a turbo-4 doesn't.  V6es have a level of refinement that 4s cannot match. 

I also want to be clear. This is not just GM products I'm objecting to.  I'd rather have a V6 explorer than a 2.3T Explorer. 

As far as CAFE, GM can turn their V6es into 4-cylinders and back in less than a single revolution of the crank. Much less lag than a turbo. 

First off since this was a GM Buick thread that is all I am speaking on just for full disclosure. Not all Turbo engines are the same and can not all be lumped into one group no more than all V6.

Now take a look at most of the GM torque curves and you will see what is going on. In most of them it is not even a curve but a table top is a better reference.

As for the AFM on the V6. Funny you bring this up. Guess what one of my 3.6 has this too. So here is a first hand observation of someone who owns one and drives it more than one.

Yes the engine will drop two cylinders to improve MPG but generally you have to be very light on the throttle or even coasting down hill. Moving down the freeway at 65 MPG you will remain most times in V6 mode.

I am sure there is some fuel savings but 85% of the time it is in V6 mode and the MPG is no where near what the Turbo 4 can get even driven hard.

Yes there is half a second less lag on the 2017 V6 but about the same on the older version that many in the Mid size trucks complain about. Go to Coloradofans forum and see the topic Pedal Commander and just see what they say about lag in the 15-16 V6.

Now go to the HHR and Cobalt sites and see if anyone there complains about lag? Not really a topic anyone has an issue with. Even the non performance models the lag is even less noticed and most of the people really if they are not told would even understand it has a turbo.

I fully agree on the smooth and as for noise both are about the same as the V6 is far from a silent engine even in a well insulated truck.

I like both engines and would not own both if not. I even own more 3.6 than the Turbo 4 but having as many miles as I have I have really gotten to know the engine inside and out and the lag argument is negated as well as the durability complaints that are today groundless with the better materials and oils.

You have a right to your opinion but I do also. Yours comes from limited driving my comes from where I put my money. I have 4 vehicles purchased new with these engines and know them very well by this point. The weakest is the Terrain as the lag is at times scary. The throttle lag is 10 times worse than the Turbo. The Malibu once in a while gets a dead spot too. The new 2017 3.6 it appears to have been resolved.

I challenge you to spend some time in a 2010-2016 Equilnox and not say how the lag is in the throttle.

Here is a SRX thread but I can also give them for the Terrain and Nox. Even my Bu will do it on a turn.

http://www.srxforum.net/index.php?topic=2226.0

It I would imagine is a drive train issue in the combo of the engine and transmission. But the lag is much more than you will ever get in a turbo. It often feels like the engine died. It also covered cars for 8-10 years as my bu is a 08.