Want To Know What's Sad?

[Cory Wolfe]

Upon checking out a few Lucernes, I finally began to realize something. My Millenia rocks.

Now, first off, let's ignore the obvious.. The Lucerne is a much bigger car, so things related to that, are not being compared. Also, being that my Millenia is not a top of the line model, but loaded otherwise. I compared it to a Lucerne that also wasn't top of the line, but loaded as well. Essentially the best you can get without the Northstar V8, the V6 CXL. Back in the day, my Millenia had an MSRP of $28,895 while the MSRP of a Lucerne CXL V6 is $29,280. A Millenia is similar in size to large Buicks of 1995, but still just midsize. Millenias were first built back in 93 as 94 models outside of the US. Lucernes were first built in 05, as 06 models. Keep all that in mind. Alright, now to good stuff, that makes Buick look laugable in a way.

First, let's compare the exterior. We have projector headlights and fogs versus standard issue headlights and no foglights. All other exterior comparisons would most likely favor the Lucerne being that it is 11-12 years newer, like the power antenae versus the better roof mounted integral antennae, hood prop versus the better hood struts, the aero lift handles versus the better pull handles, and the 15 inch wheels vs the better (similar being the Lucerne is a much bigger vehicle) 17 inch wheels.

Second, let's compare mechanicals. We have a DOHC V6 versus a pushrod V6. We have 4spd tranny with hold versus regular 4spd tranny. All other mechanical comparisons would most likely favor, or be equal to, the Lucerne being that it is 11-12 years newer like no autoload leveling vs autoload leveling, regular washer fluid versus heated washer fluid, manual wipers versus rain sensing wipers, power exterior mirrors versus power heated exterior mirrors. Otherwise, both have 4 wheel independent suspension, 4 wheel disc brakes with ABS, and traction control.

Third, let's compare the interior, where the Millenia undoubtly has the advantage. Sad since this is comparing a 12 year old Mazda to a new Buick. We have soft touch dash pastic versus hard dash plastic. We have velvet finish black plastic versus GM cheap black plastic. We have real wood versus fake wood. We have floormats with "Millenia" versus regular floormats. We have integrated door storage bins versus non integrated door storage bins. We have lighted key ring, power outlet, ash tray, door entry, glovebox, vanity mirrors, front and rear map, rear courtesy, dome, and trunk versus lighted glovebox, vanity mirrors, front and rear map, front footwell, dome, rear courtesy, and trunk. We have 10 storage compartments (8 of which enclosed/hidden) versus 7 storage compartments (only 3 of which enclosed/hidden). We have an auto/memory power tilt steering column with infinite positions versus manual tilt steering column with 7 positions. We have a Panasonic reciever with cassette and 6 cd changer versus GM "let's put it in all our vehicles" reciever with 6 cd changer. Now whats equal. Both have professional audio systems with 9 speakers, Millenia with Bose and Lucerne with Harman/Kardon. Both have hidden cup holders. Both have front driver and passenger 8 way heated power seats. Both have automatic climate control. Both have theft deterrent systems. Both have leather wrapped steering wheels and shift nobs, as well as leather inserts on the doors. Both have driver express down power windows. Now where the Lucerne has the advantage, most likely due to it being 11-12 years newer with features only recently available in any vehicle. We have driver and passenger front air bags versus the better driver and passenger front/side/curtain airbags. We have no park assist versus the better rear parking assist. We have no tire mon sys versus the better tire monitering system. We have regular am/fm versus the better XM radio. We have no homelink system versus the better Onstar. We have regular rear view mirror versus better automatic dimming rear view mirror. We have regular power seats versus better memory power seats. We have no compass versus better compass. We have regular manual starting versus better remote keyless starting.

So... This either makes Mazda look really good or makes Buick look really bad.

Edited September 26, 2006 by blackviper8891

[Cory Wolfe]

Actually, I looked at interior dimensions and well... The Lucerne may be bigger on the outside, but not on the inside. So, I guess there's no reason not to compare these anymore.

Millenia versus Lucerne

-Exterior dimensions:

wheelbase.............. 108.3 vs 115.6

front track............... 59.80 vs 63.00

rear track............... 59.80 vs 62.50

length..................... 189.8 vs 203.2

width...................... 69.70 vs 73.80

height..................... 54.90 vs 58.00

-Internal dimensions:

front headroom........ 39.92 vs 39.50

rear headroom........ 37.60 vs 37.70

front leg room.......... 44.00 vs 42.50

rear leg room.......... 34.64 vs 41.40

front shoulder room.. 56.00 vs 58.00

rear shoulder room... 55.08 vs 57.00

The only real advantage the Lucerne has is rear legroom due to its longer wheelbase.

[FAPTurbo]

Know what's even saddder?...?

The fact that my 1990 Diesel Sierra will soon get better combined fuel mileage than your Millenia.

[Cory Wolfe]

Actually, my fuel mileage is on the rise. I'm actually getting inbetween the EPA rated city and highway mileage. Yeah! Haha... new spark plugs, an overdue oil change, and STP fuel injector cleaner is actually good for something. Sad, I know.

[z28luvr01]

Have you taken into account inflation? There's a 12 year gap between your car and the Lucerne. What would your Millenia cost if it were still built today? What would a Lucerne have cost had it been built in 1995?

[the_yellow_dart]

According to the inflation calculator:

What cost $28895 in 1995 would cost $35950.29 in 2005.

So, your Millenia was more expensive, by quite a bit actually.

[the_yellow_dart]

This is interesting too - wasn't Ford's initial promise to build a "sub $1000 car"?

"What cost $1000 in 1900 would cost $22155.60 in 2005."

[z28luvr01]

According to the inflation calculator:

What cost $28895 in 1995 would cost $35950.29 in 2005.

So, your Millenia was more expensive, by quite a bit actually.

197814[/snapback]

And if we bring the Lucerne back to 1995:

What cost $29280 in 2005 would cost $23533.77 in 1995.

[Northstar]

According to the inflation calculator:

What cost $28895 in 1995 would cost $35950.29 in 2005.

So, your Millenia was more expensive, by quite a bit actually.

197814[/snapback]

So basically you'd be getting a Lucerne CXS for the price of a mid-range Millenia.

[Flybrian]

Essentially, yes.

Comparisons like that are cute, but if you ignore inflation, they're meaningless. That's like saying "I could've bought two 1952 Cadillacs for the price of a Hyundai Accent!"

[Satty]

Yeah, pointless.

[Cory Wolfe]

Have you taken into account inflation? There's a 12 year gap between your car and the Lucerne. What would your Millenia cost if it were still built today? What would a Lucerne have cost had it been built in 1995?

197811[/snapback]

I wasn't even comparing that. I just included the prices for the hell of it.

Technically, though, the MRSP for my Millenia is difficult to compare to the MRSP of a Lucerne. The Millenia I have, was loaded from the MRSP. It had very little options. With the Lucerne, though, it has loads of options with very little standard equipment for that model. The very very base model Millenia had an MRSP $25,995. Considering the Millenia smacks the Lucerne in so many ways, I think being slightly more expensive is definitely justified.

You guys just don't want to admit it.

[Flybrian]

'Slightly' is not $6000. Comparing things rote dimensions doesn't tell you much more than using EPA passenger volume figures to say your car is 'roomier' than another. First, its false because roominess is a subjective trait. Second, everyone is built differently, so two people the same height may actually sit differently. Third, your assessment that the Lucerne is only 'larger' by legroom is false. Reread your own figures.

Hope you're having fun.

[Cory Wolfe]

'Slightly' is not $6000. Comparing things rote dimensions doesn't tell you much more than using EPA passenger volume figures to say your car is 'roomier' than another. First, its false because roominess is a subjective trait. Second, everyone is built differently, so two people the same height may actually sit differently. Third, your assessment that the Lucerne is only 'larger' by legroom is false. Reread your own figures.

Hope you're having fun.

197934[/snapback]

Slightly is $2500. As far as volumes, I didn't say anything about it. I just compared figures and saw how the Lucerne is so much bigger on the outside, but barely bigger on the inside. I also didnt say it's only bigger in legroom. I said the only real advantage it has is rear legroom. All other figures have either too small of a difference to note, or it gets beat by the Millenia.

I am having fun, though. It's funny to see you guys come up with excuses to justify how laughable the Lucerne is compared to a 12 year old midsize Mazda. Other than things that the Lucerne has due to advancements in technology that werent largely available until recently and its longer wheelbase and slight advantage in price, according to the deflated figure of the Lucerne. There's simply no reason my Millenia should even be comparable to a new fullsize Buick, yet it beats or matches it in many areas and, as I've said over and over, it only gets beat due to advancements in technology (where if the Millenia would have been produced today, it most likely would have).

Again, I laugh and start to appreciate my Millenia even more.

[Flybrian]

If the only way to appreciate your own vehicle is to beat up on other ones that don't even compete, then that is sad.

[Robert Hall]

What would be an interesting comparison would be to compare the features of the Millenia against a Park Avenue of the same year...

A coworker of mine had a Millenia back in '97-98 or so...pretty nice car, seemed very well equipped.

[Guest YellowJacket894]

Wow, BV. Today must have been slooooooow, huh?

[Cory Wolfe]

If the only way to appreciate your own vehicle is to beat up on other ones that don't even compete, then that is sad.

197946[/snapback]

Oh no... it just makes me appreciate it even more than I already do. I love my Millenia, like you love your Aurora and you've beat up on others. It just so happens that my Millenia is so competitive with a 12 year newer vehicle that's in a segment above where the Millenia would compete. It just makes the Lucerne look so sad.

What would be an interesting comparison would be to compare the features of the Millenia against a Park Avenue of the same year...

197947[/snapback]

Yeah... but that'd be even sadder. I thought about it, though.

[Flybrian]

What would be an interesting comparison would be to compare the features of the Millenia against a Park Avenue of the same year...

197947[/snapback]

It would. And it is...

1995 Buick Park Avenue Ultra vs. 1995 Mazda Millenia S

=Similar features

+15hp

+65lb/ft torque (from a real supercharger)

+More room in all dimensions

+6cu.ft. trunk space

+Load-leveling suspension

All for about $2,000 less.

Also, in the practical sense, the likelihood of finding a Millenia that hasn't been trashed and thrashed by some lease-happy tool these days is very rare. The chances of finding a pristine, low-mileage pampered Park Ave is almost the way things are.

Have a nice day.

[Cory Wolfe]

Wow, BV. Today must have been slooooooow, huh?

197948[/snapback]

Nah... I just had a revelation while looking Dealer hopping last night.

[Guest YellowJacket894]

On an unrelated note, assuming the Aurora I'm trying my damned hardest to get is just a base model with a few options making the total cost just over thirty-two thousand dollars, it would cost just over forty-grand today. Damn.

Now let's see how much of a steal it is tommarow. :AH-HA_wink:

Edited September 26, 2006 by YellowJacket894

[FAPTurbo]

This thread needs more of this.

[Cory Wolfe]

It would. And it is...

1995 Buick Park Avenue Ultra vs. 1995 Mazda Millenia S

=Similar features

+15hp

+65lb/ft torque (from a real supercharger)

+More room in all dimensions

+6cu.ft. trunk space

+Load-leveling suspension

All for about $2,000 less.

Also, in the practical sense, the likelihood of finding a Millenia that hasn't been trashed and thrashed by some lease-happy tool these days is very rare. The chances of finding a pristine, low-mileage pampered Park Ave is almost the way things are.

Have a nice day.

197951[/snapback]

Except, I compared alot more than just that. I compared things like materials, practicallity, technology, etc.

Still, as far as what you posted. That extra power is to make up for the extra weight. I dont doubt the room since the Park Avenue was designed with the typical geriatric in mind. I'd like to see a side by side comparision, though. I bet it has more room, but not by much. There's no denying the Millenia was packaged excellently. As far as the "real" supercharger comment goes. Your right. It is a real supercharger and it gets gas mileage you'd expect from a real supercharger. The Miller Cycle supercharger is very efficient in that it adds a whole lot more power without sacrificing fuel economy. Probably why owners with the MC 2.3L report better gas mileage than those with the 2.5L. And let's compare the 3.8L SC vs the 2.3L MC. Look at the displacement difference, yet it doesn't lack that much power, and certainly gets better gas mileage. Oh look. Millenia wins again.

As far as that last comment. I know you love living in Florida and all, but you should stop saying things that only relate to that state, which is filled with terrible drivers, just going by you own words. Course, you can't help that only geriatrics gave the PA any love, while the Millenia had a "real" buyer base.

Have a nice day.

[Guest YellowJacket894]

Thanks, Cappin'. I needed a new avatar.

[Flybrian]

Your gas mileage argument is hillarious since that's all you whine about with your car.

[Cory Wolfe]

Your gas mileage argument is hillarious since that's all you whine about with your car.

197968[/snapback]

Considering I dont have the Miller Cycle V6... and my 2.5L has 168k miles... Nice try Fly.

Keep those excuses coming. I love a good a laugh.

[capriceman]

BV you really know whats sad? in 1991 when i bought my first caprice I paid 12k it had power everything and pinstriping. It was a 91 with 9c1 suspension with the 305 (slightly modded) fresh off the dealer lot. It beats any specs you Mazda has.

We all love our cars or we wouldnt keep on to them. I loved my Geo Metro but i know it was a craptastic car. You have to realize your car is not up to the level you think it is. And for the record All modren Buicks are not somthing to compare against.

[FAPTurbo]

You would be better served by comparing it to a Mazda6, or a current Honda Accord or Toyota Camry.

Check to see how your Millenia stacks up against those...

[ocnblu]

This thread is rude.

[Chris_Doane]

Want To Know What's Sad?

What's really sad is that you could've spent all this wasted time finally getting a job.

Edited September 27, 2006 by CD/BP

[razoredge]

The Mazda probably falls closer in its time to the Oldsmobile SC LSS. Both have their pros and cons. Its a matter of what you want. In some ways the Lucerne is not enough better than the LSS for this old H body owner to get too excited about. Especially with out the L67 engine. Many of the newer gismos dont interest this buyer. The exterior styling is.......say.......... refreshing where the LSS is now dated, handsome but dated. The interior styling is inferior in my book. I like where Olds was back then for interiors.

Nothing wrong with putting together a itemized comparision. However in the case with this poster, there is always an alternative motive, either to start trouble, be "cute", be rude and a multitude of other childish games. In this instance it seems its to degrade an excellent car, cut down older people, and be "cute" by using the word "laughable"

The Millenia is a nice car...........its not the only one.

[balthazar]

Pointless- esp when so many comparisons put the Buick handily ahead of the mazda and so many of the mazda's attributes are completely meaningless.

[razoredge]

Pointless- esp when so many comparisons put the Buick handily ahead of the mazda and so many of the mazda's attributes are completely meaningless.

198048[/snapback]

You have to consider the source of the topic and so many other topics from the source, its almost...............um.....................

[FAPTurbo]

Want To Know What's Sad?

What's really sad is that you could've spent all this wasted time finally getting a job.

198027[/snapback]

ouch...

[Cory Wolfe]

We all love our cars or we wouldnt keep on to them. I loved my Geo Metro but i know it was a craptastic car. You have to realize your car is not up to the level you think it is. And for the record All modren Buicks are not somthing to compare against.

197998[/snapback]

Ofcourse, but my Millenia is far from crap and it's certainly comparable to the Lucerne.

You would be better served by comparing it to a Mazda6, or a current Honda Accord or Toyota Camry.

Check to see how your Millenia stacks up against those...

198013[/snapback]

Well, considering the Millenia isn't a generic midsizer, but a decent luxury sedan...

Pointless- esp when so many comparisons put the Buick handily ahead of the mazda and so many of the mazda's attributes are completely meaningless.

198048[/snapback]

Different strokes for different folks. Meaningless to you, the world to me.

The Mazda probably falls closer in its time to the Oldsmobile SC LSS. Both have their pros and cons. Its a matter of what you want. In some ways the Lucerne is not enough better than the LSS for this old H body owner to get too excited about. Especially with out the L67 engine. Many of the newer gismos dont interest this buyer. The exterior styling is.......say.......... refreshing where the LSS is now dated, handsome but dated. The interior styling is inferior in my book. I like where Olds was back then for interiors.

Nothing wrong with putting together a itemized comparision. However in the case with this poster, there is always an alternative motive, either to start trouble, be "cute", be rude and a multitude of other childish games. In this instance it seems its to degrade an excellent car, cut down older people, and be "cute" by using the word "laughable"

The Millenia is a nice car...........its not the only one.

I completely agree with the first part.

However, for the second, I'm going to have to clear a few things up. There was no alternative motive. I wasnt trying to be cute, rude, demeaning to older persons, and I wasn't being childish in the least. I wasn't entirely degrading, since it's not entirely an excellent vehicle. I'll give you good, but the Lucerne has more cons thans pros, IMO. In case anyone here doesnt read letters, that means in my opinion. That also means these are all opinions being posted about. Fly has his, Balthy has his, You have yours, I have mine. My sole intention was to compare my Millenia to the Lucerne. It just so happens that my Millenia is damn good car that can be compared to a 12 year newer vehicle not be embarrassed. I'm sorry that it does make the Lucerne look laughable. It's not my fault Buick built a large sedan the interior room of a midsizer. It's not my fault Buick decided to put an outdated pushrod engine into a sedan that should be chasing Lexii. It's not my fault Buick put a cheap $20k interior into $30-$40k car. It's not my fault Buick was lackluster in the developing of this car. I didn't expect any better of you guys personally, being that this is a GM enthusiast forum. I didn't, however, expect you guys to be so sensitive and rude because of my harmless little comparision. Reality: The Lucerne isn't that great. I'm not denying that it has its pros and it is a nice sedan. However, I'm sorry that comparing it to a 12 year old car that comes close to being a better vehicle just makes you all desperate to come up with excuses. There's a thing called blind loyalty and another thing called reality. Which side do you want to be on? I can understand if the Lucerne is more suited for you and you prefer it greatly. But don't be unwilling to consider the stuff I've posted in the comparision and certainly don't write it off as me trying to be cute, rude, demeaning, or whatever the hell you think. I cannot believe the stubborn attitudes some of you guys have. You all can't even handle a simple comparison? I mean... come on. If anything is sadder than how the Lucerne compares to the Millenia, its how you guys reacted to this.

That is all I'm going to say. I dont even know why I bother anymore.

[NOS2006]

I agree, BV.

[capriceman]

...outdated pushrod engine...

198109[/snapback]

Do you really want people to hate and attack every one of your comments?

[Northstar]

Riddle me this: If the Millenia is so advanced for its time, and the Lucerne is a 2007 MY vehicle that isn't even better than 1994 MY vehicles, how is it that the Millenia sold so poorly, yet the Lucerne sells great?

Something doesn't work in this equation:

Good competition (2007 MY) x "bad" vehicle (Lucerne) = good sales for bad vehicle, but...

Bad competition (1994 MY) x "great" vehicle (Millenia) = bad sales for good vehicle.

Hmm... something just doesn't seem to add up here. Anyone able to find my mistake?

[Cory Wolfe]

Riddle me this: If the Millenia is so advanced for its time, and the Lucerne is a 2007 MY vehicle that isn't even better than 1994 MY vehicles, how is it that the Millenia sold so poorly, yet the Lucerne sells great?

Something doesn't work in this equation:

Good competition (2007 MY) x "bad" vehicle (Lucerne) = good sales for bad vehicle, but...

Bad competition (1994 MY) x "great" vehicle (Millenia) = bad sales for good vehicle.

Hmm... something just doesn't seem to add up here. Anyone able to find my mistake?

198117[/snapback]

Ofcourse. Great vehicles always sell well in a perfect world. It's not a perfect world. Sometimes the markect just doesnt cater to some vehicles. Then, considering that the Millenia most certainly was a niche vehicle, being sold as a Mazda, in a segment that was full of competition with better dealer networks and names that are more established. A GM fan should know this. How many great vehicles has the General put out, only to succumb to poor sales?

But alas, another person trying to come up with more excuses. It's too much to consider the comparision.

Do you really want people to hate and attack every one of your comments?

Um... going by what you quoted, I guess so. Its my opinion that the 3800 in the Lucerne is outdated. I'm most certainly not saying all pushrods are outdated. The LS engines are sweet perfection. That doesnt make the 3800 any better. It's unrefined and outdated. If you're going to stick with pushrods, atleast put some money into them, like GM has with the LS engines. Otherwise, don't even bother. As it stands, a DOHC V6 would have suited the Lucerne better for its market. Especially moreso than an unrefined and outdated 3800.

I suppose I'm not allowed to have an opinion without getting attacked. Yay me.

Edited September 27, 2006 by blackviper8891

[Northstar]

Ofcourse. Great vehicles always sell well in a perfect world. It's not a perfect world. Sometimes the markect just doesnt cater some vehicles. Then, considering that the Millenia most certainly was a niche vehicle, being sold as a Mazda, in a segment that was full of competition with better dealer networks and names that are more established. A GM should know this. How many great vehicles has the General put out, only to succumb to poor sales?

But alas, another person trying to come up with more excuses. It's too much to consider the comparision.

198137[/snapback]

Umm, the Lucerne is a niche vehicle (relatively, the full size market is not that big), being sold as an "old man's" Buick, in a segment full of competition, with what the public considers better dealers (Toyota, Lexus), and names that are more established (Avalon, ES, 300).

It looks like you're making excuses for the Millenia too, no?

[Cory Wolfe]

Umm, the Lucerne is a niche vehicle (relatively, the full size market is not that big), being sold as an "old man's" Buick, in a segment full of competition, with what the public considers better dealers (Toyota, Lexus), and names that are more established (Avalon, LS, 300).

It looks like you're making excuses for the Millenia too, no?

198143[/snapback]

Here, yes, I am. I'll admit it. The Millenia never sold well, it's true, but to say sales decide whether a car is good or bad is not right. I can think of many good cars that sold poorly and many crappy cars that sold well. A car doesnt always deserve the sales it gets. Look at the Camry. There are much better vehicles out there that don't sell nearly as well. You know it. So to even bring that up was pretty pointless.

Also, the luxury market back in 95 was alot smaller than what it is now. It was small and crowded. Now, its alot larger with most vehicles garnering acceptable sales.

Edited September 27, 2006 by blackviper8891

[razoredge]

So you finally learned that new does not mean that much, especially in the past 20 years.

many of your Mazda plus's are minimal or meaninless considering the more meaningful plus's of the Lucerne

I see your also got that quote of "outdated pushrod engine" memorized but still know little of which you speak. Its just a very important "take that" that so many of the mechanical know it alls always need to use around this place............and you want to say "you guys reacted to this", when its so predictable that those that know nothing about anything will always resort to "outdated pushrod engine". Its like some giant trump card.

You are trying for trouble as always just look at it "If anything is sadder than how the Lucerne compares to the Millenia, its how you guys reacted to this." The Lucerne does not "sadly" compare to the Mazda and that is why we supposedly "sadly reacted". When in fact we only adaquately countered your extreme negitivity. Your reaction to our counters was sad. I dont recall anyone saying your Mazda was "sad", something about your poor mileage but that was it.

Youve made it more than obvious over the past two years that you dont like anything about General Motors or thier cars or divisions and pretty much everyone on this site. You have your favorite car now, but somehow feel the need to come here and say "my Mazda" is this and that and GM's are "sad". I guess I dont get it. Cant you cut GMs down enough on the Mazda forum ? You need to do it here to ?

All you people that come here doing this $h! act like you are new to the game and have no idea whats going on and what brought us to this day. You act like GM should simply wave some majic wand and with their dwindling resources be able to suddenly outsmart the wealthy Japanese auto industry into nothing but "class leading" cars..............each and every one of them. Well I have news for everyone, it aint going to happen, not now, not ever, the balance of the scale is so far off that the American industries will never have the money to spend on R&D to catch up with the Japanese type engine technology. The Japs have been making top knotch OHC engines since the 70's, GM has been making top knotch OHV engines since.......whenever, you pick the date.

GM will never have the extra money to spend on interior materials to be able to be touchy feely softer than the Japs. That is what they will need too, they will need to be "softer" not equal, but more, and if they did achieve that, you touchy feelie boys would crawl under the dash to find something that was not soft enough. I feel like such a wimp even saying "soft", christ it aint charmin were talking about, its a friggin car that everyone is going to dispose of in 4 years. We that remember the old cars think your soft plastics are a big joke, we used to have padded material for door panels with mouldings and bezels and intricacy. That style had its merits too.......unless your hung up on "old".

Everyone has different prioritys, Im into exterior and interior styling and could care less how soft the plastics are, all Ill ever give a feel up to is the wheel, shifter and my wife. All of which I dont grip hard enough to hurt my little fingies.

I like powerful engines.............thats why Im such an advocate of the 240/280 L67, its got so much for drivability over the little weezy got to be at 4000 RPM DOHC engines. It burns premium just like your Mazda, wanna give it a run ? It gets 26 mpg in a full luxury modern land yaht, some people claim higher but IM not. Its taken GM so long to replace that engine because they have had a hard time making anything better, they think they have now but the jurys still deciding. I can tell you right now........it aint the 3900 ! Seems the only benefit the 3.6 has over the L67 is low octane and "the fact" that its DOHC..........other wise it has proved nothing..........oh yea.............smoother..........because the L67 will shake you right out of the seats, just ask everyone whos never owned one.

[capriceman]

I was letting you know that the odds of being attacked for using Pushrod and outdated in one sentence was very high. I know its your opinion and its funny to see how you dont give up on your belief even tho your out numbered.

[balthazar]

blackviper8891=

>>"Ofcourse, but my Millenia is far from crap and it's certainly comparable to the Lucerne."<<

In your opinion.

>>"I wasn't entirely degrading, since it's not entirely an excellent vehicle."<<

In your opinion.

>>"I'll give you good, but the Lucerne has more cons thans pros, IMO."<<

In your opinion.

>>"I'm sorry that it does make the Lucerne look laughable."<<

In your opinion.

You don't mind a few reminder/disclaimers here, right?

>>"It's not my fault... It's not my fault... It's not my fault... It's not my fault... It's not my fault... "<<

Was it also not your fault you were lot-walking the Buick dealership looking at a car you already knew you did not care for and had no earthly intention of buying?

Was it also not your fault you created a lengthy list of attributes of both that showed the Buick to be the 'better', higher content, more advanced vehicle, and then declared the deficient mazda the 'winner'?

Pointless.

[razoredge]

unrefined

still proving a lack of knowledge on the engine and engines in general

What is the Millenia anyhow, a top line 626, it seems to look like a 626 a guy at work had or is that just a family resemblence ?

[VenSeattle]

That's fine BV... you've proven that the Lucerne can be rather plebeian in its lower trim levels. Considering those were meant to replace LeSabre, there's nothing laughable about it.

In your comparison, you discredited everything that's gained from 12 years of advancement to "level" the playing field because it wasn't available back in 1994/95. Uh... considering the amount of technology that the Lucerne has standard & available over the Millenia, that's not going to work.

As you've mentioned some points, I'll emphasize some too:

• ----------------------

• Safety features: standard on the Lucerne V6 that were optional/ weren't available on the Millenia:

  On-Star (standard)

  Dual-Depth front airbags (standard)

  Side impact airbags (standard)

  Side-curtain airbags (standard)

  Traction Control (standard on Lucerne - Optional on Millenia)

  Keyless remote entry (standard on Lucerne - optional on Millenia)

  ----------------------

• Pollution: The ancient Series III 3800 V6 in greener than the Mazda's anemic 2.5l v6.

  ----------------------

• Performance: It's difficult to find a single source for both cars... but here's what I found:

  AutoChannel's Performance data on the base Millenia:

  0-60 MPH 9.0 seconds

  1/4 (E.T.) 17.0 seconds @ 85.5 mph

  Top speed 135 mph

  Autoweek published the V6 Lucerne's performance data at:

  0 to 60 mph: 8.4 seconds (est.)

  Almost all reviews are for the V8-powered Lucerne. I've seen individual V6 Lucerne 0-60 in the low 8's to low 9's. So the Millenia's performance isn't anything to right home about compared to the Lucerne's.

  ----------------------

• Interior space: Regardless of what you're trying to accomplish with posting stats, the Lucerne's interior is far from "mid-size" like the cramped Millenia's. The Lucerne's interior is 14 cubic feet larger than the Millenia's.

  Mazda Millenia

  Interior Volume: 94 ft3

  Trunk Volume: 13 ft3

  Buick Lucerne

  Interior Volume: 108 ft3

  Trunk Volume: 17 ft3

  ----------------------

• Amenities: The Lucerne has a quieter ride to provide an experience that's more in-line with a luxury car. The Lucerne's warranty is also superior to the Millenia's. You mentioned automatic climate control on both, but you failed to acknowledge that the Lucerne's is dual-zone while the Millenia's is single-zone. Where is your 6-disc CD player located at? Lucerne has it built into the dash... you know, with that "let's put it in all our vehicles" receiver" you snubbed. Then there is the 'memory seat' feature, and the built in compass.

  What's significant about the above amenities? They were all available in 1995. Mazda could have offered these features, but didn't. Outside of the in-dash 6-disc CD player, the Buick Park Avenue had them available in 1995.

  Then you can add in some of the new features that weren't around in Buick or Mazda in 1995 that are now available on Lucerne:

  - Heated/Ventilated seats

  - Navigation

  - 275hp V8

  - Stability Control

  - Magnetic Ride Control

  - Homelink (well, Buick had remote garage door ability, but this is far superior)

  - MP3 capability

  - Remote Vehicle Start

  - Ultrasonic Rear Parking Assist

  - Heated washer Fluid

  - Heated Steering Wheel

  ----------------------

Throw in the fact that the Millenia has a Ford-sourced transmission, and the Lucerne comes out smelling like roses for offering ALL OF THIS at similar prices to your car in 1995. This is just my opnion, but I'd definitely pay $1,000 more in 2006 dollars for all the features in a Lucerne CXS V8 over the 1995 Mazda Millenia S... Same goes for the CXL V6 Lucerne to the Millenia Base.

Cars.com pricing for 1995 Millenia:

4dr Sedan Base w/CLOTH - $27,525

4dr Sedan S - $33,595

Cars.com pricing for 2007 Lucerne:

4dr Sedan CX - $25,515

4dr Sedan CXL V6 - $28,530

4dr Sedan CXL V8 - $30,540

4dr Sedan CXS - $34,545

[razoredge]

Ive seen no one mention electrochromatic mirrors ? They are awsome and a most excellent gidget, coming from me thats saying something

The LSS had them

I assume the PA had them

I assume the Riviera had them

I assume the Aurora had them

I assume the Regency had them

I assume the Seville had them

I assume the Deville had them

I assume the Eldorado had them

I assume the Millenia had them ?

I assume the Lucerne no longer has them ?

How about magnasteer ? Memory seats ? Compass? outside temp? interior lights by touching the door handles ? timed twilight, 16 " wheels, rear armrest with storage and twin cup holders and trunk pass through, rear HVAC ducts, Traction control / disable, steering wheel controls dual lighted vanity mirror/visors with sliders for center and second visor for when primary is over the side windows ? 4T65HD best automatic transmission ever made

oh wait Im talking about the LSS, PA, Regency, Eighty Eight, Lesabre, Riviera, Eldorado, Seville, Aurora, Deville of the 90's.................

Shoulder room ?

[razoredge]

laughable f'in GMs anyhow

"Oh, you mean theres something else besides.............Chevy ?"

"Well there used to be..........son, but no one noticed so then came..................saturin and everything else went right straight to hell..........."

Edited September 27, 2006 by razoredge

[Cory Wolfe]

I was letting you know that the odds of being attacked for using Pushrod and outdated in one sentence was very high. I know its your opinion and its funny to see how you dont give up on your belief even tho your out numbered. 

198150[/snapback]

I never give in, I fight to end. I'm doing it here with my opinion and I do it in life with my problems.

blackviper8891=

>>"Ofcourse, but my Millenia is far from crap and it's certainly comparable to the Lucerne."<<

In your opinion.

>>"I wasn't entirely degrading, since it's not entirely an excellent vehicle."<<

In your opinion.

>>"I'll give you good, but the Lucerne has more cons thans pros, IMO."<<

In your opinion.

>>"I'm sorry that it does make the Lucerne look laughable."<<

In your opinion.

You don't mind a few reminder/disclaimers here, right? 

>>"It's not my fault... It's not my fault... It's not my fault... It's not my fault... It's not my fault... "<<

Was it also not your fault you were lot-walking the Buick dealership looking at a car you already knew you did not care for and had no earthly intention of buying?

Was it also not your fault you created a lengthy list of attributes of both that showed the Buick to be the 'better', higher content, more advanced vehicle, and then declared the deficient mazda the 'winner'?

Pointless.

198152[/snapback]

I always lot walk and never have an intention of buying anything and it's not just a Buick Dealership. I've never said I didn't car for the Lucerne. It is a nice sedan and it's not all that bad. I've said it before. I'm not blind to reality however, and can admit its far from perfect. As far as that list. Read through it again. Anything the Lucerne had an advantage in was due to it being newer with technology that was recently introduced. In case you can't comprehend, that means it wasn't available on even the most advanced vehicles back in 95. That's only where the Millenia could be considered deficient. Otherwise, it either beat or equalled the Lucerne. I also compared more than just content and technology as I've made clear so many times. While some of that stuff may not matter to you, it matters to other. Dash plastics included. Pointless to you, the world to me.

Don't be so stubborn and unwilling to atleast consider some of the things I've posted.

So you finally learned that new does not mean that much, especially in the past 20 years.

Learned? This isn't something I've been blind to. I've always said that I'd rather have a bunch of cool used cars than a few new ones that simply are as cool. There is just a line where a vehicle becomes too old for me. I can still respect a vehicle then, but likely won't have a desire to own it. I certainly agree with your in the past 20 years statement.

many of your Mazda plus's are minimal or meaninless considering the more meaningful plus's of the Lucerne

Again, different strokes for different folks. Meaningless to you, the world to others.

I see your also got that quote of "outdated pushrod engine" memorized but still know little of which you speak. Its just a very important "take that" that so many of the mechanical know it alls always need to use around this place............and you want to say "you guys reacted to this", when its so predictable that those that know nothing about anything will always resort to "outdated pushrod engine". Its like some giant trump card.

Again, its not that it's a pushrod that makes it outdated. Many people who support DOHC engines have the same assement. Do you ever see anyone put down the LS engines?

You are trying for trouble as always just look at it "If anything is sadder than how the Lucerne compares to the Millenia, its how you guys reacted to this." The Lucerne does not "sadly" compare to the Mazda and that is why we supposedly "sadly reacted". When in fact we only adaquately countered your extreme negitivity. Your reaction to our counters was sad. I dont recall anyone saying your Mazda was "sad", something about your poor mileage but that was it.

You're all taking things too literal, if that's the case. My original statement in my first post was "this either makes the Lucerne look sad or makes the Millenia look good." This was ever only meant as in how well the Millenia stacks up against the Lucerne, yet its 12 years old. All the counters were full of excuses and seemed like no one actually went through and read my comparision. Hence why I called you guys' reaction sad. It seems as if no one can accept that the Lucerne isn't all that it's cracked up to be, especially compared to a 12 year old Mazda. It's as simple as that, and is why I reacted that why I did

Youve made it more than obvious over the past two years that you dont like anything about General Motors or thier cars or divisions and pretty much everyone on this site. You have your favorite car now, but somehow feel the need to come here and say "my Mazda" is this and that and GM's are "sad". I guess I dont get it. Cant you cut GMs down enough on the Mazda forum ? You need to do it here to ?

What? I'm here because I enjoy it here. Like you've berated others of, you think to be a GM fan, you must be positive towards every GM and be blind to reality. Simply put, I tell it like I see it. I'm not going to give GM good feedback when it does something I disagree with. That, however, does not make me a GM basher. I like GM

whether you want to believe it or not. Otherwise, I wouldn't be here and I wouldn't be walking around looking at GM vehicles on GM lots all the time.

All you people that come here doing this &#036;h&#33; act like you are new to the game and have no idea whats going on and what brought us to this day. You act like GM should simply wave some majic wand and with their dwindling resources be able to suddenly outsmart the wealthy Japanese auto industry into nothing but "class leading" cars..............each and every one of them. Well I have news for everyone, it aint going to happen, not now, not ever, the balance of the scale is so far off that the American industries will never have the money to spend on R&D to catch up with the Japanese type engine technology. The Japs have been making top knotch OHC engines since the 70's, GM has been making top knotch OHV engines since.......whenever, you pick the date.

Again, what? I'm not retarded like you may think. I know it's not going to be easy for GM to produce class leading vehicles or happen overnight. However, look at the GMT900s, Lambdas, the next CTS... you honestly think it will never happen? Those vehicles are certainly class leading while the CTS looks like it will definitely whoop ass. As far as engines, what about the HF V6s? They're certainly better than any 3800 GM has built and can compete with those Japanese engines.

GM will never have the extra money to spend on interior materials to be able to be touchy feely softer than the Japs. That is what they will need too, they will need to be "softer" not equal, but more, and if they did achieve that, you touchy feelie boys would crawl under the dash to find something that was not soft enough. I feel like such a wimp even saying "soft", christ it aint charmin were talking about, its a friggin car that everyone is going to dispose of in 4 years. We that remember the old cars think your soft plastics are a big joke, we used to have padded material for door panels with mouldings and bezels and intricacy. That style had its merits too.......unless your hung up on "old".

Again, I must ask, what? GM has shown that it can do a great interior with great plastics. That's in a relatively cheap Lacrosse. Its ridiculous the the Lacrosse has better materials than the more upscale Lucerne, however. Do you know agree with that, atleast?

Everyone has different prioritys, Im into exterior and interior styling and could care less how soft the plastics are, all Ill ever give a feel up to is the wheel, shifter and my wife. All of which I dont grip hard enough to hurt my little fingies.

As am I, but I also care about materials. It does help the feel of an interior, just as the design and colors and brightwork does.

I like powerful engines.............thats why Im such an advocate of the 240/280 L67, its got so much for drivability over the little weezy got to be at 4000 RPM DOHC engines. It burns premium just like your Mazda, wanna give it a run ? It gets 26 mpg in a full luxury modern land yaht, some people claim higher but IM not. Its taken GM so long to replace that engine because they have had a hard time making anything better, they think they have now but the jurys still deciding. I can tell you right now........it aint the 3900 ! Seems the only benefit the 3.6 has over the L67 is low octane and "the fact" that its DOHC..........other wise it has proved nothing..........oh yea.............smoother..........because the L67 will shake you right out of the seats, just ask everyone whos never owned one.

Well, I never put down the L67. The regular 190-200hp 3800, however? Yes, I have, and yes, I think it's outdated and unrefined. While I have never owned either, I've certainly driven both. Again, I'm not putting down the L67. However, I do know of a guy with a MC SS with the L67 that gets 19 mpg he told me. Course, like any enthusiast, he doesnt baby the throttle.

[razoredge]

I was impressed with the 205/230 L36 in my 99 Olds, very strong and quite engine. Would leave any intersection and pass with ease, put it down and it would go like hell. It was actually a very refined engine, runnng 10.3 compression on 87 octane, pull like a pissed off pony clear to 6000. Better drive one again, I think you drink to much of the negitive cocktails being poured around this place.

Edited September 27, 2006 by razoredge