Buick Announces Pricing for All New 2006 Lucerne

[pow]

Have that page bookmarked or something, I'm on my 2nd engine, my friend's Camry V6 is on his 3rd, my friend's 4runner, my uncle's 1st gen Sienna, my neighbor's ES300...yeah all of us have failing motors. :rolleyes:

Sorry buster, but Toyota's 3.0L V6 runs EXACTLY the same at 125kmi as they do when purchased, problem free.  If your going to insult Toyota reliability at least find an actual problem, they do exist btw.  I'll save you some time Toyota engines and trannys don't make the list.

[post="18859"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Yeah, my cousin has a '97 ES300 with 100K+ miles, and it's absolutely incredible how new it looks and drives. The engine and transmission is smoother than most brand-new cars I've driven. Everything about it is incredibly refined and precise. In fact, I'd say his is more well-made than new Camrys. Of course, it helps that he takes prestine care of it; he changes the oil every 3K, and it has (quality) cloth upholstery, and not wrinkly leather.

Yes, it's devoid of any passion, and yes, it's Japanese, so I'm prejudiced against it, but even I have to admit its quality is amazing.

[Mike The Canadian]

I personally think people shouldnt start complaining now. We knew everything about the car and thought it would start at 28,000 - 29,000 and no one gave a shit, now that its starting over 1000 below what we expected, everyone starts bitching....

[motownr]

Buick is on its way to becoming a niche brand.  They need to do an upward march, but its core of LeSabre and Century buyers is being abandoned.  The Lucerne nameplate is trying to appease luxury car buyers and entry level full-size sedan buyers.  Kind of like how the final Aurora had to satisfy 88, Aurora, and 98 buyers, and the result will not be big sales.

[post="18813"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Excellent point.

I keep waiting for GM to acknowledge that they learned SOMETHING from the demise of Olds. However, all I can see is a repeat: fewer models that will inevitably result in fewer sales, leading to an inevitable conclusion that the brand "isn't viable."

So sad to see GM throw wave after wave of (excellent) new product at Chevy and Saturn, and basically abandon the BPG channel. It's almost like GM's resigned itself to having to cull the entire trio of brands.

The Lucerne, in the metal, is a pretty decent piece. However, the Aurora was comparatively far more distinctive (original version), and even that wasn't enough to turn the fortunes of Olds around.

Sad.

[Drew Dowdell]

The Aurora, while a great car, was not enough to bring Olds back from the brink. The Intrigue and Alero were still W-bodies and N-bodies respectively. Oddly, Buick is almost exactly where Olds was when it died. 1. Excellent new G-body <Lucerne/Aurora> 2. Good but not great W-body <LaCross/Intrigue> 3. Unloved SUV <Rainier/Bravada> 4. Unloved Mini-van <Terraza/Sillioette> 5. Recently demised yet popular full sized family car <LeSabre/Eighty Eight> 6. Recently demised full sized luxury car <Park Ave/ Ninety Eight> The only real difference is that Olds had the Alero and Buick has the Rendevous. Both of which sell well, but don't have enough volume to hold their respective brands.

[Ultra Magnus]

If Buick would have released it in a simple 2 model line-up I think they would have had a hit. Also, to really complete with the likes of Lexus and Infiniti, then only the Northstar V-8 and 3.5 DOHC V-6 should be offered. I have no problems with the starting base price, but then to really make a statement, keep your option packages simple and relatively expensive. To rebuild Buick is going to take time. It may not be as profitiable as GM would hope, but I really believe it can be done. It just cant be done overnight.

[Ultra Magnus]

I don't think anyone suggested that the Lucerne is M35/45 competition.

No, the competition for the Lucerne is the Grand Marquie, ES330, former Concord/LHS owners that don't like the new 300s, Camry owners that want to move up but don't like the Avalon, LeSabre, Park Ave, 88, 98 and Aurora owners.

The M35/45 competes with the CTS and STS at GM.

[post="18573"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Unfortunately Buick does! But I digress... This car can be successful if they market it right. Build the customer base before you start running your mouth. Otherwise, GM will be laughed at for overpromising and under delivering.

[Mule Bakersdozen LS]

Wasn't LeSabre the best selling full sized car after the 88 was axed?

[post="18516"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Yeah, and then Impala took over that spot. Although actually, the Eighty-Eight (and Bonneville) had been losing sales in that 1992-99 generation. I don't like the Lucerne because it looks like a Chevy (and not a great one either), it has nothing on the 1998-2001 string of stylish, true Buick concepts (Signia, Cielo, LaCrosse, and Bengal respectively, or even the 2004 Velite save for "portholes"), its pricing should be at least $1,000 less still, and even though evok said there were production/finance problems, there is no valid excuse for the 3800 V-6 to be in that car, nor was there a reason for it to be detuned. I like the 3800 V-6 too, but people need to understand that GM needs to change things in order to move forward. And also the Lucerne and DTS dashboards look almost identical to the Impala's, a $22,000 starting car as opposed to a DTS Performance that can push into the $55,000 range. And all have 4-speed automatic transmissions in a world where the all-new and disappointingly average mid-size Ford Fusion has a 6-speed automatic. See the picture? This seems like a change for the worse, not the better in this case.

[titan]

If Buick would have released it in a simple 2 model line-up I think they would have had a hit.  Also, to really complete with the likes of Lexus and Infiniti, then only the Northstar V-8 and 3.5 DOHC V-6 should be offered.  I have no problems with the starting base price, but then to really make a statement, keep your option packages simple and relatively expensive.  To rebuild Buick is going to take time. It may not be as profitiable as GM would hope, but I really believe it can be done.  It just cant be done overnight.

[post="18953"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Thankyou. That's what I was saying... I'm happy someone agrees.

[caddycruiser]

Actually, after looking over the ordering guide for this car, seems VERY nice.

For example, there will be NO hubcaps (finally), but rather the base model will use one of the current LeSabre upgrade wheels.

Also, there are LOTS of exterior paint colors to choose from, more than, I think, I've ever seen on a GM car, plus a new interior shade called "Tuxedo Blue/Shale", which I'm assuming is some kind of combination deep navy blue and lighter cashmere color--very European-like.

Here's the wheels:

16" Machined Face Aluminum (standard CX)


17" Premium Painted Aluminum (standard CXL)


17" Chrome Plated Aluminum (optional CXL)


18" Premium Painted Aluminum (standard CXS)


18" Chrome Plated Aluminum (optional CXS)

And the rest of the option/color book stuff (To get the full print book, click Print Book, Print Model, then Print):
'06 Lucerne Options/Colors

[regfootball]

Have you ever driven the 3800?  It's extremely refined, and smoth as silk.  I think the Lucerne deserves more performance and sophistication.  If you meant sophistication when you said refinement then I agree with you.  But the engine itself is a smooth as slik, bullitproof unit that sips gas.  It's just not right for this car, IMO.

[post="18675"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

yes i have. on about 10+ different cars. i get stuck driving my father in laws car too often than i would rather like to.

its not worth debating why again.

[caddycruiser]

The 3.8L that was in the '02 LeSabre rental we had for a month was very quiet, smooth, and had a transmission that shifted flawlessly. At lower speeds, it was kinda punchy, but up at normal speed, it was a dog and pretty much died off, making for a few strained highway merging situations. This was with a base car, and therefore, the base axle. Similarly, my grandmother has a '99 Intrigue GX 3.8L that was built before they made the switch over to the 3.5L. It too has the punchy low speed torque feel and is very nice around town, but, like the Buick, it seems strained when the terrain gets hilly or you have to pass. Perfect example is one quite steep hill heading out of the town where she lives--at first, the car seems to be moving well. Start up the incline and it dogs so much, that I've had to push the pedal deep into the floor, wait a few seconds, and then, MAYBE, get a transmission kick down and a little more juice. For being so sprightly around town, it kinda scared me the first time I went for a longer drive in it and watched the speedometer needle sink back more and more, as the pedal went deeper and deeper. Problem-wise, they've also had a pretty good oil leak from the pan 3 times now, the last being a while ago before the warranty ran out, and it seems to be holding. Overall, I still think it's a good motor, and REALLY does sip gas. If they have the gearing and shift points calibrated right (something that seems to make a HUGE difference with this motor) in the Lucerne, the majority of V6 model buyers will be quite satisfied, just as they have been for years with LeSabre's, etc. On the other hand, there still should be something newer, lighter, much more powerful, AND still gas sipping to replace it. Think the 3.5L Toyota has in the new Avalon--regardless of whether or not you like the car's design, the engine is magnificent, smooth, silky, strong, AND very easy on gas, no to mention certain added "details" like a much nicer exhaust/running sound and perfect transmission shift points. Edited September 23, 2005 by caddycruiser

[Flybrian]

On the other hand, there still should be something newer, lighter, much more powerful, AND still gas sipping to replace it.

[post="19089"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Insert my argument for a 250hp 3.6l V6 in the midlevel trim.

[Drew Dowdell]

Well, if sipping gas is a criteria for the Lucerne, I'm afraid to say that the 3.6vvt isn't the answer. I'm lucky to see 28 highway, I get 18 around town.

[pow]

Well, if sipping gas is a criteria for the Lucerne, I'm afraid to say that the 3.6vvt isn't the answer. I'm lucky to see 28 highway, I get 18 around town.

[post="19094"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

The 3800 doesn't do any better... in the Lucerne, it gets 19/28 MPG.

[Northstar]

The Lucerne might not be any better, but it's a lot heavier than the CTS, and the CTS also has a 5 speed vs. the Lucerne's 4-speed. What does the 3600 get in the LaCrosse? It would surely get worse in the Lucerne.

[thegriffon]

umm the ES330 is at 218hp

[post="18858"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Perhaps he's thinking ES300, which would probably be around 197 hp under the new SAE standard.

[VenSeattle]

I'm sold... The price is right. For Christ's sake, the Lucerne CXS is priced the same as a Base Park Avenue... The Lucerne CXS is the equivalency to a 2004 Cadillac Seville!

[caddycruiser]

Now that I've seen the full options/standards sheet, the colors, the wheels, the power, etc., I too agree that this will be an awesome car--the size and solidity of the outgoing LeSabre, but finally matched with style, a high quality interior, and lots of cool features.

Even without seeing one in person, I'd put it at the top of my list if looking for a relatively large, refined, luxury sedan under $40k http://www.cheersandgears.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/AH-HA_wink.gif

This car seems SO, SO much nicer than the Lacrosse could ever dream of being.

[regfootball]

The 3800 doesn't do any better... in the Lucerne, it gets 19/28 MPG.

[post="19136"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Gee, the SS impala with over 100 more horse and 1.5 litres more of displacement, and two more cylinders makes 18/28

geez, if they need to stick the 3800 under the hood, at least put the supercharged one in there. But the 3.6 SHOULD be standard. Make the 3800 a delete option for those 10 folks that will want it. Edited September 24, 2005 by regfootball

[zoomtm]

yea they should have atleast put the supercharged in there.

[CaddyXLR-V]

The 3800 doesn't do any better... in the Lucerne, it gets 19/28 MPG.

[post="19136"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I really wonder how they get those ratings. My supercharged Grand Prix gets 32mpg highway, and I average 25mpg with mostly city driving, and thats not babying it either. The only way I could get 19 city, which it what its rated, is if I floor it at each stoplight.

[caddycruiser]

There's NO way they'd ever have used the 3.8L S/C in a car like the Lucerne, since its main mission, whether they admit it or not, is to replace the LeSabre, a car that has done very well for years with the regular 3.8L. Furthermore, the S/C motor has almost always been the choice for the higher end models, not things like base LeSabre's, and though still great, it is a higher maintenance engine in comparison to the regular 3.8L, at least after some miles have passed. That's also kind of what the point of the 4.6L was and is for, since just like it moved in to replace the 3.8L S/C in the Bonneville, it's here taking over the place of what the S/C engine used to be in Park Avenue Ultra's. Also, based on something I think I remember reading some time ago, Buick, especially, wanted to get away from Supercharged/Turbocharged V6's, and instead go with the more upscale image of generally higher output and naturally aspirated V6's and V8's. Could it use some more power? Absolutely. But, like I said earlier, if they get the gearing and the transmission programming right, the 3.8L certainly won't be a slug, and most of the people buying them could car less how old the block is or what the official hp rating is. Any idea of what the % model spread might be on this car? I would assume, based on past sales of the LeSabre/Park Avenue, that the majority of Lucerne's ordered and sold will be CX's with 1 or 2 options, just like current LeSabre Custom's, but what about the CXS? The other oddity will be the CXL, kind of in an odd spot between nicely equipped and REALLY well equipped, but also offering the engines from both ends. Right now, with the Lacrosse, I hardly ever see a single CXS model, in comparison to the glut of base CX's and moderately loaded CXL's. Edited September 24, 2005 by caddycruiser

[Cananopie]

I know my response is a little late but this is what I have to say and I'd like to see anyone logically argue with it. #1. The LeSabre has used the 3.8 liter engine as its base and ONLY engine for well over a decade. The LeSabre has ALSO been the best selling fullsize sedan in America for (I believe) over a decade as well... So why would its replacement just say "Oh, screw this venerable engine- it's too dated." The LeSabre had only 160 HP in the early 90s, it has only become more powerful with time. A 6 cyl reliable engine might be underpowered for maybe 6 people's full sized sedans on this board but for millions of Americans it wasn't just not underpowered- it was the preferred choice... PLUS you want power- buy the CXS cheapos! Pontiac is the one whose supposed to put a lot of power in even their cheapest cars- not Buick. #2. I can't believe anybody has DARED complain about the price! The projected price by Motor Trend of the '06 LaCrosse in their October 2006 issue was $36,000-$43,000. That's right! The Lucerne TOPS OUT and the BASE assumed price by Motor Trend! I was at LEAST expecting it to start at $30k. Everyone expected the CXS to be abou $40k! Let me give you an idea at how good of pricing the Lucerne is: Motor Trend would be correct in their prediction on the CX Lucerne IF you wanted an base Aveo with it. Yea- you could by ANOTHER CAR by how much cheaper the Lucerne is to its prediction. You people need to let off on Buick. This is something you just can't argue with. They hardly moved the price up from the current LeSabre. They did an amazing job with pricing.

[ehaase]

So why would its replacement just say "Oh, screw this venerable engine- it's too dated." The LeSabre had only 160 HP in the early 90s, it has only become more powerful with time. A 6 cyl reliable engine might be underpowered for maybe 6 people's full sized sedans on this board but for millions of Americans it wasn't just not underpowered- it was the preferred choice...

Because GM supposedly wants to move Buick upscale to compete against Lexus (an idea I am skeptical about anyway); because the LeSabre has not gained power since the 1996 model got the 205 hp 3800; because most of those millions of LeSabre buyers satisfied with the 3800 are in their 70's; and because the comparably priced Avalon has 280 hp.

However, if I were in the market for a sedan in the low $30,000 range, a Northstar powered Lucerne CXS would be very appealing.

[caddycruiser]

Because GM supposedly wants to move Buick upscale to compete against Lexus (an idea I am skeptical about anyway); because the LeSabre has not gained power since the 1996 model got the 205 hp 3800; because most of those millions of LeSabre buyers satisfied with the 3800 are in their 70's; and because the comparably priced Avalon has 280 hp.

However, if I were in the market for a sedan in the low $30,000 range, a Northstar powered Lucerne CXS would be very appealing.

[post="19450"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Very good point. The fact that the Toyota has a silky smooth and very efficient V6 that makes more power to begin with than even the upgrade V8 in the Buick will be quite an embarrasment, but Buick had to work with what they could get. Sad, but true.

Still seems like it will be an awesome car, but the powertrain will still be a sore spot, even if it's just from the "on paper" specs. Edited September 24, 2005 by caddycruiser

[Stoopsbuick]

27 grand for a pushrod v6 with no power..........

otherwise they might be ok pricing wise.

the 3800 is a joke offering in this car.

[post="18494"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I agree it needs more power but I have too many customers that want that size a car with a 3800. Old people just don't like change and if they trust something they stay loyal to it. That's the only reason I see them putting the 3800 in it.

[Flybrian]

Heh. As good as any Toyota engine is, I'd hardly go as far as sayin 'turbine-like'. The disappointing part of the 3800 is not its presence, but its rating. 197 vs 205 for the LeSabre. Plus, anything under 200 looks really, really bad, though not as laughable as that crappy 2.7l in the 300.

[caddycruiser]

Heh. As good as any Toyota engine is, I'd hardly go as far as sayin 'turbine-like'.

The disappointing part of the 3800 is not its presence, but its rating. 197 vs 205 for the LeSabre. Plus, anything under 200 looks really, really bad, though not as laughable as that crappy 2.7l in the 300.

[post="19506"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Hah, sorry, got my descriptive words going a bit weird. Changed it now. Either way, it's one of the strongest points of the car.

The 3.8L will do mighty fine for lower end Lucerne's for quite some time....then again, will the 3.8L EVER die? Probably not for quite some time, especially given the strangely lower MPG ratings of the theoretical replacement, the 3.9L.

[VenSeattle]

Very good point.  The fact that the Toyota has a silky smooth and very efficient V6 that makes more power to begin with than even the upgrade V8 in the Buick will be quite an embarrasment, but Buick had to work with what they could get.  Sad, but true.

[post="19474"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

just to remind people...

Toyota Avalon
3.5-liter DOHC 24-valve Dual VVT-i V6
268 hp @ 6200 rpm
248 lb.-ft. @ 4700 rpm

Buick Lucerne
4.6L Northstar V8
275 hp @ 6,000 rpm
295 lb-ft @ 4,400 rpm

[pow]

just to remind people...

Toyota Avalon
3.5-liter DOHC 24-valve Dual VVT-i V6
268 hp @ 6200 rpm
248 lb.-ft. @ 4700 rpm

Buick Lucerne
4.6L Northstar V8
275 hp @ 6,000 rpm
295 lb-ft @ 4,400 rpm

[post="19549"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

The Avalon is significantly lighter and significantly more fuel efficient, though.

Still, $31K for a V8 powered Lucerne is very good value for money. The V6 versions could be cheaper, or offer the HF3.6 as standard. I'm surprised the "simple and cheap" 3800 is only $2000 less than the "complex and sophisticated" V8. I predict rebates for the V6 models soon... they probably couldn't price it lower because of the LaCrosse.

[VenSeattle]

The Avalon is significantly lighter and significantly more fuel efficient, though.

Still, $31K for a V8 powered Lucerne is very good value for money. The V6 versions could be cheaper, or offer the HF3.6 as standard. I'm surprised the "simple and cheap" 3800 is only $2000 less than the "complex and sophisticated" V8. I predict rebates for the V6 models soon... they probably couldn't price it lower because of the LaCrosse.

[post="19576"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I was just correcting a misquote. The Northstar V8 in the Lucerne is more powerful than the Avalon's V6. Especially in torque.

I agree that Avalon will be faster, but we won't know by how much until numbers come out for the Lucerne. Regardless, in the large car segment, anything in the 7.5-sec range or lower is considered effortless power.

[zoomtm]

yea..i dont think a "blink of an eye" is going to matter to buyers

[caddycruiser]

just to remind people...

Toyota Avalon
3.5-liter DOHC 24-valve Dual VVT-i V6
268 hp @ 6200 rpm
248 lb.-ft. @ 4700 rpm

Buick Lucerne
4.6L Northstar V8
275 hp @ 6,000 rpm
295 lb-ft @ 4,400 rpm

[post="19549"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Whoops....boy am I just confused about the Avalon B)

I could have swore it had 280hp, unless that changed with the new measurement system. Either way, it's a pretty damn fast and economical powerplant.

[Flybrian]

Whoops....boy am I just confused about the Avalon B)

I could have swore it had 280hp, unless that changed with the new measurement system.  Either way, it's a pretty damn fast and economical powerplant.

[post="19618"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Was 280, dropped to 268 under the new standardized rating scale.

I'd obviously rather have the Northstar. Given its track record, economy wouldn't be that much of a difference, plus the massive amount of low-end torque with good all-around performance. Plus, V8 cars got class. :)

[-Camaro-]

Buick, you just signed away your life. $27,000 for an aging full-size car with a weak V-6 engine and a 4-speed automatic transmission in 2006 against Avalon, 300, and Montego. Buh-bye Buick, hate to see you go like this...

BTW, how is Lucerne not a replacement for LeSabre/Park Avenue? Must've been stupid PR-speak for "I have nothing good to say about this car."

[post="18375"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Not everything is about power. I'm not sure what the interior is like, but I'm assuming it has some luxury in it(it should if it doesn't) and if it does that justifies the higher price.... Maybe it doesn't have the power, but if it's comfortable/has features, it'll sale!

[Paolino]

Hah, sorry, got my descriptive words going a bit weird.  Changed it now.  Either way, it's one of the strongest points of the car.

The 3.8L will do mighty fine for lower end Lucerne's for quite some time....then again, will the 3.8L EVER die?  Probably not for quite some time, especially given the strangely lower MPG ratings of the theoretical replacement, the 3.9L.

[post="19543"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

From what I understand, the 3.8 is done after 2006. I believe after that, we have some really great things to see for the base engines in Buicks. I imagine (and hope), we'll be looking for either the 2.8L or 3.6L's and 6A's for base engines in the LaCrosse and Lucerne.

I hope!! *fingers crossed*

[HarleyEarl]

Let's take another look at the Buick Wildcat:

[pow]

Let's take another look at the Buick Wildcat:

[post="19712"][/post]

Its coincidental similarities to the Passat are amazing. Similar greenhouse, similar trunk lid, similar stance...

[razoredge]

They need to Buick up those tailights, they are not classy enough for a Buick, they look like something from Japan but with even less character. So long as they dont do the silver plastic hubcap thing I believe the priceing is great. Worried about chezzy washed out yellow "cloth " seats,too. I hate the new cloth so cheap looking and in colors - all two of them that suck. Im really sick of that, two choices blackgrey or baby shit yellow. I guess thats how they get everyone to go for the leather. What about overly soft springs? Placeing them firmly back in the retirement catagory All more important items to cry about than the best damn automobile engine ever made.

[Paolino]

They need to Buick up those tailights, they are not classy enough for a Buick, they look like something from Japan but with even less character.

So long as they dont do the silver plastic hubcap thing I believe the priceing is great.

[post="19729"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

ABSOLUTELY! Why on earth are all of the taillamps of GMs cars looking the same? I mean, they're all getting basically round/circular illuminations... ie, 2005 LaCrosse, 2006 Lucerne, 2006 Impala, 2005 Cobalt, 2005 G6, etc. They may differ the lens ever so slightly, but overall, they look the same when lit.

Buick--large, horizontal taillamps... should be LED. Should (in my opinion), get the treatment the Deville had, with the LED taillamps covered by a lense cover that didn't allow you to see they were like a million little bulbs, but rather just a large block of instantly-illuminated red.

As for the silver plastic hubcap things... nope... THANKFULLY, GM is putting wheels on from the base Lucerne (16") through the top-o-da-line CXS (18") :)

[caddycruiser]

...Plus, V8 cars got class. :)

[post="19644"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

EXACTLY, and the main reason why Buick ditched the S/C motor--not the same classy image as a refined, sophisticated V8.

[Drew Dowdell]

The Avalon is significantly lighter and significantly more fuel efficient, though.

Still, $31K for a V8 powered Lucerne is very good value for money. The V6 versions could be cheaper, or offer the HF3.6 as standard. I'm surprised the "simple and cheap" 3800 is only $2000 less than the "complex and sophisticated" V8. I predict rebates for the V6 models soon... they probably couldn't price it lower because of the LaCrosse.

[post="19576"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

The Northstar has substantially more torque and by virtue of being an 8 v. 6, I'd also say that the torque comes on sooner.

[razoredge]

EXACTLY, and the main reason why Buick ditched the S/C motor--not the same classy image as a refined, sophisticated V8.

[post="19773"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

What are we talking here ? Do you have some inside knowledge ? High engineering knowledge. Or is this just extreme - not a V8 hatred ?

Buick has been all about V6 and forced induction V6 for 30 years. Right behind the word V6 the word Buick comes to mind. Then move on to turbo or supercharged, Buick is first to come to mind. When someone says Buick, Chevy LT1 powered V8 is the last thing that comes to mind, its infact forgetable.

The Buick Supercharged and Turboed V6's were every part of refined and sophisticated, in fact they were handing out lessons, free of charge.

Currently the Buick based V6 is only one upgrade away in new refinement from the LS2.

Now for what the real problem with the SC and any forced induction as well as extreme high output engines is they need high octane gas, not a very good sales point with todays GAS FIASCO.

[razoredge]

The Northstar has substantially more torque and by virtue of being an 8 v. 6, I'd also say that the torque comes on sooner.

[post="19784"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Not directed at you just a responce to torque steer

On high quality Buick chassis's torque steer is a non issue, it just seems to be a word on the tip of everyones tongue, like any newly learned word. I cant speak for the G bodys though because I have actually never drivin one, nor a Northstar powered car, but judgeing from my experiance with the old C&H chassis its simple a non issue. I cant believe the Caddys and G chassis are any less than the old C&H. It is actually like complaining about a RWDer because the back end kicks out when you put it down and have to counter steer.... and we all spend so much time "putting it down".

My experience with the A body is quite different, just one car, a 90 Ciera wagon and its terrible in every since of the word terrible. Front corner dive in turns, torque pull at brisk start, very uncertain driving characteristics. Sad too because the old 3.3 Buick V6 is a very road hungry engine. Anyhow I sure hope people arent drawing all their conclusions about FWD handling, feel and controlability from experiences in these less expensive chassis's.

[Croc]

What are we talking here ? Do you have some inside knowledge ? High engineering knowledge. Or is this just extreme - not a V8 hatred ?

Buick has been all about V6 and forced induction V6 for 30 years. Right behind the word V6 the word Buick comes to mind. Then move on to turbo or supercharged, Buick is first to come to mind. When someone says Buick, Chevy LT1 powered V8 is the last thing that comes to mind, its infact forgetable.

The Buick Supercharged and Turboed V6's were every part of refined and sophisticated, in fact they were handing out lessons, free of charge.

Currently the Buick based V6 is only one upgrade away in new refinement from the LS2.

Now for what the real problem with the SC and any forced induction as well as extreme high output engines is they need high octane gas, not a very good sales point with todays GAS FIASCO.

[post="19849"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Ok, I'll bite this one...

A supercharged V6 does not have the premium image of a V8. Why? Superchargerd V6s are less reliable than V8s, and the V8s are undoubtedly smoother and more refined. V6s might get better fuel economy, but V8s produce more power. More power commands higher pricing.

Case closed, as this is all very well-known facts, unless you just want to argue something pointless...again.

[razoredge]

will the 3.8L EVER die?

Nope most of todays so called high tec junk will be long crushed and put into new high tec junk and somewhere out there, there will old Buick 38's fireing up every morning and heading out to work :P

I believe GM is running the performance into the ground on the 38 purposely, until everyone hates it like all the tecys here do.

All the aftermarket people know how to tune em up, whats GMs problem ?

They do need better kickdown control in the drivetrain managment systems, I will agree on that because OD plus 2.83:1 final drives in a 3800 lb car on hills will be a problem. Not one of the tecy cars are geared anywhere near that high. We drive in 3rd or D around here. Its all hills either up or down and either way OD is a problem. Always having to "kick it down" or in OD down hill you will achieve speeds in excess of 70 unless you ride the brakes. Riding the brakes is not good, ever. 3rd which is direct drive 1:1 keeps things under control on down hills. It actually is more fuel effecient too because you can just drive without pressing the pedal further all the time to get tranny in right gear. This is something I have always had a problem with, the way they set the tranny up. Im no engineer though.

As for this merging problem, well I have never had a merging problem, even with an old VW diesel B)

[razoredge]

Superchargerd V6s are less reliable than V8s

Wow, really :rolleyes:

the V8s are undoubtedly smoother and more refined

Wow, really :rolleyes:

unless you just want to argue something pointless...again

Wow, really :rolleyes: so tell me whos looking for the arguement ?

Read very slowly

The problem with the forced induction and any of the high performance engines is they require high octane gas with is a bad sales point with todays GAS FIASCO

So I guess that was my pointless arguement ?

Oh, really :blink:

[Croc]

Wow, really? :rolleyes: I'm glad you've got the eyeroll down. That puts you on par with 13 year old girls. Congratulations, I hope you're proud. I'm not even going to defend the points I wrote; you won't read them. Since you didn't even read most of what I wrote. Wow, really? :rolleyes:

[razoredge]

So how would you have wanted me to respond to your " Case closed, as this is all very well-known facts, unless you just want to argue something pointless...again." Woa, really !

[razoredge]

:unsure: