Buick Lucerne real world pictures

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

To me, the downsides are the image such features give the car in the overall marketplace (like why whitewalls and vinyl roofs have gone away.) We WANT import owners to be attracted to this car and the reality is, the Buick dealers will probably (unfortunately) stock way more bench-seat CXs than they will CXS models.....at least that's what our Buick dealers out here do with LaCrosse.

I agree 100%

The problem is this; Buick CANNOT risk losing it's loyal buyer base in exchange for fewer, if any, conquest sales that might materialize. GM made that mistake once with Oldsmobile (Of course, Oldsmobile had MANY other problems too)

So, I would rather see GM take a gradual approach... Honestly, with Buick's image, like Cadillac, it'll take AT LEAST one product cycle to build a decent foundation of new buyers.

[titan]

To me, the downsides are the image such features give the car in the overall marketplace (like why whitewalls and vinyl roofs have gone away.)  We WANT import owners to be attracted to this car and the reality is, the Buick dealers will probably (unfortunately) stock way more bench-seat CXs than they will CXS models.....at least that's what our Buick dealers out here do with LaCrosse.

I think that's a bigger downside than the upside of the very few GM/Buick fans in the marketplace that actually prefer a bench seat/column shifter.

[post="34557"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I agree. That's precisely my point. Buick claims to aspire to conquest import buyers, yet it's old habits are dying very hard (bench seats, 3800).

[maynard]

I dont think anything is wrong with a column shifter at all(especially for image)...nor do I think anything is wrong with that interior. With this level car, GM is still targeting their buick fan base, which, like it or not, is the baby boomers and up. If you ask me, that's a darn good market strategy. This is a luxury cruiser, like it or not..and what do you see in some of the latest european big name luxury cruisers? Column shifter.
2007 S500:

current 7 series:


You could make the case that column shifters are quite up scale.

As for the grille...I kinda like it from some angles, and at other angles it looks very much like a mercury. The rear end I actually like very much, I think the real world pictures do it more justice. I've heard it's a beautiful vehicle in person, so I will reserve judgement until then.

[Cory Wolfe]

^ Good point. Though, I prefer console shifters. Auto or manual.

[pow]

More...





Nor are they traditional "column mounted" shifters, though...

[VenSeattle]

Nor are they traditional "column mounted" shifters, though...

[post="34668"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

No they're not, but it would be easier for GM to introduce this shifter alternative on Buick than on Cadillac. I wouldn't be against it. I've thought it would be a natural direction for quite some time. This is just a modern interpretation of a column mounted shifter.

I prefer bucket seats and a center console... but the location of the shifter doesn't matter that much to me. I'd be perfectly comfortable switching over to a 7-Series transmission shifter.

[Croc]

I like buckets and a console shifter myself, but I agree that these new "column" shifters would be great for Buick. But I know it's wishful thinking as GM would never have the balls to do it until it were standard on Hyundais.

[Paolino]

When I think of shifters, I think floor shift--sporty. Column shift, luxury. It's flimsy, but it's one of those things that went in my brain when I was little and it's just permanent now :rolleyes:

[titan]

Some of you guys aren't getting the point. It's not the column shifter. I NEVER MENTIONED THE COLUMN SHIFTER. I said the the bench seats had to go. Maynard, I don't see any bench seats in your example. MB and BMW only put those shifters on the column so they could better utilize the center console more. NO promblem. THat's fine. Note, that's only done in they're full size flagship. If the Lucerene was RWD, while offering V6and V8 power, it probably would be lineup head to head with the GS/M/E-Class, etc. None of those cars have bench seats! IF BUICK WANTS TO SURVIVE, AND EXPAND BEYOND IT'S AGING CUSTOMER BASE, NO MATTER HOW LOYAL, THEY NEED TO BETTER EMULATE WHO THEY ASPIRE TO CONQUER... Lexus! That's a hell of a task, but it can be done if done properly! Damnit, hire me, GM.

[VenSeattle]

IF BUICK WANTS TO SURVIVE, AND EXPAND BEYOND IT'S AGING CUSTOMER BASE, NO MATTER HOW LOYAL, THEY NEED TO BETTER EMULATE WHO THEY ASPIRE TO CONQUER... Lexus!  That's a hell of a task, but it can be done if done properly!  Damnit, hire me, GM.

[post="34767"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Telling the customer what they want instead of listening to what they want is a way to KILL Buick.

GM has made 5-passenger seating standard on both the LaCrosse & Lucerne. 6 passenger seating is optional. GM is making sure not to abandon the long term loyal buyers of Buick like Oldsmobile did (and paid dearly for it.) Doing away with bench seats will NOT guarantee more people will buy the LaCrosse & Lucerne, but it will definitely cause less people to do so. The Intrigue is proof. Sales of the Intrigue never matched the Cutlass Supreme. Sales of the LSS were not comparable to the benchseat Eighty-Eight.

Those who refuse to buy a car with a center console/shifter because it offers an optional bench seat wouldn't buy the car anyway. It's not a justifiable reason to keep yourself from buying the car you actually like and want.

[maynard]

Some of you guys aren't getting the point.  It's not the column shifter.  I NEVER MENTIONED THE COLUMN SHIFTER.  I said the the bench seats had to go.  Maynard, I don't see any bench seats in your example.  MB and BMW only put those shifters on the column so they could better utilize the center console more.  NO promblem.  THat's fine.  Note, that's only done in they're full size flagship.  If the Lucerene was RWD, while offering V6and V8 power, it probably would be lineup head to head with the GS/M/E-Class, etc.  None of those cars have bench seats!  IF BUICK WANTS TO SURVIVE, AND EXPAND BEYOND IT'S AGING CUSTOMER BASE, NO MATTER HOW LOYAL, THEY NEED TO BETTER EMULATE WHO THEY ASPIRE TO CONQUER... Lexus!  That's a hell of a task, but it can be done if done properly!  Damnit, hire me, GM.

[post="34767"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Who said I was responding to you, MR. I-LIKE-TO-TALK-IN-CAPS-TO-PROVE-MY-POINT?

[titan]

MR. I-LIKE-TO-TALK-IN-CAPS-TO-PROVE-MY-POINT?

[post="34781"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

LOL, I know, I know. I got caught up in the moment. :lol:

[Paolino]

LOL, I know, I know.  I got caught up in the moment. :lol:

[post="34794"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

It's so funny how people (myself included) can get so riled up in the forums! :lol:

[Croc]

Sorry, Ven. 6-passenger seating isn't safe. GM should get rid of it. Consumers generally don't want to be hassled with seat belts, but it's for their own good.

[ToniCipriani]

I think safety difference between 6 passenger and 5 passenger a bit out of GM's concern. It's sort of like asking GM to pay for their insurance raise and fine for not wearing a seatbelt, just because they have a 6-passenger car.

GM only has the responsibility to design the car to be safest when used properly and keep owners informed. If they decide to kill themselves, it's their problem.

As long as Buick provides the choice between the two, it's fine. At the end of the day it's the customer's choice.

[The O.C.]

I dont think anything is wrong with a column shifter at all(especially for image)...nor do I think anything is wrong with that interior.  With this level car, GM is still targeting their buick fan base, which, like it or not, is the baby boomers and up.  If you ask me, that's a darn good market strategy.  This is a luxury cruiser, like it or not..and what do you see in some of the latest european big name luxury cruisers?  Column shifter. 
2007 S500:

current 7 series:


You could make the case that column shifters are quite up scale.

As for the grille...I kinda like it from some angles, and at other angles it looks very much like a mercury.  The rear end I actually like very much, I think the real world pictures do it more justice.  I've heard it's a beautiful vehicle in person, so I will reserve judgement until then.

[post="34640"][/post]

Even though I don't like the S-Class and 7-Series shifters, they are not even remotely the same thing....they are MUCH more tactile, and don't "shift" down the column...the shifts are controlled by electronic solenoids as you "tap" the shift lever up or down, etc.

.....and I certainly don't see bench seats in these cars either......

But I'd still rather have a traditional shifter in the console in both these cars.

[The O.C.]

Telling the customer what they want instead of listening to what they want is a way to KILL Buick.

GM has made 5-passenger seating standard on both the LaCrosse & Lucerne. 6 passenger seating is optional. GM is making sure not to abandon the long term loyal buyers of Buick like Oldsmobile did (and paid dearly for it.) Doing away with bench seats will NOT guarantee more people will buy the LaCrosse & Lucerne, but it will definitely cause less people to do so. The Intrigue is proof. Sales of the Intrigue never matched the Cutlass Supreme. Sales of the LSS were not comparable to the benchseat Eighty-Eight.

Those who refuse to buy a car with a center console/shifter because it offers an optional bench seat wouldn't buy the car anyway. It's not a justifiable reason to keep yourself from buying the car you actually like and want.

[post="34773"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

It doesn't matter that it's "optional." The question is....what are the dealers going to stock? In most cases, they will stock the aging bench-seat/column shifter configuration....and that's what the consumers shopping the lot will see and test drive....and many will walk away from.

At least that's what Orange County dealers in California are stocking in LaCrosses.....mostly base CXs with the bench seat/column shifter.

[bowtie_dude]

God, the interiors of the new S-class and 7-series are TERRIBLE!

[Paolino]

God, the interiors of the new S-class and 7-series are TERRIBLE!

[post="35179"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I think the materials are very nice, but the design/layout was poorly implemented.

[bowtie_dude]

I think the materials are very nice, but the design/layout was poorly implemented.

[post="35195"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Yeah, thats what I meant. :)

[pow]

It's dangerous for the rider, too, when his or her face smacks into the dashboard during any crash exceeding 20 mph.

[jry]

saw an odd colored lucerne today at the yogurt/ice cream stand on 8 mile road in farmington hills. that pukey brown/bronze. boy, the colors really make a difference on these.

[titan]

God, the interiors of the new S-class and 7-series are TERRIBLE!

[post="35179"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I agree. They're designs do nothing for me.

[ponchoman49]

I'm not surprised by this after seeing the Lucerne in person at NY in April.  It truly looks horrible.

[post="33633"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I think most of the new Bimmers look horrible. The Lucerne is a blessing after looking at those pug ugly new Bimmers.

[balthazar]

God, the interiors of the new S-class and 7-series are TERRIBLE!

I also agree. What's with the tiny cheap brake pedal in the bmw- parts bin leftover from the 2002? The S500 interior is 12 times worse than the 7 series (and that one ain't great either). Bad design abounds in both. But don't leave out ferrari- the hands-down Historically Awful Interior Company. Check the 'carpeted plywood box' and the 1980 console on the floor! For 6 bills; I don't think so.

IMO- I hate that every new family sedan forces you to cram between the door & a fat console with little room for anything useful. Nothing cramps an interior like a modern console. Consoles should stay in 2-drs and sports cars, 4-dr sedans are supposed to be about roominess.
(Automatic) floor shifters are another uneccessary intrusion into the family sedan (along with console-mounted emergency brakes).

[buyacargetacheck]

Good job Buick! It's a real differentiator to offer a soft, quiet ride with a claustrophobic-fighting column shifter and cloth bench front seat. Regarding the comment about the CX's smaller wheels and how much better the car looks with larger wheels and tires. First, the CX's wheels don't look "terrible." Next, forget how things "look" for second and think about how things "work." Those smaller wheels and tires will yield a better quieter ride and much longer lasting rubber (better economy and less hassle for the customer). Trust me, I've bought wheel/tire packages that looked great only to regret the decision several thousand miles down the road. Put down your Car and Drivel for a minute and think about it. By the way, this car looks terrific in charcoal gray. This car has real presence and demands a darker color for best effect (black and Ming Blue are great).

[caddycruiser]

Good job Buick!

It's a real differentiator to offer a soft, quiet ride with a claustrophobic-fighting column shifter and cloth bench front seat.

Regarding the comment about the CX's smaller wheels and how much better the car looks with larger wheels and tires.  First, the CX's wheels don't look "terrible."  Next, forget how things "look" for second and think about how things "work."  Those smaller wheels and tires will yield a better quieter ride and much longer lasting rubber (better economy and less hassle for the customer).  Trust me, I've bought wheel/tire packages that looked great only to regret the decision several thousand miles down the road.  Put down your Car and Drivel for a minute and think about it.

By the way, this car looks terrific in charcoal gray.  This car has real presence and demands a darker color for best effect (black and Ming Blue are great).

[post="40036"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I still think the front end of the car is way to nondescript and blah...it SHOULD have been really eye-catching and voluptuous, to better flow with the rest of the car that is actually quite classy. The wheels are fine, and MUCH better than some of the ugly little monstrosities they've offered for years on the LeSabre.

[Mike The Canadian]

The silver one like that at the morningside automall now. I saw it in person. It looked WAY better in person..and I mean WAY better! The rims didnt look so bad in person either....and the chrome grille...well it looked way better! The interior almost made me crap myself! It was a tan one, but it was great. I'll take pics once I get to go there again, but i'm wating for a cxs...

[PurdueGuy]

Am I the only one who thinks the LeSabre was a much classier looking car? I'm sure the Lucerne is well engineered & all, but most of the look just doesn't have Buick classiness, IMO. *edit* As I go back & look at pics some more to figure out just what it is I don't like... it comes down to one thing - the tail lights. I LOVE the LeSabre tail lights. These... :( They're about as bland as they come, IMO. Edited November 23, 2005 by PurdueGuy

[chrominium steel]

No, you are not the only one. It looks cheap. And in fact, at $26K it should be Pontiac or a Chevrolet but not a Buick.

[Mule Bakersdozen LS]

I was in a Lucerne CX interior on Saturday-very Lucerne-basic-just power windows and door locks, only a stereo with CD player, air conditioning, not even a leather-wrapped steering wheel. Looked subpar even for a Chevy Impala LS, let alone a full-size Buick with luxury aspirations. The upholstery sucked and it was too narrow, just like every other car these days. The center seats were flat and had some back support, but not terrible, but still....I'd taken an Impala anytime over this pile.

[turbo200]

This is what I don't get about Buick or GM. What is there to motivate someone to purchase this car over, say, a new gen Camry, besides exterior style? Yes, the Lucerne can be a classy looking car, though for that, I think you need to get at least a CXL. The Camry will have a much much superior interior design. The Cmary will have a better engine. The Camry will have similar interior space and similar dynamics. And of course the Camry will have the indomitable Toyota reputation. GM needs to make standout cars, and the Lucerne is not it.

[Flybrian]

I doubt the Camry V6 is a better engine than the Northstar. Regardless of what it is, its still six cylinders. Also, the Lucerne is decidedly classier and will obviously be far less common than a pedestrian Camry. Lucerne vs. Avalon is far more appropriate.

[turbo200]

Camry engine will have 268 hp, be faster than the Lucerne [lighter weight, Avalon is already pretty fast], be more fuel efficient, and just as smooth. I was really referring to the 3800 engine, since it comes in a 26k Lucerne (!); but you bring up an even better comparison. Take off the GM blinders Fly, there are benchmarks and GM needs to be that benchmark, not chase after it.

[Flybrian]

Take off the GM blinders Fly, there are benchmarks and GM needs to be that benchmark, not chase after it.

[post="54665"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I have no blinders. I recognize the fact that comparing the Camry to the Lucerne isn't really a fair comparison as the Camry will - as its always have - appeal to those seeking personality-less, bland transportation. I also recongnize Lucerne vs. Avalon is a more realistic comparison and at least inside, the Avalon is nothing to be proud of; truly a car that looks better in pictures than it does in life. I've also heard early reviews mark the Avalon as actually being the floatier of the two, which makes sense as the Lucerne seems to share more with the last Aurora than the preceeding LeSabre, and the '01 Aurora was a great handler for being so large.

I can't vouch personally for any 3.5l V6 Toyota has, but my experience with the Northstar and its related engines sets a very high benchmark in my mind. Its smooth, very powerful, and never breathless. I've driven a few cars with 'high-output' six cylinders and they don't have the same comfortable feel as a V8, though the horsepower figures may be close.

I realize the Lucerne isn't perfect; no car is, not a Toyota, not anything. But I acknowledge its a damn fine automobile. It rides on arguably the best front-wheel drive platform to date in terms of driving characteristics, strength, and safety. Its components have inherent qualities that I don't know yet the Toyota has, such as a powerplant that can still run crippled of coolant and one of the most resiliant unibody structures out there.

You can take the words I say and call them blinders. I call them testimony because my experiences with the Lucerne's predecessors have led to my opinion, much like those of Honda owners led them to theirs. GM built a series of vehicles that proved to me that they can still build a goddamn fine fullsize car and it'll take something more than Toyota's 'reputation' and this 'V6 with the power of a V8' argument to change my mind.

I don't believe GM has come all the way yet with all their products and I'll admit that right up front. But you can't throw Lucerne in there with other nearly-theres like the G6 and LaCrosse.

That's my opinion based on experiences, not 'because its GM, its good'; you don't have to share it.

[turbo200]

you have your opinion, that's fine. The Aurora was a great car in 2002, and I still think it's a fine car. The Lucerne for 2006 isn't a quantam leap from the Aurora. Engine power stayed the same, interior room probably stayed the same or decreased, efficiency stayed the same. Ride and handling improved, MRC is available, and a nice but indistinct wrapper are the only noteworthy changes. But altogether are they enough. The interior is a big letdown, refer to Mike's post to see how bad it is. If the interior had more style and the exterior had more beauty and Buickness it would be a lot better.

[VenSeattle]

you have your opinion, that's fine. The Aurora was a great car in 2002, and I still think it's a fine car. The Lucerne for 2006 isn't a quantam leap from the Aurora. Engine power stayed the same, interior room probably stayed the same or decreased, efficiency stayed the same. Ride and handling improved, MRC is available, and a nice but indistinct wrapper are the only noteworthy changes. But altogether are they enough. The interior is a big letdown, refer to Mike's post to see how bad it is. If the interior had more style and the exterior had more beauty and Buickness it would be a lot better.

[post="54687"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

see below:

2002 V8 Aurora - MSRP $35,085
curb weight: 3,802 lbs
4.0 V8 250 hp/ 260 lb ft
pass volume: 104.4 cu ft
trunk capacity: 14.9 cu ft

2006 Lucerne CXL V8 - $30,265
curb weight: 3,969 lbs
4.6l V8 275hp/ 295 lb ft
pass volume: 108 cu ft
trunk capacity: 17 cu ft
6 Standard airbags (includes Side curtain airbags)


Just because mike feels the interior looks cheap, it doesn't make it gospel. I can refer to dozens of other posts by members here that feel the Lucerne's interior is above its class.

[turbo200]

Okay, I was wrong about interior space and engine power. It hasn't been that drastically improved. Refer to the Camry's power ratings to see a car that has improved incredibly since that time, and improved efficiency as well. Interior above it's class? Haha. If the design of the cneter stack weren't so spectacularly dull than I would agree that it is right about par for the class. But you're talking about a car that competes against the Avalon, Passat, Acura TL, Lexus ES330, all in terms of price. Check those interiors and then come back and tell me it is above average for its class. Edited December 7, 2005 by turbo200

[Flybrian]

Again, I must reiterate the Avalon in reality is not the grand. Touch and feel it and see if you think its myriad concealments will last...or even if they feel nice. I have and my opinion is that they don't. Also, as far as the Lucerne CX comment, don't condemn an entire line of cars by the base model intended to sell to LeSabre Custom/Park Avenue base clientele.

[turbo200]

Well my comment was really about its design, but I will take up your challenge at the auto show, and I will definitely be feeling the quality of these cars, even though I normally skip over Toyo since I don't care for them.

[VenSeattle]

Okay, I was wrong about interior space and engine power. It hasn't been that drastically improved. Refer to the Camry's power ratings to see a car that has improved incredibly since that time, and improved efficiency as well.

Interior above it's class? Haha. If the design of the cneter stack weren't so spectacularly dull than I would agree that it is right about par for the class. But you're talking about a car that competes against the Avalon, Passat, Acura TL, Lexus ES330, all in terms of price. Check those interiors and then come back and tell me it is above average for its class.

[post="54725"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

The entire center console on the ES330 is hard plastic (and not finished very well)... check it out. The Lucerne lower dash is the same as the Passat: hard but low gloss/high quality plastic with nice texture.

Styling is subjective and depends on the target demographic. The Lucerne's interior quality IS EQUAL and/or ABOVE its class. It's traditionally styled on purpose. That does NOT make it inferior though. It's only a matter of taste/preference.

The Avalon has fixed hard plastic hooks for garments in the back seat along with “rental car grade” mouse fur used as head liner. The Lucerne uses woven fabric for the head liner and A & C pillars along with dampened hooks in the back seat that retract when not in use. The Lucerne does not have LED dash lighting but the gauges do not look economy class by any means. They have a similar look/feel to them as a Jaguar.

The Avalon’s interior also offers faux wood which is no more convincing than the lucerne’s (although in application, the Avalon’s dash seems to suffer from too many pieces that don’t seem to fit together perfectly)

You also forget that many items are optional, not standard on the Passat & Avalon. Even though they have some features that the Lucerne does not have… the Lucerne also offers several features not available on the others too: OnStar, MRC, Heated/Air conditioned seats. Lucerne’s warranty also bests the Avalon’s. The Lucerne also comes with Roadside assistance where the Avalon does not.

Definitely check them out. Each one excels in a category while lags in another. That's called being competitive. The Lucerne is definitely competitive for its class as a whole.

[turbo200]

I will check them out. But one part of the interior is design and the other part is quality. In other vehicles I've checked out from Toyota, they have always seemed to get the quality part right. Design-wise, I happen to think the Avalon is artful and creative, even if to your eyes there may be a lot of seams. Lucerne, aside from the center stack is pretty good, but the color choices could be more inviting, AND the center stack suffers from the disease z28luver diagnosed as GM Center Stack Disease. GMCSD symptoms include a complete lack of innovation or design presense. This is a significant issue when you're talking about a car that competes in the near luxury category.

[caddycruiser]

The entire center console on the ES330 is hard plastic (and not finished very well)... check it out. The Lucerne lower dash is the same as the Passat: hard but low gloss/high quality plastic with nice texture.

Styling is subjective and depends on the target demographic. The Lucerne's interior quality IS EQUAL and/or ABOVE its class. It's traditionally styled on purpose. That does NOT make it inferior though. It's only a matter of taste/preference.

The Avalon has fixed hard plastic hooks for garments in the back seat along with “rental car grade” mouse fur used as head liner. The Lucerne uses woven fabric for the head liner and A & C pillars along with dampened hooks in the back seat that retract when not in use. The Lucerne does not have LED dash lighting but the gauges do not look economy class by any means. They have a similar look/feel to them as a Jaguar.

The Avalon’s interior also offers faux wood which is no more convincing than the lucerne’s (although in application, the Avalon’s dash seems to suffer from too many pieces that don’t seem to fit together perfectly)

You also forget that many items are optional, not standard on the Passat & Avalon. Even though they have some features that the Lucerne does not have… the Lucerne also offers several features not available on the others too: OnStar, MRC, Heated/Air conditioned seats. Lucerne’s warranty also bests the Avalon’s. The Lucerne also comes with Roadside assistance where the Avalon does not.

Definitely check them out. Each one excels in a category while lags in another. That's called being competitive. The Lucerne is definitely competitive for its class as a whole.

[post="54795"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Very good points, and it's a breath of fresh air to FINALLY see those types of pieces in any domestic car, let alone a GM.

Truth be told, most Toyotas and even Hondas (though to a typically lower level than the bigger 'Yota) are chalk full of cheapness here and there--but somehow, it isn't something that instantly smacks you in the face when you're in or around one. It's kind of subtle, and overall, you just get the impression of a tightly built car with generally nice materials, with pieces that all work perfectly without much flare. Not like, say, how a car like the Grand Am (IMHO), made you want to barf upon entry...

Actually, of a more interesting note, some of the worst interiors (purely materials, I'm talking) anymore, are coming from Chrysler. They don't spend a lot of time or money anymore on making things soft and supple or even ultra-pricey feeling--BUT, the general level of styling, of engineering, and overall "solid" feel allow them to get away with it. Proof that several ultimately strong details can completely blind people to the less than stellar bits.

Problem is, even with GM using such generally nice interior materials and even build quality anymore, their attractiveness is still made less visible by the fact that there's still "that old 4-speed gearbox" or the "antique and underpowered 3.8L". If they'd just get a few more of the "biggies" up and past the par, they'd probably be getting a lot nicer overall reviews. Edited December 8, 2005 by caddycruiser

[Flybrian]

Definitely check them out. Each one excels in a category while lags in another. That's called being competitive. The Lucerne is definitely competitive for its class as a whole.

[post="54795"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Exactly. In this case, it comes down to taste and preference as it should.

Cars should not be homogenized beyond what's proscribed by federal regulation. Toyota chooses to splash their controls in a decorative fashion with the Avalon and I find their layout cold, irritating, and sharing an overall aura with a Panasonic VCR. I see the Lucerne as more clear and obvious as to its presentation. Yes, the stack could use some work, but so could the Avalons.

Choice and preference.

[VenSeattle]

Design-wise, I happen to think the Avalon is artful and creative, even if to your eyes there may be a lot of seams.

[post="54802"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

My statement:

The Avalon’s interior also offers faux wood which is no more convincing than the lucerne’s (although in application, the Avalon’s dash seems to suffer from too many pieces that don’t seem to fit together perfectly)

I'll reword it:

The Avalon’s interior also offers faux wood which is no more convincing than the lucerne’s (although in application, the Avalon’s dash appears to suffer from too many pieces that don’t appear to fit together perfectly)

Why do I feel this way?

GM's interiors, especially Cadillac & Chevrolet, have long been criticized for looking too busy and comprising of too many parts. Too many pieces lead to consistently poor fit & finish because there is more potential for error during assembly. It also provides the potential for more squeaks & rattles as parts become loose with usage.

This issue is a legitimate concern for the new Avalon because I’ve yet to sit in one where the dash pieces were all aligned properly. Also, the silver painted plastic doors on the center stack and console feel flimsy. This helps to contribute doubt about interior material quality. IMO, the new Avalon interior has dropped in quality. The 2nd generation Avalon interior was much higher.

[pow]

Very good points, and it's a breath of fresh air to FINALLY see those types of pieces in any domestic car, let alone a GM.

Truth be told, most Toyotas and even Hondas (though to a typically lower level than the bigger 'Yota) are chalk full of cheapness here and there--but somehow, it isn't something that instantly smacks you in the face when you're in or around one.  It's kind of subtle, and overall, you just get the impression of a tightly built car with generally nice materials, with pieces that all work perfectly without much flare.  Not like, say, how a car like the Grand Am (IMHO), made you want to barf upon entry...

Actually, of a more interesting note, some of the worst interiors (purely materials, I'm talking) anymore, are coming from Chrysler.  They don't spend a lot of time or money anymore on making things soft and supple or even ultra-pricey feeling--BUT, the general level of styling, of engineering, and overall "solid" feel allow them to get away with it.  Proof that several ultimately strong details can completely blind people to the less than stellar bits.

Problem is, even with GM using such generally nice interior materials and even build quality anymore, their attractiveness is still made less visible by the fact that there's still "that old 4-speed gearbox" or the "antique and underpowered 3.8L".  If they'd just get a few more of the "biggies" up and past the par, they'd probably be getting a lot nicer overall reviews.

[post="54805"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Exactly. Sometimes I just don't think GM's design team gets it. (I've read until recently, they didn't even have a dedicated interior team.) They focus on putting chrome trim on knobs and reducing the gaps between the dash and doors, which is nice, all while ignoring the basics. That said, the Lucerne does "have it" for the most part. The door panels and seats look proper, and it's only marred by the generic lower dash and center console.

[Cananopie]

No offense Turbo at all but your argument has no real basis. I never understood the petty bashing that goes on in car forums similar to what you were doing. There is no one right way to create a vehicle and thankfully the Lucerne's style is different than the Avalon's. The Avalon is a proper competitor to the Lucerne and visa versa. The quality IS there and until you find factual documentation as Ven and Fly have that the Lucerne can't even "compare" to the Avalon then your argument is baseless. You don't like the interior of the Lucerne? Fine. Nobody is making you buy one. If it doesn't appeal to you, it doesn't appeal to you. It's not like Ven and Fly are defending the Hyundai Azera or something to the Avalon. Buick is a manufacturer that is comparable to Toyota in many ways and even exceeds Toyota in qualty ratings (hence my signature) and if Buick makes a vehicle in the same price range to the Avalon then it needs to be damn competitive... Toyota has the advantage being a much more popular car company and one that typically (I'm not saying you) ignorant car buyers side on because of the word-of-mouth reputation. The word-of-mouth reputation of Buick hasn't been exactly flattering for them (old-peoples cars, etc) and for Buick to make a poor competitor to the Avalon in the same vehicle genre as the Avalon is suicide for Buick. Buick made a quality car with the Lucerne and until you find facts where the Avalon is superior in so many ways as opposed to just making accusations (probably have never even been in the car). It's fair for Ven and Fly to defend Buick because of your unjust accusations. It's not fair that you refuse to take your blinders off and see the Lucerne as the true competitor it really is.

[turbo200]

Here's my opinion, and the basis of my argument:

This





has a LOT more going for it then this







I was never talking about quality. If I referred to materials, since I have not sat in either of them, I referenced the quality of materials I have found in Toyotas, which have been nothing but superb (except a 1999 Rav4, to be expected).

I agree that the Lucerne is traditionally styled. The upper portion of the dash is wonderful. The center stack and where the center stack meets the console is where GM lost its creative spark. Little details like the gearshift lever that looks unfinsihed, especially compared to the Avalon, the steering wheel's bland design, the complete absense of any titanium/alluminum materials. It all adds up to the impression that this GM isn't really trying to attract the nit-pickers like me. It's not just that I am a nit-picker, but I have opened my eyes to what is out there, and I feel the only way to win back highly discerning customers like me is to really wow them.

No bashing, I like the Lucerne overall, and I think it's a nice competitive car. BUT I have no blinders and am tring to be as impartial as possible--to both cars. The mechanical quality of the Lucerne I'm sure will be fine, but performance-wise it does give up to a little to the Avalon. Just a little. very little. efficiency-wise.

Pros Lucerne:

Northstar engine-smooth and powerful
great ride and handling
nice quality all around
stylish exterior, but very derivative
Buick quality (think about this one, how many people respond to toyota quality over Buick quality)

Cons

old platform--large exterior bulk, interior inefficiency [big problem in my book]
Design lacking the umph to really attract masses
interior design not completely up to par



Pros Avalon

smooth, powerful, and efficient engine
great ride and handling
good quality all around
stylish interior design, where I spend most of my time
Toyota reputation

Cons

unattractive wrapper, where I spend most of my time being looked at, and what I like to obsess over---the lines outside and in
not totally motivated suspension

So you can see, the cons of the Lucerne are not that great, and would most likely not be enough to deter me if I really wanted it. BUT, GM did not go the extra mile, and Toyota did.

[sciguy_0504]

I'm going with Turbie on this one, mainly based on the pictures. I've sat in an Avalon before but since the Lucerne just came out I haven't been in it so I won't base my opinions on actually being in the car. There is no doubt in my mind that the Lucerne is a great car, quite possibly the best Buick ever. The exterior is classy, is drives well (based on the reviews), the V8 is superb as all GM V8s are and Buick produces quality vehicles. The interior, mainly the center stack, is the black eye. It's like the designers focused on the center stack last after crafting a beautiful cabin and said, "We don't know what the hell to do with it." Then, the beancounters came along and said, "Use the corporate center stack!" It really is only one of two bad spots the Lucerne has, the other being the outdated platform. The only problem I see with the Avalon is the possible lack of V8 (does it need it?) and the crappy headliner. Everything else is there. I sat in one at last year's Philly Auto Show and was impressed, especially with the amount of rear legroom. I think having the radio covered makes the interior look even better, the same with the Navigator. If GM fixed the Lucerne's center stack it would make a big difference. Everything else, besides the platform, is spot-on.

[Paolino]

I'm going with Turbie on this one, mainly based on the pictures.  I've sat in an Avalon before but since the Lucerne just came out I haven't been in it so I won't base my opinions on actually being in the car.

There is no doubt in my mind that the Lucerne is a great car, quite possibly the best Buick ever.  The exterior is classy, is drives well (based on the reviews), the V8 is superb as all GM V8s are and Buick produces quality vehicles.  The interior, mainly the center stack, is the black eye.  It's like the designers focused on the center stack last after crafting a beautiful cabin and said, "We don't know what the hell to do with it."  Then, the beancounters came along and said, "Use the corporate center stack!"  It really is only one of two bad spots the Lucerne has, the other being the outdated platform.

The only problem I see with the Avalon is the possible lack of V8 (does it need it?) and the crappy headliner.  Everything else is there.  I sat in one at last year's Philly Auto Show and was impressed, especially with the amount of rear legroom.  I think having the radio covered makes the interior look even better, the same with the Navigator.

If GM fixed the Lucerne's center stack it would make a big difference.  Everything else, besides the platform, is spot-on.

[post="55324"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Funny, and I agree with you too, but the center stack is a huge problem in the LaCrosse as well.