Trinacriabob review of rental LaCrosse test drive

[zoomtm]

Zoomtm.  I'm going to come to Alabama to beat you up!  :P Just kidding, buddy.

Actually, in reading Cananopie's post above, he makes a lot of good points - about engines and their relation to price point, marketing niches, etc.  Smart thinking!

[post="65859"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

If only I lived in Alabama... :lol:

[The O.C.]

Honestly  don't think the 3800 debate goes much farther beyond automobile enthusiasts. It's hard for us, as entusiasts, to look at a car the way a normal person looks at a car who sees it as a big deal and a part of their lives but not enough of a deal to get to the knitty gritty of how it works and what powers it or anything.

However had a normal person do some research on their next car, and they see the stunningly beautiful Lucerne for example they may research it. I will find it hard that a make-or-break point will be the fact that the 3.8 is a pushrod engine... if they are buying it to last them at least 10 years they'll be happy to know the 3.8 is one of those engines that has stood the test of time and is highly renowned for its durability or quality. If they are looking for a car that gets them very good gas mileage because their biggest concern is fuel prices then Buick just isn't the company they should be looking at.

Typically we give foreign cars the benefit of the doubt when it comes to engine reliability. No matter what the Asian's can not do wrong when it comes to reliability. But that is a mentality fromt he 80s and we are in a modern world now and the truth is GM has proof of their reliability with the 3800. The Avalon may be more powerful and fuel efficient with its base engine, but it isn't the same engine they were using a decade ago in the same vehicle.

You might look at that as a positive thing but it questions its reliability, doesn't it? Plus the 3.6 at 240HP can't compete with the 3.8 with fuel efficiency. Technically the 3.8 has better fuel efficiency than the 3.6 and I don't know how many engines meet SULEV standards but I don't the the 3.6 or Toyotas 3.5 reaches that standard... but to many of us on here that is a moot point. Cleanliness of the vehicle isn't important so long as it's efficient with the gas.

Whatever takes the 3.8's spot needs to be at least more fuel efficient because 200 HP for a base engine is more than enough for many people. I have it in my Regal LSE and I don't feel like I could ever use more power for getting on highways or passing vehicles or anything like that and I'm positive neither will the average driver. I've also test drove the Lucerne and the 3.8 doesn't lag in power. More power than 200 is for the enthusiasts.

I think GM needs a more competitive fuel efficient base engine for things like the LaCrosse and the Lucerne, and I don't know if the 3.8 can do it. But the 3.6 isn't doing it now and would be a horrible trade-in for the 3.8 just so we can prove we can keep up with the best. The Northstar V8 and the 3.6 engines in the better models prove that GM can do it, but GM gives people the choice to stick with reliability. There is nothing other than a little more HP that the 3.6 can offer that the 3.8 can't.

What do you suggest is better than the 3.8 for the job it's doing? I have no doubt the 3.8 is cheaper to produce than the 3.6 and it has a lot less of a hassle. I think a lot of people feel more comfortable (as somebody pointed out) having an engine they can understand how it works in their head. You raise some good points but I don't see the 3.6 as the answer to the 3.8 because the 3.8 is doing everything the 3.6 is doing except for not producing enough power... but does the 3.6 reach SULEV standards? Because the 3.8 could be more powerful if it didn't too.

[post="66206"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Cananopie.....you've totally missed my point.....

I TOTALLY understand where you are coming from in your above post.....but ALL that time you put into writing that post could be considered wasted.....

....if the public simply does NOT have the perception that GM's technology is competitive.....be it "media bias" or whatever.....

Sometimes people feel they've been SO burned in the past......or that GM has SUCH a negative image....that you can do next to nothing to CHANGE their perception with your arguments (which ARE good arguments, BTW...)

In such a case.....GM, IMHO, has no other choice than to bring themselves up to, or really above, a level or technology and product development that the best competitors have been at for many years now.....and the sad thing is....they've SHOWN us they can do it....WHEN they want to....

[Cananopie]

I understand what you're saying OC, but the only difference in our beliefs is I don't think ditching a very good engine is going to make people look twice. As you said it's the idea that GM isn't competitive... it's not what type of engines they use. Consider the arguments against the pushrod 3.8... people say it's outdated. Anyone who claims that you can argue all the points I gave above... But if you put the 3.6 in there as a replacement to rid of the argument of a dated engine you will lose the "fuel efficiency" argument because the Avalon for example can boast almost 270 HP and get better gas mileage than the 3.6 and with the 3.6 you don't have the argument of reliability and being a SULEV engine, GM just looks stupid. The 3.8 is still desirable to many people, and these are the people who are going to buy GM for sure. Trying to convince a Toyota lover that GM has desirable engines is like trying to convince a hardcore southern baptist that other peoples beliefs are just as valid as theirs (no offense to any hardcore southern baptists reading this post), but you best waste your time doing something more constructive is all. GM will have this image for a while and it won't go overnight... GM is doing a fair job in improving and competing with Asian brands. Buick has higher quality than Toyota now and the Lucerne, despite its not-as-fuel-efficient base engine is very comparable to the Avalon and many people who never considered Buick before are now because the quality rivals Toyota and the styling is getting to be better than Toyota. But the complaints will be there no matter what engine is there by the GM haters. But let's not ditch a reliable and clean engine just because of a complaint that isn't very necessary. I really would appreciate if someone could find how many engines reach SULEV requirements because they seem to be widely ignored but it could go real far with the people who are all pro-environment. Edited January 2, 2006 by Cananopie

[The O.C.]

The 3.8 is still desirable to many people, and these are the people who are going to buy GM for sure.

[post="66516"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

With all due respect.......GM can't be saved by catering to the remaining loyal GM buyers.....

[razoredge]

wonder why the same negitive sentiment doesnt carry over to the LS1&2, LS 6&7 wonder why what ever LS tec was never applied to the 38, not that is matters now but in 95/96-00 it was an advanced engine and I would guess class leading. Then the thing I really really wonder is - on the tec section there has been a few powerplant idea posts and not a one response from the highly opinionated or "inside track" people. Seems to me that would have been a better place to debate future power options, rather than turn a members car comparion and review into a "so what, its still no damn good, because Buick is still using the Buick V6 (until production ceases in _ _ )". ya know what Im talkin about ? :unsure: :( Edited January 2, 2006 by razoredge

[Cananopie]

With all due respect.......GM can't be saved by catering to the remaining loyal GM buyers.....

[post="66522"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Oh man! You must be in the shadows when I post. 2 seperate times you replied like immediately.

I understand your concern but the 3.6 will bring in no more non-GM fans than the 3.8. That 40 extra HP isn't so extraordinary to bring in other customers. As I said the 3.8 adheres to SULEV standards and is actually slightly more fuel efficient than the 3.6 (miniscule, but still a fact), and it's reliable... the fact it keeps GM loyalists is just an added bonus to it.

In fact, using the 3.6 as opposed to the 3.8 would just cause more environmental harm for Buick, according to fueleconomy.gov (yea, I didnt know it existed either) the 3.6 in the LaCrosse releases about a half a ton more greenhouse gasses than the 3.8. The Avalon only reaches ULEV standards but somehow releases less greenhouse gasses than the Lucerne or LaCrosse... this is probably because it has better gas mileage. Had we put the 3.6 standard in the LaCrosse and Lucerne they'd be producing about a ton more greenhouse gasses a year than the Avalon. It's obvious that GM needs to work on its gas mileage in its engines.

But it's also obvious that Toyota isn't an environmental as they portray themselves having the 4Runner, Land Cruiser, Sequoia, Tacoma, and Tundra all being just as or more toxic than the Hummer H3. That is just an interesting piece of information for all those people who are solely hating on Hummer when Toyota is just as bad.

I think it could work to Buick's advantage dropping the Rainier (which they are) and becoming a very clean car company. They don't have much farther to work towards that with DoD coming. They just need better fuel efficiency.

However I maintain the move to the 3.6 would just evoke more and heavier criticisim.

[Flybrian]

Cananopie, that's pretty amazing that SULEV 3.8l LaCrosses have a lower air pollution score than even a Honda Civic.

[razoredge]

Cananopie, that's pretty amazing that SULEV 3.8l LaCrosses have a lower air pollution score than even a Honda Civic.

[post="66601"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

COTY ! :unsure:

[razoredge]

but I think Cananopie that the idea is from a test drive during car shopping its believed that the drive/ride in the 3.6 powered car would be more pleasant or quieter or smoother and that this could be more of an enticement to consider Lacrosse or Lucerne instead of Lexus or Inifinity. Not to mention all the bad pub thrown at the 38 or PR design There are those that do all this reading and research to help themselfs make the decisions. As you see its always mostly negitive and aims to be so until.............. so there are alot of valid points, perception or not as to changing over about as many as we have for wanting to not change over, new car buyers dont give a hoot what happens to the car after year 3 or 4. Still I do honestly believe as Cananopie does that offering both or 3 even the 4th (sc38) has its merits and Buick need not be destroyed in publicity for offering both or 3 or 4. You bring a good point about Buick needs to push that SULEV a bit for promotion.

[trinacriabob]

If only I lived in Alabama... :lol:

[post="66440"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Wait...where'd you go?

[BuickEight]

Interesting test results The OC.

I agree with all the points you're making about the 3.6, it is a very good replacement for the supercharged 3.8 (especially because the S/C 3.8 pretty much needed premium gas, right? while the 3.6 can take regular, the S/C engine was not nearly as reliable as the stock 3.8, and it is a more refined engine all around). It's just (this is only my opinion though) that I thought the S/C Regal was due for a power upgrade and when they released the LaCrosse CXS it came very close to the Regal GS stats for power and performance, but it wasn't anything more you could really brag about... the S/C 3.8 was becoming less powerful compared to the competition and the CXS stays around the same power. That IS why I'm all about the LaCrosse Super because the LaCrosse deserves (for the Regals sake) a V8 or at least more power.

My main defense for the 3.8 is it's a terrific base engine. What competitors offer isn't anything so much more terrific that it beats the 3.8 in every way especially for the price range they are keeping the 3.8 in. It's a reliable engine for base-vehicles. I also would love the see a supercharged 3.6 as an option on the LaCrosse but car companies don't give us the exciting things they would've in the past.

[post="66167"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Where the HELL do you get the idea that the s/c 3800 isn't nearly as reliable as a stock 3800? Why do you talk out of your ass? :rolleyes:

[Cananopie]

Cananopie, that's pretty amazing that SULEV 3.8l LaCrosses have a lower air pollution score than even a Honda Civic.

[post="66601"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Fly, I think you misunderstood what I wrote... I never gave the air pollution score of the 3.8 in the LaCrosse. I said the 3.6 burns about a half a ton more greenhouse gasses a year THAN the 3.8. Not that the 3.8 burns a half a ton of gasses...

Is that what you meant? Because I never even gave the actual figures, just the difference in them.

[Cananopie]

Where the HELL do you get the idea that the s/c 3800 isn't nearly as reliable as a stock 3800?  Why do you talk out of your ass? :rolleyes:

[post="66768"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

A supercharger just isn't a reliable piece of any vehicle... it's made to push harder than it should be and I've heard of a common problem with the supercharged 3.8 but I don't know it offhand. I'm sure it's fairly reliable but not as reliable as the 3.8 NA.

[The O.C.]

A supercharger just isn't a reliable piece of any vehicle... it's made to push harder than it should be and I've heard of a common problem with the supercharged 3.8 but I don't know it offhand.  I'm sure it's fairly reliable but not as reliable as the 3.8 NA.

[post="66816"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I totally disagree.....from personal experience that is......

My parents' Regal GS (2000 model) has 100K miles on it.....and they have never had a SINGLE issue with any part of the engine or supercharger.....AND the penny-pinchers that my parents are...they NEVER put anything more than 87-octane in it (it recommends 91-octane.)

In fact, the engine reliability is made more notable because the rest of the car has literally fallen apart. My parents are 60+ years old....and take care of their cars religiously (other than the octane gas used) and the Regal is the BIGGEST bucket of bolts I've seen in a long time.....(squeaks, rattles, chassis shakes, trim falling off, etc.)

They also just got rid of a Reatta that had over 200K miles on its (non-SC) 3800 with very minimal problems. However, the Reatta had same "bucket-of-bolts" problem as the Regal unfortunately.....

I've never had a SINGLE problem with 3800 long-term reliability. The cars and their related components, however, THAT'S another story.

Have you ever driven a, say 20-year-old Mercedes-Benz with 250K miles on it? It feels like a TANK....nothing EVER seems to loosen up on THOSE cars...

[Flybrian]

Have you ever driven a, say 20-year-old Mercedes-Benz with 250K miles on it?  It feels like a TANK....nothing EVER seems to loosen up on THOSE cars...

[post="67036"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Unfortunately, Mercedes doesn't build them like that anymore and many experience the 'bucket-of-bolts' issues you describe with Buicks. And whatever you say about Buicks, they do not cost $50-100k.

As far as the 3800 s/c, my father's had a Series II in the SSEi with over 100k miles on the clock with no problem besides the supercharger belt coming off, and that was due to a neglegent tech and he didn't notice it for a few days since he doesn't lay into the throttle as much as I would.

[trinacriabob]

Again, since I started the thread, the only reason I love the 3800 is that it powers the most reliable car I have ever had...now at over 220,000 on the original (complete) powertrain. The Regal's only issues have been some minor electrical items going south, a couple of cooling system issues and one suspension/front end issue. This car has done better than a Cutlass Supreme with an Olds Rocket 350 V8 I had in college and I thought THAT was supposed to be the best engine ever. (It was smoother though and had that characteristic Rocket V8 whoosh...I can hear it now). Now, as for me, I will make my next purchase opting for the 3800 V6. I seriously want GM to have success with newer OHV and HF engines, it's just that, in marketing parlance, I'm a "late adopter." Edited January 3, 2006 by trinacriabob

[Cananopie]

Hey, I may be wrong about the supercharger, I will admit I have no proof to back it up. It's just something made to push an engine to extremes it wouldn't go to regularly sounds like it just would create a shorter life... not that the 3.8 isn't indestructable in the first place.

[BuickEight]

A supercharger just isn't a reliable piece of any vehicle... it's made to push harder than it should be and I've heard of a common problem with the supercharged 3.8 but I don't know it offhand.  I'm sure it's fairly reliable but not as reliable as the 3.8 NA.

[post="66816"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

If you keep talking like that, nobody will ever believe what you say in the future. I happen to own a '99 Pontiac GTP with the supercharged 3800. I bought the car new and now have almost 90,000 trouble-free miles. When the warranty ran out at 36k, I put a smaller supercharger pulley on for even more power. People who have superchargers go bad are probably too stupid and lazy to know you have to check the oil in s/c assembly itself. And people like you probably don't know that the internals of the s/c 3800 are beefier than that of the regular 3800. If anything, I'd say the s/c 3800 is MORE reliable because it's built stronger and doesn't have the plastic intake problems. Oh, my parents happen to have a Riviera with the same s/c series2 3800 that now has almost 170,000 trouble-free miles.

[BuickEight]

Hey, I may be wrong about the supercharger, I will admit I have no proof to back it up.

It's just something made to push an engine to extremes it wouldn't go to regularly sounds like it just would create a shorter life... not that the 3.8 isn't indestructable in the first place.

[post="67085"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Talk to some guys with Grand Nationals that still race their cars. Cars that have over 200,000 miles and no rebuild. :rolleyes: Buick is the king of forced induction, and I think they know what they are doing. They've been turbocharging since 1978 and supercharging since 1991. Keep in mind that a lot of GTP owners out there are seriously modifying their cars. Many of these people go too far and blow their motors and transmissions. And then they probably tell everybody that the s/c 3800's aren't reliable.

[BuickEight]

I totally disagree.....from personal experience that is......

My parents' Regal GS (2000 model) has 100K miles on it.....and they have never had a SINGLE issue with any part of the engine or supercharger.....AND the penny-pinchers that my parents are...they NEVER put anything more than 87-octane in it (it recommends 91-octane.)

In fact, the engine reliability is made more notable because the rest of the car has literally fallen apart.  My parents are 60+ years old....and take care of their cars religiously (other than the octane gas used) and the Regal is the BIGGEST bucket of bolts I've seen in a long time.....(squeaks, rattles, chassis shakes, trim falling off, etc.)

They also just got rid of a Reatta that had over 200K miles on its (non-SC) 3800 with very minimal problems.  However, the Reatta had same "bucket-of-bolts" problem as the Regal unfortunately.....

I've never had a SINGLE problem with 3800 long-term reliability.  The cars and their related components, however, THAT'S another story.

Have you ever driven a, say 20-year-old Mercedes-Benz with 250K miles on it?  It feels like a TANK....nothing EVER seems to loosen up on THOSE cars...

[post="67036"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Sounds like my 90,000 mile '99 Grand Prix. Everything just rattles and squeaks. I think GM really cut a lot of corners when they built this generation of W-body cars. I had a '90 Regal GS that was WAY better built than my GP and the then new '98 Regal GS I got a ride in. This is why I was so happy with the Lacrosse when I rented one a year ago. Everything was so quiet, solid, and just overall well built. I'll be buying one for sure. And your comment about the old Mercedes is so true, especially the old S-class. But, unfortunately that hasn't been true ever since the '96 E-class. I worked at a MB dealer and I can say that those cars and up are absolute pure junk. A late '90's E-class with 90,000 miles seriously feels like it's going to fall apart into a million little pieces. I'll take a '91 S-class with 200k any day over that.

[Cananopie]

I understand many of you have personal experiences as I do with about 5 NA 3.8 liter engines, ranging from 60k to 296k none of them had engine troubles. And I know Buick builds great forced induction vehicles, I never denied that. I was simply saying it's pretty obvious the supercharged 3.8 wouldn't last as long as a NA 3.8 just because the supercharger is 1 more thing to break first of all and second of all it's pushing engine limits... Who knows though, they may have the exact same lifespan and the supercharger never goes wrong anytime ever.... I'm just gonna say it's hard to believe. (reminder since this seems to be missed: I don't think they're bad engines, I just would assume that a supercharger would have a better chance of shortening the engine life as opposed to prolonging it... I can understand that doesn't mean every supercharged engine can't make 100 grand on their life without breaking... it's the 3.8, I don't expect anything to go wrong before 250k... 100k is nothing though, the supercharger could break in the next 100k too, but I wouldn't be surprised if it didnt)

[sciguy_0504]

I completely understand what you're saying, Cananopie.

[Mike The Canadian]

I go on regalgs.org cannopie, I think that they said the l67 is beefed up, it isnt just a regular l36 with a supercharger. Though i'm not sure if i'm remembering everything correctly. But i'm pretty sure it is, and a lot of these people have 90-something regal gs's that run 13's and lower (theres one guy that runs 11's in the 1/4 mile)

[razoredge]

Yes, there is alot of superior pieces in the L67(S I&II SC) & L32(SIII SC). In fact they are quite different than the NA(naturally asperated) version (L36). The L67 was a well thought out and designed, purpose built high output engine that is well within its livable limits. In other words, mildly tuned.

Blower snout bearings can wear out after ??? mileage just like a water pump or alternator (far more rugged however) but it does not destroy the engine and is not a reliability issue. Ive only heard of a handful.

The L36 (NA) has been by far more problematic with the plastic (composite) intake manifold and gasket related issues, which can cause hydro locking of the engines or bearing degradation due to anti freeze in the oil. Any L36's with spun bearings or engine knocks are engines that had the intake gasket failure and were not taken care of or neglected like 10,000-15,000 miles on oil with slight antifreeze contamination in oil. Anti freeze "eats" engine bearings.

The L67 does not have this problem or any other. The intake is aluminum as it should be.

My 99 L36 in the Eighty Eight 50th Anniversary model had the gasket and manifold changed under used car warrenty at 7_,000 miles. There are guys out there that have changed their lower intakes+gasket two and even 3 times, by the time they got upward of 200,000 miles. The newer NA 3800 have returned back to aluminum intake as should have been done by 96/97 when this issue first came to light. There are L36's that have never had the problem.

My 97 L67 in the LSS has 112,000 trouble free miles except for a water pump at a courious 8_,000 miles.

Had it been a N* water pump problem the engine would have had to be removed and nearly stripped to replace the water pump, which only took me 3 hours on the L67......which was enough piece removal as it was (right side engine mount), but at least I didnt have to drop drivetrain out the bottom to do so.

So theres some down and dirty GM powerplant negitive values (dirty laundry)......(which we know the competition has none of :rolleyes: ) Now Cananopie you can take that for what its worth now that you have been informed or you can continue to believe that the NA 38 is more reliable but at least you have more to go by than your gut feeling.

[Cananopie]

I am a huge fan of the S/C 3.8, I am definitely not arguing much against it. You have some interesting points Razor but I don't know that much about the workings of engines in the first place so I can't debate you. But if I could afford it I'd own a late 90's Riviera or a newer Regal GS in a heartbeat, I was never bashing on it. The 3.8, it is safe to say supercharged or not, is still an awesome engine.