Buick Lucerne: my review of my test drive

[Minarets]

Well, i must start off by saying i am more then delighted with this car. upon driving by the dealer yest. i saw a black on black CXS sitting in the front of the dealer. had to see it up close. now before i really get into it i must admit, i am 24 years old and when i think Buick i think of AARP, wipser 2000, prunes and their juice. i have never ever ever said, "wow, thats a nice Buick." from the onset, this one was a "wow, thats a nice Buick" i test drive cars almost religiously. if its new and out, i have prolly attempted to drive it. i am n the market for a new car in the near future and have been looking at the Acura TL, Infiniti G35 andthe new Chevy Impala SS...all somewhat sportier vehicles then the Buick, obviously. i have been reading a lot of Buick new push of quality. "fine French stitching," "1cm gaps in sheetmetal" etc, well this def looked veddy veddy nice. the black paint with all the chrome accents was stunning. the grille, while big, was nice looking (as nice as a Buick logo can look to a 24 year old). the back end was almost the most impressive thing to me. it looked so "un-domestic" looked great imo. i did not realize the air vents were different for the the models. 4 for the V8 and the rest have 3. the wheels looked nice and not cheap looking like the Chrysler 300C chrome coated wheels look and feel. the chrome trim really was luxurious and stunning. upon the saleman coming over i asked to take a ride. the first thing i always do is sit in the drivers seat, adjust to my liking and then get out and sit directly behind me to see what kind of leg room i will have. i am 6'0 and 250lbs...i want comfort and i know there will always be more room behind my wife then me, so if i am comfortable behind "me" most should be. well, i was. nice room in the back and the first thing that took my attention away was the leather. the leater was the nicest leather i have felt on any of the previous models i have mentioned thus far. most are to "thin" feeling or too "waxy". these seemes plush and soft. two thumbs up here. i wasnt a huuuuge fn of the leather design on the seats, but that is minor. well back to the front and i must say, i am really lovin GM's push of the remote starters. for some those are needless, but i love it. here in Nashvegas, TN we get a taste of all weather. so if i can get a remote that will heat my seats and defrost my windown in the morning and cool my seats and crank up the AC in the summer, i am impressed. the dash is nice. still not quite European, but as far as a domestic goes, its as nice as i have seen. the wood is nice, fake or not. the guages could be better, but still no complaints. the steering wheel is too big though. not a fan. another complaint is, and to some this is no big deal, but it bothers me--the center radio controls and such just look out of place for me. you have all this nice wood on the dash, and on the shifter, and then this black plastic board plugged in with knobs. to be fair, this design is leaps and bounds better then the previous GM interiors that cross over on so many vehicles, but there really and truely is no difference in this and the Impala SS stack that is much less $$. it still "works." also of note, the seats had great lumbar support, plus the very nice leather made it enjoyable. i am sure this would be a nice "trip taker." the Northstar V8 has plenty of punch, but i do wish they had used the same engine the SS got. 303hp would be great, but i know to the target buyer this is not needed. it would def help bring in the underage crowd (underage typical Buick owner). the car coners decently, but again, this is no BMW 3series, and it does a great job of being what it is--a moderately luxurious car, that look and feels good for a pretty good price. i know they are trying to compete with the Avalon and ES300. i think it can for any open-minded individual. it looks better then both of those, imo. sure some will want Lexus' unheralded quality but Buick is right behind them according to JD Powers. again, as a 24 year old with a wife and child, this is a car i would consider, much to my suprise. it has almost every feature i want (remote starter, plenty of leg room, good stereo, aux for ipod, good looks, V8) 2 things that are lacking for me personally, that i want, HIDs (bi-xenon headlamps) and at least a 60/40 split in thebackseat. there is only a console pass through. but as i have seen there is no perfect car. everyone that i have driven and considered has its plusses and minusses. this car is a winner. you can bet that i will be considering this car in about 6 months when ready to buy. my father-in-law is a GM employee and i have been looking and waiting for a GM car that catches my eye enough to actually own and use the discount. i will be so bold t say this is the best looking GM sedan i have ever seen besides the CTS-V (and i know the differences are slight but the CTS-V to me looks light years better then the CTS). i never imagined that i would come home and tell my wife, i like a buick, but i did. Buick has themself a winner i apologize for all the spelling and grammar mistakes, been up all night with my 6 day old , and sorry to continually ramble on about this car, but it has me excited. go drive one for yourself.

[buickguy]

I'm a 35 year old who just bought one, and couldn't agree more. GM has themselves a winner!

[Minarets]

I'm a 35 year old who just bought one, and couldn't agree more.  GM has themselves a winner!

[post="65387"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

pics? what color / model?

[Northstar]

I saw two CXS's at the dealer yesterday, a white one and a Sharkskin one. The special white paint really shows off the lines well and the Sharkskin looks great as well. I've yet to see a black CXS, but so far white is my favorite color for the Lucerne. I just wish that the Lucerne's interior was a little closer to the DTS's. They don't have many differences, but the differences do make a noticeable difference nonetheless.

[Cananopie]

Congratulations on your new child Minarets! I'm glad to hear such a good review on the Lucerne. It is crucial for Buick, hearing this from a 24 year old who has never considered a Buick before is good news.

[Minarets]

thanks Cananopie! Northstar--i can tell you this, for me at least the blavk interior looks waaaaaaaaaaaay better then the tan. i drive a Pearl white /tan maxima now and i am wanting black so maybe that influences my thougts, but i am not as big a fan of the tan. plus i like the burl wood offered with the black interior. come to think of it, i believe my Lucerne lit stated that the black interior (leather) is only offferd in the CXS model. the fogs looks great on the CXS to me, too. the chrome strip down there adds a subtle but great touch imo. i do not care for the "non fogs" front end as much.

[Mike The Canadian]

I saw a black on black one at my dealership aswell, it appeared to be sold though..it was a cxs... man the first thing that i thought when i saw the cx sitting 2 parking spaces away was, it's alright, but then as i was walking out of the door after they took the century in..I see this black car, and it stuck me like a lightning bolt..(the shitloads of chrome especially with the foglights caught my attention)..it took me a second to realise it was a lucerne..and a cxs as well..I looked it over, the 18's impressed me, as did the chrome accents all over the car....then i move to the rear end, once again, impressed, i dont know how but it reminded me of the century (dont ask how..i must be going crazy...maybe because of the 3 bulbs on both taillights lol?) then i looked down and saw the MASSIVE duals....lol my first instinct was to try and see if I could fit my hand in there :P The side profile was really nice too (woohoo chrome!) Then I looked into the interior....and the seats were dirty! (damn new owner :lol:) but otherwise it looked amazing! the wood seemed darker than the one in the cxs...maybe it was the lighting.. the interior looked great..overall the car was very striking in CXS form, and the chrome strip on the trunk improves the back a lot compared to the cx, I still like the cx, but i'm surprised the cxs 'struck' me the way it did....

[Clownzilla]

I'm in the "younger person's" market, and I want one of these things BAD! I would of never said that about a Buick a few years ago!

[Newbiewar]

I'm in the "younger person's" market, and I want one of these things BAD! I would of never said that about a Buick a few years ago!

[post="65662"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

i'd agree, i enjoy seeing them on test drives(theres a GMC/PONTIAC/BUICK dealership next door) the solstice and the lucerne are always enjoyable to see driving around, the look so luxurious, so crisp and clean, so... sophistocated, and prestigous, where the cadillac looks to be refined and sporty(not sporty on the DTS tho)...

[MyerShift]

I'm 19 and think the Lucerne (especially that fanny of its) is very nice looking. It might be a bit of bias since my first car was a Buick Skyhawk, but I find the Lucerne to be the best looking Buick in over a decade. The only option I really feel the Lucerne is missing are the high-intensity discharge headlamps. If I had the money, I'd probably get one. That's saying a lot considering I am a big Chrysler fan and the existence of the awesome 300C. Edited January 1, 2006 by S.Myers

[bobo]

Agreed about the missing HID headlights. They should have been put on the CXS model, as any $40K vehicle should at least have them available as an option. I haven't driven a Lucerne yet. I hope to next year, and I also hope that it's a little firmer than a DTS.

[VenSeattle]

I haven't driven a Lucerne yet.  I hope to next year, and I also hope that it's a little firmer than a DTS.

[post="65969"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I've had the Deville & Seville as rentals in the past. When I drove the Lucerne CXL V6 it reminded me of the last gen Seville SLS. It leads me to think the CXS will ride/drive like the Seville STS. Both the SLS & STS ride firmer than Park Avenue, LeSabre, and Deville. I haven't driven the new DTS, but I'll guess the Lucerne will "feel" smaller on the road than the new DTS considering the driving characteristics mirror the Seville. I hope you like it. :)

[razoredge]

Well thats all together good news, in so many ways. At last, a little bright spot.

[Paolino]

I love the Lucerne, I really do... however, I really want GM to just change a few minor things to make this car extremely competitive. It drives me nuts.

Realize these are all things that have been said in the past, but I reiterate them as they infuriate me that GM could let them just slip through the cracks:

Telescopic steering wheel--uh, hello? Your base LaCrosse has it as an option.

HID/Bi-Xenon lights - I'm not a fan of these on the road as I find them blinding at night, but in a car at this price range... you need them as an option. GM is trying to attract a different crowd, but how can they do that if some of the technology the "different crowd" would want is not offered?

Tranny - Not going to beat a dead horse. Yes, it's an AWESOME tranny and is super-reliable; I'm just thinking of the competitive side. Needs 1 or 2 more gears. We'll get that in `07 (I hope) Not to mention it would make the fuel economy more competitive.

Nav - Okay, I understand GM is going to offer Nav and isn't because of some technological advance in their nav systems, but couldn't they put in the older nav first now while we wait?

Gotta say it, 3800 - Not against the 3800... great engine, low emissions, ultra-super-duper mega reliable, BUT, not flashy. Not modern. Not what the "targeted audience" is looking for. Either a new base engine is needed (and I know they kept it around to not abandon the blue-haired crowd), or an optional mid-power engine (a la 3.6L), is needed. Northstar: perfect! :)

Again, I LOVE the Lucerne. I think it's an AWESOME car. I think it is an incredible step for Buick and a major hit. I just want to see this car succeed enormously, and I don't want anyone to pick on it, like the few comments I've seen in reviews (which Thank God, have been 99% positive)

I'd buy this car in a second if it was in my price range. I am floored at all of the great things you get with a CXL V6 like auto dimming mirrors, leather, and rainsense standard!

[trinacriabob]

I love the Lucerne, I really do... however, I really want GM to just change a few minor things to make this car extremely competitive. 

Telescopic steering wheel--uh, hello?  Your base LaCrosse has it as an option.

and I know they kept it around to not abandon the blue-haired crowd

[post="66041"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Agreed - a couple of minor misses.

Telescopic wheel should be standard. So should the heated washer fluid. They mention it in the commercials (which are very tasteful) and then you look at the sticker to see it costs $ 140 or so.

Yes...Pwaulie...gotta keep that 3800 around for "blue hairs" like me....thanks for the thought. <_<

Styling wise, this is a hit for Buick. I will have to say that it does look a little (a lot) VW Phaeton-like from the rear. Driving down the 101 one fine day, I caught up with this car I had never seen before, thinking it might have been a Lucerne...and it was a Phaeton. Sorry, no pix to post to make the point. But a car that ought to help further drop the average Buick buyers age.

[razoredge]

the 38 has nothing to do with "blue hair" what ever that is <_< There is a plant in the US that is in production building these engines, nothing more nothing less. Unless you want less engine, GM has some plants building lesser engines, and engines in other counrites, that frankly no one knows much about yet. The supercharged 38 should be there in the mean time until the transition takes place to eliminate the HP complaining. I believe the N* required premium fuel anyhow doesnt it ? If so this would not make the L32 any more negitive but certainly more affordable, I also believe all the "tooling" is lying around to put L32 in G body anyhow, as it has been used previously in G body.....the L67 that is. Telescoping wheel is nice and for the few dollars production costs it could easily be standard Nav for those that need it, but isnt GM offering Onstar which while not the same is something - positive ? For the headlights, I feel DOT should get after this trend and stop it in its tracks, they are blinding at night and defeat the origional purpose of having low beams in the first place. That would level that playing field right there and it would no longer be an issue. Most of the buzz i have heard about these ultra brights seems to be a "trick" gimmick like "wings" and 4-5" exhaust tips. Sure I bet you can see better but oncomming traffic can see nothing. Im not sure if this is a pending issue with DOT but I sure have heard many many complaints about it, so maybe they are looking into it ? The really great thing is we know in the future, every year this car will be improving in many areas that seem to be a concern at this time. So in its current state it is still an awsome car with more bright spots in the future. "Dont worry, be happy"

[The O.C.]

OK.....saw two Lucerne's at the San Diego Auto Show......a Black/Tan CXS and a beige-ish (is it the "Sharkskin?") with tan CXL V6..... Here's my opinion......(Razor...pay ATTENTION....).....I LOVE the car! I think the exterior style is damn close to where I see Buick heading. It's somewhat conservative, but in a stylish way that LaCrosse can't seem to manage. Plus, it has a sort of continental flair that I think DTS lacks (DTS looking too traditionally "domestic" to me.) I do, however, have just a few objects of constructive criticism.... First, the black CXS would have looked REALLY good with a sort of beige interior with the charcoal/black dash top and door panel tops.....like the beige interior that is optional on the LaCrosse CXS...... Second, the (I think Sharkskin?) CXL had these alloy wheels that were like the dark carbon-color wheels you sometimes see on Benz AMG wheels, etc. They looked AWESOME, albeit wierd with the Sharkskin color. On a silver, or grey, or black Lucerne, they would be really sharp. My real major gripe is interior materials (I know, I know...here I go again.) The abundance of hard plastic on the dash and console does this car no favors. A quick inspection of the DTS shows the use of softer, classier stuff in the same area. I understand trying to differentiate the two brands....but Buick is SUPPOSED to be a classy, upscale brand. Give Lucerne the good stuff too. If you want to keep the hard stuff in the Chevys, etc., then fine. On the other hand, the interior is nicely devoid of clutter....and the REST of the materials appear top-notch. AND as Paolino commented on....too many features lacking. Power tilt and telescope is a MUST IMHO in a $35-40K car. Also, xenons should be there as well. After living with three different cars with xenon lights, I SWEAR by them. They are so much brighter and clearer in the nighttime, it makes a world of difference. I don't notice xenons from other cars bothering me at night much anyways. Nav is sure to come....so I'll let them off the hook on that one. I wouldn't buy the V6.....but the NorthStar is nice. It needs the H.O version however.....as the MT road test figures show, the Lucerne V8 is no powerhouse....going 7.5secs 0-60.....sure to get smacked by Avalons and Azeras with their V6 engines. What I WISH they could do is put the reengineered NorthStar from the RWD Cadillacs into the FWD Lucerne....and get close to the 320hp they provide in THOSE cars. Other than that, nice job Buick. NOW....what's the Lucerne Super going to be like??? ^_^

[Flybrian]

I wouldn't buy the V6.....but the NorthStar is nice.  It needs the H.O version however.....as the MT road test figures show, the Lucerne V8 is no powerhouse....going 7.5secs 0-60.....sure to get smacked by Avalons and Azeras with their V6 engines.  What I WISH they could do is put the reengineered NorthStar from the RWD Cadillacs into the FWD Lucerne....and get close to the 320hp they provide in THOSE cars.

[post="66125"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I was getting my car appraised at CarMax so I can hopefully get it refinanced on cheaper terms and I had the opportunity to take an '06 Avalon (yeah, I don't why they had it either) out for a spin. I don't care when the figures say, the engine doesn't perform like it has 268hp. I must honestly say I felt better movement and more torque in 15-40 and 25-70 type accelerations with my 4.0l Aurora V8, which has 18 less hp but more torque. I will admit the Avalon's six felt smoother and more quiet, but I'm comparing to my car which is a decade old and closing in on 90k on mostly original equipment.

And I don't care what anyone says, I don't like an engine being that quiet. Mind you, I'm differentiating between noise and smoothness. Avalon was quite smooth but too quiet. I like audible evidence of a car's cojones.

[The O.C.]

I was underwhelmed with a Deville (275hp) rental car I had.......nice sound, nice feel....not that quick comparatively-speaking though..... New STS V8 felt much punchier.....would be more like I'd like Lucerne to respond.....

[razoredge]

could someone that may have had or taking the time to check out the last Aurora with such a high degree of critique tell me this. if you set the two cars side by side and compared, will the Lucerne succeed while the Aurora did not and if so why and whats better, ect. ect. ect. For some reason this has always been my concern. This is not a yet another Oldsmobile quandary but rather a concern that the Lucerne could fail and repeat history. In other words if it did not work then how can it work now ?

[The O.C.]

could someone that may have had or taking the time to check out the last Aurora with such a high degree of critique tell me this.

if you set the two cars side by side and compared, will the Lucerne succeed while the Aurora did not and if so why and whats better, ect. ect. ect.

For some reason this has always been my concern. This is not a yet another Oldsmobile quandary but rather a concern that the Lucerne could fail and repeat history. In other words if it did not work then how can it work now ?

[post="66174"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

You know.....time will tell if Lucerne is successful where Aurora was not.

However.....think about this.....

Where would Buick be in the marketplace TODAY if we had Lucerne back in 1997 when Aurora was introduced?

[bobo]

The Lucerne is very similar to the Aurora in execution. It is a little bit cheaper, which is good. The styling or the Aurora may have been too "out there" for traditionalists, i.e. no grille in the front and devoid of frilly trim. The styling of the Lucerne is more mainstream. Lastly, the Aurora wasn't given much of a chance, with the demise of Oldsmobile announced a few months after the Gen2 Aurora was introduced. The Lucerne will appeal to Buick traditionalists and the orphaned "new Oldsmobile" buyers.

[Flybrian]

One must also keep in mind the Aurora we got wasn't intended to be the real Aurora, rather the Antares, replacing the Eighty-Eight. The real Aurora was dropped when Buick killed the superceeding Riviera and Cadillac wouldn't share anything RWD (or so the rumors go).

[Minarets]

i am most dissapointed in the lack of HID's. id like telescoping steering wheel, but isnt a requirement for me, like HID's are

[Cory Wolfe]

Okay... I guess I am too young too much like my generation to like it. I haven't driven it, but I've seen it in person and sat in it. I wasn't impressed. Styling... was fine until you looked at the front or the rear. The body, I liked. The rear looked horrible to me. Very plain and very un-Buick. The front looked better, but very weird and again plain. Overall, it would be hard to tell it was Buick, a bad thing, and it lacked any interesting details. Interior... wasn't all that great. The plastics it had didn't belong in a car of it's price. That and it lacked details. I hated how the radio/climate was surrounded by the same black plastic. It looked cheaper than an Impala.

[Paolino]

Okay... I guess I am too young too much like my generation to like it. I haven't driven it, but I've seen it in person and sat in it. I wasn't impressed. Styling... was fine until you looked at the front or the rear. The body, I liked. The rear looked horrible to me. Very plain and very un-Buick. The front looked better, but very weird and again plain. Overall, it would be hard to tell it was Buick, a bad thing, and it lacked any interesting details. Interior... wasn't all that great. The plastics it had didn't belong in a car of it's price. That and it lacked details. I hated how the radio/climate was surrounded by the same black plastic. It looked cheaper than an Impala.

[post="66290"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Yes, but the integration with most of GMs radio and HVACs into the dash need a lot of work.

I love the look of it, but I agree, it isn't very Buick. Other than the waterfall grille and the logo, there's little that I find Buick-esque.

[zoomtm]

You know.....time will tell if Lucerne is successful where Aurora was not.

However.....think about this.....

Where would Buick be in the marketplace TODAY if we had Lucerne back in 1997 when Aurora was introduced?

[post="66179"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

The Aurora was introduced in 1994 as a 1995 model.

[Flybrian]

Yeah...you mean the Park Avenue?

[The O.C.]

Yeah...you mean the Park Avenue?

[post="66362"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

No....I meant Aurora....and I was wrong on date.....'95 was first model year.

[razoredge]

I was talking about G2 00-04 or was it 03, Im thinkin 03 was Intrigue, 05 Alero ? Eventually maybe someone will do a comparision, it would be interesting, seems to me the Aurora would have had the interior to keep the interior scrutinizers from complaining, maybe not the right materials, I dont know. I'd enjoy seeing two photos side by side of both cars. Im thinkin the Aurora was more exiciting styling, Lucerne more conservative.

Paulie and Vips - i dont think Buick has a current identity it needs to follow, I mean I dont know what a Buick needs to look like to look like a Buick. Certainly not what they looked like from 91/92 - 05.....Riviera excluded, but we cant go back to that either. But really Buick has changed every decade or generation.

They could put more class into those tailights thats a fo sure. I need to head down to the city and see if I can find one, maybe even take a drive, Ill be sure to try the 195 38 to see if its really hard to merge in traffic :unsure: "oh no oh no I cant get it to go oh no oh no "

bah ha ha ha ha ha :P

[OshKoshBerJosh]

I have a question about the Lucerne interior for those who have seen it in person. Is the big dash piece, just below the strip of wood and around the black plastic radio/HVAC surround everyone is complaining about, hard? The plastic on the LaCrosse in simialr areas is soft, so I had assumed the same would be true in the Lucerne.

[Minarets]

anyone here actually own one yet? i must admit, i have seen many on the road yet

[bobo]

I have a question about the Lucerne interior for those who have seen it in person.  Is the big dash piece, just below the strip of wood and around the black plastic radio/HVAC surround  everyone is complaining about, hard?  The plastic on the LaCrosse in simialr areas is soft, so I had assumed the same would be true in the Lucerne.

[post="67167"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

The hard, hollow-sounding part of the Lucerne's dash is at the very bottom.

[The O.C.]

The hard, hollow-sounding part of the Lucerne's dash is at the very bottom.

[post="67266"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Actually.....the WHOLE dash panel below the woodgrain is hard, brittle, and hollow.....

And....yes....the LaCrosse has softer stuff in that area (as does the Lucerne's platform-mate, DTS)

I've been in three different Lucernes now.....(CXS, CXL V6, CXL V8) and they are all the same.....

[OshKoshBerJosh]

Actually.....the WHOLE dash panel below the woodgrain is hard, brittle, and hollow.....

And....yes....the LaCrosse has softer stuff in that area (as does the Lucerne's platform-mate, DTS)

I've been in three different Lucernes now.....(CXS, CXL V6, CXL V8) and they are all the same.....

[post="67294"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

That's so disappointing. Why can't GM get a single interior done right with no excuses? This is so frustrating! The Lesabre had padded lower dash panels.

[MyerShift]

The VW Phaeton and Buick Lucerne do share a resemblance in their rears, but I find the Lucerne's lamps to be more finely detailed:

[zoomtm]

how many times is that going to be brought up? ^ Edited January 5, 2006 by zoomtm

[razoredge]

Damn thats a nice lookin car ! I like how the trunk is recessed a bit. The way the fenders have smooth contours around wheel house. The edged body line, similar to Aurora, slight formed tail in the trunk deck.

Oh look.....its go a emblem right in the center of the trunk........just like the VW :blink: its even round :rolleyes:

That my favorite part, theres a Trishield on it. :)

[Minarets]

Damn thats a nice lookin car ! I like how the trunk is recessed a bit. The way the fenders have smooth contours around wheel house. The edged body line, similar to Aurora, slight formed tail in the trunk deck.

Oh look.....its go a emblem right in the center of the trunk........just like the VW  :blink: its even round  :rolleyes:

That my favorite part, theres a Trishield on it.  :)

[post="67960"][/post]

lets be honest here, i am no VW fanboy, but for a Buick to draw comparos to a $70,000 VW....

i dont care who makes a $70,000+ car (even VW) for a $35,000 Buick to be compared aint bad in my mind

[titan]

lets be honest here, i am no VW fanboy, but for a Buick to draw comparos to a $70,000 VW....

i dont care who makes a $70,000+ car (even VW) for a $35,000 Buick to be compared aint bad in my mind

[post="67986"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Hehe, that's how I feel. :)

[razoredge]

Yes but there is clearly no "looks like" going on there. Every little line is different. Cars have been looking nearly "the same" for decades now. You could even go back 40 years and compare similar characteristics. Its the way of the "times", only today styling is far less detailed.

[sciguy_0504]

I don't know... Still looks like comparisons to a cheap Chinese design ripoff can be made.

[Minarets]

I don't know...  Still looks like comparisons to a cheap Chinese design ripoff can be made.

[post="68069"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

for starters VW isnt Chinese and it aint cheap, at least the Phaeton

[titan]

I'm in the "younger person's" market, and I want one of these things BAD! I would of never said that about a Buick a few years ago!

[post="65662"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Same here. I'll be 27 in Feb. I'm considering a Lucerne in the furture (6mo-1yr). I love Buick, but they never had anything that I REALLY wanted (well, atleast not since I could drive). The Lucerne is on my very short list. Also... I CAN'T WAIT to see the Enclave. :P

[ponchoman49]

I love the Lucerne, I really do... however, I really want GM to just change a few minor things to make this car extremely competitive.  It drives me nuts.

Realize these are all things that have been said in the past, but I reiterate them as they infuriate me that GM could let them just slip through the cracks:

Telescopic steering wheel--uh, hello?  Your base LaCrosse has it as an option.

HID/Bi-Xenon lights - I'm not a fan of these on the road as I find them blinding at night, but in a car at this price range... you need them as an option.  GM is trying to attract a different crowd, but how can they do that if some of the technology the "different crowd" would want is not offered?

Tranny - Not going to beat a dead horse.  Yes, it's an AWESOME tranny and is super-reliable; I'm just thinking of the competitive side.  Needs 1 or 2 more gears.  We'll get that in `07 (I hope) Not to mention it would make the fuel economy more competitive.

Nav - Okay, I understand GM is going to offer Nav and isn't because of some technological advance in their nav systems, but couldn't they put in the older nav first now while we wait?

Gotta say it, 3800 - Not against the 3800... great engine, low emissions, ultra-super-duper mega reliable, BUT, not flashy.  Not modern.  Not what the "targeted audience" is looking for.  Either a new base engine is needed (and I know they kept it around to not abandon the blue-haired crowd), or an optional mid-power engine (a la 3.6L), is needed.  Northstar: perfect! :)

Again, I LOVE the Lucerne.  I think it's an AWESOME car.  I think it is an incredible step for Buick and a major hit.  I just want to see this car succeed enormously, and I don't want anyone to pick on it, like the few comments I've seen in reviews (which Thank God, have been 99% positive)

I'd buy this car in a second if it was in my price range.  I am floored at all of the great things you get with a CXL V6 like auto dimming mirrors, leather, and rainsense standard!

[post="66041"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I agree about most of what you said here even though I would never pay extra money for Hids or NAV. Both are a waste of money to me. I would like to add to this list a few simple things that Buick should have done on this car. The exterior review mirrors are body color but the housing is still black plastic. Why is this? The cheaper LaCrosse doesn't do this. Also the trunk size is dissapointing and worse the hinges still intrude. Again the LaCrosse avoids this. Again minor niggles but kind of annoying when Buick got these things right on there cheaper LaCrosse. My ideal Lucerne would be a black CXL with roof and a 3.6 DOHC and 6 speed automatic. And kudos to Buick for making a floor shifter std equipment. Both dealers in my area are selling them as quick as they can get them in. Everytime I go to look at cars there are new Lucernes in the back row that still have the wraps on the fenders and plastic on the seats ready to fill the holes in the front row. Hope this car annihilates the boring, plain looking Avalon and retains it's place as number one selling full size.