LUCERNE - future?

[regfootball]

Curious to know, what is the current future status of the Lucerne?

I'll be honest I have never really been interested in one before but big incentives on them lately have led me to look into them and it seems like a good buy? Just want to know, is 2010 the last year, or 2011?

The 3.9 is new for 2009. ANyone have any experience driving the Lucerne with this powertrain? Decent power? I knows its still the 4 speed........

Will the v8 be discontinued? I think I have seen a few SUpers still on the lots.

RIght now with my status as a Pontiac owner, and with my GM card, i can get a new 09 holdover Lucerne CX for 19 and change, and compared with a Malibu, considering resale, its something i may consider.

[Drew Dowdell]

There are two 3.9s.

I had the lesser powerful of the two as a rental and it performs just fine. You won't be winning any drag races with 5-series, but it's nice around town. Cruising at 80 is effortless and frugal. I managed 27mpg with a trunk stuffed full of computer equipment. If I recall it was 8 PC towers and 9, 19" flat screens, plus keyboards/mice/wires, and my luggage. All of that fit in the trunk.

I got 30mpg on the way back with the car unloaded. Both trips were steady 70mph-75mph range.

The Lucerne is likely dead soon. It and the DTS will be going out of production to make room for Volt production.

edit: Updated with link to engine information.

[regfootball]

the hp and torque numbers are decent. I didn't realize they were that good. I don't know which motor is flex fuel.

i might be testing one for research tonight. if not tonight, soon.

my angle on this is that if you compare basic line Lucernes to v6 Malibus when factoring incentives, there is not much difference!

Obviously the price of the Lucerne goes nuts with a few options. But my premise is that the Lucerne seems to hold its value extremely well on the used market. Buying one at a great price, you might actually have a car worth something when you are done with it. A Malibu is a good car but is in a class of car that generally is a disposable car on the market, and the values don't stay up quite as much.

The Lucerne too is a very solid car. All the mid sizers have that slightly flimsy feel to them.

[regfootball]

by the way the back seat is huge on them. i knew they were cavernous, but the seating itself is quite plush compared to any midsizer.

I think Buick should redo the front end in the style of the new Jaguar sedans and that would be a nice look on the Lucerne sheetmetal.

[regfootball]

There are two 3.9s.

I had the lesser powerful of the two as a rental and it performs just fine. You won't be winning any drag races with 5-series, but it's nice around town. Cruising at 80 is effortless and frugal. I managed 27mpg with a trunk stuffed full of computer equipment. If I recall it was 8 PC towers and 9, 19" flat screens, plus keyboards/mice/wires, and my luggage. All of that fit in the trunk.

I got 30mpg on the way back with the car unloaded. Both trips were steady 70mph-75mph range.

The Lucerne is likely dead soon. It and the DTS will be going out of production to make room for Volt production.

edit: Updated with link to engine information.

what i like to hear. my Altima rental was a 2.5 and at 75-80 mph could only muster the same 27 mpg over close to 900 miles.

I would love to know what typical long haul mpg on the 3.9 is.

[Drew Dowdell]

what i like to hear. my Altima rental was a 2.5 and at 75-80 mph could only muster the same 27 mpg over close to 900 miles.

I would love to know what typical long haul mpg on the 3.9 is.

What do you mean "long haul"?

[Drew Dowdell]

the hp and torque numbers are decent. I didn't realize they were that good. I don't know which motor is flex fuel.

i might be testing one for research tonight. if not tonight, soon.

my angle on this is that if you compare basic line Lucernes to v6 Malibus when factoring incentives, there is not much difference!

Obviously the price of the Lucerne goes nuts with a few options. But my premise is that the Lucerne seems to hold its value extremely well on the used market. Buying one at a great price, you might actually have a car worth something when you are done with it. A Malibu is a good car but is in a class of car that generally is a disposable car on the market, and the values don't stay up quite as much.

The Lucerne too is a very solid car. All the mid sizers have that slightly flimsy feel to them.

The 219hp is the gas only. The 227hp is the FlexFuel.

[Drew Dowdell]

what i like to hear. my Altima rental was a 2.5 and at 75-80 mph could only muster the same 27 mpg over close to 900 miles.

I would love to know what typical long haul mpg on the 3.9 is.

I don't recall if your Altima was a CVT or not, but I assume it was. From simply a NHV standpoint, the 3.9 would completely pwn a Nissan 2.4.

An experiment that I had with the Lucerne was that I unwittingly put the car in 3 rather than D when leaving a rest stop. Drove that way for 20 miles before I realized.... and it was only the MPG indicator that tipped me off. There is virtually no difference in NHV in the Lucerne between 3 and D. Try doing that in any 4-cylinder... especially a Nissan one.

[hyperv6]

I just looked at the 2010 model and it needs replaced yesterday. It was a good car a few years ago but it has been passed up for several years now.

Anyone who walks out with the Lucern over the Lacrosse either had to get a hell of a deal or is insane.

[Drew Dowdell]

Or needs a bigger car?

[regfootball]

I just looked at the 2010 model and it needs replaced yesterday. It was a good car a few years ago but it has been passed up for several years now.

Anyone who walks out with the Lucern over the Lacrosse either had to get a hell of a deal or is insane.

obviously the deal. but a lucerne vs. a typical midsize....

[regfootball]

I don't recall if your Altima was a CVT or not, but I assume it was. From simply a NHV standpoint, the 3.9 would completely pwn a Nissan 2.4.

An experiment that I had with the Lucerne was that I unwittingly put the car in 3 rather than D when leaving a rest stop. Drove that way for 20 miles before I realized.... and it was only the MPG indicator that tipped me off. There is virtually no difference in NHV in the Lucerne between 3 and D. Try doing that in any 4-cylinder... especially a Nissan one.

the altima was a CVT. to its credit (4 cyl), the car had balls, the tranny was responsive and really didn't give away that it was a CVT, and its NVH was pretty good actually. it was just dull.

of course, the idea, the Lucerne NVH i would assume would be much better in cabin quiet.

by long haul, i mean say a 500 mile trip. could you count on it to touch 30 or at least consistently match the 27? I know the northstar will get the 27 if not closer to 30.

in my estimation, as far as interior, Buick should have invested in an instrument panel redo for the Lucerne. The door panels are actually pretty good (even if the wood is fake). Lucerne's leather is quite good. LaCrosse leather and plastic to be kind is mediocre for its class.

Edited March 4, 2010 by regfootball

[Drew Dowdell]

the altima was a CVT. to its credit, the car had balls, the tranny was responsive and really didn't give away that it was a CVT, and its NVH was pretty good actually.

of course, the idea, the Lucerne NVH i would assume would be much better in cabin quiet.

by long haul, i mean say a 500 mile trip. could you count on it to touch 30 or at least consistently match the 27?

Well the trip out, 225 miles at 27mpg. Rolling hills of Western PA, West VA, and Eastern Ohio for the first 25% of that, Flat Ohio for the remaining 75%, with a trunk full of equipment.

Trip back, 30mpg with mostly empty trunk

70-75mph each way.

So, I'd say, yes.

[gm4life]

Go for a Lucerne they really are a nice car. I have driven a 2006 CXL with a 3.8 and loved it. If it would have been a Pontiac I would have liked it even more. Oh thats why I have a Bonneville. Honestly if you can get a Lucey that cheap you'd be nuts not to get one.

[vonVeezelsnider]

Bigger = Better in my books

Lucerne/DTS/Impala > Malibu/CTS

The new LaCrosse is alright.

[daves87rs]

Better hurry, they are only going to build them for a few more months...

[regfootball]

Bigger = Better in my books

Lucerne/DTS/Impala > Malibu/CTS

The new LaCrosse is alright.

i like the Malibu. but its merely a competent light duty midsize. at the price its at, its a good buy.

as far as the Lucerne, its generally been overpriced in the MSRP department however, it looks like it might be a good incentivized value at the end of its run. and like the mid-late nineties GM large cars and cars like the DTS etc. it will still feel like a tank 10 years from now.

Edited March 4, 2010 by regfootball

[gm4life]

i like the Malibu. but its merely a competent light duty midsize. at the price its at, its a good buy.

as far as the Lucerne, its generally been overpriced in the MSRP department however, it looks like it might be a good incentivized value at the end of its run. and like the mid-late nineties GM large cars and cars like the DTS etc. it will still feel like a tank 10 years from now.

I can vouch for that, the 1992 Sedan Deville I had up to 2005 was the same way. So is my Bonneville after almost 5 years, but I need one rattle fixed on it. Hopefully it is an easy fix and not hard to get at.

[PurdueGuy]

My in-laws have a 3.8L Lucerne. They loaned it to us this past december a few times for running around doing christmas shopping. Very nice car, especially if you have a relaxed driving style (though it has enough guts to giddy-up when needed, just saying it's certainly not going to please a sports car enthusiast). We also rode in the back seat for about 2.5hrs from the airport, and it was very comfortable. I'd pick up an '09 Lucerne for ~$19k over a malibu any day of the week. The only complaint my in-laws have had about the car is the fuel economy. While it's not bad, they had a Park Avenue (also 3.8L) before the Lucerne, and the Lucerne consistantly gets 2-3mpg less than the Park Avenue did.

[regfootball]

I can vouch for that, the 1992 Sedan Deville I had up to 2005 was the same way. So is my Bonneville after almost 5 years, but I need one rattle fixed on it. Hopefully it is an easy fix and not hard to get at.

my dad just sold his 92 seville, that thing was a tank, too. almost twenty years old, and yeah it wasn't new but GM at least put plenty of solid sheetmetal in those large cars.

i should mention that part of what makes the Lucerne pricing good right now for Saturn or Pontiac owners is that its an extra 2 grand as opposed to 1 grand on the malibu, and of course, not everyone is a saturn or pontiac owner either.

to be honest, even 2 grand in my opinion is not much considering they shut down the brand. how about 5 grand? now that's showing appreciation. 2 grand won't barely pay sales tax on the lucerne.

Edited March 4, 2010 by regfootball

[Justin Bimmer]

I'm laying odds on Reg's chances of purchase at 4-1 against.

[pow]

FWIW, the LaCrosse with the V6 gets 17 mpg city and 26 mpg highway, compared to 22 mpg city and 33 mpg highway on the Malibu. Of course your mileage my vary, but the EPA numbers are still relevant for comparison purposes. If you can get 30 mpg in a 4,000-lb 3.9-liter Lucerne, then it's possible you will get 38 mpg in the lighter four-cylinder Malibu under the same circumstances.

The Lucerne is also an older design, so it only gets an "acceptable" rating in side crashes ("marginal" structure rating) and a "marginal" rating for rear crash protection. Stabilitrak may also be difficult to find (not available on CX-1 or CXL-1). The Malibu (and most other midsizers) get "good" ratings all around and have stability control as standard. And the cheapest Lucerne starts at $29,995; if you can really get $11,000 off MSRP, I doubt the resale will be that good.

That said, I do agree the Lucerne has nice door panels. The LaCrosse and XTS appear to be replacing the Lucerne and DTS.

[Drew Dowdell]

I think Reg was comparing V6 to V6. The 3.6 litre in the Malibu is thirstier than the 3.9 in the Lucy.

[Paolino]

Reg, I've driven the Lucerne a lot with the 3.8 (My parents have a 2006 CXL) and I'll say this, it is always quiet, smooth, seamless shifts, and easy on the wallet. Anyone who has gotten in the car has been impressed. The TONS of features that are included in the CXL trim really make you feel spoiled.

[regfootball]

I think Reg was comparing V6 to V6. The 3.6 litre in the Malibu is thirstier than the 3.9 in the Lucy.

yes. the only epsilon HF car i've driven is the aura, and that 3.6 has nuts. but i do know its a thirsty engine.

absolutely this is a comparison between v6's.

now, using edmunds user reviews as a guide....what i see across the several cars with the 3.9 is that it really doesn't get great mpg. however, out of all the cars that HAVE the 3.9....the Lucerne is among the better.

The 3.5 in the Impala is the mpg champ since the 3.8 was put away. The Lucerne gets a bit less with the 3.9 than the 3.8. However, I have never really liked the 3.8. And to be honest the flex fuel option Intrigues me. There is 5+ E85 pumps in town here where i live and the state corn growers association office is here. The only reason flex fuel intrigues me is because lets say your tank is empty but you just want to put in a couple gallons to get you through til payday. You can save a couple bucks, keep your miles down for a little, and then go back to reg gas as needed.

Edited March 4, 2010 by regfootball

[regfootball]

Reg, I've driven the Lucerne a lot with the 3.8 (My parents have a 2006 CXL) and I'll say this, it is always quiet, smooth, seamless shifts, and easy on the wallet. Anyone who has gotten in the car has been impressed. The TONS of features that are included in the CXL trim really make you feel spoiled.

what color do they have?

actually, i have relation that live down in AZ and he is a car buyer / dealer and buys a few hundred cars a year for dealers or to sell himself. He told my father in law recently that the Lucernes you can get off the auction are very nice and a good value. I know that means the resale is what it is, but the MSRps are outrageous to begin with.

[Paolino]

what color do they have?

Well, it wouldn't have been my choice, but Sandstone Metallic with a Cashmere interior. I will admit, in the sun, the Sandstone color is really kind of cool--in some lights it looks like a sparkly silver, and in others, a sparkly sandy color.

[daves87rs]

my dad just sold his 92 seville, that thing was a tank, too. almost twenty years old, and yeah it wasn't new but GM at least put plenty of solid sheetmetal in those large cars.

i should mention that part of what makes the Lucerne pricing good right now for Saturn or Pontiac owners is that its an extra 2 grand as opposed to 1 grand on the malibu, and of course, not everyone is a saturn or pontiac owner either.

to be honest, even 2 grand in my opinion is not much considering they shut down the brand. how about 5 grand? now that's showing appreciation. 2 grand won't barely pay sales tax on the lucerne.

TRue...

They are nice though.

[vonVeezelsnider]

The 3.5 in the Impala is the mpg champ since the 3.8 was put away.

And to be honest the flex fuel option Intrigues me. There is 5+ E85 pumps in town here where i live and the state corn growers association office is here. The only reason flex fuel intrigues me is because lets say your tank is empty but you just want to put in a couple gallons to get you through til payday. You can save a couple bucks, keep your miles down for a little, and then go back to reg gas as needed.

I heard that even though the FlexFuel engines run on E85 it wreaks havoc on injectors...

As for the 3.5, it is insanely good on gas. Haven't had the time to really benchmark the new 09 but my 07 gets between 23-25 in town at all times and that number will probably edge up a bit once I have all my tune-up stuff coming due @ 60k km due. Even so it still works out to 600km+ per tank in town. Drove it to the coast last year and the average US MPG for the trip from Calgary across the Rockies and Cascades to Vancouver was a hair over 37MPG. Close to 1000km on the equivalent of 1 tank of gas.

[regfootball]

from what i've researched, it seems like the 3.5 in the impala gets way better mileage than in say, the G6.......

[Intrepidation]

The only reason flex fuel intrigues me is because lets say your tank is empty but you just want to put in a couple gallons to get you through til payday. You can save a couple bucks, keep your miles down for a little, and then go back to reg gas as needed.

Buying a cheaper car, or keeping what you have would save you much more money

[daves87rs]

Buying a cheaper car, or keeping what you have would save you much more money

Cobalt?

[regfootball]

Oh, I'm not looking at buying the Lucerne right now. It might be a possibility if I traded the Taurus X in to lease a Lucerne and stacking some incentives might be of a financial incentive for awhile. Its possible later in the year if there are some Lucernes rotting on lots and there are similar incentives then the Lucerne might be a worthwhile replacement for my Aztek, in either new or used form, which is why i am researching them now. I had never considered them before, but to be honest you cannot find a lot of cars with this kind of room anymore. I have a hard time putting down big money on something like a Fusion or a Malibu if a more robust Lucerne could be attainable at similar cost.

That was how i bought my Aztek......lots of stackable incentives on a most certainly not popular or hot selling GM model near the end of its production = saved me a buttload of money vs what all the other kiddies were buying. Ugly yes, but the miles in that thing have been so inexpensive between low price and not having to fix anything so far.

I do like the new Regal most of anything right now but I don't see the Regal Turbo being affordable for me anytime soon. I am not averse to small cars but there is a level of impractical about them i have to make sure I don't overpay. Your cobalt example is a good one. I have a comfort level with a cobalt since i like the car, but most importantly it can be had for a great price.

My Aztek right now still has some market value.......still runs well but there will be a point fast approaching where it will need a whole new round of investment, tires, brakes, possible transmission work, belts, hoses, A/C, battery, struts and shocks........and for me to invest in all of that when it has no net increase to the value of the vehicle......the taurus x will need tires and brakes soon too. So this is why I am contemplating some sort of move on one of the vehicles this year. I just want to know if the Lucerne will be something that will fill the bill if a too good to pass up deal presents itself. As when, a desperate sales guy calls with something too good to pass up......

One advantage Buick has....FOUR year, 50k BTB warranty.........

Edited March 6, 2010 by regfootball

[bring_BUICK_back]

I agree with getting rid of the current Lucerne. But Buick needs a few size vehicle. A Park Avenue and not the Chineese one. Buick needs to have a a full lineup. They got the Regal, Lacrosse, Enclave the unkown compact, They still need a halo vehicle which should be the Riviera a convertible and the full size. And F__K that Chevy and Cadillac should get the majority of development money. Chevy are cheap pieces of crap and their primary focus should be compact and subcompact vehicles that get high mileage but don't cost lots of money. They don't deserve the Camaro or the Corvette. It doesn't fit their profile. Yeah, Yeah I am crazy but it they are going to give each brand a distinct purpose they need to bite the bullet and make these changes. Years ago talk was of moving the vette over to Buick.

[smk4565]

When I sit in a Lucerne I feel like I am in the 1990s. I wouldn't trade my old Aurora for a brand new Lucerne, because the Lucerne interior is worse, and even with the Northstar it isn't any quicker because it is so heavy, and the Aurora handles better. On the outside the Lucerne just looks boring and like an Impala for older people.

I don't see why anyone would buy a new Lucerne, when an 08 DTS goes for $20-25k, and there are other good bargains on slightly used cars. Or if you want new for the warranty, a Hyundai Azera has 5 years bumper to bumper and 10 years on powertrain. Used Lucernes are pretty cheap, but there are just so many other cars out there that are better.

[smk4565]

I agree with getting rid of the current Lucerne. But Buick needs a few size vehicle. A Park Avenue and not the Chineese one. Buick needs to have a a full lineup. They got the Regal, Lacrosse, Enclave the unkown compact, They still need a halo vehicle which should be the Riviera a convertible and the full size. And F__K that Chevy and Cadillac should get the majority of development money. Chevy are cheap pieces of crap and their primary focus should be compact and subcompact vehicles that get high mileage but don't cost lots of money. They don't deserve the Camaro or the Corvette. It doesn't fit their profile. Yeah, Yeah I am crazy but it they are going to give each brand a distinct purpose they need to bite the bullet and make these changes. Years ago talk was of moving the vette over to Buick.

I'll just say, that Chevy pays Buick's rent. Buick had a very full line up, Century, Regal, LeSabre, Park Ave, Riviera in the 90s. Then Century, Regal, Rendezvous, LeSabre, Park Ave, Rainier in the 2000s. And in 19 of the past 20 years Buick posted a sales decline, the only year they had a gain, is when Olds died, and they picked up some extra buyers.

Buick has a full size vehicle, it is the LaCrosse. That car is over 197 inches long and over 4,000 pounds (with awd), that is bigger than a Hyundai Genesis, G8, or Cadillac STS. How much bigger do they need? Plus the Enclave is 200 inches long and near 5,000 pounds, which is a really big vehicle.

To me, Buick-GMC doesn't contribute a lot to GM's cause, what GMC sells, Chevy can sell, and Buick to me is the new Saturn. They pump in new product hoping to revive a dead brand, but it is throwing good money after bad. Meanwhile Chevy and Cadillac had to make due with stop-gap products form 2006-2008 because GM had to spread the wealth 8 ways. The few dollars GM has are best spent on Chevy and Cadillac.

[bring_BUICK_back]

Screw Chevy and Caddy. The only reason Buick has not been notices is because GM has starved them of products, hardly ever advertise and give the new platforms to the othe r two. Buick is part of GM (like it or not) and obviously according to JD and Powers they are at the top in regards to customer satisfaction. Where are the other two. Chevy is the economy division Buick the premium and Caddy the luxury. Chevy should not have both the Corvette and Camaro. They should have nothing more then sub compact, compact and midsize, Buick should have compact, mid and fullsize and Caddy just fullsize. The production money should be split 3 ways get rid of either chevy trucks or gmc truks you don't need both. Buick came along at longer then the either two. I am sick of this biasis. Buick deserves just as much as the others.

[smk4565]

In JD Power customer satisfaction, Lexus is actually #1, Cadillac is #2, and Jaguar is #3. Buick scored well for mass market brands, but Chevy was one slot behind them. Hummer and Saturn actually placed higher than Buick, so I guess they had satisfied customers, just not enough of them.

Chevy is the everything brand, they can't cut back on Chevy. The problem with cutting back on Cadillac is BMW and Mercedes rarely cut back, so Cadillac has to keep up or go down market. If Cadillac goes down market with FWD Chevy based products then Buick isn't needed.

[thedriver]

It amazes me that the 3.5 and 3.9 are still variations on the 2.8 V6 introduced in the X-cars in the late 70's.

[balthazar]

It's a 'variation' in that it's a 60-degree V-6. Different block, heads, bore centers, etc.

It's a variation in the same way the BMW I-6 is a variation of the 1968 M30 I-6, which was an outgrowth of the M10 I4 dating back to 1961.

X-car was introduced for MY 1980.

Edited March 7, 2010 by balthazar

[daves87rs]

It amazes me that the 3.5 and 3.9 are still variations on the 2.8 V6 introduced in the X-cars in the late 70's.

Scary...

[Drew Dowdell]

It amazes me that the 3.5 and 3.9 are still variations on the 2.8 V6 introduced in the X-cars in the late 70's.

uh... not really.

The bores in the 3.5 and 3.9 are offset slightly....

about the only thing they share is the 60 degree cylinder bank