C/D review of Lucerne on stands

[trinacriabob]

I was at B and N working on a paper this AM.

After some coffee, I went over to the magazine area. I saw that Car and Driver reviewed the Lucerne.

Overall, the review was positive. It praised the craftsmanship and the quality of the product. It seemed a little shortchanged on the power of the V8 engine. But, overall, not bad. The first picture one encounters is indeed flattering.

The one comment that bugged me is that the styling piggybacks onto that of the mid 90s Camry. How is that? I think that the Lucerne's styling is closely aligned with that of the large VW Phaeton. In fact, one day I was driving down the freeway and thought that the car 1/4 mile ahead of me might be the new Lucerne. Instead, it was a Phaeton.

I then moved over to Consumer Guide Buying Guide with all the new cars where they give numbers between 1 and 10 to a bunch of categories. They assert that the best Lucerne purchase is a CXL with the 3800 V6. Ha ha ha. I had to laugh because so many C&Gers hold views to the contrary.

[Flybrian]

It looks nothing like a mid-90s Camry. That originated from someone's rectum.

[Croc]

Did they blast the interior? The dash plastic is gross. And it is short on some key features.

[bobo]

Patrick Bedard of C/D didn't exactly slam the Lucerne, but he wasn't that enthusiastic about it either. This stood out to me:

"You're surrounded by a first-rate simulation of quality materials. In fact, the Lucerne interior is a panorama of plastic under soft-touch paints, trimmed in obviously fake wood, but someone worked hard on the details. The shines and sheens look classy, and the stitched seams across the doors, seats, and console are convincingly craftsmanlike. The windshield pillars are smoothly covered in headliner material, eliminating molding lines and dsitracting glare. The large sun visors slide on their arms, allowing exceptionally good coverage to the sides. If you don't look too critically at the details of console bins and hatches, the appointments live up to four-holer expectations."

[pow]

Patrick Bedard of C/D didn't exactly slam the Lucerne, but he wasn't that enthusiastic about it either.  This stood out to me:

"You're surrounded by a first-rate simulation of quality materials.  In fact, the Lucerne interior is a panorama of plastic under soft-touch paints, trimmed in obviously fake wood, but someone worked hard on the details.  The shines and sheens look classy, and the stitched seams across the doors, seats, and console are convincingly craftsmanlike.  The windshield pillars are smoothly covered in headliner material, eliminating molding lines and dsitracting glare.  The large sun visors slide on their arms, allowing exceptionally good coverage to the sides.  If you don't look too critically at the details of console bins and hatches, the appointments live up to four-holer expectations."

This is the same story with the Tahoe, except the simulation is more convincing. Maybe it's because the enormous SUV dash is so far away that it requires deliberate reaching to feel and notice it.

Edited February 6, 2006 by empowah

[BigPontiac]

That was a weird review. Bedard complaining about tilt-wheel, port holes...and my favorite...that the DOHC V-8 had no low end torque! Yet, if he had tested the 3800 engine, he likely would have complained about it being a pushrod...can't win. I also found it odd they only compared it to the Chrysler 300C and the Ford 500 in the article and had no comparisons to the Toyota Avalon. The only Avalon comparison was in the chart at the end of the article.

I used to enjoy his reviews, though lately they've gotten tiresome. He complained a lot about the HHR the previous month...which interestingly they keep calling the "me too cruiser" (and let's not forget the window control placement!) and yet the Honda Ridgeline, a copy of the Ford Explorer SportTrac, got a free pass as being "innovative." Hmmm...

Edited February 6, 2006 by BigPontiac

[Flybrian]

For the lack of low-end torque with the Northstar, one word: no.

[bobo]

His comment on the torque:

"Although a V-8 driving the front wheels is out of step with today's trend back to rear drive, the Lucerne makes it seem as right and righteous as God's plan. What torque steer? More to the point, what torque? For the record, the 4.6-liter Northstar is a twister, not a torquer, delivering 275 horsepower at 5600 rpm, with another 1000 rpm available before the redline, but a torque output of only 290 pound-feet at 4400 rpm. Compared with, say, the 390 pound-feet at 4000 rpm of Chrysler's Hemi, the Lucerne's V-8 is only mildly energetic."

[BigPontiac]

THE VERDICT

Highs: Uncluttered dash with big knobs, hushed interior, La-Z-Boy comfort in the front buckets.

Lows: Ancient five-position tilt-column, legacy four-speed automatic, heritage Camry body shape.

The Verdict: Watch the Gray Panthers pounce on this one.

Other interesting quotes:

"Apart from the reinterpreted portholes, the wedgy shape seems familiar and tired, a repeat of a 90's Camry; only the big-eye look in front saves it from being a complete cliché."

"You'll have to live with GM's ancient tilt column that gives only five positions over a wide angle range; choose between not quite right or hopeless."

"From a standing start, you get an initial jump off the torque converter up to 7 or so mph, followed by a sag as you wait for the twister V-8 to take over, which it does at about 28 mph; 60 mph comes up at just a tick under seven seconds (6.9), followed by the quarter-mile mark in 15.3 at 94 mph."

[trinacriabob]

Bobo,

It sounds like you subscribe.

Thanks for the accuracy of the wording. It does sound kind of apologetic, doesn't it?

[balthazar]

>>"Lows: Ancient five-position tilt-column"<<

The complaints get more and more nitpicky and in turn: laughable each year, what with the majority of the running complaints addressed and buried.

This may be the biggest indicator of Just How Far We've Come of any of them. Too bad the 5th grade writers can't leave the "ancient" stereotypes alone.

[caddycruiser]

At least someone else "in the know" is finally commenting about the odd styling. Overall, in CXL or CXS guise and with the chrome wheels and a proper color, it does actually have quite a luxurious presence...but it's still largely just an ovoid blob.

Actually, if the center section stayed, and the front end was heavily revamped to be crisper and more chiseled like that of the Velite, and maybe touch up the rear details, it really would be gergeous. Oh, and make the black center stack pieces the same color as the rest of the dash...it sticks out.

As is, not bad at all, but not stimulating at all either, except for looking very nice in fully loaded garb. Moreso, I still don't get why so few people comment on the strangely undetailed front, in particular.

Terrific quality, refinement, and equipment, but still ho-hum in the looks...not bold like it really could stand to be, and really get people to notice.

[Robert Hall]

>>"Lows: Ancient five-position tilt-column"<<

The tilt column thing seemed absurdly nit-picky to me.. I think my Jeep only has 5 positions...I didn't realize any car had more than that.

I don't see any Camry, but I see a lot of Passat in the C-pillars and tail. The front would look better without a different headlight treatment, IMHO.... something more horizontal would look better...(and wider Buick taillights).

Edited February 6, 2006 by moltar

[Flybrian]

Yes, the column tilt adjustment thing is preposterous. That's like saying the teather to the fuel cap doesn't match the cap itself.

[pow]

>>"Lows: Ancient five-position tilt-column"<<

The complaints get more and more nitpicky and in turn: laughable each year, what with the majority of the running complaints addressed and buried.

No, I noticed that flaw the moment I sat in one... it's a legitimate complaint. The column doesn't adjust for reach, and I found the driving position slightly unnatural. Most manufacturers have moved on to infinitely adjustable columns that lock in place as opposed to a floppy lever.

[trinacriabob]

Yes, the column tilt adjustment thing is preposterous. That's like saying the teather to the fuel cap doesn't match the cap itself.

I have more of an issue that it doesn't have a telescopic feature as standard. But, with the given positions of the steering wheel, most normally sized people ought to find one that works.

I am not a big fan of the dash. It's a scaled up LaCrosse/Allure dash, much the same way that the Alero had a junior version of the Intrigue dash, if you recall. I think that there are enough economies of scale that they didn't have to replicate the LaCrosse/Allure dash.

[bobo]

I agree that the nitpicky level of complaints is a testament to how far GM has gone. But the bar is continuously being raised. Yesterday in the San Francisco Chronicle, there was a review that was decidedly lukewarm about the Lucerne and its Northstar engine, even stating that the Hyundai Azera was a superior vehicle with a better interior and better performance.

[Cananopie]

The Verdict:  Watch the Gray Panthers pounce on this one.

Am I the only one who doesn't get the "gray Panther" reference? What does that even mean?

[Robert Hall]

Am I the only one who doesn't get the "gray Panther" reference? What does that even mean?

Senior citizens. The Gray Panthers were/are a senior citizen activist group..

Edited February 6, 2006 by moltar

[bowtie_dude]

Well, the very first Lucerne I saw on the street was sporting 4 portholes on the fenders and large chrome wheels.

So much for Car and Driver's opinion. What I think many here and in other places need to realize is that what Car and Driver likes is not necessarily what sales the best. Case in point, the Accord.

[ponchoman49]

This is after all the magazine that picks the xBox as first place against the Element, HHR and PT Cruiser. And they also think the Malibu Maxx looks odd but give the xBox kudos for styling. Whatever! How they think the Lucerne looks like a 90's Camry is beyond me. I'll bet when they review the putrid 07 Camry they won't even mention the fact that is looks just like a Mazda in front and that the overall shape is bloated and ugly. When reviewing the Lucerne they just had to come up with some stupid older 90's car to compare it's styling to. These yuppie retards should keep there opinions about styling out of the equation because few cars made today really have great styling. It's either the tired jelly bean look or the ugly box or the haunchy midget window look of the 300C etc. Thankfully GM has the best styled vehicles IMO like the Solstice/Sky, Vette, 900's, Lucerne, Grand Prix, and Ford with there Mustang and Fusion.

[Cananopie]

I think Car and Driver and Motor Trend need to start supporting their opinions and backing up why they will go crazy over one thing and not the other. I can understand being pro-better-gas-mileage, even an extra gear or two, or whatever. Those are reasonable reasons to choose one over the other, but the magazines are getting 'set in their way' now which is exactly what they didn't like about Buick in the first place.

[enzl]

I will confess I haven't read the article...but it sounds like a good review overall....

...plus, isn't the target market for this machine the old LeSabre/PA crowd? There's plenty of people for whom this machine makes perfect sense...

Listen, if the quality is there, and a couple of 2nd yr. upgrades like a tilt/telescope steering wheel and the 6 sp. auto are on the way, that's not too bad.

This car isn't aimed at BMW owners...unfortunately, BMW is C&D's preference, which really isn't where this car (or Buick's line-up) is going anyway...

[razoredge]

Wow ! I see this guy gave it his best enquirerian Shakespear try. atta BOY !

Anyone know weight of Lucerne ? I bet their getting heavy

Dman that Northstar must just drop dead in its tracks just like a heart attack victom, ey ?

Anyhow, Im taking my daughter to work yesterday and POP, there it is, the first Lucerne at our small dealership, not really small but they also sell Pontiac, Chevy, Chevy truck and GMC. Anyhow........ DAMN ! thats the best looking Buick since the 2 dr H body or the 95 Riviera if you prefer. CXL 38 in Red. It was even more interesting because then I drive right past a Bonne GXP in the parking lot, they do look much better cleaned up than "ribed". Anyhow dropped off my daughter and went back to look at this Lucerne. In real life its headlights do not look HUGE, you loose the 3D in a photo somewhat. The overall profile is aggressive and I just love the greenhouse. The baseball cap Buick roof is finally GONE !

looking through window at interior

Im not a fan of course grainded pleather or leather

it was a column shift, so no console

to much glare to see anything well

Still thinking back to the LSS or Auroras I dont think Im finding anything more appealing about this "new" way of doing interiors.

Ill go do a test drive sometime soon. Ill have to go to the city to get a test of both the 38 and N*.

Anyhow that new GM lineup looked good sitting there but I thought I could set them up better to get the heads turnin. They had a blue G6, yellow Cobalt coupe, that soft blue Lacrosse, two nice Maxx'z, this red Lucerne and more. But there was no method of the parking or display and they have the truck up front toward road and cars behind ....is it me ???

Still that Lucerne is a nicely carved car, I must drive and get all touchy with the wittle pwasic pieces.

Edited February 7, 2006 by razoredge

[Cory Wolfe]

Well... I still find the Lucerne's exterior to be it's biggest flaw. While I wouldn't call it Camry-like, it's definitely not unique in any way and definitely not very Buick. A bad thing, FYI, in case you forgot what a Buick is supposed to be.

[pow]

Well... I still find the Lucerne's exterior to be it's biggest flaw. While I wouldn't call it Camry-like, it's definitely not unique in any way and definitely not very Buick. A bad thing, FYI, in case you forgot what a Buick is supposed to be.

I think it's the proportions... it looks fine really close-up, but from a few feet away, it looks like an elongated bell resting on four casters. The 18" wheels seem mandatory.

[RJB]

Car and Driver should rename themselves Asian Driver and Motor Trend should call themselves Asian Trend. Crappy magazines with typical bias towards asian vehicles.

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

That was a weird review. Bedard complaining about tilt-wheel, port holes...and my favorite...that the DOHC V-8 had no low end torque! Yet, if he had tested the 3800 engine, he likely would have complained about it being a pushrod...can't win.

Not in a domestic... Funny there was never any complaint of no low end torque in the cadillac applications of this engine, or in any imports (Of course not)

I also found it odd they only compared it to the Chrysler 300C and the Ford 500 in the article and had no comparisons to the Toyota Avalon. The only Avalon comparison was in the chart at the end of the article.

They're limiting the buying audience... Naturally, the Lucerne just doesn't compare with the Avalon and shouldn't even be cross shopped. Either that or they just don't want to admit that it's better.

Oh... and now we're "simulating" a nice interior but it's still not there....

No worries, the media won't have to 'hold on to' their ridiculous biases too much longer. They'll have succeeded in the fight by 2006 according to Fortune.

"Although a V-8 driving the front wheels is out of step with today's trend back to rear drive, the Lucerne makes it seem as right and righteous as God's plan.

Sarcastic play on the older set that these people are 'sure' will buy this car.

What torque steer? More to the point, what torque?

Nice way to lead us up to a compliment, then shock us with beligerance.

For the record, the 4.6-liter Northstar is a twister, not a torquer, delivering 275 horsepower at 5600 rpm, with another 1000 rpm available before the redline, but a torque output of only 290 pound-feet at 4400 rpm. Compared with, say, the 390 pound-feet at 4000 rpm of Chrysler's Hemi, the Lucerne's V-8 is only mildly energetic."

LOL... Compared to a sedan that is only 10 horsepower shy of a f*ckin' Corvette V8's output, the Lucerne is only "mildly" energetic....

That's probably plenty for most people.

THE VERDICT

Highs: Uncluttered dash with big knobs, hushed interior, La-Z-Boy comfort in the front buckets.

Obviously a sarcastic nod.

Lows: Ancient five-position tilt-column, legacy four-speed automatic, heritage Camry body shape.

I can see the Camry shape... But it's not as obvious as the asian's ripping off every one elses themes... Of course, C&D "can't see that"

The Verdict: Watch the Gray Panthers pounce on this one.

Very funny.

"Apart from the reinterpreted portholes, the wedgy shape seems familiar and tired, a repeat of a 90's Camry; only the big-eye look in front saves it from being a complete cliché."

Funny... No one else has remotely mentioned it. It's "cliche" you know, like ALL Japan Inc. luxury cars.

The tilt column thing seemed absurdly nit-picky to me.. I think my Jeep only has 5 positions...I didn't realize any car had more than that.

That's how we do it in import land.... Everytime it gets more nitpicky as to "why my import is better"

Besides, they needed SOMETHING to try and keep Buick from getting traction in the market and GM from not slipping further under.

I agree that the nitpicky level of complaints is a testament to how far GM has gone. But the bar is continuously being raised.

Purposely by the reviewers...

Yesterday in the San Francisco Chronicle, there was a review that was decidedly lukewarm about the Lucerne and its Northstar engine, even stating that the Hyundai Azera was a superior vehicle with a better interior and better performance.

Of course!! It's San Francisco... They wouldn't be caught DEAD in a Buick?!?!? They'd rather spend every weekend at the dealership with a Hyundai that falls apart

(Seriously, my GF's family has a Kia and it's at the shop EVERY friggin' week)

BTW, isn't Buick supposed to be picking up those same people who bought 90's camry's? Seriously. They're not Pontiac.

[Centurion]

I approached the article with an open mind. It became rapidly clear, however, that this magazine is pandering to the audience it created. It is evident to me that it really did not matter to the writer how wonderful the Lucerne might be. The Lucerne may not be a perfect car, but I strongly suspect that it would receive the lukewarm treatment even if it were the best car in the world.

Part of what concerned me is the cynical tone of the article. He says, for example, that the interior materials "simulate" high quality, but he will not concede that, perhaps, the materials are quality materials.

And he's got to take a dig at Buick's clientele; no opportunity is missed to prop up the image that the media has worked so hard to create.

The state of automotive journalism in the U.S. is very sorry.

Edited February 7, 2006 by Centurion

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

I approached the article with an open mind.  It became rapidly clear, however, that this magazine is pandering to the audience it created.  It is evident to me that it really did not matter to the writer how wonderful the Lucerne might be.  The Lucerne may not be a perfect car, but I strongly suspect that it would receive the lukewarm treatment even if it were the best car in the world.

Gospel.

Part of what concerned me is the cynical tone of the article.  He says, for example, that the interior materials "simulate" high quality, but he will not concede that, perhaps, the materials are quality materials.

Exactly the thing that razoredge and I addressed in another thread... The TONE is negative and it's that way intentionally.

And he's got to take a dig at Buick's clientele; no opportunity is missed to prop up the image that the media has worked so hard to create.

Exactly!

[sciguy_0504]

The Verdict: Watch the Gray Panthers pounce on this one.

Hilarious!

[Cory Wolfe]

Oh... and now we're "simulating" a nice interior but it's still not there....

Have you even sat in a Lucerne?

They're limiting the buying audience... Naturally, the Lucerne just doesn't compare with the Avalon and shouldn't even be cross shopped. Either that or they just don't want to admit that it's better

I will agree with you here... the Lucerne is atleast equal to the Avalon. I mean... they're both ugly and you'd have to pay me to own either of them. The Lucerne is the defintion of bland luxury while the Avalon... it just doesn't have any sense of style at all.

Of course!! It's San Francisco... They wouldn't be caught DEAD in a Buick?!?!? They'd rather spend every weekend at the dealership with a Hyundai that falls apart

(Seriously, my GF's family has a Kia and it's at the shop EVERY friggin' week)

Well... I would rather have an Azera than a Lucerne. And it's not because the Lucerne is a Buick or a domestic...

Part of what concerned me is the cynical tone of the article.  He says, for example, that the interior materials "simulate" high quality, but he will not concede that, perhaps, the materials are quality materials.

If you've sat in one, you wouldn't say that. High quality materials... unless hard plastic equals high quality... I think not. Edited February 7, 2006 by blackviper8891

[Cananopie]

If you've sat in one, you wouldn't say that. High quality materials... unless hard plastic equals high quality... I think not.

I've sat in a Lucerne and the materials are fairly high quality. $60k plus "high quality" materials? No. But thats because the car is friggen $25k starting. Did you forget that? The materials are the best you're going to get in that price range.

[razoredge]

Always glad to see a Centurian post and this one is the word.

[razoredge]

I really like the looks of this car and need to go see it again. Someday I want a photo of the Lucerne and Aurora face to face.

This car makes the Accord "look like ass"

Wonder what we can trade the LSS for ? yarite ! Wouldnt pay the sales tax.

I didnt like the price, it was 32,+++ without sunroof, I think the LSS sold for 28,000 back in 97 and has sunroof, suspension and L67......now if only Luzerne had the 260/280 L32 mid option..........guys like this momo that writes for C&D would have yet another item to cry about ! In fact I think it is totally wrong that this engine in its last years is not an option for Buick, its not like they havent interfaced an L67 into a G body before, its seems like a no brainer to me and far better to make the transition into the 3.6HF. At 260/280 it would be more competitive with the latest Avalon motor too. But it wouldnt have any low down grunt! LOL

[trinacriabob]

I mean... they're both ugly and you'd have to pay me to own either of them. The Lucerne is the defintion of bland luxury while the Avalon... it just doesn't have any sense of style at all.

Thank you, Vipes. While the Lucerne won't cause orgasms, it won't make you barf like the Avalon either. The first Avalon was nice...somewhat Intrigue-like in its silhouette (no Olds pun intended). The last 2 renditions have been nothing short of hideous. In fact, there are a lot of ugly cars from Japan on the market at this time...the Avalon, the 350 Z and on and on.

[Cory Wolfe]

Thank you, Vipes.  While the Lucerne won't cause orgasms, it won't make you barf like the Avalon either.  The first Avalon was nice...somewhat Intrigue-like in its silhouette (no Olds pun intended).  The last 2 renditions have been nothing short of hideous.  In fact, there are a lot of ugly cars from Japan on the market at this time...the Avalon, the 350 Z and on and on.

Yes, I suppose, but as Empowah mentioned, the proportions are all wrong. Combine it with the bland design that's trying to be... something other than a Buick and the result isn't spectacular. But still better than the Avalon, regardless.

As for Japanese cars... Well, I'll give you the Avalon, practically every other Toyota/Lexus, and few Hondas... but most of the rest are quite nice, 350Z included. Seeing that car in person, especially the mildly updated 06, will change opinions. While I always liked it, I never thought it was amazing... Now I'm in love with it. The exhaust sound was pretty awesome, too...

[Flybrian]

The first Avalon only looked nice because it was pretty staid. The second-gen was really hillarious and the third-gen makes me laugh, too.

I'll be disappointed when Toyota makes a good-looking Avalon. It'll be like watching The Late Show, the Late Late Show, then that crap with Carson Daly...not funny anymore.

[razoredge]

Styling is all subject to taste and its stupid to jump in on a thread about a car you dont like and state your styling views as fact.

To me the Lucerne is a beautiful car

I have always liked the 350 Z as well

The Lacrosse looks far better than Avalon, Camry or Accord, Accord better of the three and has better details as well...still G6 is far more handsome.

Mazdas got something going on but its not 100%, the cars change from cool to typical as you walk around the corners. Typical Nissans are freaky lookin things, goes to show what happens when you run out of American and European icons to imitate.

I was not aware anyone knew what a "Buick looks like".......they sure as heck dont need to look like they did during the last 15 years....anymore

DAMN.........I like that Lucerne !

[Cananopie]

I almost started a new poll for this just because if a "reputable" magazine printed it then there must be some basis to it, but I decided after a minute that people would probably more upset at the waste of a brand new topic that asked a ridiculous question. But since Car and Driver decided that research wasn't necessary for their opinions I decided to do the research for them.

I just went to Edmunds and took 4 pictures of 90s Camrys since Car and Driver believe the new Lucerne is virtually an exact replica of one of them. I took a 1990 Camry, a 93 Camry, a 96 Camry, and a 99 Camry, they are posted below the Lucerne picture. I'd like to hear from ANYONE at all that would like to defend the Car and Driver statement, which is this exactly:

"Apart from the reinterpreted portholes, the wedgy shape seems familiar and tired, a repeat of the '90s Camry; only the big-eye look in front saves it from being a complete cliche."

Anybody who is willing to back this statement up I'd love to hear it. I tried to get mostly side and rear end pictures since apparently the headlights are the only thing they could differentiate between shape. I'll even but what model and year each picture is so you don't get it confused with the Lucerne.

2006 Buick Lucerne ***THIS IS THE LUCERNE, IT IS NOT A CAMRY DESPITE SIMILAR APPEARANCE. I KNOW IT IS HARD TO TELL BECAUSE THE HEADLAMPS ARENT PICTURED HERE***

1990 Toyota Camry

1993 Toyota Camry

1996 Toyota Camry

1999 Toyota Camry

YOU be the judge: Is Car and Driver right or are they really perhaps maybe a bit too judgemental?

Edited February 8, 2006 by Cananopie

[Cory Wolfe]

Styling is all subject to taste and its stupid to jump in on a thread about a car you dont like and state your styling views as fact.

Uh... since when? I'm not saying anything is fact, first of all. It is only my opinion and it is not stupid to post about it. Everyone has that right and just because I'm not a fan of the car, suddenly it's stupid to post? Hah... Speaking of stupid, appearantly, it must be stupid to post about anything else either. I mean... everything from interior quality to transmissions seem to be objective, atleast going by some of your posts. As well as a few others. So... don't do something so stupid, alright? You know... since you're telling me that.

To me the Lucerne is a beautiful car

I have always liked the 350 Z as well

The Lacrosse looks far better than Avalon, Camry or Accord, Accord better of the three and has better details as well...still G6 is far more handsome. That's where I said "most Toyotas/Lexus' and some Hondas". Otherwise, the LaCrosse is proof that GM fans will like something... as long as it's GM.

Mazdas got something going on but its not 100%, the cars change from cool to typical as you walk around the corners. Uh... G6? Are you blind? Typical Nissans are freaky lookin things, goes to show what happens when you run out of American and European icons to imitate. Freaky? Well, not to most people, but atleast they're not bland and have their own style going on. Unlike some brands...

I was not aware anyone knew what a "Buick looks like".......they sure as heck dont need to look like they did during the last 15 years....anymore And I never said they needed to... So... Still, they don't need to look like VWs, Fords, Lexus', etc, like the Lucerne and LaCrosse do. I know... why doesn't Buick develop their own unique style where they won't look like anything else but genuine Buicks?!?!? OMG?!?!?!?

DAMN.........I like that Lucerne ! And damn... I think it's a poor excuse for a Buick!

[Flybrian]

You two need to drop it. All I'm reading is unsubstantiated conjecture from both sides.

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

Have you even sat in a Lucerne?

Yes. The interior isn't thaat stylish. But it isn't shoddy or 'a simulation' either.

I went to Target today and read this article... Overall, it wasn't a bad piece actually. Had a lot of good things to say..

RE: A few of the comments:

"The simulated interior" I think this might've ACTUALLY been a reference to Buick's of yore since the author keeps alluding to "4 holers"

"The 90's Camry cliche profile" Oh, doe the author mean the same profile that is shared by both the Accord and Altima, two of Japan Inc.'s finest. (Which are identical rip offs of each other anyway) Or the same 'general' shape shared by ALL cars these days?

"The torque-less N*"

I love how the author says the car doesn't have torque steer because it's torque-less, then on the very same page in a sidebar one of the counterpoints COMPLAINS about the torque steer that the car has... NICE! Proves how SUBJECTIVE the facts are these days... Did the counterpoint even drive the car? Or vice versa?

Overall though I thin k the point of the article was right... The Lucerne, while nice, will not be what saves Buick. It'll help, but not save.

But, that said, I did like the fact that at the end of the article they mentioned the unusual amount of attention the Lucerne was getting... GM, the Lucerne HAS gotten the attention of the market, Much like an emcee or opening act does with an audience. NOW we need a follow up star or performance to make people buy into the thought and save the division.. Enclave anyone?!?!?!

I'll be disappointed when Toyota makes a good-looking Avalon. It'll be like watching The Late Show, the Late Late Show, then that crap with Carson Daly...not funny anymore.

LMAO!!! Too bad it's selling so well though (It's a Toyota--go figure)

P.S. I alsso think Detroit is gaining ground in the war... After reading the back fires this month about the Fusion comparison, it was refreshing to see readers taking C&D to the cleaners for their bias (Just like in the Solstice/MX-5 letter too)

Maybe the average reaader IS in fact smarter than I think they are AND in fact caan see through the bias... Maybe Detroit has hope afterall if they continue to execute products as well as the most recent ones.... NAH.... I'll keep my morbid, pessimistic outlook for now.

[trinacriabob]

Thanks for the "a picture is worth a thousand words" lesson, Cananopie.

It goes to show that Lucerne is modern, a stablemate of the Phaeton...only slightly better looking...and made in the good old U S of A

[razoredge]

You two need to drop it. All I'm reading is unsubstantiated conjecture from both sides.

What did I say ? .......... ?

[sciguy_0504]

I finally sat in a Lucerne and either my expectations were high or the interior materials were just that bad. It does a good job of simulating good materials but once you touch the dash you are turned off. I scraped my knee on the lower part of the dash...through jeans! I was able to actually lift the top of the dash away from the lower part. The Lacrosse, on the other hand, was definately on target inside. It just needs a little work outside.

[Cory Wolfe]

You two need to drop it. All I'm reading is unsubstantiated conjecture from both sides.

Oh Fly... chill. Other than a few things showing my annoyance of razor, what I said is substantiated, especially about how Buick needs some originality and anything of my opinion, unless, I don't have to right to my own opinion?

What did I say ? .......... ?

Obviously something, silly.

I finally sat in a Lucerne and either my expectations were high or the interior materials were just that bad.  It does a good job of simulating good materials but once you touch the dash you are turned off.  I scraped my knee on the lower part of the dash...through jeans!  I was able to actually lift the top of the dash away from the lower part.  The Lacrosse, on the other hand, was definately on target inside.  It just needs a little work outside.

Ta-da! Perhaps those who don't see a problem with the interior... sat in the wrong car since the Lucerne doesn't stand out much. When I sat in it... same impression as Sciguy and all the others.

[turbo200]

But thats because the car is friggen $25k starting. Did you forget that? The materials are the best you're going to get in that price range.

Unfortunately for Buick, that's not a fact. Better materials are available in the Fusion, for about 5k less. It's the hard dash materials, as well as the black plastic surrounding the radio and HVAC controls, and the uninspiring design of the center console of the Lucerne that really disappoint me most. If you want to sell a luxury sedan, your car better say luxury on the inside, and Lucerne just does not. Maybe 5 years ago, but the competition has moved on.

I haven't read the article yet, so I can't comment on that.

Cananopie, those pictures you posted are good. I frankly don't know what they're trying to say, but without knowing the full context and tone I can't attack it with an open mind. I will say it the Lucerne does have a wedgy shape and a shapeless, bulbous front end like the Camry. I think the problem you guys are having is with the comparison to the pain-jane Camry....there's just no comparison, the Buick is obviously a much more stylish vehicle.

i agree with empowah about the proportions being completely wrong in person. In person, this and the blob of a front end leave me cold. Though the details, like the grille design and headlights are cool.

[Cananopie]

Unfortunately for Buick, that's not a fact. Better materials are available in the Fusion, for about 5k less. It's the hard dash materials, as well as the black plastic surrounding the radio and HVAC controls, and the uninspiring design of the center console of the Lucerne that really disappoint me most. If you want to sell a luxury sedan, your car better say luxury on the inside, and Lucerne just does not. Maybe 5 years ago, but the competition has moved on.

I haven't read the article yet, so I can't comment on that.

Cananopie, those pictures you posted are good. I frankly don't know what they're trying to say, but without knowing the full context and tone I can't attack it with an open mind. I will say it the Lucerne does have a wedgy shape and a shapeless, bulbous front end like the Camry. I think the problem you guys are having is with the comparison to the pain-jane Camry....there's just no comparison, the Buick is obviously a much more stylish vehicle.

i agree with empowah about the proportions being completely wrong in person. In person, this and the blob of a front end leave me cold. Though the details, like the grille design and headlights are cool.

By "better materials" in the Fusion you obviously didn't mean that their plastic is any "softer" than the Lucerne's plastic because it's either equal or harder in feel. The Lucerne isn't "hard" plastic in the sense that it is a typical hard plastic, it is a softer plastic that bends and squishes to a degree throughout the whole vehicle. My 97 Skylark had hard plastic and it was very obvious, the Lucerne's plastic is higher quality material. The Fusion's plastics do not compare. You also didn't mean the black plastic surrounding the Fusion's HVAC is any higher in quality than the black plastic surrounding the Lucerne's I hope because they are both surrounded with black plastic. Now if you honestly find the design of the center console of the Fusion more inspiring you might not be a proper interior aficionado. There are very obvious reasons why the interior of the Lucerne far outclass the Fusion's and I think it pretty rude and ridiculous to keep classing it with vehicles like 5 or 10 years ago.

Aside from the fact that you could probably fit a pen inside the gaps in the Fusion and they're practically invisible in the Lucerne, their center console is as dull as it gets with undoubtably lesser refinement on every last thing in there. The Fusion shifter is a joke while the Lucerne's is very classy looking. You might not find it your style since a lot of interior is subjective but it is definitely not surpassed by the Fusion's interior as you are claiming. But even if you want to defy all that EVEN Car and Driver, The USA Today, and almost every other reviewer on the vehicle all admit the interior is above par in quality. Car and Driver even had to break down to admit it and obviously since they're comparing the Lucerne to a 90s Camry (see page 2 of this thread if you forgot what they were comparing it to) you know they wouldn't have given credit for the interior if it wasn't due.

This is nothing to you personally but people need to seriously stop throwing Buick to five years ago, for your instance in particular the pictures alone just prove the Lucerne outclasses the Fusion with a glance. It is a current vehicle and it is a competitive vehicle and everybody needs to accept that. I don't like Toyota vehicles but I accept that they are a competitor even though their quality isn't as good as Buick's anymore. The Avalon isn't something I'm going to dismiss as a poor vehicle and neither should the Lucerne to those of you who typically find Asian cars more attractive.

Styling, especially interiors, are very much a subjective issue. To keep downing the Lucerne as throwback vehicle to where they were 5 years ago is ridiculous. I guess luxury isn't quieter than Lexuses, I guess luxury isn't some of the tightest gaps in the industry, I guess luxury isn't a smooth finish that is obviously apparent in the picture above where the Fusion is not. I'm not saying the Fusion is a bad vehicle, because it's not... but it is not near in quality to the Lucerne and thats obvious. It's even more obvious in the seating, power, reliability, and options that the Fusion don't offer. Get realistic with your comparisons. The Fusion holds nothing to the Lucerne. You want to say the Avalon's a better vehicle? That's a judgement call and I won't find it something worth arguing against because they're both on the same level. But don't get foolish and compare it with something so ridiculous. If the Lucerne isn't your type, that's fine, but don't just trash it with unfounded claims comparing it to a vehicle thats at its best $5k less than the Lucerne's worst.

Edited February 9, 2006 by Cananopie

[sciguy_0504]

The Lucerne plastic is pretty much your typical "hard" plastic, unless the one I sat in had a major defect.

Edit: spelling.

Edited February 10, 2006 by sciguy_0504