Edmunds: 2006 Buick Lucerne Full Test

[Cananopie]

Real professional and objective Edmunds. Exactly how I like my articles.

[RBB]

A lot of GM V8 cars have a big disparity between EPA figures and observed consumption. C/D observed 14 MPG for a 18/27 Grand Prix GXP.

I know - just responding to these:

Also, I have to seriously wonder about the sub-14mpg average. I net 18-20 in my 4.0l Aurora and did similarly in a rental 2005 DeVille and a friend's 1998 Cadillac SLS with the same 4.6l Northstar over the course of about two weeks apiece. These were 50/50 city/hwy with liberal a/c usage and sometimes heavy throttle. Based on my experiences, I call into question the credibility and accuracy of such an average.

The fuel economy is BS. Maybe they liked the remote start so much they let it sit there and run to warm up for their lazy asses.

There is no way it got less than 14MPG. I get 14MPG in my GTO and it has a gas-loving performance camshaft in it, not to mention being driven rather aggressively and weighing quite a bit.

The V8 Lucerne is rated at 17/25mpg.  14mpg-17mpg range for in any mag tests are probable.  Edmunds data could simply be on the lower end. 

The Azera is rated at 19/28 and edmunds got 17.7mpg.

They've been raving about it non-stop.  If they deliberately tamper w/objective data it would have gotten over 19mpg

I averaged 14-16mpg over a five-day vacation in Maui with a (old body style) Deville with the same 275hp V8 and 4-speed auto as the Lucerne.

Sounds pretty accurate to me.

(Yes, I'm a geek.....I top off my rental cars just to see what I average in MPG while I have them.....)

I agree that the article has its flaws, and IMO does come off as baised. But, despite that, there are legitimate points. Fuel economy seems to be one of them.

-RBB

[nferr]

Sorry....I don't make calls like this very often at all.....but I don't believe your post and don't believe you spent ANY time in an Avalon.

If you did, sounds like you are just bashing for the sake of bashing....

Most open-minded enthusiasts on here would disagree with your assessments.  AND, I've found the Avalon's V6 nothing more than whisper quiet even at full-throttle compared to ANY GM V6 (even their HF's.)

I agree. A person might not like the Avalon but a review like that just shouts "I never really drove this car but I'm bashing it anyway".

The Avalon is not my style of car but I have been in one and it's a quality piece.

[Intrepidation]

You guys are flaming edmunds for the review, saying they are unfair and idiots and so on. Which, while I think their family sedan test was badly done, I think they are still good. They criticize the Lucerne on things that are deserving of it and compliment it on things that deserve such. Case in point: the handling.

They say that the CXL handles lamely, like Buicks of yore, but they also say that the CXS with Magetic Ride Control handles a lot better.

Order the top-of-food-chain Lucerne CXS and you get the V8 standard as well as Cadillac's Magnetic Ride Control suspension, and larger 18-inch wheels and Bridgestone tires. This is the setup we praised in our first drive of the Lucerne.

This midlevel CXL model, which goes without the magnetic suspension and 18-inch rubber, isn't nearly as well sorted. For starters, its 17-inch Continental tires struggle under the mass of the oversized sedan. They howl in protest every time you turn the wheel and provide little grip. The suspension, which features load-leveling air shocks in the rear, is also tuned too softly and relies too heavily on the electronic stability control to get the car around corners. StabiliTrak is a good system, but can only do so much. Our best run through our slalom test was just 59 mph, which is 3 mph slower than the Azera tested on the same day.

They complain about the loose headliner and the power steering failure...things that should not be an issue in a brand new car, especially a 35k one.

They complimented the dash design, and didn't b1tch about the tach so much as simply point it out. Not having a tilt/teloscoping steering wheel or a Nav system in this segment is rediculous as well. The Ford Friggin' Focus has a tilt/telescoping steering wheel and you can get Nav systems on Civics. No excuses for a lack of those features.

Besides, edmunds didn't exactly praise the new Yaris, so they don't just "bash domestics" as many of you seem to believe.

Edited April 10, 2006 by Dodgefan

[BuickEight]

I agree. A person might not like the Avalon but a review like that just shouts "I never really drove this car but I'm bashing it anyway".

The Avalon is not my style of car but I have been in one and it's a quality piece.

Are you calling me a liar?

[loki]

if everyone would put they're efforts toward a little change, say some well diserved feedback on their website like here hopefully something could happen to these reviews, say at least not missing these obvious facts we're saying they are doing.

if you do write feed back to them, find a place to post it in the forums, or would that not be cool?

[Cananopie]

You guys are flaming edmunds for the review, saying they are unfair and idiots and so on. Which, while I think their family sedan test was badly done, I think they are still good. They criticize the Lucerne on things that are deserving of it and compliment it on things that deserve such.

I have thought about this exact thing many times before. I have thought, "Am I just not liking this review because I'm a Buick fan or because they are being completely unfair about this?" I've learned to do this with every article because it's important to know what I'm reacting to.

So when I started being upset at this article I thought about why- because I'm a die-hard Buick fan or because this article is really unfair? I determined that the article really had an unfair aspect because:

a test drive entails a judgement-free or "fair" look at a vehicle even if the journalist isn't a fan of the company. This is why people test drive vehicles and publish them- if people wanted a magazine or website that wrote comedy about cars they'd go there. People come to Edmunds for a fair objective review. So it is fair to expect a fair and objective reviewer behind the wheel.

NOW- it is important to note that a person can still have a pre-disposed feeling on a company and not be a fan of it. Most people do not get in to car testing to review full sized sedans. But just like a teacher still has to grade a child on their work FAIRLY even if the teacher doesn't like the child because of his attitude/whatever a journalist should review a company they don't like but still treat it fairly. A fair objective review entails a look at the positives and a look at the negatives and a final assessment by the journalist where their opinion comes more heavily in to play and even bring in WHY you don't like the company and say why this vehicle doesn't change their prejudice.

Now, with this in mind let's look at the title:

Buick essentially rebodies the Cadillac DTS

Okay. Well this might be acceptible if it really is, let's read on.

But the 2006 Buick Lucerne CXL V8 is the only car we've ever driven that has caused us physical pain.

Not only is the title something negative but so is their first sentence about the car is negative... I'm still waiting for the fair and objective part. Oh- plus- They tell you the Lucerne gave them physical pain but they do not tell you HOW until you glance over how Buick is one of the few vehicles that offer both heated and cooled seats and making it a point to almost forget about the cooled part before they compare sitting in the heated seats to an "open flame" while someone asked to "call the burn unit" and finish the section off explaining this is just the tip of the iceburg on whats awful about the car.

Objective so far? Hardly. We are still waiting on the first POSITIVE thing to be said about the car while going on far too long about the temperature of the heated seats.

The next sections title?

Poor performance

Well that looks objective to me... oh yea... also that should be the #1 thing you're looking for in a full sized family sedan. Only we don't get in to the awful performance until our title has its answer-

A completely rebodied Cadillac DTS with a few grand shaved off. They go as far to say it's basically from a late 90s Deville. Yea- it rides on the same platform but this is a moot point when any other company shares platforms and they don't look anymore different than the DTS and the Lucerne. Dodge Charger gets an almost identical look to the 300C and they put "Editors Most Wanted" on that... as opposed to a title stating "Dodge essentially rebuilds Chrysler 300" That should never be a title. So what- they use the same playform and ergo share some of the same parts... like ALL companies.

Now Buick gets the Northstar and all of a sudden it's

graying around the temples.

Mind you we are still waiting for the first compliment of the vehicle as all articles should have. Also they continue to throw mocking tones in with the article as well:

Impressive numbers five or six years ago

which is about as cutting edge as a cassette deck.

Okay Okay! Finally! Something that finally might be considered a compliment! Perhaps they stopped mocking the car for a second!

It shifts smoothly enough for a luxury car

Hey! That almost sounded objective! Too bad in order to be objective you shouldn't throw a "but" after some of the things you truly like about the vehicle...

but its gear ratios are too tall to give the Lucerne an alert, ready-when-you-are feel.

Remember- we're talking about a fullsized family sedan here. Nobody is expecting a Buick Corvette when they buy this car but...

The Lucerne isn't slow, but it isn't the banker's hot rod its V8 would lead you to believe.

...Um... who was leading us in that direction? The Lucerne, being a fullsized family sedan is expected to be powerful, yea, because it needs to carry a family, vacation supplies, and its own large frame. Is it supposed to win on the dragstrip on Friday nights? No. Sorry Edmunds, Buick made this car for families... not for hot-rod bankers?

Buy a Lucerne with the standard V6 and you should expect to be shut down by the ice cream truck.

This is an unfair statement to the 3800 engine. It picks up very quick, once again, it's not a sport coupe but a family sedan. The 0-60 times for the 3800 are not shameful but, once again, they're not for the dragstrip... families shouldn't be getting in drag races Edmunds, they have important family business to attend to. But I suppose we have to let you run your course of bashing before you go on to whats actually important.

In the video they explain how they tested the speed and agility of the Hyundai Azera and how it was so much better than the Lucerne. Of course they decided not to take in to account that the vehicle is almost a foot longer than it!

And MAGICALLY you skimmed the article until you found the ONE decent thing said about the car without any "buts" to say how it hardly compares to another vehicle.

This is the setup we praised in our first drive of the Lucerne.

Yea- you got it. They said 1 thing nice... that is well on our way to STARTING an objective opinion. However that does not constitute this whole article of bashing which continues that I don't think I need to do to prove my point.

Like I said if people wanted to read a joke magazine or website thats where they'd go, but Edmunds CLAIMS to be objective and fair but this article is, beyond a doubt, a "hating on" of Buick.

The things they do enjoy they go in to NO depth about them while things like the seat warmers we get to hear a couple paragraphs about.

In conclusion it's very easy to skew an article so it looks objective but it isn't. And sometimes it might confuse people in to thinking it is and I can understand where your confusion came in because Edmunds SHOULD be a reliable source for information and Edmunds did say a couple of nice things about the car.

However when you label your titles negatively, your sub-headings negatively, and spend most of your time thinking of creative ways to say how horrible something is then it isn't an objective article.

[Intrepidation]

I have thought about this exact thing many times before. I have thought, "Am I just not liking this review because I'm a Buick fan or because they are being completely unfair about this?" I've learned to do this with every article because it's important to know what I'm reacting to.

So when I started being upset at this article I thought about why- because I'm a die-hard Buick fan or because this article is really unfair? I determined that the article really had an unfair aspect because:

a test drive entails a judgement-free or "fair" look at a vehicle even if the journalist isn't a fan of the company. This is why people test drive vehicles and publish them- if people wanted a magazine or website that wrote comedy about cars they'd go there. People come to Edmunds for a fair objective review. So it is fair to expect a fair and objective reviewer behind the wheel.

NOW- it is important to note that a person can still have a pre-disposed feeling on a company and not be a fan of it. Most people do not get in to car testing to review full sized sedans. But just like a teacher still has to grade a child on their work FAIRLY even if the teacher doesn't like the child because of his attitude/whatever a journalist should review a company they don't like but still treat it fairly. A fair objective review entails a look at the positives and a look at the negatives and a final assessment by the journalist where their opinion comes more heavily in to play and even bring in WHY you don't like the company and say why this vehicle doesn't change their prejudice.

Now, with this in mind let's look at the title:

Okay. Well this might be acceptible if it really is, let's read on.

Not only is the title something negative but so is their first sentence about the car is negative... I'm still waiting for the fair and objective part. Oh- plus- They tell you the Lucerne gave them physical pain but they do not tell you HOW until you glance over how Buick is one of the few vehicles that offer both heated and cooled seats and making it a point to almost forget about the cooled part before they compare sitting in the heated seats to an "open flame" while someone asked to "call the burn unit"  and finish the section off explaining this is just the tip of the iceburg on whats awful about the car.

Objective so far? Hardly. We are still waiting on the first POSITIVE thing to be said about the car while going on far too long about the temperature of the heated seats.

The next sections title?

Well that looks objective to me... oh yea... also that should be the #1 thing you're looking for in a full sized family sedan. Only we don't get in to the awful performance until our title has its answer-

A completely rebodied Cadillac DTS with a few grand shaved off. They go as far to say it's basically from a late 90s Deville. Yea- it rides on the same platform but this is a moot point when any other company shares platforms and they don't look anymore different than the DTS and the Lucerne. Dodge Charger gets an almost identical look to the 300C and they put "Editors Most Wanted" on that... as opposed to a title stating "Dodge essentially rebuilds Chrysler 300" That should never be a title. So what- they use the same playform and ergo share some of the same parts... like ALL companies.

Now Buick gets the Northstar and all of a sudden it's

Mind you we are still waiting for the first compliment of the vehicle as all articles should have. Also they continue to throw mocking tones in with the article as well:

Okay Okay! Finally! Something that finally might be considered a compliment! Perhaps they stopped mocking the car for a second!

Hey! That almost sounded objective! Too bad in order to be objective you shouldn't throw a "but" after some of the things you truly like about the vehicle...

Remember- we're talking about a fullsized family sedan here. Nobody is expecting a Buick Corvette when they buy this car but...

...Um... who was leading us in that direction? The Lucerne, being a fullsized family sedan is expected to be powerful, yea, because it needs to carry a family, vacation supplies, and its own large frame. Is it supposed to win on the dragstrip on Friday nights? No. Sorry Edmunds, Buick made this car for families... not for hot-rod bankers?

This is an unfair statement to the 3800 engine. It picks up very quick, once again, it's not a sport coupe but a family sedan. The 0-60 times for the 3800 are not shameful but, once again, they're not for the dragstrip... families shouldn't be getting in drag races Edmunds, they have important family business to attend to. But I suppose we have to let you run your course of bashing before you go on to whats actually important.

In the video they explain how they tested the speed and agility of the Hyundai Azera and how it was so much better than the Lucerne. Of course they decided not to take in to account that the vehicle is almost a foot longer than it!

And MAGICALLY you skimmed the article until you found the ONE decent thing said about the car without any "buts" to say how it hardly compares to another vehicle.

Yea- you got it. They said 1 thing nice... that is well on our way to STARTING an objective opinion. However that does not constitute this whole article of bashing which continues that I don't think I need to do to prove my point.

Like I said if people wanted to read a joke magazine or website thats where they'd go, but Edmunds CLAIMS to be objective and fair but this article is, beyond a doubt, a "hating on" of Buick.

The things they do enjoy they go in to NO depth about them while things like the seat warmers we get to hear a couple paragraphs about.

In conclusion it's very easy to skew an article so it looks objective but it isn't. And sometimes it might confuse people in to thinking it is and I can understand where your confusion came in because Edmunds SHOULD be a reliable source for information and Edmunds did say a couple of nice things about the car.

However when you label your titles negatively, your sub-headings negatively, and spend most of your time thinking of creative ways to say how horrible something is then it isn't an objective article.

I wish your quotes worked so telling the actual quote from your comments was a bit easier

Anyway, They do say negative stuff about the car, which of course, this being a GM-based site, gets people irked. However not too many people seemed upset about Edmunds not giving the Yaris a good review. So let's keep in mind subjective/objective opinions that we ourselves have too.

Quick note about the transmission shifts...no they don't need to be Corvette quick, but it's a damn 4-speed in a luxury car...I mean the Fit has a 5-speed in it, the Lucerne should have at least 5 gears. That would improve performance and fuel economy.

The V8...once again no one is expecting SRT-8 performance...but at the same time the fact that it demands premium fuel is a major drawback, and again, with a 5 or 6 speed, it would probably go faster.

The Charger an 300 are identical under the skin, but their setup is more modern and sufisticated as well as being RWD and better handling. If the Lucerne was based off, say, the STS, I doubt Edmunds would complain about it, since it's a far newer and superior platform (of course too expensive for Buick I bet).

Aslo, one of teh editors happened to like the seat heaters and mentioned the cooling feature:

When I turned, the A-pillars blocked much of my view, but that's a complaint I have with a lot of today's cars. I loved its unwimpy heated seats that have three levels: hot, hotter and burn-my-butt. Have no fear, when things get too toasty, there is a cooling feature, too.

You also have to keep in mind, that this review pertains to the CXL, and yes it's harsh, but before you keep flaming edmunds...read this article:

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drive...rticleId=107882

and realize that it was a good review and they do like the car... in CXS form.

And let's not forget that a power steering failure is hardly call for praise, and neither is a loose headliner.

On an ending note, another editor summed it up in a nutshell, and was pretty fair in his opinion:

Judged on its own merits, the Buick Lucerne is a fine car. The problem is that the car is not outstanding, not an out-of-the-park home run, and there are few, if any, compelling reasons for it to exist. I like the Lucerne better than the Toyota Avalon but the new 2007 Camry will probably be priced under $30,000, and our test car was priced close to $35,000. Plus, add the all-new Hyundai Azera to the mix and, at $29,000 for a loaded car, it gets pretty ugly for the Lucerne. When I compare the Lucerne and Azera in my mind, I just don't see an extra $5,000 in the Buick.

If it was my money we're spending here, I'd simply get a Chrysler 300C and call it a day.

You guys should try reading the Editor's Evaluations before jumping the gun. If I made typos, sorry, but it's late and time for sleep.

[Cananopie]

I wish my quotes worked too Dodgefan

I honestly don't know why they dont.

My point is you can write an article focusing on the negative things, positive things, or be objective about it and giving an opinion at the end.

It's more than obvious that Edmunds in the CXL review took the car and looked at it in a negative form.

There are plenty of reasons for this car to exist considering the LeSabre was the best selling fullsize sedan for X years running, I don't know exactly the amount of years... but obviously what Buick makes there are thousands of people who want it.

The sales are already proving this article wrong and many other reviewers have PRAISED the CXL V8 and actually call it a deal... the fact is this article makes no mention of anything positive about this car and if they do they keep it to 1 sentence long...

that is just poor journalism. Objective and respectable points of view are what people expect to see. This was a Buick mocking session and it is most definitely undeserved.

[Intrepidation]

I wish my quotes worked too Dodgefan

I honestly don't know why they dont.

My point is you can write an article focusing on the negative things, positive things, or be objective about it and giving an opinion at the end.

It's more than obvious that Edmunds in the CXL review took the car and looked at it in a negative form.

There are plenty of reasons for this car to exist considering the LeSabre was the best selling fullsize sedan for X years running, I don't know exactly the amount of years... but obviously what Buick makes there are thousands of people who want it.

The sales are already proving this article wrong and many other reviewers have PRAISED the CXL V8 and actually call it a deal... the fact is this article makes no mention of anything positive about this car and if they do they keep it to 1 sentence long...

that is just poor journalism. Objective and respectable points of view are what people expect to see. This was a Buick mocking session and it is most definitely undeserved.

Maybe putting the negatives last would have been better, but remember they like the CXS a lot, just not the CXL (and lower) without the Magnetic Ride Control it doesn't handle nearly as well. Plus they had several issues with the car, so of course they aren't gonna be uber-happy with it.

[ponchoman49]

I wish your quotes worked so telling the actual quote from your comments was a bit easier

Anyway, They do say negative stuff about the car, which of course, this being a GM-based site, gets people irked. However not too many people seemed upset about Edmunds not giving the Yaris a good review. So let's keep in mind subjective/objective opinions that we ourselves have too.

Quick note about the transmission shifts...no they don't need to be Corvette quick, but it's a damn 4-speed in a luxury car...I mean the Fit has a 5-speed in it, the Lucerne should have at least 5 gears. That would improve performance and fuel economy.

The V8...once again no one is expecting SRT-8 performance...but at the same time the fact that it demands premium fuel is a major drawback, and again, with a 5 or 6 speed, it would probably go faster.

The Charger an 300 are identical under the skin, but their setup is more modern and sufisticated as well as being RWD and better handling. If the Lucerne was based off, say, the STS, I doubt Edmunds would complain about it, since it's a far newer and superior platform (of course too expensive for Buick I bet).

Aslo, one of teh editors happened to like the seat heaters and mentioned the cooling feature:

You also have to keep in mind, that this review pertains to the CXL, and yes it's harsh, but before you keep flaming edmunds...read this article:

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drive...rticleId=107882

and realize that it was a good review and they do like the car... in CXS form.

And let's not forget that a power steering failure is hardly call for praise, and neither is a loose headliner.

On an ending note, another editor summed it up in a nutshell, and was pretty fair in his opinion:

You guys should try reading the Editor's Evaluations before jumping the gun. If I made typos, sorry, but it's late and time for sleep.

Lucernes V8 does not demand premium. It is a recomendation like in most premium Asian makes. From 2000 onwards the Northstar V8 was redesigned to run happily on regualr grade fuel.

[RBB]

Got this in my e-mail today:

-RBB

[Drew Dowdell]

Hey edmunds! I have been consistantly getting 14 mpg in my Avalanche in city driving and I'm not exactly light on the pedal. What the hell are you guys doing, driving it like you stole it?

[pow]

Got this in my e-mail today:

-RBB

Wow, finally good photography from GM.