2011 Buick Regal Turbo Manual reviews

[smk4565]

Are you just making up numbers again?

No I am not. Motor Trend tested a Regal turbo, 3,773 lbs, 59/41 weight distribution and a price of $35,380. 0-60 in 7.5 seconds, and it is 18/28 mpg.

[Croc]

True, but how great can the handling be on a 3750 lb front driver with 59% of the weight over the front axle. It may handle better than a Fusion or Camry, but it is no 3-series. It won't even handle like a Mustang or Camaro that cost less. So if you aren't getting a great handler, it isn't fast, it isn't as fuel efficient as an Accord or Sonata, it isn't as luxurious as a Lincoln or Lexus, what exactly are you paying $35k for?

Please read my previous post, above.

[ZL-1]

Guys, let's rein it in a bit. The Regal isn't competing with a BMW M, M-B AMG, or Infiniti anything--that's Cadillac's job. Buick is competing with Acura, Lexus, Volvo and Lincoln, so let's keep a bit of perspective here.

This.

[regfootball]

True, but how great can the handling be on a 3750 lb front driver with 59% of the weight over the front axle. It may handle better than a Fusion or Camry, but it is no 3-series. It won't even handle like a Mustang or Camaro that cost less. So if you aren't getting a great handler, it isn't fast, it isn't as fuel efficient as an Accord or Sonata, it isn't as luxurious as a Lincoln or Lexus, what exactly are you paying $35k for?

the really $h!ty sounding Harmon Hardon audio system?

[Drew Dowdell]

the really $h!ty sounding Harmon Hardon audio system?

Oh come on now. It sounds fine, it just doesn't have the power to run a dance club. I don't think the set buying this car will be using the sound system that way.

[regfootball]

sorry its crap. when you spend more money for luxury or near luxury the level of performance needs to correspond. the base sound system in the cruze sounds better than the exhorbitantly expensive upgrade in the buick.

there are several reviews out there that also point out how deficient the Regals audio is.

Edited February 23, 2011 by regfootball

[Satty]

Reg thinks $35k is the price point where a live orchesta should be standard

[ocnblu]

Yeah but don't European cars generally suffer from sound system inferiority? Perhaps they prefer to pay more attention to the mechanical aspects under them than the radidio. The only Euro car I've been in that had a bumpin' system was my '00 GTI with Monsoon... best sound system I ever had in a wehicle.

Subaru also traditionally has had a piss-poor standard sound system... with "dealer installed" tweeter kits and subwoofers... pure profit and :-/ for any buyer who values their tunes.

Edited February 23, 2011 by ocnblu

[Croc]

I'm with reg. At that pricepoint the base audio, let alone the upgrade, should be excellent. I mean c'mon, back in 2000 the base audio for my Aurora 3.5 is almost as good as the Bose upgrade. And frankly, I think the Regal is the closest thing to a spiritual successor to the Aurora in the current GM lineup.

[ocnblu]

Never thought of that. You might be right... curvy sport sedan with trim dimensions, a la 2nd gen Aurora.

[Croc]

Never thought of that. You might be right... curvy sport sedan with trim dimensions, a la 2nd gen Aurora.

And content. That's the big thing for me--size, performance, content, European athleticism...this car fills the spot vacated by the Aurora. I haven't looked at the interior dimensions (no way the trunk matches up to mine), but the performance matches up. The V8 Aurora did 0-60 in 7.5 seconds, with the V-6 clocking in at around 8.5. Now, what are the engines and 0-60 times in the Regal? Seems like an efficiency upgrade to me.

Fuel economy numbers? Aurora was rated 19/28 (V6) and 17/25 (V8). Those are the original ratings, NOT the revised ones because at least for the 3.5 they are more accurate by my experience. For comparison, the Regal and turbo (T) fuel economies are: 19/30 and 18/28 (T).

EDIT: I hope you mean trim exterior dimensions, because the interior is quite spacious.

Edited February 24, 2011 by Croc

[Paolino]

Fuel economy numbers? Aurora was rated 19/28 (V6) and 17/25 (V8). Those are the original ratings, NOT the revised ones because at least for the 3.5 they are more accurate by my experience. For comparison, the Regal and turbo (T) fuel economies are: 19/30 and 18/28 (T).

Guy online on youtube managed 30.4mpg on the turbo with the cruise set to 68mph. Not sure how long the test was.

[z28luvr01]

True audiophiles are going to rip the stock speakers out anyway. Heck, for $100 I threw a pair of Infinity Kappas in the rear deck of the Cobalt and they made a world of difference over the Pioneers it came with (the new Disciple album desroyed them). I changed no other component in the system.

Those that don't place a high emphasis on the sound system will leave it as is.

[Croc]

True audiophiles are going to rip the stock speakers out anyway. Heck, for $100 I threw a pair of Infinity Kappas in the rear deck of the Cobalt and they made a world of difference over the Pioneers it came with (the new Disciple album desroyed them). I changed no other component in the system.

Those that don't place a high emphasis on the sound system will leave it as is.

I would expect a Regal would have much better-quality stock speakers than a Cobalt. Something about a $15-$20k price premium.

[z28luvr01]

Insignia:Opel::Malibu::Chevrolet

I'd tend to agree with you, but I think audio system sound quality would barely crack anyone's top 10 considerations when buying a car. From what Olds said, it doesn't seem to be 1970s 2"-paper-speaker-cone bad. It probably just doesn't have the thumping bass that is commonly used to fool the average person into thinking that top 40 music doesn't suck. I don't know - I'd love to hear a HK-equipped Regal in person.

[Paolino]

Insignia:Opel::Malibu::Chevrolet

I'd tend to agree with you, but I think audio system sound quality would barely crack anyone's top 10 considerations when buying a car. From what Olds said, it doesn't seem to be 1970s 2"-paper-speaker-cone bad. It probably just doesn't have the thumping bass that is commonly used to fool the average person into thinking that top 40 music doesn't suck. I don't know - I'd love to hear a HK-equipped Regal in person.

I don't know what's going on with the speakers... granted I haven't heard them in the new LaCrosse or Regal, but the ones in my parents' Lucerne are pathetic. My 1994 Century put out more bass.

[Croc]

Given the popularity of low-fidelity .mp3 files on ipods and burnt discs, if anyone notices problems with the speakers, then there must be some real problems.

[FAPTurbo]

Given the popularity of low-fidelity .mp3 files on ipods and burnt discs, if anyone notices problems with the speakers, then there must be some real problems.

I think it's the other way around. I'm curious what source materials are being used to judge the system. If they're CD's, then the system is likely a bust. But if people are judging the sound system using 128kbps .AAC files that have been ripped, and encoded with a middling mp3 encoder, then it's not entirely fair.

Plus, it may also depend on what the system is geared for, and the listeners preference; audio is pretty subjective. I'd wager the systems in the Cruze and Aveo are more 'boomy,' emphasizing bass, whereas the Harmon Kardon system in the Buick is better suited for music that relies on detail in the mid/high-range.

Edited February 24, 2011 by FAPTurbo

[regfootball]

My Impression of the HK system in the Regal turbo was spent using a variety of media for about 30 minutes, including high res 5.1 DVD-Audio media, which the HK system plays in the intended discrete 5.1, but you want to bust up the dash and windshield with a hammer because the sound system can't even come close to replicating the sound level and quality with DVD-A that something like a simple Mitsubishi or Suzuki Kizashi can far outdo with a Harmon Kardon system with regular CD's.....the chevy cruze sound system is probably better to most ears.

to those that think you should pull out factory speakers and put in aftermarket, that is inexcusable. cars even at 20k should evolve beyond $h!ty paper speakers. for a 35k car with uplevel audio to have it sound bad and worthless does nothing more than piss off someone who just laid down big coin on a car and now next time will defect to another brand.

when you listen to DVD-A its like someone singing is right there in the room with you, that's how clear it is. In the regal, the speakers simply could not stay clean under power, nor could they reproduce fine detail or even basic clean sound. there is a perpetual distortion and something overall out of whack in the system. i am guessing that not only are the speakers crappy, there is also not much power behind the system. even after messing with the EQ forever, I couldn't get it to sound as well as an average boombox.

Edited February 24, 2011 by regfootball

[Drew Dowdell]

Insignia:Opel::Malibu::Chevrolet

I'd tend to agree with you, but I think audio system sound quality would barely crack anyone's top 10 considerations when buying a car. From what Olds said, it doesn't seem to be 1970s 2"-paper-speaker-cone bad. It probably just doesn't have the thumping bass that is commonly used to fool the average person into thinking that top 40 music doesn't suck. I don't know - I'd love to hear a HK-equipped Regal in person.

exactly.

It's clear enough it just doesn't have a super strong base.

[hyperv6]

sorry its crap. when you spend more money for luxury or near luxury the level of performance needs to correspond. the base sound system in the cruze sounds better than the exhorbitantly expensive upgrade in the buick.

there are several reviews out there that also point out how deficient the Regals audio is.

Maybe Buick still thinks most of their buyers are listening to Benny Goodman. We could send them a Metallica MP 3 disc to Flint.

I have always found GM's sound systems not being consistant from model to model. They have some cheaper systems like the Pioneer sub in my HHR that for the money over achieves. Then the Monsoon in my GTP is the best they offered. It is good but not as good as the HHR system.

With GM just because you spend a lot of money on the sound system does not mean it is the best GM offeres.

Edited February 24, 2011 by hyperv6

[smk4565]

And frankly, I think the Regal is the closest thing to a spiritual successor to the Aurora in the current GM lineup.

No. It isn't. The Aurora was bigger inside and out, more luxurious, and had a V8, not a 4-banger out of a base Malibu. I drive an Aurora 4.0, I would see the Regal as trading down. I don't think GM has a successor to the Aurora, the Lacrosse is similar in size, but taller and more of a comfort car. I see the successor to the Aurora as the Hyundai Genesis, similar size, price point, and V6 and V8 engines, just a different drivetrain.

[regfootball]

Maybe Buick still thinks most of their buyers are listening to Benny Goodman. We could send them a Metallica MP 3 disc to Flint.

I have always found GM's sound systems not being consistant from model to model. They have some cheaper systems like the Pioneer sub in my HHR that for the money over achieves. Then the Monsoon in my GTP is the best they offered. It is good but not as good as the HHR system.

With GM just because you spend a lot of money on the sound system does not mean it is the best GM offeres.

how did you know metallica black album was what i was testing on the regal......among others.......... the regal stereo in was terrible with the metallica in 5.1 high res.........

[Paolino]

No. It isn't. The Aurora was bigger inside and out, more luxurious, and had a V8, not a 4-banger out of a base Malibu. I drive an Aurora 4.0, I would see the Regal as trading down. I don't think GM has a successor to the Aurora, the Lacrosse is similar in size, but taller and more of a comfort car. I see the successor to the Aurora as the Hyundai Genesis, similar size, price point, and V6 and V8 engines, just a different drivetrain.

Well, the engine in the Regal isn't exactly the engine in the base Malibu... the direct injection does offer a different feel and is less anemic than the regular 2.4. I would agree with you on the LaCrosse being more like a successor to the Aurora... and with the 3.6L and hi-per strut setup, and upcoming high-po DI 3.6L, it'll feel like it has even more punch. That said, there's an absolute need for weight reduction in both cars, and GM is aware of that. Getting rid of that extra weight will let the cars get better fuel economy, feel more nimble/lively, and hopefully handle a little better.

[hyperv6]

how did you know metallica black album was what i was testing on the regal......among others.......... the regal stereo in was terrible with the metallica in 5.1 high res.........

What else would you use for testing a sub. Sad but True can be very revealing.

Pink Floyd also has stuff that is good for clairity.

[hyperv6]

Well, the engine in the Regal isn't exactly the engine in the base Malibu... the direct injection does offer a different feel and is less anemic than the regular 2.4. I would agree with you on the LaCrosse being more like a successor to the Aurora... and with the 3.6L and hi-per strut setup, and upcoming high-po DI 3.6L, it'll feel like it has even more punch. That said, there's an absolute need for weight reduction in both cars, and GM is aware of that. Getting rid of that extra weight will let the cars get better fuel economy, feel more nimble/lively, and hopefully handle a little better.

Very soon everything will be DI.

As for weight everyone in the industry will be working on this. Better MPG may be the goal but the side effects of the Handling and the Braking will be great. Less mass can do things larger more powerful engines can never do. The only real issue is cost.

I expect most small future basic sedans will have great handling and braking performance with out being a performance model with the less mass. Let just hope they are more durable than a Lotus.

[FAPTurbo]

What else would you use for testing a sub. Sad but True can be very revealing.

Pink Floyd also has stuff that is good for clairity.

Apparently, neither the base or upgraded systems in the Regal have a subwoofer.

[ocnblu]

Can someone post a photo of the tweeters?

[Drew Dowdell]

Can someone post a photo of the tweeters?

[ocnblu]

So even the head units are different.

[Satty]

The colors don't match, its a kit car, at best

[ocnblu]

+1

[Paolino]

Apparently, neither the base or upgraded systems in the Regal have a subwoofer.

That's disturbing... I'm positive I read the base stereo of the Regal had a 7-speaker system which included a subwoofer.

EDIT: Just checked buick.com and it does indeed come with a 7-speaker stereo standard, however it doesn't mention whether or not one of those is a subwoofer. Still though, I would think a premium car's base stereo should be more than adequate. I'm listening to a 6-speaker stereo in a 2006 Hyundai that has by far better quality (crispness and bass) than the stereo in the 2006 Lucerne CXL.

Edited February 25, 2011 by Paolino

[regfootball]

What else would you use for testing a sub. Sad but True can be very revealing.

Pink Floyd also has stuff that is good for clairity.

in normal CD its a fantastic test disc....in 5.1 high res DVD-A its off the charts.....

I also have some Diana Krall, Jackson Browne, and a good Faith Hill DVD-A that really are great for testing.

the regal had a subwoofer? woulda never known. (sarcasm)

[regfootball]

Apparently, neither the base or upgraded systems in the Regal have a subwoofer.

i need to research that. i would have expected it too, and i swore the sales guy said it was on the back dash. there is a center channel speaker.....

That's disturbing... I'm positive I read the base stereo of the Regal had a 7-speaker system which included a subwoofer.

EDIT: Just checked buick.com and it does indeed come with a 7-speaker stereo standard, however it doesn't mention whether or not one of those is a subwoofer. Still though, I would think a premium car's base stereo should be more than adequate. I'm listening to a 6-speaker stereo in a 2006 Hyundai that has by far better quality (crispness and bass) than the stereo in the 2006 Lucerne CXL.

sometimes they mean each individual woofer and tweeter, etc. marketing folks love to stretch the truth.

[smk4565]

Well, the engine in the Regal isn't exactly the engine in the base Malibu... the direct injection does offer a different feel and is less anemic than the regular 2.4. I would agree with you on the LaCrosse being more like a successor to the Aurora... and with the 3.6L and hi-per strut setup, and upcoming high-po DI 3.6L, it'll feel like it has even more punch. That said, there's an absolute need for weight reduction in both cars, and GM is aware of that. Getting rid of that extra weight will let the cars get better fuel economy, feel more nimble/lively, and hopefully handle a little better.

I actually forgot the Malibu has less than 182 hp, and just the Equinox/Terrain have the Direct Injection 2.4. GM should make every 2.4 with DI. The Acura TL or Lincolns are closer to what the Aurora was, but since the Aurora was a luxury car from a non-luxury brand I think the Genesis has some similarities. The Regal is the successor to the Regal/Intrigue of 10 years ago, or the Saturn Aura. It just costs too much or what you get in my opinion.

I have not heard the Regal stereo, but I was never a Harmon Kardon fan, the one Saab uses is nothing special. Best stereo I ever heard is the Bowers and Wilkins in the new Jag XJ.

[FAPTurbo]

That's disturbing... I'm positive I read the base stereo of the Regal had a 7-speaker system which included a subwoofer.

EDIT: Just checked buick.com and it does indeed come with a 7-speaker stereo standard, however it doesn't mention whether or not one of those is a subwoofer. Still though, I would think a premium car's base stereo should be more than adequate. I'm listening to a 6-speaker stereo in a 2006 Hyundai that has by far better quality (crispness and bass) than the stereo in the 2006 Lucerne CXL.

I looked at CNet, and this is what they said:

The premium audio system is Harman Kardon-branded, with nine speakers (up from the standard seven-speaker rig) that includes a front center fill, but no subwoofer. Even without the sub, audio quality tended to bias toward bass and midrange with the three-band EQ set to flat. However, with a bit of tweaking, we were able to coax clear highs out of the system and tone down the bass to more reasonable, less distortion prone levels.

http://reviews.cnet.com/sedan/2011-buick-regal-cxl/4505-10865_7-34195348-2.html#ixzz1F1kOYcPA

Edited February 26, 2011 by FAPTurbo

[hyperv6]

What else would you use for testing a sub. Sad but True can be very revealing.

Pink Floyd also has stuff that is good for clairity.

Apparently, neither the base or upgraded systems in the Regal have a subwoofer.

Kind of like my GTP. They try to fake a sub with the rear speakers. The Monsoon in the GTP is good but for the top line system it is not what it should be.

I have had static in the right rear speaker for 3 years and even replaced the amp. I finally got mad and hit the dash to the right of the stero with the heel of my palm and it has not done it since. Go figure.

Anyone need a good Amp?

Now on my SS the front speakers are fine the rear are hard to hear in the bottom of the doors but the sub fills in great from the rear. I am not going to rattle the neighbors windows but it has good range and does not distort till pushe more than you really need. The rear system is Pioneer supplied and it does a good job for the money.

I did get the last year of the six disc changer. I love it as I put MP3 files on the disk and have near 800 songs in my stereo at any time. I could drive from Ohio to Florida and never hear the same song twice. No need to plug in any I pod of my phone. I could if I want as I have the port to do so and that is another 16 gig of Music.

[MyerShift]

It's got nothing on the Sonota Turbo. I don't know why we even bother discussing anything else. The only choice is the Hyundai.

Well; at least the Buick offers a manual with its turbo four. However, the Sonata really seems to be the cosmic zombie Jew of the midsize market. Great style inside and out, good quality inside, and amazing fuel economy although without that oh-so-German sense of solidity the Insignia...oops, I mean Regal ought to offer.

I am shocked by the dismal take rate on manuals. There needs to be people like us and us only. The ones that love the process of driving and the journey getting there. People that actually give a damn.

[regfootball]

Where I test drove the regal stick last week, they already had sold 2 of their 4 manuals. Within the first couple weeks. The regal is soooooooo much better than the sonata. Sonatas are good, regal is on the next tier of quality.

[hyperv6]

I feel the Sonata like most Hyundais are like a sugar rush. It is all good up front but in about 4-5 years the ragged edges will show on these cars. I had many at work that bought Hyudais the last few years and most are or have replaced them with other brands. Things that go bad that are not under warranty have been an issue. Also rust is a major issue. Where as most GM cars will hold up well for 10 years in the midwest winters the Korean cars will go 4-5 and start to show exposed rust.

Hyundais cost less for a reason and these reason catch up to in in less time than many other makes.

As for manual trannys being rare it is just a sign of the times. People today and the coming generations do not have a love affair for the car. They are taught in school that they are evil and create global warning and VD or what other progressive agenda idea they can promote. To many in the young generation cars are just a way to get from point A to point B. They see no thrill in shifting as it takes away from their texting.

In the future only cars like the Vette, Camaro, V Series Caddy and what ever model is shared with Europe will be given this option. Even then I see the numbers dropping even more.

There is not reason to be shocked as this has been somthing that has been going on for as a long time. The take rate in general is only going to get worse.

[regfootball]

Buick should become the defacto manual division of GM. Except of course cars like the Cruze and Camaro.

The only Cadillac in the future I see worthy of a stick is the ATS. The CTS will turn into an even fatter pig.

It would be nice to see GM have one brand with GOOD manuals that stick drivers seek out. Verano, Regal, and 3 door can be just enough to get a new image across for Buick as the stick drivers GM brand.

[MyerShift]

That sounds like a good idea to me!

I guess that society shocks and disgusts me more often than not.

[Drew Dowdell]

Buick should become the defacto manual division of GM. Except of course cars like the Cruze and Camaro.

The only Cadillac in the future I see worthy of a stick is the ATS. The CTS will turn into an even fatter pig.

It would be nice to see GM have one brand with GOOD manuals that stick drivers seek out. Verano, Regal, and 3 door can be just enough to get a new image across for Buick as the stick drivers GM brand.

I'm going to guess that the CTS will gain size slightly but reduce the overall weight using higher strength steel.

[balthazar]

CTS is supposed to 'move' to competing w/ the 5-series. It's exactly the same size as the 5-series right now.

If it grows by more than 3", all the wags are going to bash it as another 'tweener'.

[Drew Dowdell]

CTS is supposed to 'move' to competing w/ the 5-series. It's exactly the same size as the 5-series right now.

If it grows by more than 3", all the wags are going to bash it as another 'tweener'.

Remember, the 5-series grew 2.5 inches for 2011. It's now 2 inches longer and an inch wider than the CTS.

2011 BMW 5-series - 193.10

2011 Cadillac CTS - 191.30

2011 BMW 5-series - 73.20

2011 Cadillac CTS - 72.50

[Z-06]

The CTS will turn into an even fatter pig.

Seriously?

Cadillac CTS 3.6 - 3,847 lbs

Audi A6 3.0 - 4,123 lbs

BMW 535i - 4,090 lbs

Infiniti M37 - 3,898 lbs

Jaguar XF - 3,924 lbs

Lexus GS350 - 3,795 lbs

MB E350 - 3,828 lbs

Essentially it is the third lightest in its group and below the average weight of 3,930 lbs.

With heavily modified or new platform boasting high strength steel, GM can keep the weight in check despite of adding more girth to it.

[Lamar]

Seriously?

Cadillac CTS 3.6 - 3,847 lbs

Audi A6 3.0 - 4,123 lbs

BMW 535i - 4,090 lbs

Infiniti M37 - 3,898 lbs

Jaguar XF - 3,924 lbs

Lexus GS350 - 3,795 lbs

MB E350 - 3,828 lbs

Essentially it is the third lightest in its group and below the average weight of 3,930 lbs.

With heavily modified or new platform boasting high strength steel, GM can keep the weight in check despite of adding more girth to it.

Good numbers post.

Interestingly, in that whole list, at least the Audi has standard AWD as a reason for its high weight.

The Bimmer, however, is just fat.

[ehaase]

Never thought of that. You might be right... curvy sport sedan with trim dimensions, a la 2nd gen Aurora.

And content. That's the big thing for me--size, performance, content, European athleticism...this car fills the spot vacated by the Aurora. I haven't looked at the interior dimensions (no way the trunk matches up to mine), but the performance matches up. The V8 Aurora did 0-60 in 7.5 seconds, with the V-6 clocking in at around 8.5. Now, what are the engines and 0-60 times in the Regal? Seems like an efficiency upgrade to me.

Fuel economy numbers? Aurora was rated 19/28 (V6) and 17/25 (V8). Those are the original ratings, NOT the revised ones because at least for the 3.5 they are more accurate by my experience. For comparison, the Regal and turbo (T) fuel economies are: 19/30 and 18/28 (T).

EDIT: I hope you mean trim exterior dimensions, because the interior is quite spacious.

The Regal would be more of an Aurora successor if it had an optional 3.6 instead of those turbo fours.

Just as the Verano (which I am seriously considering for my next car) has the bigger 2.4 instead of the Cruze's little engines, I just think that Buick should give the Regal bigger engines than the Malibu.

[Z-06]

Seriously?

Cadillac CTS 3.6 - 3,847 lbs

Audi A6 3.0 - 4,123 lbs

BMW 535i - 4,090 lbs

Infiniti M37 - 3,898 lbs

Jaguar XF - 3,924 lbs

Lexus GS350 - 3,795 lbs

MB E350 - 3,828 lbs

Essentially it is the third lightest in its group and below the average weight of 3,930 lbs.

With heavily modified or new platform boasting high strength steel, GM can keep the weight in check despite of adding more girth to it.

Good numbers post.

Interestingly, in that whole list, at least the Audi has standard AWD as a reason for its high weight.

The Bimmer, however, is just fat.

That may be partially true. Audi A6 is a heavy car. The UK 2.8 FWD weighs about 3,680 lbs while the 3.0TFSI weighs 3,887. That is not an apple to apple comparison considering the engines are different. Granted US specs cars are heavier because of safety requirements. The AWD penalty is about 200 lbs. So the 3.0TFSI in FWD would weigh about 3,923 lbs for US spec version, which is still heavy.

We bitch about Regal being heavy, but any guesses for how much the A4 weighs?