Buick Regal GS Gets Rated

[Lamar]

It simply fails in its mission to provide performance while maintaining MPG.

Isn't that what potent 4-bangers are supposed to do?

For comparison's sake again:

Subaru Impreza WRX STI*: 17/23, 305 hp

Mitsubishi Lancer Evo*: 17/23, 291 hp

Honda S2000: 18/24, 232 hp

Dodge Caliber SRT4: 19/27, 285 hp

MAZDASPEED3: 18/26, 263 hp

Regal GS: ??/28, 270 hp

... and I'd venture that the Regal GS is more liveable day-to-day than any of these five cars... and not just because it's a size class or two bigger, either.

* - yes, they have AWD. But yes, they're still lighter than the Regal.

[Cory Wolfe]

It simply fails in its mission to provide performance while maintaining MPG.

Isn't that what potent 4-bangers are supposed to do?

For comparison's sake again:

Subaru Impreza WRX STI*: 17/23, 305 hp

Mitsubishi Lancer Evo*: 17/23, 291 hp

Honda S2000: 18/24, 232 hp

Dodge Caliber SRT4: 19/27, 285 hp

MAZDASPEED3: 18/26, 263 hp

Regal GS: ??/28, 270 hp

... and I'd venture that the Regal GS is more liveable day-to-day than any of these five cars... and not just because it's a size class or two bigger, either.

* - yes, they have AWD. But yes, they're still lighter than the Regal.

All of those cars are also much faster, some by over 2 seconds to 60, based on GM's claims.

[Z-06]

It simply fails in its mission to provide performance while maintaining MPG.

Isn't that what potent 4-bangers are supposed to do?

For comparison's sake again:

Subaru Impreza WRX STI*: 17/23, 305 hp

Mitsubishi Lancer Evo*: 17/23, 291 hp

Honda S2000: 18/24, 232 hp

Dodge Caliber SRT4: 19/27, 285 hp

MAZDASPEED3: 18/26, 263 hp

Regal GS: ??/28, 270 hp

... and I'd venture that the Regal GS is more liveable day-to-day than any of these five cars... and not just because it's a size class or two bigger, either.

* - yes, they have AWD. But yes, they're still lighter than the Regal.

What Camino is saying there is that a 3.6L DI could have been very well used in the car to give the desired or better results of performance with equivalent fuel efficiency, contrary to what general perception is being filtered about turbo-charging smaller engines to have equivalent power numbers of a larger engine to see tremendous gain in fuel economy.

[Lamar]

All of those cars are also much faster, some by over 2 seconds to 60, based on GM's claims.

Being smaller, and being geared solely toward going fast, they should be.

But to counter Camino's other point (high powered 4s have a mission of providing performance while maintaining MPG), I provided those examples to show that either all those cars fail as high-powered four-bangers... or that his expectations are misguided.

What Camino is saying there is that a 3.6L DI could have been very well used in the car to give the desired or better results of performance with equivalent fuel efficiency, contrary to what general perception is being filtered about turbo-charging smaller engines to have equivalent power numbers of a larger engine to see tremendous gain in fuel economy.

In theory, the smaller-displacement-plus-turbo idea should work. In practice, however, we wouldn't know unless we saw two cars on the same platform using both engines. There are no LWB EpII cars using the turbo 4, and there are no SWB cars using the 3.6...

[Northstar]

I don't think the MPG is that big of a deal here. Those who are worried about MPG probably aren't looking at the GS anyways.

[Camino LS6]

Then what's the point of the car?

Why use a turbo 4 if it isn't going to deliver both the power and the fuel economy?

The car seems... pointless.

[Lamar]

Maybe the shortcomings of the car have nothing to do with the engine...

[Camino LS6]

Maybe the shortcomings of the car have nothing to do with the engine...

Perhaps for the Regal, but not for the GS.

[Camino LS6]

If the GS produced both 325HP and 35MPG, I'd give it its due. The case would be made.

In fact, I'd be screaming for the drivetrain to be put into a light RWD coupe so I could enjoy it.

But it doesn't.

[Lamar]

Even the non-GS Regal's MPG are somewhat lower than we'd expect... 19/30 for the 2.4, 18/28 for the Turbo.

Turbo-4, non-turbo-4, the fact remains that the Regal outweighs all its competitors. Not even the 3.6 (about 20 pounds heavier than the LNF) could make up for that shortcoming,

[Camino LS6]

Been thinking about the weight thing in modern cars lately, myself.

That's another area we can hardly point to as progress when old cars are so much lighter when of a similar size.

Something has to happen on that front industry-wide.

[smk4565]

Sonata 2.0T Limited: 274 hp, 33 mpg, $27,145

Regal GS: 270 hpm 28 mpg, $35,000+???

Why would anyone pay $8,000 more for a Regal? I agree with Camino that the car is pointless. I don't think the Regal with any engine is a bad car, but it is just too expensive for what you get. $30k for a 184 hp engine? No thanks.

[Lamar]

Been thinking about the weight thing in modern cars lately, myself.

That's another area we can hardly point to as progress when old cars are so much lighter when of a similar size.

Something has to happen on that front industry-wide.

It would be a start.

Can't get away from the safety systems mandated by the feds, though, so reduction in the weight of chassis and body components ends up being the way to go. Some of the more upscale marques (Audi, Jaguar) have already shown progress on that. Others have plans to in the future.

GM could stand to add some lightness company-wide, and not just to Buick.

[Lamar]

Sonata 2.0T Limited: 274 hp, 33 mpg, $27,145

Regal GS: 270 hpm 28 mpg, $35,000+???

Why would anyone pay $8,000 more for a Regal? I agree with Camino that the car is pointless. I don't think the Regal with any engine is a bad car, but it is just too expensive for what you get. $30k for a 184 hp engine? No thanks.

Premium cache. Buick still has a smidgen of it. Hyundai never has.

Also, good luck finding a Sonata 2.0T with a manual.

[Camino LS6]

I just started a thread about this in the industry forum.

I question the safety regs as the source. If true, then ways to lighten the safety equiptment has to be a priority. And, if the regs are way off-base, they need to be reformed to comply with reality.

[Lamar]

I just started a thread about this in the industry forum.

I question the safety regs as the source. If true, then ways to lighten the safety equiptment has to be a priority.

Agreed.

And, if the regs are way off-base, they need to be reformed to comply with reality.

This IS the government we're talking about here... but so as not to completely derail discussion of the Regal, I'll continue with my thoughts over there. I have questions myself.

[Z-06]

Sonata 2.0T Limited: 274 hp, 33 mpg, $27,145

Audi A4 2.0T: 210 hp 30 mpg, $32,300+???

Why would anyone pay $6,000 more for an A4? I agree with Camino that the car is pointless. I don't think the A4 with any engine is a bad car, but it is just too expensive for what you get. $32k for a 200 hp engine? No thanks.

Fixed it for you. The point Camino is making is not about cheapness and more hp, please read the arguments carefully.

[frogger]

Hmmmm well the Sonata is a good car, the Regal is better in all ways but economy and space. I would choose the A4 Quattro over the GS in a heartbeat though. 35K FWD does not compute.

[Z-06]

^ Problem is that $32,000 Audi is a FWD. And Buick GS has something that Audi does not to fix the FWD demons - Hiper Strut Suspension - reviews of which have been pretty good when it comes to driving dynamics.

[Lamar]

^ Problem is that $32,000 Audi is a FWD. And Buick GS has something that Audi does not to fix the FWD demons - Hiper Strut Suspension - reviews of which have been pretty good when it comes to driving dynamics.

Spend another grand and get a 6MT and quattro.

[smk4565]

Sonata 2.0T Limited: 274 hp, 33 mpg, $27,145

Regal GS: 270 hpm 28 mpg, $35,000+???

Why would anyone pay $8,000 more for a Regal? I agree with Camino that the car is pointless. I don't think the Regal with any engine is a bad car, but it is just too expensive for what you get. $30k for a 184 hp engine? No thanks.

Premium cache. Buick still has a smidgen of it. Hyundai never has.

Also, good luck finding a Sonata 2.0T with a manual.

Buick in 2010 had the highest average buyer age of any car brand at 62 years old. It is still an older person's car, not to mention Hyundai makes more expensive luxury cars than Buick. The top Buick sedan is a $30k LaCrosse, Hyundai has sedans priced well above that. I'd say the Hyundai brand has a better image than Buick.

[smk4565]

The A4 has a far better interior than any Buick, the A4 interior is better than what is in the CTS. I'm not really an A4 fan, the A4 is worth it's price tag. The Infiniti G37 is a pretty good deal too to get 330 hp RWD and a 7 speed tranny. I had one as a rental once, and it is a fun to drive car, probably not something I'd buy because I don't care for the styling of it, but a good car none the less. I just don't think the Regal is worth a price tag that is similar to a G37 or A4 or even an MKZ or Acura.

[Lamar]

Buick in 2010 had the highest average buyer age of any car brand at 62 years old. It is still an older person's car, not to mention Hyundai makes more expensive luxury cars than Buick. The top Buick sedan is a $30k LaCrosse, Hyundai has sedans priced well above that. I'd say the Hyundai brand has a better image than Buick.

Because of two upscale entries, none over three years old, that currently barely sell, Hyundai should be considered more premium than Buick? (notice I'm referring to market position, not brand image... different matter)

No.

Because for the Genesis and Equus that elevate it, Hyundai still has the Accent and Elantra that negate whatever cache those two cars bring. AND the reputation for building nothing but econoboxes, which still persists even through the current generation of cars.

[balthazar]

And the well-earned & recent reputation for building utter crap since their debut here.

[regfootball]

Sonata is a good car but drive both sonata and regal and it's pretty damn obvious the higher quality feel of the regal.

Consider now also the sonata hybrid getting panned for poor execution. Hyundai only has so much cache on the sonata.

Most buff books have said regal is just a few powertrain and suspension fine tweaks from turning into a really well done car. I met a regal owner who said the adjustable ride feature transforms the car. GS should perform well. Not everyone wants a BMW or Mercedes ......or Audi.

People blow money on turds like the maxima....and regal will still prob outsell many German competing vehicles.

Biggest knock on regal is curb weight and we all know that current poems have been porky. Non 5 star cars are unsellable however and the IIHS and insurance industry have a sterling grip on the buyers influence.

[riviera74]

Sonata is a good car but drive both sonata and regal and it's pretty damn obvious the higher quality feel of the regal.

Consider now also the sonata hybrid getting panned for poor execution. Hyundai only has so much cache on the sonata.

Most buff books have said regal is just a few powertrain and suspension fine tweaks from turning into a really well done car. I met a regal owner who said the adjustable ride feature transforms the car. GS should perform well. Not everyone wants a BMW or Mercedes ......or Audi.

People blow money on turds like the maxima....and regal will still prob outsell many German competing vehicles.

Biggest knock on regal is curb weight and we all know that current poems have been porky. Non 5 star cars are unsellable however and the IIHS and insurance industry have a sterling grip on the buyers influence.

Sterling grip? The IIHS and insurance companies have buyer thinking on 24/7 lockdown! Safety = more weight at a certain cost. There is a reason Jaguars can be very safe and weigh less: no one pays less than $45K on a new one.

[SAmadei]

^ Problem is that $32,000 Audi is a FWD. And Buick GS has something that Audi does not to fix the FWD demons - Hiper Strut Suspension - reviews of which have been pretty good when it comes to driving dynamics.

Meh. Audi will have something like HiPer soon enough, if they deem it necessary.

What kills me is that every GM FWD fanboy has been talking about how torque steer was a thing of the past. Then HiPer Strut shows up.... and now the line is the same... torque steer is a thing of the past. Well, the former wasn't the case if GM felt the need to make HiPer, why should I believe the latter?

Until HiPer allows me to steer with the throttle and keeps the TC from kicking in and killing the engine's power at anything more than 66%, I'm not impressed. Physics is physics.

[Bimmer325]

And the well-earned & recent reputation for building utter crap since their debut here.

Hyundai has reached a point where virtually every model they sell is at or near the top of its class. Buick has the Lacrosse, Lucerne and Enclave. The 'Regal' was designed and engineered by Opel. Let's not pretend Buick developed this car.

Hyundai has the Genesis and the $60k Equus now...Buick should be looking very closely at what they're doing.

[Robert Hall]

And the well-earned & recent reputation for building utter crap since their debut here.

Hyundai has reached a point where virtually every model they sell is at or near the top of its class. Buick has the Lacrosse, Lucerne and Enclave. The 'Regal' was designed and engineered by Opel. Let's not pretend Buick developed this car.

Hyundai has the Genesis and the $60k Equus now...Buick should be looking very closely at what they're doing.

Make that Lacrosse and Enclave...Lucerne is over.

Edited June 19, 2011 by Cubical-aka-Moltar

[regfootball]

LaCrosse needs big interior improvements. Aside from that, its a good car. Interior materials, assembly and design needs enough of a makeover so the cabin is more on par with the Regal and not have issues like really cheap looking wood, messy controls, cheaper plastic, and door pulls you can't find.

[hyperv6]

Maybe the shortcomings of the car have nothing to do with the engine...

Wow someone gets it here!

The Regals weight is a massive issue.

As a regular driver of a Eco turbo, 3.6 V6 and a LS V8 I know what they all can do. The Smaller engines have an advantage of higher city MPG vs the larger engines. The highway MPG can be close with all.

Also if driven hard the 4 will still keep pretty good numbers where the larger engines can make a larger drop in MPG.

The area where the Eco turbo stands out is that it get good MPG no matter if I drive it hard or not. I can't say the same for the others. I also have a advantage of almost 500 pounds less weight but I do have the aero of a brick.

Funny thing is there were many muscle cars in the 60's with big blocks that could not hit any of the numbers the Regal can do today in performance or economy. Some even weighed in less.

The MPG is a non issue on the GS as people looking for economy will stay with the normal Regal or opt for the coming E assist package.

I would not be suprised if this car is a Premium fuel recomended car. If so watch for a dealer installed Turbo Upgrade kit. A bump of 30-50 HP id not hard. Just bump the tune and require premium. The kit is a good idea as they let the owner chose what he wants and keeps his warranty while GM and the dealer have an add on sale.

Might note the times for the Regal GS are similar to my GTP series III 3800. It's a 6 second 0-60 car and I never heard anyone complain there?

Edited June 19, 2011 by hyperv6

[Lamar]

Wow someone gets it here!

The Regals weight is a massive issue.

I mentioned that in my first post in this thread.

The MPG is a non issue on the GS as people looking for economy will stay with the normal Regal or opt for the coming E assist package.

Quite true.

Might note the times for the Regal GS are similar to my GTP series III 3800. It's a 6 second 0-60 car and I never heard anyone complain there?

My wife's Maxima can do it in the 6-sec range as well... I think it's 6.6 for the auto.

Again, we come to weight... both your GTP (3400-ish?) and our Maxima (3001) are at least two people lighter than the Regal.

[Paolino]

LaCrosse needs big interior improvements. Aside from that, its a good car. Interior materials, assembly and design needs enough of a makeover so the cabin is more on par with the Regal and not have issues like really cheap looking wood, messy controls, cheaper plastic, and door pulls you can't find.

Really cheap looking wood? What are you talking about? Firstly, I recall reading reviews in the past when it first came out saying that the faux wood was so well done they didn't realize it wasn't real until they looked it up, and secondly, I think it looks very handsome.

[riviera74]

LaCrosse needs big interior improvements. Aside from that, its a good car. Interior materials, assembly and design needs enough of a makeover so the cabin is more on par with the Regal and not have issues like really cheap looking wood, messy controls, cheaper plastic, and door pulls you can't find.

Big interior improvements? Did you ever get into the last gen LaCrosse and compare it to this one? The new LaX actually has a decent interior compared to the last one. Could it stand to be better? Probably. But BIG interior improvements, I think not.

[regfootball]

the lacrosse's plood looks cheap and overall is too plasticky compared to the nice regal interior.

lacrosse isn't bad, it just needs to keep up to the regal, which is on a next level of detail and quality inside.

[hyperv6]

Wow someone gets it here!

The Regals weight is a massive issue.

I mentioned that in my first post in this thread.

The MPG is a non issue on the GS as people looking for economy will stay with the normal Regal or opt for the coming E assist package.

Quite true.

Might note the times for the Regal GS are similar to my GTP series III 3800. It's a 6 second 0-60 car and I never heard anyone complain there?

My wife's Maxima can do it in the 6-sec range as well... I think it's 6.6 for the auto.

Again, we come to weight... both your GTP (3400-ish?) and our Maxima (3001) are at least two people lighter than the Regal.

I think my GTP is 3500-3600 pounds.

[frogger]

I hope their 0-60 estimate is very conservative, seems to be when Audi rates the A4 the same and it is way down on power and not that much lighter in quattro form.

[Paolino]

I think my GTP is 3500-3600 pounds.

It's even heavier than that, weighing 3669lbs and having a 0-60 of 6.6 seconds...

[balthazar]

reg is down on anything domestic 6 months after it debuts.....

[regfootball]

where the f@#k do you get that lie from

[hyperv6]

I think my GTP is 3500-3600 pounds.

It's even heavier than that, weighing 3669lbs and having a 0-60 of 6.6 seconds...

All the better to compare. I seldom heard anyone say my GTP was a dog.

While this car is not going to set any records at the ring it will be a good driver. 1/2 to 1 second on the street between 0-60 few will notice. It will feel faster to 80% of what the buyers had before. Also the MPG will drop less in this car when driven hard.

It all comes down to the point GM could have not brought the Opel in this gen and waited how long for a clean sheet of paper car. Or GM could bring the Opel and start work on future models and still sell a decent car to the public. This cars point is to drive the age of buyers down and prepare Buick for a future of cars that appeal to more than someone 60 years old. IT is setting the direction of the brand away from what it was to where it is going.

The GS looks good and I am sure based on the Opel drives very good in daily driving. If you want more there are other cars to choose like the Camaro etc.

[balthazar]

where the f@#k do you get that lie from

Ahh c'mon, man; we're all friends here.

Just callin' it as I see it.

[Lamar]

Just 'cause I had a minute (ok, I'm procrastinating on an assignment ), I decided to compare this new GS to the previous one.

2004 Regal GS:

3.8L V6S, 240 HP, 280 lb-ft

0-60 in 6.6 sec (ModernRacer.com)

1/4 mile in 15.2 sec @ 95.6 mph

EPA 16/26 (fueleconomy.gov), with 4AT

3543 lb

2012 Regal GS:

2.0L I4T, 270 HP, 295 lb-ft

0-60 in 6.7 sec (mfr est)

1/4 mile unknown

EPA ??/28 (mfr est), with 6MT

3710 lb

Edited June 21, 2011 by Lamar

[z28luvr01]

So the W-bod GS and the Epsilon GS are a wash from a performance standpoint. I'll bet, thanks to the lighter engine and far superior chassis, the Epsilon GS is a much more balanced, tighter feeling, crisper handling car despite the added pork.

[Lamar]

I've been trying to find out how much the L32 weighed but can't find numbers anywhere.

Since the fully-dressed LNF isn't that much lighter than the LLT, I'd think that it was actually somewhat heavier than the L32.

[hyperv6]

Just 'cause I had a minute (ok, I'm procrastinating on an assignment ), I decided to compare this new GS to the previous one.

2004 Regal GS:

3.8L V6S, 240 HP, 280 lb-ft

0-60 in 6.6 sec (ModernRacer.com)

1/4 mile in 15.2 sec @ 95.6 mph

EPA 16/26 (fueleconomy.gov), with 4AT

3543 lb

2012 Regal GS:

2.0L I4T, 270 HP, 295 lb-ft

0-60 in 6.7 sec (mfr est)

1/4 mile unknown

EPA ??/28 (mfr est), with 6MT

3710 lb

The GTP 04 Comp G with the 3:23 ratio (other see 3:08 I believe] gets 19 around town and 25 highway. That is also the 260 HP Series III with less torque.

One thing to we need consider that the new DOHC VVT Eco Turbo engines are great on torque and over a much flatter power band. This makes the car feel even or powerful than it is. My 2.0 feels more like and pulls more like a V8 vs my 3800 Series III.

The only real gripe I have is the exhaust sound. Not much you can do with it.

[ponchoman49]

Better but it's still a 4 cylinder which means turbo lag, noise, greater complexity and more frequent oil changes.I still can't help think this car would be better served by the 323 HP variant of the new LFX 3.6 If your competitors NA V6's can achieve better mileage, quieter and more linear running behavior and better acceleration times then whats the point I have to ask? The 2.0 liter turbo in this car is still an answer to a question that no one has asked up to this point.

[Lamar]

Better but it's still a 4 cylinder which means turbo lag, noise, greater complexity and more frequent oil changes.I still can't help think this car would be better served by the 323 HP variant of the new LFX 3.6 If your competitors NA V6's can achieve better mileage, quieter and more linear running behavior and better acceleration times then whats the point I have to ask? The 2.0 liter turbo in this car is still an answer to a question that no one has asked up to this point.

323 HP through only the front wheels is also the answer to a question that nobody asked.

And, as we've said many times here, the problem with the car's performance and FE has nothing to do with what's powering it and everything to do with it being on the chubby side.

[hyperv6]

Better but it's still a 4 cylinder which means turbo lag, noise, greater complexity and more frequent oil changes.I still can't help think this car would be better served by the 323 HP variant of the new LFX 3.6 If your competitors NA V6's can achieve better mileage, quieter and more linear running behavior and better acceleration times then whats the point I have to ask? The 2.0 liter turbo in this car is still an answer to a question that no one has asked up to this point.

Here is a good case were someone needs to drive a LNF before they make statements like this. Here are the plain truths from someone who owns both.

Turbo Lag is not really an issue as it once was. The new LS even has more lag in kick down getting on the freeway.

I agree there is a little more noise but often it is due to the fact the car has little noise insulation since it is a cheaper car. The Regal this is less a factor. MOst of todays cars can be made to deal with the increase in NHV with no issue. The new ATS will prove this. Note the 3.6 V6 will wail like a Banshee as much or more if you nail it. It is far from silent.

Greater complexity. What engine today is not complex. Things like dropping cylinders etc on the new LS has not made it simpler. It soon will have a more complext VVT system and ther features too.

Oil changes are no more frequent in a turbo 4 than any other engine.

The NA 3.6 does not get better MPG. Not even close.

I can safely say there is a place for both engnes. I used to be a cylinder bigot but knowing the truth today I fine all numbers of cylinders accpetable with the improvments in todays engines.

This is a good example of how I also felt till I drove one of these engines. I felt like I was taking a risk with the LNF when I bought it as it was not something I ever even considered. But today this engine has met ever needm challange and expectation I had. I have enjoyed this engine and everything it has provided.

Now I have not spent time with say an engine like the 1.4 Turbo but again I really don't know as I have not driven one yet nor spent any time behind the wheel of one. To me the combo of less power and more weight do not sound good but who am I to judge since I have never driven one.

The auto world is going to be mostly small turbo engines and GM needs to get these engines in place. The rest of the lines will see Turbo V6 and some V8s in the larger cars. This is where things are going. 323 HP is in a FWD car is not really an issues. GM of anyone has tuned the FWD to the point that they can do what many said they could never do. I agree it is better served in RWD but not all cars will be RWD so they need to make due with what they have.

I have owned many RWD and FWD performance cars and today I can say that the FWD LNF has been one of the most fun daily drivers I have ever owned and by far the cheapest to keep on the road.

The issues with the GS is nothing that 3200-3400 could not solve easily. Based on the non Turbo Regal I drove mass has everything to do with the MPG and 0-60 issues. But then again this is not a M seried killer nor does it claim to be.

Edited June 21, 2011 by hyperv6

[Camino LS6]

I look forward to the day when GM builds some cars Hyper doesn't have to make excuses for.