ponchoman49

As an actual 2008 2LT Impala owner, I have to chuckle at some of the responses being made by those that so obviously do not even own these cars. The cloth seat fabric used in the 2006-2011 Impala is 100% superior to most of the garbage being used on todays cost cutting cars and trucks. I know this because my other half used to own a 2008 Malibu which used the sand paper scratchy crap that todays cars use. It is not only rough on the legs but next to impossible to clean and keep cleaned in any color other than black. It also seems to attract fuzz and lint much quicker than my Impala. It is a "lesser" cheaper to produce synthetic material that todays manufacturers use to save a few bucks. In contrast my Impalas cloth seats always look clean and only take a simple vacuuming and wipe down to look as new. The narrow, low slung Malibu always found me clipping my head when entering the vehicle which doesn't happen in the Impala. The Impala has greater width and front seat room, shoulder room and headroom too in addition to greater length and the flip/fold rear seat is superior to many of todays rear seat back only fold down units. The Malibu annoyed in other ways too. No rear seat armrest was an obvious cost cutter along with the missing overhead assist handles and dual zone climate control. The telescoping wheel is nice. Too bad it doesn't go up as much as the Impala. The trunk is another Malibu weakness. It's opening is tiny and the trunk is very shallow. On to the powertrain, the Malibus 4 cylinder/4 speed automatic are smooth and quiet enough but just provide no fun when you want to drive spiritedly. It's average fuel mileage is nothing to write home about either. We usually got between 23-24 as an average barely topping 30 on the road. GM's choice in final drive at 3.91:1 surely didn't help in this area. In contrast my 3900 AFM equipped Impala will blow this car away at all times, climbs hills with a tap on the gas pedal and is considerably more fun. The tranny shifts more firmly when using the engines power too! The best part is that even with all this power mileage is nearly a draw with the weaker Malibu at 23 average and 30 on trips making me question what the advantage to the 4 banger is. The Impalas brakes are also superior. With over 75K miles on the clock the Impala has never suffered as much as a squeal or shimmy in the brakes and it stops on a dime even after repeated stops. The Malibu's brakes have squealed and vibrated from as little as 15k miles and seem to need a lot more attention. Worse, the electric crap power steering has needed no less than 3 visits to correct ranging from clunks to actual failure. This was the straw that broke the camals back for the Malibu as it's now been replaced by a 2010 Impala LT 3500. With that said, I do agree that the Impala needs updating. The 2010 did get a bunch of little changes such as 17" wheels as std, a firmer touring suspension, lower flared ground effects, std fog lamps, leather wheel, thorax air bag, lighted visor mirrors and ABS/traction control and Stability control as std equipment. The seats also got more padding and are now noticeably more comfy on long trips. The dash, front and rear fascias and options list could use updates and the basic radio needs improvement. Some two tone treatment to the interior and some additional color choices would be desirable too.

Good writeup. I agree about the seats in many of todays new cars. Why they have to be so flat and hard is beyond me. I would bet your seat frames and internals are the same as my 2008 Impala as this is my chief complaint with the car. The oil useage is weird but I have heard other similar complaints on the series III motors. My 3900 AFM VVT V6 in comparison has not used a drop between changes with 74K on the clock and continues to be a 100% bullet proof engine that is super easy to live with on a day to day basis much like my old 3800 engines. Very interested in hearing if you find out anything on the oil useage on your car.

I'm not a fan of the Korean cars but for less than 20K I can land a 2011 Sonata base with option package that includes power seat, alloys, deluxe trim, floormats and ipod cable, 6 speed automatic, 198 HP and 0-60 in around 8 seconds with room to spare. The 2011 Optima should be slightly less when it comes out shortly too. For a smaller, blander less powerful car like the Cruze that really doesn't get any better mileage than the above two cars in normal 1.8 or 1.4 turbo automatic equipped version I would only expect to pay around 15-16k for this car with a normal helping of options.

My buddy owned several 94-96 Caprices as he loves those cars to death. One needed the Opti-spark system replaced and his 96 needed the very common mass flow air sensor by pass done to keep it from being contaminated. My 96 LT1 in fact also needed this done. These cars had a few odd quirks such as front tires that would wear uneven, the MAF problem and Opti-spark issues and the 4L60 tranny didn't always last much more than 100-120k miles without needing a rebuild. The door panals were creeky plastic and the steering column would loosen up after time with clunkiness. Another famous issue with these cars was the stop leak tablets that GM saw fit to put in these cars at the time. This of course caused the heater cores to become blocked up and a no heat condition in Winter driving. The fix was to power flush the heater core and entire cooling system and replacing the t-stat. Back in the 70's and early 80's GM had a slew of small V8 engines. The first was the 1975 4.3 liter 262 2 BBL V8 that made 110 HP. This engine was installed in some Novas and Monzas as was meant to be an economical V8 choice after the first fuel crisis in 1973. It lasted for two model years only and was later replaced by Chevys 4.4 liter 267 2 BBL V8 in 1979 that made 125 HP. This engine was installed in many Monte Carlos, Malibus and Elcaminos and was again a more economical choice for buyers insisting on a V8 engine. The 267 was also produced in 1980 where it was detuned to 120 HP, in 1981 and 82 where is was further detuned to only 115 HP. From 1980- 1982 it was offered in the mid size cars and also expanded to the Camaro and Caprice Classic. Due to a slowly settling economy, lower gas prices, relaxed mileage CAFE standards and a slight renewed interest in performance the 267 was dropped from the lineup and the 305 4 BBL took over as the top V8 option in all but the new Vette which would debut as a 1984 model with the Cross Fire 350 engine. Olds also introduced there little 4.3 liter 260 2 BBL V8 in 1975 in answer to the first oil Embargo.It was a smaller bore lighter weight version of the 350 Rocket. This engine made it's way into Omegas and Cutlass Supremes with a HP rating of 110. The 260 lasted until 1982 and was offered on Cutlass and 88 models. Sadly with the adaption of the C4 computer system and strict emissions it was rated at a pathetic 100 HP at a very low 3600 RPM's which translated into ok low end torque and virtually no highway passing power, especially in the heavier 88 B-body! The 307 4 BBL took over in 1983 with 40 more HP. Not to be outdone Pontiac also got in on the small V8 scene with there own 4.3 liter 265 2 BBL V8 in 1980 which was just a small bore version of the divisions 301 engine. It put out 120 HP and was offered in the Bonnevilles, GP's, LeMans and Firebird cars. It lasted only two model years and was canceled in April of 1981 when GM made the decision to go corporate and dropped both Pontiac and Buick made V8 engines. The problem with all of these engines was the terrible rear end gears GM installed with them to get the mileage up and the highway revs down. This of course made the engines with there reduced outputs feel sluggish and logy so one sure fire way to improve performance with any of these baby V8's is to upgrade your rear gears to a 3.08-3.23 cog. I knew a few guys with 1977 Omegas with the little 260. They swapped out the 2 BBL intakes to 4 BBL, upgraded to 3.23 rear ends, re- curved there distributers, stuck in a hotter cam and dual exhausts and the difference was nothing short of amazing giving me a new found respect for these peanut V8 engines.

Isn't it sad how much we have degenerated in the past 40 years. There is loyalty to nothing, no pride no upkeep and no one gives a damn about our glorious past. It really saddens me to watch America as we used to know it rot away like this as jobs and industry move over seas!

Wow you and I are just about on the same page with this. I also do not like the new Lacrosse very much and will defend the W-body cars of which I have owned and worked on many. The current Malibu is a great car in search of some interior width and a trunk and the Fusion/Milan needs a tad more refinement to there base 2.5 4 cylinder. The new Regal coming from Buick may be a contender but suffers the usual GM problem of being a bit overweight and only the 2.4 DI L4 is going to be initially offered with no V6 option, even on the top notch GS which I think is a huge blunder. If I want a fast and the Furious type noisy high revving cammer 4 banger the last car I would look at would be a Buick. And I agree about how there are few cars left that float by boat anymore. They are all looking more and more alike and bland as if the very same designer was penning most of todays designs, V8's are slowly dissappearing ala 1980 all over again, V6's are slowly being withdrawn from mid size sedans, exteriors are getting plainer and plainer, interior colors have gone the way of the Edsel with few choices left other than black, tan or gray and technological do dads are running riot promising extremely high repair costs down the road when the warranty runs out. If you keep a car built today for around 10 years statistics say you will have problems with over 60% of the technology alone not counting normal wear items in your car after the warranty runs dry and the miles rack up driving repair costs through the roof. I have driven every combination of Malibu and previous generation Fusion/Milan. I badly want to test some 2010 models which are promised to be quieter and more refined and more economical. I can say that between the two cars the Malibu has a nicer looking and finished interior and I slightly prefer it's exterior styling to the current Fusion/Milan with there overly toothy grilles, lack of bodyside moldings and plainer overall look. The 2.4 in the Malibu is quieter than the previous Fusion/Milans twins but I'm not sure about the current ones. I did start up a 2010 Fusion SE 2.5 and revved it up in park and it sounded a tad loader than the Malibu so that may be indicative of real road driving too. The Fusion/Milan however win me over with a larger interior with more room for shoulders, head, legs and cargo with a noticeably larger trunk, more engine choices and options, available AWD, better V6 gas mileage, cheaper prices when similarly equipped, Fords excellent SYNC system and a hybrid that knocks Toyota off there almighty pedestal with superior mileage and interior quality for less coin. I also like the fact that the Fusion/Milan give you std alloy wheels, rear seat center armrest and overhead assist handles for less dough than a base Malibu LS. The Malibu counters with more upscale interior ambience, std stability control, std Onstar and XM radio and a power lumbar and height adjuster. On another note I heard from a source that the DTS and Lucerne are soldering on for another model year in current form and that the W-body Impala is getting a slight MCE for 2011 with new DI V6 engines and 6 speed autoamtic transmissions and other revisions to keep it from getting stale until the all new 2013 arrives for the more traditional sedan buyer.

The 2010 1/2 Impala has lost it's 16" plastic hubcaps in favor of 17" fascia covers like the Malibu. They look similar to the now defunct G6 17 fascias and make the base Impala LS look a lot better IMO.

Ok so you can get your choice of a 27K Regal with a 182 HP 4 cylinder and leather, a 27K LaCrosse with 255 HP V6 and cloth or a slightly discounted Lucerne CX with cloth and 227 HP and considerably more torque than either other offering. Is it me or does something seem a little wrong here with the new pricing structure? The lack of V6 option in this car is going to hurt sales even if the 220 HP turbo option puts out similar numbers to the LaCrosse V6. The tiny 2.0 liter motor is much harsher sounding and noisy, requires super and more maintenance and will be more costly to work on down the road as many shops automatically get more per hour for those turbo engines. Trying to make Buick into a Fast and the Furious Saab pretender will meet with few sales I fear and many more confused customers. On another note, I find this car much better looking than the Lexus copied bloated ungainly looking LaCrosse which will also use the 182 HP 2.4 engine with it's 4000 curbweight and all.

I hate CR with the best of them and putting the old 2005 designed Avalon on top is utterly ludicrous but... The 2010 LaCrosse is a car with many baked in flaws that I know first hand from a couple of good friends at the local Chevy/Buick/Cadillac dealer that has cost it some sales. Number one on peoples list of gripes- poor outward visibility and a garish overdone dash.I personally find the dash ok but I agree about the tiny squinty windows and massive thick A-pillars which give the car a hemmed in feeling. Other gripes include a way too small trunk that is taken up by goose neck hinges and trim/carpet that surround those hinges for a finished off look. Well the 22K Malibu uses non intrusive struts as does the larger Impala so why does the LaCrosse go back to this inefficient design that many of it's Asian rivals still use? Other things mentioned were poor mileage and excessive curweight, even on base models. Note the base CX and upper CXL trim 3.0 liter V6 LaCrosse trims are rated for 17/26 compared to last years 17/28 figure in the old W-Body version and 18/28 for the 2010 Taurus SE which has a larger more powerful 3.5 V6. Base curweight is nearly 4000 overbloated LBS which is nearly 500 more than before. Other misses include interior door pull handles that are poorly designed, exterior chrome bodyside moldings that are mounted at the very bottom of the doors where they do no good whatsoever and offer no protection from dings and those plastic fascia wheels have no place on a 28K Buick. Of course to every bad there is good and this car does have an abundance of rear seat legroom and the rear seat heaters work well. The ride is very hushed and composed even over some of the worst broken pavement I could find. The 3.0 liter V6 while lacking in low end grunt is indeed smooth and quiet around town and under way but the 6 speed transmission paired to it could use some reprogrammed shift points and some finesse.

Don't really see anything different. Much too generic looking and un-Buick like. A good set of portholes, chrome accent bodyside molding, fender flair and horizontal taillights would help a lot.

Todays designers could learn from some of these pics. They would look good for 2010 and are far more interesting to look at than the plain generic melted bars of soap from Japan that we have to look at today.

My buddy and I tested a base FWD model with 2.4 and were pretty impressed overall but I definately wouldn't be happy with the base engine. There is just too much weight. The more loaded AWD versions are probably even slower so the V6 is a must on those. Too bad it's mileage is so much lower.

Holy dissapointment batman. 8.4 seconds 0-60 out of an all new design car with SIDI, .8 liters LESS displacement, 6 speed automatic tranny and more aerodynamic design. And for the lack of urge you also lose 2 MPG on the highway cycle. Any 3800 W-body car I have owned or driven has delivered over 30 MPG on the road and run 0-60 in under 8 seconds. They also had larger trunks and weighted 500 plus LBS less. Yes the new Buick is going to be quieter and more refined and have more rear seat legroom(something I could car a less about because I drive in the front seat of the car not the rear) and to add insult to injury you can't see out of the darn thing due to the overly thick A-pillars, tiny squinty windows and stubby rear deck with ski slope slanted rear window. The subcompact 12.8-13.3 cu. ft. trunk is the final nail in this cars coffin for me. What good is a car this size when you can't carry anything in the trunk?

Two things- this car badly needs to lose weight and the base 3.0 V6 should be scrapped in this model and instead make the 3.6 std across the board with maybe two versions, the 280 HP version and maybe a 302 HP model in the top versions with snappier gears.

I wonder if thats why two base CX models I checked out had trunks that refused to open and another example had an ill fitting steering column with gaps large enough to fit a key into. They also need to find another 3 MPG out of that base 3.0 liter V6 but that really isn't a quality issue but more of an engineering issue.

Can they also come up with an anti- fall to sleep device from there boring generic cars like the Camry or Avalon?

I am very indifferent on the exterior. It's as if Buick gave up and copied all the other manufacturers such as Lexus, Infinity, Toyota etc with the bloated squinty window look with mislocated chrome strip on the bottom doors and the "we really didn't want to put those port holes on this car" so we hid them on the hood from the side view. I do like the front view of the car however. The rear was lifted right off a Lexus and doesn't look like it belongs on this Buick. The interior is far better but the dash and center look a bit grafted on and busy. I am impressed that they kept the far superior soft velour cloth on the lower end models but why couldn't they offer more color choices that too light tan or gray? Rear seat legroom is good at the total cost of trunk space with Toyota like intrusive trunk hinges. I mean come on guys couldn't you come up with better than 13.3 cu. ft. of trunk space on a car this big? Other gripes: SIDI smaller displacement 3.0 V6 engine in an all new body with a 6 speed auto tranny and they manged to lose 2 highway MPG and troque is down by 13 lbs ft. Kudos for finally offering AWD but why limit it to only one model with the smaller less powerful engine? I have not driven the new Lacrosse so cannot comment on the ride and drive but I am sure it drives very nice and is very refined. With curbweight up nearly 500 LBS from last years outgoing model it should be quiet and drive smoothly. Just don't expect much in the way of handling on the lower end models. Also why can't Buick offer alloy wheels on the base model like the old 09 versions and why does bluetooth and USB ports cost extra? I mean come on guys this crap is std on Kias and Hyundais for god sakes. I suspect that much of the ooohing and aahing over this car is mainly because it is all new and looks like a foreign car which is the current fad nowadays. After the newness wears off people will see yet another GM compromise car with too many faults

I'll take the Camaro LT coupe in blue please.

Most of my friends agree that it looks like a Tiburon that was left out in the sun too long.

Looks like a blandified CC.

What an incredably dumb name. TL SH-AWD 6MT. Were they trying for the longest and dumbest letter name award?

The new Nox is a good package if a little bland on the outside save the front end. The V6 is the real dissapointment with me. It's power is well under the previous models Sport 3.6 non DI V6 and mileage is the same on the highway at 24. GM needs to figure out a way to get 2 to 3 more MPG out of the new 3.0 SIDI V6 just to at least make it competitive.

I agree 100%. There is something just not right about the new LaCrosse. the sweepspear looks odd, the Lexus copy rear end and mislocated chrome strip at the bottom of the door, the bloated plain side look and the hidden from side view mini port holes are all a turn off to me. The 4000 lb curb weight is crazy, the 13.3 cu. ft. trunk is a joke, the CX model follows the current cars mistake of offering light tan cloth or light gray cloth seats with no other colors available, the 3.0 liter has less torque than the old 3800 and gets one less MPG and teh dash and center stack just look strange and outlandish. The DTS, Lucerne or CTS are far more appealing looking to my eyes also.

The 2010 Lucerne is up on GM's site now. It looks like it loses the Rainsense wipers and gains the CXS/Super front end with fog lamps as std. That last change will go a long way in making this car look more upscale which is something they should ahve done from the start. Now all they have to do is coax a bit more than 227 HP out of the large 3900 engine. That engine should be making 240-250 in non AFM form by now.

Funny, when I type in generic on Google, I keep coming up with Toyotas.