The O.C.

We have rain today and it's cooler here in southern California. The TV is awash with "Special Report.....STORM TRACK" news bulletins..... :lol: C'mon guys....it's RAIN....that's ALL...... Weather's supposed to clear up.....and it's supposed to be sunny and 70 on Wed/Thurs/Fri....just in time for the media days and start of LAIAS.

You know.....time will tell if Lucerne is successful where Aurora was not. However.....think about this..... Where would Buick be in the marketplace TODAY if we had Lucerne back in 1997 when Aurora was introduced?

Good points Cananopie.....really......Now, here's my thoughts on that, though.....and PLEASE bear with me.....and understand I'm not arguing against the 3800/pushrod fans on here....I'm trying to look at GM's perception in the marketplace..... If you continue to use the 3800 as a base engine.....what PERCEPTION does that give ALL those import, Ford, and DCX consumers that PERCEIVE pushrod technology and GM's pushrod V6s as "outdated" and "uncompetitive?" Isn't one of GM's biggest challenges actually how to get all those consumers that walked away from GM BACK into GM showrooms? Isn't that a BIG way as to how they will begin to turn the tide in the marketshare slide? Everyone on this site complains about how it's really the public's PERCEPTION of GM that is the problem....not their actual quality and reliability. So if that's indeed true, why would you still resort to utilizing technology (3800) that SO MANY people in the marketplace PERCEIVE as outdated, inefficient, and uncompetitive? (whether we think that's necessarily true or not....) This argument is not about the 3800/pushrod fans on here.....it goes way beyond that.....it's about GM making product development decisions that will improve the public's perception of their products, their technology, and their overall viability as a recognized quality choice in the marketplace. THAT's why I think even using the 3800 as a "base engine" (or using ANY of GM's pushrod V6 engines ANYWHERE) is not the kind of product development choice that will help GM turn the marketshare slide around.

I was underwhelmed with a Deville (275hp) rental car I had.......nice sound, nice feel....not that quick comparatively-speaking though..... New STS V8 felt much punchier.....would be more like I'd like Lucerne to respond.....

It's gonna be a scorcher!

I've gotta tell you.....I've driven a few BMW 6-series lately....and that car, IMHO, has the BEST production V8 exhaust burble/note of any car I think I've heard....in fact, I wish my C6 sounded as good. This is the ONLY V8 BMW that sounds this way.....according to BMW, they spent a good amount of time tuning the exhaust note to get it just right. Of note, our X5 4.4i has a similar V8 "detroit-style" burble...but it's not nearly as vocal as the 6-series. Runner up? M-Benz SL55 AMG..... GM runner up? Pontiac Grand Prix GXP 5.3L What do you guys think from the cars you've heard....?

<blushing> ehaase you are too kind..... ^_^ BUT....Fly....I was more referring to semantics....or what we call them....just as to me, true minivans have sliding doors (hence R500 and Pacifica are not "minivans.") Cars like Freestyle, R500, Pacifica, etc are "crossovers" to me. Anything else that's higher up, with SUV-style-overtones, are SUVs to me (RAV4, CR-V, Tahoe, Escape, Expedition, Explorer, Trailblazer, Liberty, Grand Cherokee, Range Rover, X5, yadda, yadda.) 'Course that's just my opinion on how I try to see things and classify them to myself....

I had the opportunity to bounce a few emails with Lutz a few months back....and we discussed the G6 and its pushrod V6s. He admitted that from day one, he wanted the HF 3.6L in the G6 but "production constraints" kept them from offering it in the vehicle (also what he said about the base engine in the Lucerne.) Based upon his comments, I wouldn't bet against the engine finding its way in the G6 sometime in the near future....but I bet it wouldn't be before late '07 or '08. To me....I HATE the "production contraints" arguement. When you have a solid product like the HF engines that would so obviously improve your vehicles, you need to FIND a way to increase production to meet demand. You don't find other manufacturers struggling with "production contraints" for its class-leading engine/powertrain combos.

Has anyone really noticed the unique dual hood bulges in the hood and how they are designed? Really tough and classy looking at the same time. The only thing I'm disappointed in is that the third seat appears to be the "removable" kind instead of the kind that stows in the floor like, I believe, the Expedition and Navigator. That's a big inconvenience these days in what is supposedly a brand-new, class-leading SUV from GM....

Actually the platform started in '88 with the Regal, GP, and Cutlass coupes......the '90 Lumina architecture was a slight modification/improvement of the original ('88) W-car chassis.

My "easy" way of defining what is a "station wagon" is any car that replaces its trunk with a extended rear end ("wagon.) Such as...... BMW 325i.......BMW 325i Touring Buick Roadmaster sedan......Buick Roadmaster Wagon Ford Taurus sedan......Ford Taurus wagon Suzuki Forenza sedan.....Suzuki Forenza wagon Audi A4 sedan......Audi A4 Avant M-Benz E500 sedan......M-Benz E500 wagon What's not a "station wagon?" (based upon their "doner" platforms...) Ford 500.......Ford Freestyle M-Benz ML500.......M-Benz R500 Chrysler T&C......Chrysler Pacifica Subaru Impreza......Subaru Forester What do you guys think of my rationale?

You know.....I have to use a couple of different methods. On the latest stuff, you can access their road tests online (C&D.com, MT.com, etc.) BUT for older stuff, I pull out my old rags.....they are in chrono order, and I have rags from every year back to the mid-80's....and have tons of ones older than that that aren't complete years... Plus, it helps if you can kinda remember all the road tests and comparos that have been done...and about when they were done....which I seem to be kinda good at...

My styling concerns with the LaCrosse are not the front-end OR the rear-end....it's the profile with the three-window greenhouse that makes it look too Taurus-like....and I don't like the overly-large front-and-rear overhangs. In fact....and I'm SO not making this up.....as I was walking around the LaCrosses on the floor at the SD Auto Show, I overheard a couple say how much it looks like a Taurus. Seems other people (in the real world) are sharing that opinion as well......

OK.....saw two Lucerne's at the San Diego Auto Show......a Black/Tan CXS and a beige-ish (is it the "Sharkskin?") with tan CXL V6..... Here's my opinion......(Razor...pay ATTENTION....).....I LOVE the car! I think the exterior style is damn close to where I see Buick heading. It's somewhat conservative, but in a stylish way that LaCrosse can't seem to manage. Plus, it has a sort of continental flair that I think DTS lacks (DTS looking too traditionally "domestic" to me.) I do, however, have just a few objects of constructive criticism.... First, the black CXS would have looked REALLY good with a sort of beige interior with the charcoal/black dash top and door panel tops.....like the beige interior that is optional on the LaCrosse CXS...... Second, the (I think Sharkskin?) CXL had these alloy wheels that were like the dark carbon-color wheels you sometimes see on Benz AMG wheels, etc. They looked AWESOME, albeit wierd with the Sharkskin color. On a silver, or grey, or black Lucerne, they would be really sharp. My real major gripe is interior materials (I know, I know...here I go again.) The abundance of hard plastic on the dash and console does this car no favors. A quick inspection of the DTS shows the use of softer, classier stuff in the same area. I understand trying to differentiate the two brands....but Buick is SUPPOSED to be a classy, upscale brand. Give Lucerne the good stuff too. If you want to keep the hard stuff in the Chevys, etc., then fine. On the other hand, the interior is nicely devoid of clutter....and the REST of the materials appear top-notch. AND as Paolino commented on....too many features lacking. Power tilt and telescope is a MUST IMHO in a $35-40K car. Also, xenons should be there as well. After living with three different cars with xenon lights, I SWEAR by them. They are so much brighter and clearer in the nighttime, it makes a world of difference. I don't notice xenons from other cars bothering me at night much anyways. Nav is sure to come....so I'll let them off the hook on that one. I wouldn't buy the V6.....but the NorthStar is nice. It needs the H.O version however.....as the MT road test figures show, the Lucerne V8 is no powerhouse....going 7.5secs 0-60.....sure to get smacked by Avalons and Azeras with their V6 engines. What I WISH they could do is put the reengineered NorthStar from the RWD Cadillacs into the FWD Lucerne....and get close to the 320hp they provide in THOSE cars. Other than that, nice job Buick. NOW....what's the Lucerne Super going to be like??? ^_^

:blink: <groan> <....Chris slaps palm to forehead....> Razor do you REALLY think Turbo, with his comments and opinions, is going to turn everyone on here into Nissan/Toyota/Honda/Lexus-kool-aid-drinking automatons...? I happen to think Turbo is one of the clearest-thinking, most-logical, and intuitive posters on here....and you know what? He IS a GM-fan.....he's just like me in that he doesn't WANT to have to continue to make excuses for the General.....

You've got a good point about the LaCrosse being more "feminine" and I agree.....my parents have a 2000 Regal GS with 100k miles on it.....and the car has always had a sportier personality than the LaCrosse CXS I drove. HOWEVER, the CXS seems a way more competent car than my parents' GS (even when it was new.) Even though the GS had the "gran touring suspension" I feel the LaCrosse CXS is still an even tidier and better handler. The CX and CXL maybe not....but the CXS was a much better driver. And it's MUCH quieter and smoother. As far as engines, the SC3800 runs good.....but I'll take the 3.6L as it was in the LaCrosse anyday. Why? First, it was really quiet and smooth, but with a nice, expensive growl as you rev it up. As we all know, the SC3800 has never been the best overall engine in NVH....you get on it in my parents GS and it makes sure you don't forget it with engine growl and a bit of SC whine. My impression of performance is that the GS charges off the line a bit quicker, but from 45 on up, the 3.6L is not that far behind....and on the freeway, say from 60-80, I'd definitely put my money on the 3.6L actually. Here's some interesting numbers.......from C&D, 12-01 (Regal LS 3800), 7-03 (GP GTP Comp Group), 7-05 (LaCrosse CXS.) I'm assuming C&D testing procedures have remained relatively consistent over the years....and I'm also taking into account that the GP's Series III SC is 20hp stronger than my parents' '00 GS. 3800 - 200hp, 225lb/ft SC 3800 - 260hp, 280lb/ft 3.6L - 240hp, 225lb/ft 0-60 - GP 6.6sec, CXS 7.0sec, Regal LS 8.1sec. 1/4mile - GP 15.0@93mph, CXS 15.4@92mph, Regal LS 16.3@86mph 30-50mph - CXS 3.1sec, GP 3.2secs, Regal LS 3.4sec MPG C&D observed - Regal LS 24mph, CXS 19mpg, GP 17mpg I think this shows how competent the new HF 3.6L is overall. It's surprisingly close to the powerful GTP in 0-60 and 1/4mile (less than 1/2 second) but look at the trap speed.....only 1mph slower than the GTP in the 1/4mile. It's obviously significantly quicker than the non-SC 3800 in the Regal LS. Also, look at the actual 30-50mph run....CXS actually nips the more powerful GTP....suggesting the higher-revving nature of the 3.6L doesn't hurt it in the low end as much as some might fear. I'm sure the mpg figures are not as apples-to-apples 'cause they were different trips with different drivers, etc...however, I think it suggests a nice compromise for the 3.6L in mph when you consider the still-strong performance and dramatic increases in refinement, nvh, and smoothness over the 3800s. NOW.....what would REALLY be nice, is the oft-rumored LaCrosse Super/Ultra/whatever. With a little bit of styling spark on the exterior and interior, the LaCrosse could begin to make up some of the ground it lost from the "sportier" Regals. AND....Buick.....how about looking at a SC version of the 3.6L? You know....for old times' sake? B)

Razor, you need to chill and get a life. If I want to rag on the 3800, or anything else, I'll DAMN well do it......I have my reasons..... Don't try to control my ability to share my OPINIONS.......if you don't like it, go to another thread. Lord knows there are plenty of people on here that don't agree with ME....and that's OKAY..... It so happens that I don't share your "blind loyalty." Guess what, Razor, lots of others on here don't share it either. Oh, and by the way.....I probably have TEN TIMES the ties to Buick than you will EVER have.....so drop your comment about givinig "respect to Buick owners, drivers, buyers, and Buick V6 enthusiasts." You have NO idea what you are talking about in that instance....... Now.....let's please drop the immature attacks on others on here....... and get back to the business at hand....... <_<

OK Caddy.....good point..... ......but I think the point we are trying to make is that you are in a SEVERE minority in your enthusiasm for modding the 3800........there's not enough of you guys out there to make the 3800 a viable long-term prospect.

.......ESPECIALLY with automakers now giving us the new Toyota 3.5L, Ford 3.5L Duratec 35, Hyundai with new 3.3L (Sonata) and 3.8L (Azera), BMW's new magnesium-clad 3.0L inline-6s, Mercedes-Benz' new family of 2.8L and 3.5L V6s, VW with their 276hp 3.6L, Audi with their 255hp 3.2L, and on and on and on. GM, itself, has a good engine in the 3.6L. The LaCrosse CXS I drove was smooth, responsive, QUIET, and very refined. How nice to boot the throttle of a Buick and see the tach needle swing around the dial with such refined enthusiasm!!!

I'm pretty normal.....however, I can adapt an aggressive driving style when needed......aggressive mostly meaning a bit more speed. However, I'm proud of myself in that I'm VERY devoted to obeying the "laws of the land" such as lane discipline, signaling when changing lanes, not cutting people off, etc. Instead of "Fast and Furious" I'd call myself "Fast and Proper."

It's a serious issue this thing about trunk space.......I believe it's what ultimately killed the latest MR2....and according to my Cadillac dealer here, it's the main reason they can't make more inroads with XLR against the SL, etc. I haven't seen the XLR trunk in person, but apparently, according to him, you lose most of your trunk space with the folding hard-top down.....this is in comparison to the C6 with the softtop....which has PLENTY of trunk space even with the softop folded down. Somehow, apparently, the SL manages the trunk space better with their folding hardtop.

Well, I AM a GM-owner.....and I've owned probably 3-4 different cars in the recent past equipped with the 3800....and I've driven countless Buick company cars in the past with 3800s (SC and non-SC.) So, I have a high level of experience that brings me to my opinions. The 3800 is absolutely reliable, in my opinion. That's not my issue with it. I think the only Buick or Pontiac owners that would care about the 3800 versus one of the HF engines are really only the 3800 FANS like you guys out there.....and that's okay for the fans to be enthusiastic.... However, most Buick and Pontiac owners probably could care less about the history or significance of the 3800.

The Twin Cam WAS a major improvement over the Quad4.......true..... The Ecotec is even better though and very comparable to any import 4cyl.

Most likely this year I'll stay home and just read car rags all night long..... :)

Before quoting that Rendezvous sales performance (versus Lexus and Acura) don't forget to consider the significant number of rental fleet units included in Rendezvous' numbers (a la...they are ALL over the place everytime I travel and rent cars.) How much HAS that helped Buick? We all know the profit potential (or lack thereof) of fleet/rental units to the division and/or the dealer. All those do is keep the assembly plants cranking....