I wonder if that 2.0 DI turbo will be on 87 octane? The SAAB 2.0 turbo non-DI Ecotec low output has made 215 hp on 87 octane for a while now. Surely a DI version should make over 5 hp more.

Overall I think the Malibu still looks better, and overall I would pick the Mazda6 of the midsize FWD sedans on the market followed by the Fusion.

 

Link says it can use 87 or 91

 

That'll come next year.

P.S.....GM North America photography still sucks.

How can the Opel car look so good....yet the Buick Regal look like absolute, boring, old, ***?

 

Let me get this straight.

My Aura is slightly bigger than this car and has basically the same 2.4L engine WITHOUT direct injection, and gets 22/33.

And yet this car, smaller, and WITH direct injection in the same engine gets 20/30 with the same 6-speed auto.

WTH happened?

Even the Chevy Equinox gets 32 highway with the same DI 2.4 making the same power as this Regal.

That was actually one of my biggest complaints with the Acura TSX is that it gets disappointing mileage consider how small/light and underpowered it is. I would have guessed for sure that the base 2.4 Regal would get at least as good of economy as my Aura if not a few mpg more.

I'm really really disappointed and confused by that number.

Also I didn't realize they expected this car to line up to the Acura TSX. My previous glowing opinion of its interior might not be quite as glowing now that I know what price range they're expecting this to compete with, but I'll have to see in person first.

I do think it's cool that the magnetic ride control suspension is available, though, but I hope it's also reliable since it's expensive to replace.

 

That is not the EPA number, just a GM lowball estimate. Remember the Equinox was 30mpg before the EPA made it 32mpg. Ford also lowballed the Fusion numbers before it was released. Camaro V6 was 26mpg before the EPA said 29mpg.

My guess is the Regal EPA number will be at least 33mpg.

 

Not in the current climate. Saab and Audi have been churning away boosted 4 bangers for forever and nobody has ever screamed about it.


I need those wheels!

 

Please point me to a Cadillac that was filled with "Cavalier crap-tastic crap" (besides the unfortunate Cimarron, which going on nearly 30 years ago, WAS a Cavalier).

 

Well Cimarron was sold through the 88 model year.

Catera was the most recently truly crappy Cadillac interior I can think of. I can think of nothing good to say about that car, really... and it was sold through the 01 model year.


Aside from that a lot of other Caddy interiors weren't full Cavalier interiors, but definitely had Cavalier quality parts here and there.

 

Actually, Saab did used to get crap for that. Not from me, but the auto rags used to complain that the turbo 4s, while powerful (in some cases making the cars among the quicker in their class), just weren't as syrupy smooth as the six cylinder competition.

It is true that the climate is a bit different now though.

 

That Catera interior, odd though it may be, is still WAY above a Cavalier.

Aside from the shared radios of the 80s (which may or may not have been in both a Caddy and a Cavalier), the rest of those cars were much, much different. In the '90s it wasn't even remotely close.

 

Anyway, back on topic, the car looks quite nice.

Wish the 2.0L turbo were tuned a little closer to the Sky / Solstice / Cobalt SS / HHR SS version.

And I agree, the fuel economy numbers are stupid. The car should be in the low to mid 30s on the highway.

 

The New GM is looking very nice so far. All 4 brands are looking very appealing.

 

They're estimating 3600 pounds. A Saturn Aura I4 is not that heavy.

But there's also a lot of tweaking to an EPA number. My guess is that they went for smoothness and responsiveness in this Buick. That might mean keeping the car in a lower gear or keeping the converter unlocked. Both would hurt EPA mileage but make the car more responsive.

 

Some stats stick out. This is 200lbs heavier. It is 3 inches wider, and an inch taller.

Also, I agree with GM hasn't been good at estimating with EPA numbers. They were under on the 2.4L in the Equinox and 3.6L in the Camaro, but were too high on the 3.0L in the LaCrosse, which is rated worse than the 3.6L in the LaCrosse.

Oh well, I can't wait to see those EPA estimates. Also, is that the LNF in the Buick?

 

Rear end gearing and tuning can change fuel mileage a lot too...