2006 Buick Lucerne
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 8,504
From: Ohio
Re: 2006 Buick Lucerne
Originally Posted by 2MCHPSI
Well I see yor point, but you do not have to slam a car to make it look good if it was designed to begin with right. .. Get the tires tucked in the wheel wells more, and keep the ground clearance at the same time when you design the car.. How hard is that to do???.. But that is a design issue and at this point, there is nothing that can be done to make this car look better other than dropping the suspension. Some of GM cars have this design that makes their cars look goofy.
That said, I looked at the pics again, I I really don't think it looks all that high. Of course, I don't see any G6 in it either, as others have, so maybe I'm just missing everything here.
I certainly don't think it looks any higher than a Ford Five Hundred, of course, you can get AWD on that, so I guess there is a difference.
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 2,154
From: All around
Re: 2006 Buick Lucerne
Looks a lot like the G6, I'll give it that.
If it is the G6 Chassis though- I'm tempted to say "???". It makes no sense to have the 3.8L, So that might be a typo, as there isnt anything running around too official. Why put the 3.8L (which is phasing out) into a chassis already using the 3.5L?
Not too bad though, for a buick it might do some good.
I dont see the same rear as the VW.
And once again, wondering why the heck RedZed is even here...
If it is the G6 Chassis though- I'm tempted to say "???". It makes no sense to have the 3.8L, So that might be a typo, as there isnt anything running around too official. Why put the 3.8L (which is phasing out) into a chassis already using the 3.5L?
Not too bad though, for a buick it might do some good.
I dont see the same rear as the VW.
And once again, wondering why the heck RedZed is even here...
Last edited by Geoff Chadwick; Feb 9, 2005 at 01:21 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 4,306
From: Jersey Shore
Re: 2006 Buick Lucerne
Originally Posted by Geoff Chadwick
Looks a lot like the G6, I'll give it that.
If it is the G6 Chassis though- I'm tempted to say "???". It makes no sense to have the 3.8L, So that might be a typo, as there isnt anything running around too official. Why put the 3.8L (which is phasing out) into a chassis already using the 3.5L?
Not too bad though, for a buick it might do some good.
I dont see the same rear as the VW.
And once again, wondering why the heck RedZed is even here...
If it is the G6 Chassis though- I'm tempted to say "???". It makes no sense to have the 3.8L, So that might be a typo, as there isnt anything running around too official. Why put the 3.8L (which is phasing out) into a chassis already using the 3.5L?
Not too bad though, for a buick it might do some good.
I dont see the same rear as the VW.
And once again, wondering why the heck RedZed is even here...
I dont like the use of a lower output 3.8. Why not use the 3.6 VVT from the LaCrosse?
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 826
From: No where
Re: 2006 Buick Lucerne
Rather borish. Not impressed with the styling. Looks dated. Headlights are horrible as are most headlight designs on GM cars. Car needs to sit lower also, but maybe it's just the pic. I like the V8 option, but that's about it.
This car looks fresh compared to the Buick
This car looks fresh compared to the Buick
Last edited by NikiVee; Feb 9, 2005 at 02:46 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 1,440
From: five-one-oh/nine-oh-nine
Re: 2006 Buick Lucerne
the design is really a mish-mashed. when i first saw the front I thought "hmm, I guess they got Daewoo to design it for them." then I saw the back and I'm wondering how anyone's going to tell it apart from the new Jetta from that angle... stepping up tolorances and cleaning up design is one thing, but blatent ripoffs are altogether different. this car, though not bad looking, will get 0 respect from it's target buyer base.
NEXT
NEXT
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 2,402
From: Toronto, ON Canada
Re: 2006 Buick Lucerne
Originally Posted by redzed
Actually, I'd say very sad.
I'd say that the overall look is yet another rehash of borrowed styling elements. The headlamps and c-pillar treatment are borrowed from the 2002 Infiniti Q45. Worst of all, the rear end is a dead ringer for a flop known as the VW Phaeton.
Why would GM attempt to copy an unsuccessful car? I guess the answer is that "great" minds think alike.
I'd say that the overall look is yet another rehash of borrowed styling elements. The headlamps and c-pillar treatment are borrowed from the 2002 Infiniti Q45. Worst of all, the rear end is a dead ringer for a flop known as the VW Phaeton.
Why would GM attempt to copy an unsuccessful car? I guess the answer is that "great" minds think alike.
On the powertrain front, is expect the 195hp V6 "powered" Lucerne to be just as sluggish and crude sounding as the last Park Avenue I drove.
V6 "powered" Lucerne to be just as sluggish and crude sounding as the last Park Avenue I drove.
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 2,402
From: Toronto, ON Canada
Re: 2006 Buick Lucerne
Originally Posted by NikiVee
This car looks fresh compared to the Buick
Yup, and that car also costs twice the money of the Buick.
I am a big fan of Audis, mind you. Anyhow, did you notice how the new A6 rear end looks similar to Saturn L series? Kind of kills it for me.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 826
From: No where
Re: 2006 Buick Lucerne
Originally Posted by muckz
Yup, and that car also costs twice the money of the Buick.
I am a big fan of Audis, mind you. Anyhow, did you notice how the new A6 rear end looks similar to Saturn L series? Kind of kills it for me.
I am a big fan of Audis, mind you. Anyhow, did you notice how the new A6 rear end looks similar to Saturn L series? Kind of kills it for me.
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 10,285
From: Albany, NY
Re: 2006 Buick Lucerne
Originally Posted by NikiVee
How a car looks has nothing to do with how much it costs. For the most part GM designers are still living in 1995 with the exception of a few standouts in their stable.
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,276
From: Chattanoga & Franklin
Re: 2006 Buick Lucerne
I don't like the styling, and I don't like the styling for the LaCrosse either. They are so bland, boring, and the Lucrene front end is borderline ugly. I do hope it sells well, but why on earth are they still using the 3.8 V6 if its supposed to be phased out? Also, this motor is rated at 200 hp for the current Impala. Why rate it 5 hp lower? Why not put the new 240hp 3.9 V6 if they want a cheap motor? Or throw in the S/C 3.8 V6. 195 hp doesn't cut it anymore in a car this large, just look at how much heat Ford has taken over the underpowered 500.
Hopefully the interior quality is vastly improved, as this and the nice V8 would be my only draw to the car.
Hopefully the interior quality is vastly improved, as this and the nice V8 would be my only draw to the car.
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 238
From: canada
Re: 2006 Buick Lucerne
Originally Posted by AAAAAAA
Everything looks the exact same exept for lights and grill....
G6
http://www.pontiac.com/g6/images/enlarge_image100.jpg
lucerne
http://www.autoweek.com/files/specia...ne/pages/1.htm
G6
http://www.pontiac.com/g6/images/enlarge_image100.jpg
lucerne
http://www.autoweek.com/files/specia...ne/pages/1.htm
It would be faster to enumerate the few things that are different then the ones that are the same: grill,side markers, rims... aside from that it is IDENTICAL!
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,024
Re: 2006 Buick Lucerne
Originally Posted by poSSum
If the Lucerne (they better not use that dairy shelf name in Canada) splits the difference between the LeSabre and Park Avenue, Buick may hit a sweet spot.
