Yeah, right.

 

Random thought...

It's good to know that my Crossfire Camaro can still take down a modern car....

 

The AWD 3.0 is rated at 16/25/19 so the 3.6 would probably be 15 in the city and 18 or less combined. I think that's the only reason for no AWD 3.6.

I agree that the fuel economy/performance ratio is unfortunate considering that the rest of the car is pretty nice.

Saw a full truckload of LaCrosse headed East on I-70 this morning. Looks like they must be ramping up.

 

And look a helluva lot better while doing it.

 

???

EPA fuel economy numbers, for the SHO, is 17/25............. so I guess I don't understand the "yeah, right."

That said, I guess the EPA numbers for the 3.6 are out, and it gets 17/27. So, what is the reason for the 3.0, again???

 

To get extra money for the 3.6 -- the same reason BMW used to have the 325i and 330i.

Even in the Australian cycle (same as Euro cycle I think), the 3.0 only gets about 6% better mileage.

Remember how Buick used to have a couple of different sizes for their old 3.8? At one point there was a 3.0 and then there was a 3.3. None lasted for more than a few years, yet the 3.8 remained until 2009.

 

But EPA numbers aren't real world numbers.

You can quote any official fuel economy numbers but there is no way I would believe the SHO is at least as economical as the Buick. It's like you're preaching to the gullible... so I guess I shouldn't have responded.

 

Yes, same 3.0L V6 engine as the Buick (except application is RWD) but vastly different results. I know our fuel ratings are different but I don't believe that would explain it? Maybe it's all in the Aussie specific tune? In any case, I think there could be room for improvement for the 3.0L V6 fuel economy figures.

 

If something is longer than another when measured in inches, it's not going to suddenly wind up shorter than the the other if you measure it by centimeters. EPA numbers aren't real world numbers, but they do have consistent testing standards.

No matter what real world fuel economy is with the SHO compared to whatever you pit against it, under identical circumstances the Taurus will maintain the difference in fuel economy. If the Taurus is higher mileage than what it's being compared against on the EPA cycle, it will get better fuel economy in the real world against the same vehicle under the same circumstances.

 

I hate to disagree but turbos do not maintain their fuel figures... turbos have a Jekyll and Hyde character and so does their fuel consupmtion. Drive the turbo at WOT and there is no way in H#ll it will use less fuel than a even a V8!

Conversely, drive it sedately, you can get useful benefits in fuel economy.

 

Not necessarily. There are ways to game the EPA test cycle, and the Euro and Aussie cycles too. Plus there's the issue that your "real world" may be different from mine.

However, I would expect both Ford and Buick to put some effort into gaming the EPA system, though perhaps to different extents. For good EPA numbers, you want to upshift and lock up as soon as possible, but for a Buick, GM may have wanted to hold the gears a little longer for more responsiveness or hold off lockup for more smoothness.

Whatever the case, the EPA result is pretty poor.

 

Yeah, turbos get great mileage as long as you don't use them!

 

At WOT, 365hp is 365hp. It doesn't matter how it is made.

The reality is, most people use WOT VERY little, especially when there is plenty of power under the curve. Thus, a true fuel economy advantage is realized. Magazine tests always show a pretty poor average fuel economy, due to what they put the cars/trucks through. This is why the EPA numbers, are about the only ones that can truly be used in comparisons............ and why they exist.

 

Dan Neil of the LA times was quite fond of the LaCrosse CXS, stating "GM's first new car since it emerged from bankruptcy is as good as or better than the ES350 in every way, and is actually desirable." Dan is usually a pretty straight shooter, and traditionally has been hard on domestic iron.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...6908678.column

 

At WOT, I am not sure that fuel economy is a concern. It is going to suck down gas quick.