A few observations about a new GM car
10-22-2007, 06:06 PM
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Surrey, B.C., Canada
Posts: 79
A few observations about a new GM car
We rented a fully loaded Buick Lucerne for 10 days, and I was very impressed with it. To start with, there was virtually no road noise, and very little wind noise either. The interior was well put together, with no squeaks or rattles. The dashboard was attractive, and well laid out. The seats were comfortable, and the leather was good quality. Fuel economy was acceptable, considering the size of the car. Handling was good, and the suspension soaked up the bumps very well, while still providing stability and control. My only negative observations were: it could have used a little more power under the hood (the 3800 V6 seemed a little overmatched given the size of the car), the trunk was quite shallow, and the turning radius was enormous. Paint quality was good, the finishing details were impeccable, and it was attractive from all angles. Overall, a very impressive car, and a very worthy alternative to the Accord and Camry. I believe that Buick now ties Toyota in the JD Power ratings; anyone looking for a luxurious family sedan should consider the Lucerne.
10-22-2007, 11:11 PM
#3
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Frankfort, KY U.S.A.
Posts: 2,030
The Lucerne is very nice, but GMs G-Body has got some age on it. The 3800 V6 is the standard engine, there is a optional 275hp Northstar V8 for the Lucerne which I thought the fully loaded ones got? The Lucerne is not really a Camry/Accord competitor, more like and Toyota Avalon/Lexus ES competitor.
10-22-2007, 11:57 PM
#5
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: Memphis
Posts: 4,338
The 3800 is just severely underpowered and outdated all around - and while the V8 is nice - it costs too much to get it, it doesn't even accelerate on par with a V6 Camry, and of course the gas mileage is worse too.
Lucerne just doesn't stack up well to anything competetively/on paper, IMO.
Though I will agree with you that it's very impressive that JD Power ranked Buick on par with Lexus in their VDS survey!
10-23-2007, 09:09 AM
#6
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Crystal Falls, MI USA
Posts: 764
I disagree.
The 3800's 227ftlb of torque make it well suited to real world driving (i.e. two lane passing under 70mph, city driving, good fuel mileage, reliability)
It's perhaps not the best drag racer in the world, but I have never had a customer that complained about a lack of power. I have had, however, people think that it was a V8 until I showed them it was indeed a V6, thanks to it useful low end torque band.
I suppose for those who live in highly congested areas where drivers think that they need to get up to 90 MPH on an off ramp may feel it's underpowered, but for the 99% of Buick drivers that aren't out to get pink slips, they love the engine.
The Lucerne is very much what Patrick Davies said it is, smooth, comfortable, and stylish.
The 3800's 227ftlb of torque make it well suited to real world driving (i.e. two lane passing under 70mph, city driving, good fuel mileage, reliability)
It's perhaps not the best drag racer in the world, but I have never had a customer that complained about a lack of power. I have had, however, people think that it was a V8 until I showed them it was indeed a V6, thanks to it useful low end torque band.
I suppose for those who live in highly congested areas where drivers think that they need to get up to 90 MPH on an off ramp may feel it's underpowered, but for the 99% of Buick drivers that aren't out to get pink slips, they love the engine.
The Lucerne is very much what Patrick Davies said it is, smooth, comfortable, and stylish.
10-23-2007, 09:44 AM
#7
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: Memphis
Posts: 4,338
197hp and 227tq are not at all impressive specs for a V6 placed in a nearly 4000 pound premium marketed vehicle that starts at 27k+.
The 16 city/25 highway rating isn't 'horrible' but it's far from a redeeming quality for this outdated motor.
About the only thing I can say for the 3800 is that it's reliable and cheap/easy to work on.
It's perhaps not the best drag racer in the world, but I have never had a customer that complained about a lack of power. I have had, however, people think that it was a V8 until I showed them it was indeed a V6, thanks to it useful low end torque band.
I'm sure that stat would tell us why GM isn't mistaken for keeping the 3800 in the Lucerne - the Lucerne's average buyer can hardly tell the difference anyway, so why bother?
I'm not saying GM is stupid for still having the 3800 in there - I'm just saying don't expect anyone who knows anything about cars to be impressed by the power train in that vehicle. Even the V8 option...
The Lucerne is very much what Patrick Davies said it is, smooth, comfortable, and stylish.
10-23-2007, 09:52 AM
#8
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Albany, NY
Posts: 10,287
You have to remember who is buying the car. If you have been happy with Buicks over the last 10 years then you should have no complaints about this engine. Of course your not going to sell to the internet generation. On paper it isn't that impressive, but the story is different when you drive a 3800
10-24-2007, 02:21 AM
#9
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Golden State
Posts: 13,711
I personally like the Lucerne. Although Buicks aren't my thing, I could live with a Lucerne if I had to, and could easily reccomend it to others who wern't concerned about FWD.
This car isn't about big engines and smoking tires, so even the 3800 V6 is ample for a car like this. The horsey numbers aren't going to impress those types who think everything needs wads of horsepower, but those same people wouldn't buy a Lucerne even if it had an LS2 turned sideways under the hood, so I'd take their opinions with a lump of coal... in other words, why even consider them. The car moves very well via the seat of the pants driving, and burning up the dragstrip should be left to other makes.
Personally, I'd take a 300C over a Lucern so fast it would make your head swim. But that's just me and my rear drive, high powered V8 bias.
Lucerne is a very nice car, and you'd be hard pressed to find anyone in the 99.9% of the general population who wouldn't appriciate this car.
This car isn't about big engines and smoking tires, so even the 3800 V6 is ample for a car like this. The horsey numbers aren't going to impress those types who think everything needs wads of horsepower, but those same people wouldn't buy a Lucerne even if it had an LS2 turned sideways under the hood, so I'd take their opinions with a lump of coal... in other words, why even consider them. The car moves very well via the seat of the pants driving, and burning up the dragstrip should be left to other makes.
Personally, I'd take a 300C over a Lucern so fast it would make your head swim. But that's just me and my rear drive, high powered V8 bias.
Lucerne is a very nice car, and you'd be hard pressed to find anyone in the 99.9% of the general population who wouldn't appriciate this car.
10-24-2007, 04:50 AM
#10
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: albany, ny
Posts: 666
hypothetically speaking if it had 400 hp and the camry had 500 would it still be considered severely underpowered? because the people buying these types of cars would use 500? or just because the camy had 500 that would make it underpowered? i mean at what point is it a matter of being underpowered or just having hp you will never use?
Last edited by GRNcamaro; 10-24-2007 at 04:54 AM.
10-24-2007, 08:00 AM
#11
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: Memphis
Posts: 4,338
i love this line and im not aiming it directly at you. i hear it all the time when a car is underpowered. when you say its underpowered to what extent? that if i decided to go drag race my Lucerne im gona lose? when do you meet a point in a certain market where how much hp you have in the car no longer mater. If the car can comfortable move it self around and has enough acceleration to get its self out of a quick jam its more then enough for me for a commuter or a luxury car.
hypothetically speaking if it had 400 hp and the camry had 500 would it still be considered severely underpowered? because the people buying these types of cars would use 500? or just because the camy had 500 that would make it underpowered? i mean at what point is it a matter of being underpowered or just having hp you will never use?
hypothetically speaking if it had 400 hp and the camry had 500 would it still be considered severely underpowered? because the people buying these types of cars would use 500? or just because the camy had 500 that would make it underpowered? i mean at what point is it a matter of being underpowered or just having hp you will never use?
Even if most Lucerne buyers won't be testing WOT acceleration on a frequent basis, it still translates to more labored general acceleration.
It might be excusable to some if Lucerne, in turn, offered class leading fuel economy, but they're doing poorly there as well.
Lastly - again, I don't think the Lucerne competes with the Camry. Its price is 27 to 40k. Cars with that price range are typically about at least a little bit of excess - as defines the premium price classed cars on the market today. Hell, Buick seems to try to compare the LaCrosse to the Lexus ES350, so if the brand is comparing the LaCrosse's little brother to the ES350, who are they marketing the Lucerne against? Whoever it is - I bet they have well over 197 horsepower in their base motor, and I bet their drivers appreciate that.
Last edited by Threxx; 10-24-2007 at 08:03 AM.
10-24-2007, 01:01 PM
#12
Registered User
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Shelbyville, IN
Posts: 2,043
I know 2 people that have/own new buicks.
They love them, and they probably don't see over 55mph (hehe).
60+ yrs/old. 200hp is plenty. Outside of a performace car, 200hp should be the standard (with a decent torque curve). No need for 300hp in a car that is just an appliance. (granted a premium appliance aimed at the older comfortable - not rich crowd).
They love them, and they probably don't see over 55mph (hehe).
60+ yrs/old. 200hp is plenty. Outside of a performace car, 200hp should be the standard (with a decent torque curve). No need for 300hp in a car that is just an appliance. (granted a premium appliance aimed at the older comfortable - not rich crowd).
10-24-2007, 01:06 PM
#13
Registered User
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Shelbyville, IN
Posts: 2,043
I haven't seen tests, but I'd say the 3800 could get that car up to 60 in 9 seconds. I can do that in my Grand Prix which is basically the same car...
16.7 in the quarter isn't needed in this market at all. IMO
10-24-2007, 01:57 PM
#15
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: albany, ny
Posts: 666
can i ask why you key it to the 3800? why couldn't it be any other part of it like price, gas millage, styling, ride quality, interior quality? im just curious about your statement because you didn't really elaborate your thought.