flowmotion

All of the above, really. I guess one could argue that if Buick had class-leading products (outside of the Enclave), the ancient powertrain wouldn't make that much difference. But when everyone else has at least 250HP+, it just reinforces what a musty leftover this car is.

I'm aware the 3800 is a sentimental favorite around here, but I'm afraid it just isn't selling anymore.

GRNcamaro

no im just curious to your logic i wasnt saying your wrong. im not not big on the 3.8 but i have to admit it does a great job and is on the reliable side.

i just dont know if i see people who buy Buicks to concerned with hp. Now i could be wrong but i think people who buy these cars are more concerned with does the car have enough power to meet there every day needs. I mean when my old man goes and looks at cars he really doesnt look at hp and i find it hard to believe that most people buying this would stray away from it becuase of looking at its hp rating on paper . the 200 hp might be underpowered for one Buick because of its weight but fit another one great.

90rocz

I agree, the 3800 is one reason people come back to Buick, it's RELIABLE. Which is and was one main reason people shopped Buick, quality and reliability.
Tho I too believe "this 3800" is a "little" underpowered for a Lucerne in this day and age...when it could've had an "SC" version, and would've been perfect.
But that causing dropping sales? Nah...there's more good reasons for that.
Other than higher fuel prics.
I don't think the Buick division has found that "right size" quite yet...a space efficient, true 5 passenger sedan, with an adeqauate trunk.
Maybe it has to do with the taller bathtub requirements, which I still don't quite understand or agree with.
But I really like the Lucerne, myself, tho mine would HAVE to have a V8...but I'm not the average Buick buyer.(My old '95 Park Ave had 225hp/290lbft...which went back as far as 1991, series I.)

91_z28_4me

Your right threxx if the Lucerne is competing w/ any Toyota it is likely the Avalon rather than the Camry.

97QuasarBlue3.8

For about $35k you can get a lackluster but reliable 3.8/4spd auto combo with GM's marginal leather interior, a few decade-old features like "auto down driver's window" and a brick stereo that does MP3's. And gas mileage that is...fair, considering it's performance.

For the buyers of this fine automobile, take note: In 2006, the IIHS rated the car as "marginal" in side-impact safety tests. How can a huge car with side airbags only score a "marginal" rating? Especially when it's competitor, the Avalon, scored really well? If someone put a gun to my head, I'd take an Impala if I had to choose American...

RussStang

Why should GM have to worry about the morale dilemma of when is enough, enough? They are simply in the market to sell cars, and when you have a car that has less value then your competitor's, it is generally regarded as inferior. There will always someone in the market that cares about stuff like this, regardless of how old that market is. It doesn't help with brand image either. If this situation was flip flopped, many people on here would be ragging on the Toyota's lack of power. I don't know why GM puts both the lagging v6 and v8 in the Lucerne, but I doubt it is because of concern over enough.

96_Camaro_B4C

97QuasarBlue3.8

Ok, so I did some more research. In the top model, you can get some of the more recent "stupid driver aides" like:

Park distance control (know how to drive your damn car, people)
Lane departure warning system (unless you have narcolepsy....NO)

...and a few nice comfort features like:

Heated steering wheel

...but the rest of the car is, IMHO, a dinosaur! AND...you have to pay $40k+ for the car with these features (all 4100 lbs of them), and it's still about as good as a $12k Ford Focus in side impact ratings. Ever heard the term, "get hit by a bus"? Side impacts are the 2nd biggest cause of automotive related deaths. Important stuff if you ask me.

I'm not anti-GM or anti-American, but the current offerings for what I'd drive are slim to none. Save for the recent Malibu/aura, I haven't seen anything which combines technology, safety, quality, and style in ONE package.

1990 Turbo Grand Prix

You can get those features on the base CX model Lucerne, which starts at $27,100. If you consider a large car with quality, safety, useable power, good real world mileage (regardless of it's EPA estimate), and a soft ride to be a dinosaur, then yes, it is.

A loaded 2007 Lucerne CXL (with the iron block 3800) I delivered had a shipping weight of 3739.

What about OnStar and Stabilitrak? Even the heated washer fluid can be considered a safety item. All aspects of safety are important, and I would never let one single safety rating influence my purchase decision without looking at the whole picture.

What is it that you are looking for? Rather, what is it that the specific American cars that you might drive lack? And another honest question, what does the GTI have that others don't? Not that I don't like them, I'm just curious of your opinion.

97QuasarBlue3.8

Here is the reason why I won't ever spend $40k on an American car, and also what these cars lack versus their competiton in almost every segment:

I won't say that my GTI is king of cars. It's actually pretty basic in the grand scheme of things, but for less than $24k, I couldn't find anything I thought that was better engineered (new vehicles) or had more standard features. There's certainly more refined vehicles, and better quality, but not at that price point.

Edit: I just reread the rest of my post and decided to say this instead:

You won't understand what American cars lack until you've driven better. GM cars are a mishmashed picasso of parts-bin toys that appear in every car across brands and models, and in every GM car you've ever owned.

If I ever have $40k cash to lay out on a car, and regardless if I'm 25 or 75, it's not going to be American. (Maybe when I'm 75, things will have changed? Maybe.)

Fact is, I can spread out $40k on something that is truly refined--something that makes me proud to drive it, to find pleasure in the controls and feel, that actually make me feel as though every dollar I spent went to something new and purposefully engineered.

For $24k my GTI blows almost every other car in its segment out of the market. Compare it on paper to a Cobalt SS and you'll see it has a few less HP. But the SS severely lacks in driving experience, it it comes down to the old quality arguments about engineering, materials, and refinement.

Threxx

GM has always done trucks pretty well, and their newest SUVs are done well, too, IMO.

Their cars have always lacked something, though (except maybe the Vette which serves its purpose well)...

I don't know if you've checked out the new CTS but that's the first GM vehicle I've driven in a long while that I'd say actually raises the bar for the competition, rather than doing what GM has historically done which is finally 'meet' the bar that the competitors set 5 years earlier...

I'm hoping the CTS is a sign of most/all GM redesigns to come.

97QuasarBlue3.8

I would agree that GM may have a win with both the NEW CTS and the 2008 Malibu. It makes me excited to think the Camaro could follow suit.

91_z28_4me

So what your saying is that 'techy features' (my words to sum up what I get when reading your post) matter to you the most, right? Well in that case Buick isn't the brand for you, Saturn is. The Saturn Astra will be much more your type of car than a Buick Lucerne which is about 2 class sizes bigger than your GTI, and therefore worth more money.

The closest thing you will get in terms of class and size to a Lucerne from VW is a Phaeton and we all know how well that did.
And it will likely have more problems than more basic transportation, be it a GM delta car, a Toyota Corolla, or a Honda Civic.

BTW was the new Civic out when you got your GTI b/c I gotta say it is a rather cool little car.

96_Camaro_B4C

Car and Driver disagreed with you when they ran the SS S/C, the GTI, and the Civic Si in their Lightning Lap. I'll buy the materials argument, but not "engineering."

The interior surfaces may not be as nice to touch for the dash fondlers, but the ride/handling, braking, and overall performance of the SS was rated higher than the other two (not to mention it smoked them in lap times).

While the Cobalt and Rabbit/GTI more or less compete, it isn't what I'd call direct, as the VWs are sort of a premium compact (and priced accordingly).

1990 Turbo Grand Prix

Like what?

Honest question: Are you actually directing that quote towards me, or are you making a general statement? I would have to guess the second being that I drive your opinion of "better" all the time with people getting rid of them, and haven't been impressed. Your second line of "every GM car you've ever owned" shows I hit a nerve. I'm happy with all of them, seeing as how I still have them. But the question lies with what you are tring to get to. Are you saying that other manufacturers don't use common parts, engines, and switchgear between lines? I think you and I both know they do. So.......where's the problem?

That's a pretty broad statement. What are some of the late model American cars you've driven as of late? What is your cup of tea?

What car, in your opinion, does that for you?

Can you tell me how a GTI blows the SS S/C out of the market? Have you driven one? Under your assesment of what makes a great car, the SS has features that the GTI doesn't have standard (Heated leather seats, I-pod Adapter, 18" wheels, High Output Audio System), some you can't get on GTI (OnStar, XM, LSD), and the SS is faster to boot. Even on the road corse, GTI is no match for the American SS S/C. Take C&D's Lightning Lap comparo from last year for example.

GTI is a good car. Cobalt SS S/C is a good car. But I wouldn't say one blows the other off the market.