2010 BUICK LACROSSE PRELIMINARY SPECIFICATIONS
Overview

Model:
2010 LaCrosse CX, CXL and CXS

Body style / driveline:
front-drive/all-wheel-drive, front-engine, four-door, five- passenger sedan

Construction:
integral

EPA vehicle class:
midsize sedan


Powertrains

Engines
3.0L V-6 VVT DI
3.6L V-6 VVT DI

Displacement (cu in / cc):
182.7 / 2994
217 / 3564

Bore & stroke (in / mm):
89.0 x 80.2
3.7 x 3.37 / 94 x 85.6

Cylinder head material:
cast aluminum
cast aluminum

Valvetrain:
DOHC with four valves per cylinder; continuously variable valve timing
DOHC with four valves per cylinder; continuously variable valve timing

Horsepower (hp / kW @ rpm):
255 / 190 @ 6950 (est)
280 / 209 @ 6400 (est)

Torque (lb.-ft. / Nm @ rpm):
211 / 286 @ 5600 (est)
261 / 354 @ 5200 (est)

Estimated fuel economy (city / hwy):
18 / 27
17 / 26

Transmission:
Hydra-Matic 6T70 six-speed

Final drive ratio:
2.77:1 (w/ 3.0L)
3.66:1 (w/ 3.6L)


Chassis/Suspension

Suspension (front):
MacPherson strut coil-over-spring; twin-tube dampers with gas-charged valving; hollow direct-acting stabilizer bar

Suspension (rear):
four-link (CX); “H”-arm (CXL, CXS); real-time damping available

Steering type:
power; variable-effort rack-and-pinion

Brakes:
split, dual-circuit four-wheel-disc with power assist

Wheel/tire sizes:
17-inch, 18-inch and 19-inch


Dimensions

Wheelbase (in / mm):
111.7 / 2837

Overall length (in / mm):
197 / 5003

Overall width (in / mm):
73.1 / 1858

Overall height (in / mm):
58.9 / 1497

Track (in / mm):
front: 61.5 / 1565
rear: 61.6 / 1587

Curb weight (lb / kg):
CX: 3948 / 1791 (est)
CXL FWD: 4018 / 1822 (est)
CXL AWD: 4199 / 1904 (est)
CXS: 4065 / 1844 (est)

Fuel capacity (gal / L):
CX, CXL FWD, CXS: 18.4 / 69.6
CXL AWD: 19.5 / 73.8


Note: Information shown is current at time of publication.

Top

 

It looks like Epsilon II adds a few hundred pounds to Epsilon.

I sure am glad that they canceled North American Zeta in favor of lightweight F/AWD cars.

 

that cant be right can it? I thought they were going to start using the 300hp direct injected 3.6 in everything instead of the old 3.6?

 

The 300hp direct injected 3.6 is the 280hp direct injected 3.6 in this car.

The 255hp engine is a 3.0 DI V6.

When I first saw the specs, I thought, "gee the mileage isn't that great". Then I saw the weight. Given that, it's decent. The Hyundai Genesis gets better mileage, but then it's a lighter car, though not really smaller.

 

http://www.autoblog.com/2009/01/08/d...ver/#continued

Wow that actually looks like it has a chance against the imports. Too bad the LS4 is gone though, that thing had a ton more potential.

453lbs heavier 2010 CX vs 2009 CX!

You wouldn't think stuff would be picking up that much weight with 35mpg on the way.

Still a nice car though.

 

the old non di 3.6 used to be rated at 275-280hp iirc, i was just wondering where the 20hp drop from the normal 300hp that the new motor has been rated in everything... I thought it was odd that this car had what looked like the non di hp rating...

 

no== the non 3.6L DI had the highest hp of 270-275 in the Lambadas---single/dual exhaust.

Next up was the CTS at 263HP---then Epsilons at 252HP.

I bet they retuned it for better mileage--hence only 280hp BUT I believe that number is ESTIMATED at this time.

Might go up a few

 

Great looking car and fantastic option list. This is what Buick needs.




more pics..http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/f...acrosse-73739/

Buick quiet exhaust. Add a CIA and cat-back and I'm sure you would be well over 300HP. Just look back over the last 5 years, all Buicks have less HP than the same engine in other GM cars. The non DI 3.6L was ~240HP

This is the biggest Epsilon yet, Impala sized. Although it does look to be on par with the G8/Commodore as far as weight goes

 

Very impressive on just abuot all levels considering this car's market catagory.

Only thing I don't like is that it appears that they might be restricting AWD to the mid-level CXL trim. If so, WHY??? Offer it accross the board, unless there isa really good reason not to.

 

Too expensive for CX and too thirsty with the CXS 3.6, maybe? Guess if that was the case they could offer the 3.0 with AWD in the CXS.

 

Beautiful car.

 

It is a pretty car, that's for sure.

Badges are all wrong, but it's still pretty.

 

"real-time damping available"
Does that mean Magnaride or something else? If something else what does it mean? You know I love the concept of magnetic selective ride control but what I don't love is that it apparently isn't all that durable and within the first 100k miles if you want your suspension to stay decent you'll be looking at a 3k dollar bill to replace it at the very least. At least that's what I seem to hear about the other GM vehicles with that suspension.

I like the car but I gotta admit I was hoping for a tad better mileage out of such a revolutionary design... 5-10% better would have been nice.

Now I wanna know what pricing is like and what features are included at each price level. I have a feeling if it were me getting this car I'd be getting the base model so long as the base model had automatic climate control (even if single zone), keyless entry, power everything, and it'd be nice if it got the same ambient lighting treatment as the rest... as for the rest of the options I'd be fine without em.

Also what is the point of the 3.0? Sounds substantially less torquey and only 1mpg better? Does it run on regular vs premium for the 3.6? Is its architecture the same as the 3.6, just reduced displacement?

 

Looks good...the HUD is nice also. The wieght jump vs. the W-Body is insane though.

 

I just checked... the Lexus ES gets 19/27 w/ 272hp and 254tq and a 3580 curb weight.

I suspect the Buick will present a much better value though (even without the white glove dealer service). The ES isn't all that particularly well made anymore these days... especially relative to the competition so the LaCrosse may end up with superior materials and build quality, and it's just a feeling I have but I suspect the car will just drive with a significantly more substantial feeling. I've driven several ESes and they just have a sort of hollow cheap feeling to them despite their refinement. You have to step up to the GS to get that 'solid as a vault' sort of feel to the drive.