Buick LaCrosse Chicago Introduction

[Gene Brink]

Hmmm. Not overly exciting (as has been noted previously) but interesting I think. Wonder what some of you think. Check it out at GM TV. I'm looking forward to reading some road tests and seeing the actual car.

[Centurion]

Gene, I appreciate the link. Like you, I look forward to seeing this car "in the flesh".

I'm glad that the base level engine will be the impressive 3800 rather than the standard 3.0 (?) liter V6 of the current Century. The real news here, however, is the new 3.6 liter V6 in the premium versions of the LaCrosse. With dual overhead cams, 4 valves per cylinder, and variable valve timing, the car -- at least on paper -- becomes much more competitive with the top imports in its price range.

The presentation emphasized the effort that went into the interior design. This has been a frequently-criticized aspect of the old car.

I will be very interested to see what kind of reception the LaCrosse receives from the automotive press. There were several references to the transformation taking place at Cadillac, and cars like the CTS-V have been enthusiastically received. Let's hope that the new Buick can generate significant interest as well.

[Dave@Moon]

I went to the new car show in Cincinnati on Sunday. The LaCrosse was there. They had a maroon one up on a turntable, with a beautiful spokesmodel explaining all it's finer features.

I was there with my dad and son, and we'd toured almost the whole thing by the time we got to the Buick display. The show was packed, with all manner of people and <span style="font-style: italic">many</span> families with children looking at the new cars.

Except the Buick display.

It was <span style="font-style: italic">literally true</span> that for more than 10 minutes in that very crowded room I was the only person without white hair in the Buick section except for that spokesmodel. Then I left.

However I should note that Buick wasn't nearly as crowded as any of the other displays. There were between 20 and 35 white haired gentlemen and a few white haired ladies keeping me company there. The Toyota display was about the same size, and was filled with 100-150 people the whole time. I waited 10 minutes to sit in a Prius! I could've taken a nap in the LeSabre.

Oh yeah, the LaCrosse is impressive in a very Buick-like traditional manner. It's also bigger than it photographs, looking to be nearly the equal of the LeSabre in size.

My dad really liked it. He's a youthful 69, with white hair.

[Centurion]

It was clear from the GM-TV presentation that management is fully aware of the marque's current image problem.

It makes sense to begin reversing the "slide" with a fine, mainstream sedan. Yes, a sexy new convertible, coupe, or new segment vehicle (like the Prius) might have drawn a bigger crowd at the auto show. A sedan is . . . well, less exciting. But it is crucial to Buick's success and survival. The true test will be the showroom traffic.

Hopefully, some more adventurous models are forthcoming.

[Guest my3buicks]

Dave, the exact opposite was true at the Pittsburgh auto show. The Buick area was a happening place. People where waiting to get into the Rendezvous Ultra and Rendezvous, I saw alot of smiles and heads shaking up and down, not back and forth. The Terazza(spelling) had people straining to get a good look at it as it was on a platform and you couldn't get in it. The Rainier also had allot of activity. The Lacrosse we had was black and beautiful. Very striking in it's elegant smooth simple lines and it appeared to be aimed right at Lexus as stated by Buick. The other Buick models had both older and younger looking at them. Buick had a dozen cars on display right in the center of the new convention center. It was lights, glitter, gleam and class all around them.

[BUICK RACER]

A Buick Friend of mine was able to see the LaCrosse in person last Thursday at the Auto Show in Milwaukee, and had a chance to talk to the product specialist, who said that this is the only show she does, where people are very cool, and can walk around with a beer in their hand, and not be stupid about it! Very cool. But my friend who, owns a '73 GS 455 and races it, thought the LaCrosse compared to the Century and Regal also on display was a major improvement for Buick, and this guy is about 35 or 36 yrs old. So I can't wait to see it in person, the pictures are all sort of fake. The only thing from the show in WI, is that the product specialist(by the way, they are not GM employees, but contract employees, paid to learn the specs of the car and that's about it, if that) Said that the 18" wheels on the show car will probably not be production version, that 17" with be and in '05 maybe an 18" production wheel! I've also heard through other grapevines of a supercharged version in '06, so let's wait and see what the Buick group does!

[Duece-N-Quarter]

I saw the LaCrosse at the Cleveland Auto Show today. Not a bad looking car, I like it better than the Regal/Century. However, the only people looking at it were "senior citizens". Not quite the target demographic Buick was looking for, I'm sure.

[Centurion]

A change in Buick's buyer demographics will be gradual. It is not realistic to expect that the LaCrosse -- a mainstream sedan as noted above -- will generate a landmark swing in the demographics. It will take time, it will occur buyer-by-buyer, and it will require additional new models with a greater "gee whiz" factor. Stay tuned.

[Centurion]

I have long been disappointed by Buick's print advertising, and have often thought that the ads fail to enhance Buick's image or attract potential customers. I cannot comment on the television ads, since I never watch television.

I was, therefore, pleasantly surprised and mostly impressed by a two-page advertisement for the new LaCrosse that appears in the April issue of "Car and Driver", which I thumbed through at a newsstand today.

It is significant that Buick is running ads for the car now, despite the car's scheduled fall introduction. It never hurts to create some anticipation for an upcoming model.

More surprising was the ad copy itself. Yes, the lead line about keeping up with the Joneses was pretty lame, but the rest of the ad copy was more akin to what we might see in a Lexus or Audi ad. The car's technical features were detailed, and this kind of content has been noticeably absent from Buick ads for a long time. Harley Earl was nowhere to be seen.

Even the photo of the new LaCrosse was beautifully done, and, once again, the presentation was something that we might see in a prestige import ad. The ad features a stunning, black LaCrosse in full profile against a white background. There are some smaller photos interspersed with the ad copy, giving some indication of the car's interior appointments -- which look very rich and classy.

By the way, the LaCrosse's optional "high feature" 3.6-litre DOHC V6 appears to be the standard engine in the upcoming rear drive Cadillac STS, which is the replacement for the Seville. Given GM's goal of moving Cadillac further upscale, it is clear that the corporation thinks highly of this engine. The fact that it is optionally available in this new, entry-level Buick gives me hope that GM is dead serious about restoring Buick's lost luster.

[NTX5467]

I saw the black LaCrosse CSX on the turntable at the Dallas New Car Show on Sunday afternoon. Quite impressive. Looks larger for some reason than either the Grand Prix or current car for some reason.

The High Feature V-6 is already in the Cadillac CTS with automatics, availability with manual transmissions will come later. The oil filler cap specs Mobil 1 oil for it too. The 3800 in the less expensive models will be the same one that's in the Grand Prix now (including electronic throttle actuation--no more throttle cable).

I picked up a LaCrosse brochure. Quite nice as it went through the car's features with the specs in the back.

There's also a "Win A LaCrosse" contest too. I think you can register on the Buick website for that one too, without having to be at the auto show.

Putting the LaCrosse out into the media now is a good move. The Chrysler 300 will inhabit the same price range in it's non-Hemi variations and is in the same size class (regardless of what other names might be on that market segments). In reality, the 300 ought to be against the LeSabre and Park Avenue, but it's a car that more closely compares to the Grand Prix and LaCrosse in physical size. But the Buicks have quite a bit better EPA fuel economy ratings regardless of LaCrosse, LeSabre, or Park Avenue. Maybe not the performance of the Hemi V-8, even with cylinder deactivation for added economy, but if fuel costs rise as predicted, that fuel efficiency of the Buicks can be one big selling point.

By the way, the new Pontiac G6, GrandAm replacement, is one slick car too. Inside and out. Things are getting better. To support that fact, in a generalized General Motors area at the Dallas show, there was a 3-D video presentation of the hot and cold testing and other testing that GM does to validate the vehicle before production. Danged impressive and neat with the supplied 3-D glasses.

Enjoy!

NTX5467

[Guest imported_DaveZZZ]

In my house, the "Good Car" is my wife's 99 Regal GS. I have to say I love that car. My one big complaint is the front wheel drive- such a powerful car in FWD is really a shame, because it always feels like there is more there than you can really get.

In any event, I know lots of "car guys" who have no idea that there is a Buick as sporty as that. And if you drive one, you'll see that they are downright fast. But Buick doesn't advertise to folks like me (I'm 30). The closest they came was that stupid "Supercharged Family" campaign. I think the only thing that ever did well with a family campaign was the station wagon and minivan. Even the SUVs generally advertise to the bad-to-the-bone element, since nobody carting around the kids wants to be reminded that he COULD be driving a porsche if it weren't for the car seats and sippy-cups.

I will hate to see the supercharged 3800 go. What a great engine. My wife averages high 20's MPG, and she does all city driving (I average low 20's when I take it- I think the computer must be broken

GM makes good cars. I really believe that. But good lord, they are stuck in this mindless styling rut, and when they try to do something to shake things up, they go silly- Monte Carlo and Aztek come to mind. THose designs are daring, which is good, but they aren't classy. There was always a certain class to the GM designs that made them the best in the world (at least as far as large-scale manufacturers go) in the 40s 50s and 60s.

It's kind of sad that GM still hasn't recovered from the 70s. I used to make excuses for them- "well, they made cars people wanted, and overnight what people want changed." But I have recently realized that GM just doesn't get it. They are still trying to catch the Japanese, who DO build high-quality, high-efficiency cars. But maybe that's the mistake- SUVs prove that what people really want is something that looks and feels good to drive. And by and large, I don't think the Japanese ever did that particularly well.

[NTX5467]

It is something of a shame that some poor strategies followed by poor marketing strategies in the 1980s basically took GM out of the lofty position it had held during the "glory days".

I'll admit, that as a car enthusiast that grew up with the first Mustangs and musclecars of the 1960s, watching Buick do it's "little engine that could" scheme just seemed a little suspect when cubic inches were the name of the game. Even the earlier 300 V-8s in the LeSabres seemed a little suspect compared to what others were doing back then and to then couple it to a two-speed automatic did not fit the performanc equation, at least the equation we knew back then. Ahead of their time? Probably, but not for the market trends of the '60s.

Olds did their innovative JetFire Cutlass too. Pretty slick, but that two-speed automatic didn't let it do what it needed to do. Sure, the two-speeds worked well with the 400 inch motors, but not with the smaller ones, even with switch pitch converters. If they could have done a lower power consumption Hydramatic back then, those cars and the Buicks might have been better appreciated. But, obviously Buick was still oriented toward their normal market demographics back then--as long as it pushed you back in the seat from a dead stop or in passing gear (remember that?), it was ok regardless of how many speeds were in the automatic.

Many of these strategies might well have been the result of the corporate economics of the times too.

Enjoy!

NTX5467

[Guest imported_DaveZZZ]

Well, I largely agree, but let's not forget that there was a lot of junk coming out of GM in the 70s and 80s. They had lots of small displacement V8s which produced no power (145hp 350s) and still only got 12 MPG. I had an 82 Delta 88 with the 260. It was an absolute joke. My 76 Monte Carlo with the 305 2bbl- another joke, and they all rotted out before they got home from the dealership. That's one I have never understood- the 60s and before cars seemed to have survived the elements pretty well. My father's 68 GTO was his daily driver from 68 to around 77, and despite commuting along the Mass Pike 100 miles each day, snow, rain, salt, and all, it has only minimal rust around the rear wheels (he still has the car).

My 79 Pontiac, 76 Chevy, and 82 Olds all had major rot problems before they were 10 years old (I did not, of course, buy them new, but all but the Chevy were in the family from new). The only one that did well from that phase of my life was the 78 Buick. It held up quite well, actually.

Was it the paint? Sloppy design for drainage? Low quality steel? I don't know. But there are a bunch of pre-70s unrestored cars in my family that started as daily drivers, and they are all OK.

[NTX5467]

The small CID V-8s were there basically for EPA mileage numbers. No one had anything with any power back then, usually. Emission controls were in the primative/crude stage still, plus cylinder head/port designs necessary for better power/emissions were still just a thought. The general orientation was to downsize the car so it'd take less motor to push it and things like EGR and lower compression ratios were power decreasers too.

The only real rust problems we saw down here were due to add-on vinyl roofs and such. The holes for the moldings were drilled and not sealed, so that was instant rust in a few years. I remember seeing a 3 year old GM car with an add-on vinyl roof on Avery Island, LA, across the parking lot from the entrance to the salt mine, with red rust dripping from each of the rivet holes in the quarter panels. I know that what y'all had up north was different, though.

But those days are in the past . . .

The Buick V-6 might be an "antique" OHV architecture motor, but so is the LS1/LS6/LS2 Chevrolet engine family. Manifolding and their interaction with cylinder head flow/combustion dynamics is now a finely honed science. Several of the 1950-60s designs were headed in some of the same directions, they just weren't aware of where to ultimately end up or how to really get there.

Enjoy!

NTX5467

[Dave@Moon]

In Pittsburgh we knew <span style="font-style: italic">RUST</span>!

I had a friend in high school in Pittsburgh who's family had bought a new 1972 Nova. That car failed PA state inspection for irrepairable (too expensive to justify) structural rust in late 1975 and had to be sold for parts. They still had 4 payments to go! (Their next car was a (beautiful) '68 Ambassador. It lasted longer!)

My Dad's '76 Aspen needed it's entire front clip replaced for perforated rust (enough to fail PA inspection) when it was <span style="font-style: italic">9 months old</span>.

Times have changed.

[55PackardGuy]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The small CID V-8s were there basically for EPA mileage numbers.</div></div>

NTX5467,

You said a mouthful there. It took me a long time to figure out what the deal was with 4-cylinder Camaros and other monstrosities. Well, it goes by the name of CAFE (Corporate AVERAGE Fuel Economy) with the emphasis on Average. By building a bunch of underpowered cars, the corporations could improve their on-paper fuel economy average and meet standards. This is one of the reasons for the move toward SUV's which can be classified as "trucks" and don't count toward the same average. Recently Subaru was able to get one of their pipsqueak SUVs (I believe it was the Outback) re-classified as a "truck" for this purpose.

Back in the day when most people were still buying cars, it seems that the only "dodge" for meeting standards was to produce a quantity of "economical" (on paper) cars to offset the poorer (on paper) economy of more sensibly powered cars. The fuel consumption standards weren't based on the real-world situation of trying to merge onto the freeway with an anemic, de-tuned engine, but on a "formula" that gave points for two-barrel carbs, fewer cylinders, and lower displacement. The fact that these engines could not deliver the kind of economy that they were supposed to (heck, our '69 Electra did better than a lot of "economy" cars on the highway) never entered into the picture.

Just something I like to rant about. Maybe I'm just one of those "conspiracy nuts," but I think this is a pretty accurate reflection of what went on. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

What does this have to do with the LaCrosse? I dunno. I've seen it in pictures and it looks pretty nice. The Auto Show here in town should afford me an up-close look at it. The new engine sounds like it could be a screamer. But, I yearn for a 2-door. Oh, PLEASE let there be a 2-door Buick again.

[Guest imported_DaveZZZ]

Well, I sorta hijacked the thread. Sorry 'bout that. Though, I had help from whomever brought up the demographics and advertising.

55Packard, as far as I know you are right, and a lot of the underpowered cars did suck gas in an effort to do things like get on a freeway. My 82 with the 260: I used to have to merge onto a 50MPH route every day, and I would have to floor it to get to speed, and my foot would be all the way in for around 15 seconds, and that's with people climbing up my but leaning on their horns. They must have thought that I was just a jerk. Hey, I was doing everything that I could. And as I understand the operation of the computrer 2-bbl in the early 80s, at WOT it goes into open loop mode, meaning that I had no pollution controls anyway.

BUT, I do believe that CAFE is based on the number of cars sold by the factory, not the availability of those cars. As I understand it, this is why the factory will insist that the dealerships buy X Neons for every Viper, because it allows them to average up the MPG of the Viper. It doesn't matter if most of the Neons sit on the lot, because they've already been "sold" to the dealer.

Of course, the first wave of controls (primarily dropping compression) came in what, 1971, and was not intended to improve mileage. While I am by no means a tree hugger, I guess that I can understand the need- if you've seen the graph of lead levels in blood over the last 50 years, it is pretty scary how high they got. Everyone here born before 1980 probably deserves his IQ be scaled up by about 10 points

My real complaint is that 15 years after the pollution controls started, GM was still trying to meet current regs with the same basic engine designs of "the good old days." I think they were basically refusing to redesign in the hopes that if engines were bad enough, the public would demand changes to the laws. I mean, how else do you explain the Olds 307 being the Olds performance motor in 1987? 17 years wasn't enough time to come up with something better, from the ground up?

Proof that it could be done came from, of all places, Buick in the GN.

The worst part is that now GM has some really spiffy world-class engines (and I would put the ancient 3800 in the class, as they have done such a nice job updating it), but I know soooo many people who were burned so badly in the 70s and 80s, they've gone foreign and won't ever come back. And even though I don't agree with them, I can't say I blame them- we just saw a few stories of people whou had cars rust out before they were paid off. Think about that! $30,000 and it doesn't last 4 years (I'm adjusting for today's prices).

And I still haven't heard anyone claim to know why those years had such rust problems- I really do want to know.

-Dave

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The fuel consumption standards weren't based on the real-world situation of trying to merge onto the freeway with an anemic, de-tuned engine, but on a "formula" that gave points for two-barrel carbs, fewer cylinders, and lower displacement. </div></div>

I'm afraid that's not even close to true. Dave's much closer, it is a sales weighted average. Here's the actual standard from Title 40, Chapter 1 of the Code of Federal Regulations: <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> (e) For passenger categories identified in paragraphs (a) (1) and (2) of this section, the average fuel economy calculated in accordance with paragraph © of this section shall be adjusted using the following equation:

AFEadj = AFE[((0.55×a×c) + (0.45×c) + (0.5556×a) + 0.4487)/((0.55×a) + 0.45)] + IW

Where:

AFEajd=Adjusted average combined fuel economy, rounded to the nearest 0.1 mpg.

AFE=Average combined fuel economy as calculated in paragraph © of this section, rounded to the nearest 0.0001 mpg.

a=Sales-weighted average (rounded to the nearest 0.0001 mpg) of all model type highway fuel economy values (rounded to the nearest 0.1 mpg) divided by the sales-weighted average (rounded to the nearest 0.0001 mpg) of all model type city fuel economy values (rounded to the nearest 0.1 mpg). The quotient shall be rounded to 4 decimal places. These average fuel economies shall be determined using the methodology of paragraph © of this section.

c=0.0022 for the 1986 model year.

c=A constant value, fixed by model year. For 1987, the Administrator will specify the c value after the necessary laboratory humidity and test fuel data become available. For 1988 and later model years, the Administrator will specify the c value after the necessary laboratory humidity and test fuel data become available.

IW=(9.2917×10−3×SF3IWC×FE3IWC) −(3.5123×10−3×SF4ETW×FE4IWC&rpar;

Note: Any calculated value of IW less than zero shall be set equal to zero.

SF3IWC=The 3000 lb. inertia weight class sales divided by total sales. The quotient shall be rounded to 4 decimal places.

SF4ETW=The 4000 lb. equivalent test weight category sales divided by total sales. The quotient shall be rounded to 4 decimal places.

FE4IWC=The sales-weighted average combined fuel economy of all 3000 lb. inertia weight class base leves in the compliance category. Round the result to the nearest 0.0001 mpg.

FE4IWC=The sales-weighted average combined fuel economy of all 4000 lb. inertia weight class base levels in the compliance category. Round the result to the nearest 0.0001 mpg.

(40CFR-1.600.51086 </div></div>

The "city" and "highway" numbers are generated by proscribed dynamometer test regimes also used for emmissions testing.

Easy, huh?

The fact of the matter is that striving to meet the CAFE requirement (today's "cars" must average 27.5 mpg) is only a relatively recent phenomenon. From 1975 until the mid-1990's the market did it on it's own. This is because gas used to be very expensive. For instance in 1980 gas sold for the equivalent of over $3.00/gal (adjusted for inflation). That's why the Chevette was the last overall number one selling GM car, and it did it for 3 or 4 years.

Today the average private vehicle gets worse fuel economy than it did in 1980, and our world political and environmental position is worse than it has ever been. But at least we all can drive 8 passenger SUV's that never get their tires dirty and do 0-60 in under 9 sec.!

God bless us, everyone.

[NTX5467]

The original emissions standards were built around "parts per million" concentration specs for the various things like HC, CO, and NOx that came out of the tail pipe. Actually, HC and CO were the first things worried about and controlled, which were basically things that could be controlled by adding some efficiency to the mix (more lean mixtures over a broader operational spectrum). NOx required less combustion heat and that was where the lower compression ratios tended to come in. A terrible mix of trying to make it efficient and then making it no efficient.

Later, when the specs were changed to "grams per mile" of the gasses emitted, that's when the axle ratios headed into the 2.41 area. Fewer revs = fewer grams. Couple that with a somewhat heavy car with a small engine and it was where performance basically ended, especially in the 3-speed automatic days. Manual trans were basically for just smaller motors as when you shift gears, emissions tended to go up as the engine was unloaded whereas the automatic kept a load on the engine and thus was cleaner in the testing.

As noted, the earlier EPA numbers were not completely relevant to real world situations and were modified factored down in later times after there were complaints. Driving style was not mentioned either, but it took a special task to get those driving cycles "nailed" by those driving the cars. When I was in college in the 1973 time frame, I heard another guy talk about his summer job. It was driving a Mazda on the test dyno to determine optimum shift points and such so it would best pass the EPA dyno emissions/mileage test. By the way, the EPA mileage now comes from the gasses collected during the EPA driving cycle and not real world "on the road" testing. Anyway, I thought that was a kind of neat summer job, even if I didn't like Mazdas back then.

The first "truck=car" was the Subaru BRAT. Back in the pickup truck "dumping" days of the 1970s (where the Japanese were accused of dumping and flooding the market with their little trucks), Subaru put two seats in the back of a pickup and called it "passenger vehicle" and got away with it.

By observations, 4 cyl Camaros did not lead an easy life. Most were trashed when people found out how hard it was to find parts for them (as no dealers stocked anything for them, engine wise) and similar. Might be quite collectible today if anyone's into "rare" cars. One of the best combinations would have been a V-6, 5-speed, 4-wheel disc brake 1982 Camaro, of which few were probably built as everyone keyed on the "performance" Cross-Fire 305 V-8.

Enjoy!

NTX5467

[55PackardGuy]

Thanks for the note that manufacturers have to produce and "sell" (require the dealers to buy) a certain number of "economy" models in order to meet the CAFE standards. I'm no expert on how the formulas for EPA emissions worked, but suffice it to say that the end result was often cars that performed less efficiently in the real world than their "numbers" suggested. The thing that ticks me off is that there were ways to design cars for greater efficiency AND lower emmissions, if engineers and corporations hadn't been presented with a government "system to beat" rather than a well thought out goal that included their input. At least that's how it appears to me.

Maybe this was a necessary "teething" period which kept the pressure on to develop better engine controls, catalytic converters, etc. that eventually lead to the much cleaner cars of today. But, as mentioned elsewhere, one reason people went to imports and didn't come back is that the U.S. industry took the brunt of the pressure to develop what were in many ways emissions prototypes. It was hard to like a lot of these cars.

There is a happy ending. If you remember what it smelled like on a busy street in the 1960s and 70s you'll know how much more pleasant things are today!