2012 Buick Verano Official Release

Drew Dowdell · January 6, 2011

Buick Introduces the 2012 Verano

Buick's Third New Model in Two Years

Drew Dowdell - January 6th, 2011 - CheersandGears.com

In late 2011, the Verano compact luxury sedan will join the new Regal, Lacrosse and Enclave in Buick's re-energized lineup. The Verano will be revealed at the North American International Auto Show in Detroit on Monday. Powered by GM's venerable 2.4L Ecotec 4-cylinder and six-speed automatic transmission, the Verano will offer 177hp and 170 lb-ft of torque. This combination will offer 31mpg highway and 0-60 performance of about 8.0 seconds. Plans are in the works to offer a 2.0 litre turbocharged engine at a later date.

Available interior amenities include:

Push-Button Start
Dual-zone climate control with automatic climate control available
Heated steering wheel
Electronic parking brake
Heated seats
Buick's Quiet Tuning feature

Quiet Tuning

Buick's Quiet Tuning improvements on the Verano include hydraulic ride bushings, an isolated engine cradle, firewall sandwiched between two vibration damping mats, and nylon baffles filled with sound absorbing foam that expand to fill hollow body structure areas all contribute to a vault quiet driving experience.

Also included in the Quiet Tuning package:

The headliner comprises five layers of thermal fiber acoustic material, including a premium woven fabric on the visible outer layer
Patches of sound-damping material are applied strategically throughout the body structure and melt into place when the body passes through the paint oven, allowing the patches to follow the contours of the sheet metal below
Sound insulation material between rear-body structural components that is made from recycled denim
Triple-sealed doors that feature fiberglass "blankets" serve as water, airflow and noise barriers. The doors are also beta-braced, meaning they close with a solid, precise sound and no resonance
Optimized windshield and side glass for quietness, with 5.4-mm-thick laminated windshield and 4.85-mm laminated side glass
The engine's intake and exhaust systems are tuned for quiet performance
Isolated brake and fuel lines prevent vibrations.

Buick even designed the standard 17inch aluminum wheels to reduce noise.

Verano Safety

The Verano comes with 10 airbags standard, GM's StabiliTrak stability control, a pedal system that collapses during a crash to prevent foot or ankle injuries, and OnStar with automatic crash response.

We'll get you more up close and personal pictures of the Verano on Monday at the Detroit Auto Show, in the meantime, you can enjoy the press pictures supplied by GM in: Media Gallery: 2010 Buick Verano

Drew Dowdell · January 6, 2011

Technical Specs:

Overview

<table border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody> <tr> <td valign="top" width="141"> Models:

</td> <td valign="top" width="320"> 2012 Buick Verano

</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="141"> Body style / driveline:

</td> <td valign="top" width="320"> four-door, 5-passenger front engine transaxle; front-wheel-drive compact car

</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="141"> Construction:

</td> <td valign="top" width="320"> steel body-frame integral with front and rear crumple zones; galvanized steel front fenders, hood, roof, door panels, one-piece bodyside outer panel, thermal plastic olefin (TPO) bumper fascias

</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="141"> Manufacturing location:

</td> <td valign="top" width="320"> Orion Township, Mich.

</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="141"> Key competitors:

</td> <td valign="top" width="320"> Lexus IS 250, Audi A3

</td> </tr> </tbody> </table>

Engines

</td> <td valign="top" width="276"> Ecotec 2.4L DOHC I-4 (LEA)

</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="181"> Displacement (cu. in. / cc):

</td> <td valign="top" width="276"> 145 / 2384

</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="181"> Bore and stroke (in. / mm):

</td> <td valign="top" width="276"> 3.46 x 3.85 / 88 x 98

</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="181"> Block material:

</td> <td valign="top" width="276"> precision sand cast aluminum

</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="181"> Cylinder head material:

</td> <td valign="top" width="276"> SPM cast aluminum

</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="181"> Valvetrain:

</td> <td valign="top" width="276"> overhead camshafts, four valves per cylinder, continuous variable valve timing for intake and exhaust

</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="181"> Ignition system:

</td> <td valign="top" width="276"> individual coil-on-plug

</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="181"> Fuel delivery:

</td> <td valign="top" width="276"> direct injection and electronic throttle control

</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="181"> Compression ratio:

</td> <td valign="top" width="276"> 11.2:1

</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="181"> Horsepower (hp / kW @ rpm):

</td> <td valign="top" width="276"> 177 / 132 @ 6200 rpm (estimated, SAE certification pending)

</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="181"> Torque (lb.-ft. / Nm @ rpm):

</td> <td valign="top" width="276"> 170 / 230 @ 4800 rpm (estimated, SAE certification pending)

</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="181"> Recommended fuel:

</td> <td valign="top" width="276"> regular unleaded or E85

</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="181"> Emissions controls:

</td> <td valign="top" width="276"> close-coupled, catalytic converter; variable valve timing; positive crankcase ventilation evaporative system

</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="181"> Estimated fuel economy

(city / hwy):

</td> <td valign="top" width="276"> 22 / 31

</td> </tr> </tbody> </table>

Transmissions

</td> <td valign="top" width="300"> Hydra-Matic 6T45 6-speed automatic

</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="157"> Type:

</td> <td valign="top" width="300"> six-speed transverse, electronically controlled, automatic overdrive transmission

</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="157"> Gear ratios (:1)

</td> <td valign="top" width="300">

</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="157"> First:

</td> <td valign="top" width="300"> 4.58

</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="157"> Second:

</td> <td valign="top" width="300"> 2.96

</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="157"> Third:

</td> <td valign="top" width="300"> 1.91

</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="157"> Fourth:

</td> <td valign="top" width="300"> 1.45

</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="157"> Fifth:

</td> <td valign="top" width="300"> 1.00

</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="157"> Sixth:

</td> <td valign="top" width="300"> 0.75

</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="157"> Reverse:

</td> <td valign="top" width="300"> 2.84

</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="157"> Final drive:

</td> <td valign="top" width="300"> 3.23

</td> </tr> </tbody> </table>

Chassis/Suspension

<table border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody> <tr> <td valign="top" width="138"> Front:

</td> <td valign="top" width="322"> independent, MacPherson strut-type with side-loaded strut modules, specifically tuned coil springs, direct-acting stabilizer bar (hollow); hydraulic ride bushings

</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="138"> Rear:

</td> <td valign="top" width="322"> specifically adapted compound crank (torsion beam) with double-walled, U-shaped profile at the rear, Z-link (tunable control arm)

</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="138"> Traction control:

</td> <td valign="top" width="322"> all-speed using engine torque reduction and brake intervention

</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="138"> Steering type:

</td> <td valign="top" width="322"> rack-mounted electric power steering

</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="138"> Steering wheel turns, lock-to-lock:

</td> <td valign="top" width="322"> 2.8

</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="138"> Turning circle, curb-to-curb (feet / meters):

</td> <td valign="top" width="322"> 36 / 11

</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="138"> Steering ratio:

</td> <td valign="top" width="322"> 15.5:1

</td> </tr> </tbody> </table>

Brakes

<table border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody> <tr> <td valign="top" width="138"> Type:

</td> <td valign="top" width="322"> power-assisted four-wheel disc electronic brake force distribution and ABS

</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="138"> Brake rotor diameter – front (mm / in.):

</td> <td valign="top" width="322"> 300 / 11.8 vented; single-piston w/steel caliper

</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="138"> Brake rotor diameter – rear (mm / in.):

</td> <td valign="top" width="322"> 292 / 11.5 vented; single-piston w/steel caliper

</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="138"> Total swept area (cu cc; pad area):

</td> <td valign="top" width="322"> TBD

</td> </tr> </tbody> </table>

Wheels/Tires

<table border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody> <tr> <td valign="top" width="139"> Wheel size and type:

</td> <td valign="top" width="322"> 17-inch forged alloy (std.)

18-inch alloy (opt. – two designs available)

</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="139"> Tires:

</td> <td valign="top" width="322"> 225/50R17 ALS

235/45R18 ALS

</td> </tr> </tbody> </table>

Dimensions

Exterior

<table border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody> <tr> <td valign="top" width="181"> Wheelbase (in. / mm):

</td> <td valign="top" width="280"> 105.7 / 2685

</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="181"> Overall length (in. / mm):

</td> <td valign="top" width="280"> 183.9 / 4671

</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="181"> Overall width (in. / mm):

</td> <td valign="top" width="280"> 71.4 / 1815

</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="181"> Overall height (in. / mm):

</td> <td valign="top" width="280"> 58.4 / 1484

</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="181"> Track width front (in. / mm):

</td> <td valign="top" width="280"> 60.7 / 1544

</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="181"> Track width rear (in. / mm):

</td> <td valign="top" width="280"> 61.3 / 1558

</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="181"> Curb weight (lb / kg):

</td> <td valign="top" width="280"> 3300 / 1497

</td> </tr> </tbody> </table>

Interior

<table border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody> <tr> <td valign="top" width="205"> Seating capacity (front / rear):

</td> <td valign="top" width="256"> 2 / 3

</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="205"> Headroom (in. / mm):

</td> <td valign="top" width="256"> 38.3 / 973 (front without sunroof)

37.2 / 945 (front with sunroof)

37.8 / 960 (rear without sunroof)

37.8 / 960 (rear with sunroof)

</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="205"> Legroom (in. / mm):

</td> <td valign="top" width="256"> 42 / 1068 (front)

33.9 / 861 (rear)

</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="205"> Shoulder room (in. / mm):

</td> <td valign="top" width="256"> 55.1 / 1399 (front)

53.8 / 1343 (rear)

</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="205"> Hip room (in. / mm):

</td> <td valign="top" width="256"> 53.7 / 1364 (front)

51.9 / 1320 (rear)

</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="205"> Passenger volume (cu. ft. / L) :

</td> <td valign="top" width="256"> 95 / 2690

</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="205"> Cargo volume (cu. ft. / L):

</td> <td valign="top" width="256"> 15.2 / 430 (maximum with tire inflator kit and without Bose Premium Audio)

14.3 / 405 (with spare tire/jack kit and without Bose Premium Audio)

14 / 396 (with spare tire/jack kit and Bose Premium Audio)

</td> </tr> </tbody> </table>

Capacities

<table border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr> <td valign="top" width="205"> Trailer towing maximum (lb. / kg):

</td> <td valign="top" width="261"> 1000 / 454

</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="205"> Fuel tank (gal. / L):

</td> <td valign="top" width="261"> 15 / 57

</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="205"> Cooling system (qt. / L):

</td> <td valign="top" width="261"> TBD

</td></tr></tbody></table>

NOS2006 · January 6, 2011

I do think it's a bit goofy looking (although that Velite grille is making it grow on me everytime I see a picture), but it's a very impressive car for what it is IMO. Nice job, Buick.

Dsuupr · January 6, 2011

Without better gas mileage, they are going to be slammed against the wall for introducing the car. We can only hope they make the start/stop or eAssist system standard to at least help in this area.

Don't get me wrong. I think it is a good looking car and a great move by GM, so a long as the gas mileage is better than they state.

Edited January 6, 2011 by Dsuupr

Camino LS6 · January 6, 2011

It's relatively inoffensive, I suppose.

Camino LS6 · January 6, 2011

Without better gas mileage, they are going to be slammed against the wall for introducing the car. We can only hope they make the start/stop or eAssist system standard to at least help in this area.

Don't get me wrong. I think it is a good looking car and a great move by GM, so a long as the gas mileage is better than they state.

Good point.

A ten year old F-body with an LS1 can nearly match it (at least on the highway).

Drew Dowdell · January 6, 2011

I'm curious why it only gets 31mpg when the larger and heavier Malibu can get 34mpg with the same power train....

Robert Hall · January 6, 2011

I'm curious why it only gets 31mpg when the larger and heavier Malibu can get 34mpg with the same power train....

That is odd...gear ratios?

Drew Dowdell · January 6, 2011

I take that back, not the exact same powertrain. The Verano has direct injection, the Malibu does not. Still, direct injection should improve the mileage.

NOS2006 · January 6, 2011

Buick Verano: 177 HP, 170 ft-lb, 3300 lbs, 22/31 MPG

Lexus IS250: 204 HP, 185 ft-lb, 3455 lbs, 19/27 (manual) or 21/30 MPG

Audi A3: 200 HP, 207 ft-lb, 3219 lbs, 21/30 MPG

*Note: IS250 is RWD; Verano and A3 are FWD

Source: http://autos.msn.com

regfootball · January 6, 2011

I'm curious why it only gets 31mpg when the larger and heavier Malibu can get 34mpg with the same power train....

exactly.

can someone email Buick and tell them the PLOOD looks ridiculous and is hideous and will be the subject of ridicule?

3300 pounds? no rear leg room? 31 mph? only an 8.0 second 0-60? why isn't the turbo here now? Where are the 3 door and 5 door and wagon?

NOS2006 · January 6, 2011

exactly.

can someone email Buick and tell them the PLOOD looks ridiculous and is hideous and will be the subject of ridicule?

3300 pounds? no rear leg room? 31 mph? only an 8.0 second 0-60? why isn't the turbo here now? Where are the 3 door and 5 door and wagon?

3300 lbs... average for class

Rear leg room... it's a compact car

31 MPG... okay they could've done better IMO

8.0sec... it's a small Buick and not called a GNX

Turbo... it's not even in the Chevy yet; why would it be in the Buick first?

Wagons... They always release one model first and have others follow. Why don't we have a 3 or 5 door Cruze? Look at the CTS.

Robert Hall · January 6, 2011

exactly.

can someone email Buick and tell them the PLOOD looks ridiculous and is hideous and will be the subject of ridicule?

Interesting...I don't see anything wrong w/ the plood..the interior has plenty of color..nice change from the usual gray despair of most FWD compacts.

3300 pounds? no rear leg room? 31 mph? only an 8.0 second 0-60? why isn't the turbo here now? Where are the 3 door and 5 door and wagon?

Americans don't buy hatchbacks and wagons, right?

Camino LS6 · January 6, 2011

So, not a homerun?

Robert Hall · January 6, 2011

Turbo... it's not even in the Chevy yet; why would it be in the Buick first?

Why would it be in the Chevy first?

NOS2006 · January 6, 2011

Honestly, I think it'd be hard to call anything a homerun in this class. But I do think this is sufficient. I'd be more happy with about 24/33 MPG or a bit more power though as well as the addition of the LNF.

NOS2006 · January 6, 2011

Why would it be in the Chevy first?

The Cruze came out first by about 2 years, so my guess is that they've had more time to fit it in there and do some testing with the engine in the Cruze first. And I feel like a Chevy is probably more deserving of a performance model than a Buick.

Drew Dowdell · January 6, 2011

can someone email Buick and tell them the PLOOD looks ridiculous and is hideous and will be the subject of ridicule?

I won't. I like it.

3300 pounds? no rear leg room? 31 mph? only an 8.0 second 0-60? why isn't the turbo here now? Where are the 3 door and 5 door and wagon?

There's no rear leg room in an A3 either.

NOS2006 · January 6, 2011

I'm wondering about the general opinion of the quarter windows up front. I'm not sure if I like them or not. It seems like there might be more visibility, but I just don't know..

SoCalCTS · January 6, 2011

Unless Cadillac reveals something great at NAIAS, this is going to be my next car. It looks really luxe. The only downside is the lack of power but honestly I only drive to work and back.

Drew Dowdell · January 6, 2011

Cadillac has no press conference scheduled for NAIAS. Any Cadillac releases will be Chicago, NYC, or LA next fall.

Drew Dowdell · January 6, 2011

As far as the acceleration, I don't think 8 seconds is much of an issue, but I would have liked to have seen better fuel economy. Hopefully that is just a preliminary number.

FWIW, the '96 Roadmaster LT-1 0-60 is 8 seconds also, and that feels plenty fast for 98% of the population.

Intrepidation · January 6, 2011

It's quite handsome, much more so than the Cruze, and the interior looks very nice, but it would have been nice if the reverse sweepsear had made it to the car. It would have given it some distinction.

It looks a bit anonymous from the side, and I would have liked to see the front end be a little more aggressive like the LaCrosse.

regfootball · January 6, 2011

3300 lbs... average for class

Rear leg room... it's a compact car

31 MPG... okay they could've done better IMO

8.0sec... it's a small Buick and not called a GNX

Turbo... it's not even in the Chevy yet; why would it be in the Buick first?

Wagons... They always release one model first and have others follow. Why don't we have a 3 or 5 door Cruze? Look at the CTS.

apologies. i'd fire you if you were my project planner at an automaker and you told me that.

elantra 2700 pounds or 600 pounds lighter. conversely, the sonata weighs the same has bigger engine more room better mpg. weight is enemy of mpg everyone else is crashing to reduce weight Buick brings out a porker.

8.0 is a slug for a compact car with 177hp. even 1/2 second would be an improvement to ok.

turbo, duh buick is above chevy so it would be logical to have it in the buick first.

as for the rear leg room why bother with a rear seat if adults can't wedge themselves into it.

35 mpg cafe is coming and this buick can't match the malibu OR the EQUINOX. 'epic fail'.

Edited January 6, 2011 by regfootball

Camino LS6 · January 6, 2011

I'm wondering about the general opinion of the quarter windows up front. I'm not sure if I like them or not. It seems like there might be more visibility, but I just don't know..

Thumbs down on that detail, never liked it anywhere it has been used.

regfootball · January 6, 2011

I won't. I like it.

There's no rear leg room in an A3 either.

that could be why the A3 doesn't sell. NFW this car gets cross shopped vs the A3, BTW. this is GM's new Grand Am is all it is. without the rear seat space the grand am had.

apologies.

I'm wondering about the general opinion of the quarter windows up front. I'm not sure if I like them or not. It seems like there might be more visibility, but I just don't know..

some cars it works, others not. It just depends. Sometimes it really opens up visibility. Sometimes it just creates a dead triangle of crap.

the triangle looks more awesome on the 3 door, which buick decided no one wants.

Edited January 6, 2011 by regfootball

Robert Hall · January 6, 2011

Thumbs down on that detail, never liked it anywhere it has been used.

It's the poor FWD proportions that lead to it being there...the A-pillar base is about 4-6 inches too far forward because of the inadequate wheel-to-door length.

Camino LS6 · January 6, 2011

It's the poor FWD proportions that lead to it being there...the A-pillar base is about 4-6 inches too far forward because of the inadequate wheel-to-door length.

Maybe so.

But it isn't a solution I would vote for, it always looks goofy.

Camino LS6 · January 6, 2011

It seems to me that GM's top priority with this car was silence.

I find that to be a bit of an odd focus. Not that it doesn't matter (especially in a Buick), but they seem to have made it the central aspect of the car.

frogger · January 6, 2011

So I wonder how much it will cost, what cars they feel are its competition, and who it is marketed towards. It does get poor fuel economy for a compact but if its 3300lbs it is about the same weight as the Sonata and other midsize cars.

Edited January 6, 2011 by frogger

PONTIAC06 · January 6, 2011

I was thinking about a Regal in the next year, but with the right features, and payment, this might be the car for me. Plus, those front seats looks really comfy...

Paolino · January 6, 2011

I really like it... everything except the chrome eyebrows on the rear. But seriously, love the interior, plood IMO looks good, happy with offered features.. just hope lower trims of the car don't look too cheap.

Drew Dowdell · January 6, 2011

apologies. i'd fire you if you were my project planner at an automaker and you told me that.

elantra 2700 pounds or 600 pounds lighter. conversely, the sonata weighs the same has bigger engine more room better mpg. weight is enemy of mpg everyone else is crashing to reduce weight Buick brings out a porker.

8.0 is a slug for a compact car with 177hp. even 1/2 second would be an improvement to ok.

turbo, duh buick is above chevy so it would be logical to have it in the buick first.

as for the rear leg room why bother with a rear seat if adults can't wedge themselves into it.

35 mpg cafe is coming and this buick can't match the malibu OR the EQUINOX. 'epic fail'.

So in the Verano 8.0 second is a "slug" but in the Elantra, 9.1 seconds to 60 is ok?

Matched with a new in-house-developed six-speed automatic, the Elantra hits 60 mph in 9.1 seconds

Or how about 8 seconds in the Sonata... or the IS250?

As for the rear seats. I just sat in my evaluation Cruze 10 minutes ago. It's not a Lesabre back there, but I could be comfortable in the rear seat. Stop adjusting the front seat to look like a ghetto cruiser and maybe you'll be able to fit an adult back there.

GMTruckGuy74 · January 6, 2011

Stop adjusting the front seat to look like a ghetto cruiser and maybe you'll be able to fit an adult back there.

LOL! :neenerneener:

ZL-1 · January 6, 2011

Buick Verano: 177 HP, 170 ft-lb, 3300 lbs, 22/31 MPG
Lexus IS250: 204 HP, 185 ft-lb, 3455 lbs, 19/27 (manual) or 21/30 MPG

Audi A3: 200 HP, 207 ft-lb, 3219 lbs, 21/30 MPG

*Note: IS250 is RWD; Verano and A3 are FWD

Source: http://autos.msn.com

Those two as the main competitors struck me as odd, but hey... PR-talk is always fun to read!

BTW - AFAIK we don't get that poo-poo brown exterior color on the Astra.

Edited January 6, 2011 by ZL-1

Justin Bimmer · January 6, 2011

A quiet car is something that is important to a lot of people. Some people would rather listen to music than their engine or wind.

GMTruckGuy74 · January 6, 2011

I like this car so far from these pictures. I can deal with the front quarter glass; too bad it doesn't open like the old vent windows back in the '50s & '60s. I like this car much more than the Cruz, and I showed these pictures to the wife and she likes it too. That metallic brown is an awesome color, just saw it on a new 2011 Buick Regal at the dealership last Thursday and I was like WOW!

William Maley · January 6, 2011

A quiet car is something that is important to a lot of people. Some people would rather listen to music than their engine or wind.

Raises hand..

z28luvr01 · January 6, 2011

I'm wondering about the general opinion of the quarter windows up front. I'm not sure if I like them or not. It seems like there might be more visibility, but I just don't know..

I hate it. Overall the proportions for this car seem very off, and the front quarter window accentuates it. What's weird is that, after seeing a Cruze in the steel, it actually has one of the best stances for a FWD car in recent memory.

Drew Dowdell · January 6, 2011

A quiet car is something that is important to a lot of people. Some people would rather listen to music than their engine or wind.

I just took a spin in the Cruze, it's already very quiet. If Buick really made the Verano that much more quiet, that will be a huge selling point for this car and make it feel a lot more "luxury" than others in it's class.

thedriver · January 6, 2011

Why is the rear frowning at me? What did I do to it?

daves87rs · January 6, 2011

Without better gas mileage, they are going to be slammed against the wall for introducing the car. We can only hope they make the start/stop or eAssist system standard to at least help in this area.

Don't get me wrong. I think it is a good looking car and a great move by GM, so a long as the gas mileage is better than they state.

The 2.4 with the 6 will do much better than 31.Even the 2.4 in the malibu does better than that.

Unless they made this car really heavy.

I think it should fine. This will be the small car for those who don't want a dinky underpowered one. Should be more fun to drive than the Cruze.

This should make rjion happy....

CSpec · January 6, 2011

Maybe so.

But it isn't a solution I would vote for, it always looks goofy.

I think it's from crash safety regulations (probably for pedestrian impact). More and more small cars have them, and I would bet you no designer likes them. Empowah might have more to say here.

CSpec · January 6, 2011

Unless Cadillac reveals something great at NAIAS, this is going to be my next car. It looks really luxe. The only downside is the lack of power but honestly I only drive to work and back.

This is a great point and I think more and more car buyers are thinking this way. Having a big engine and a tuned chassis is nice and all on a mountain road, but I don't see how the extra cost is justifiable for most people who just go to work and back. It seems like there was a "horsepower bubble" along with the housing bubble and it's coming back down to earth. I'm sure this car has a higher top speed than you will ever need.

regfootball · January 6, 2011

So in the Verano 8.0 second is a "slug" but in the Elantra, 9.1 seconds to 60 is ok?

Or how about 8 seconds in the Sonata... or the IS250?

As for the rear seats. I just sat in my evaluation Cruze 10 minutes ago. It's not a Lesabre back there, but I could be comfortable in the rear seat. Stop adjusting the front seat to look like a ghetto cruiser and maybe you'll be able to fit an adult back there.

ok shorty, obviously you see no benefit in 6 footers sitting front and rear in a car that purports to transport humans. (IN COMFORT)

Verano is a slug with that much more power and that much more price. the extra 5-7 grand and extra 30-40hp should get you down to 7 seconds, min. the only sunny side to this is eAssist will be added probably and push those mpg numbers up sufficiently.

A lot of times mfr estimates are very conservative though. All you probably need to do to determine where it really will come in on the 0-60 is simple math. Divide the curb weight of the murano into the curb weight of the Malibu and then take that number and multiply it by the best Malibu's 0-60 time with the 6 speed. You probably would be dead on.

Edited January 6, 2011 by regfootball

Camino LS6 · January 6, 2011

I think it's from crash safety regulations (probably for pedestrian impact). More and more small cars have them, and I would bet you no designer likes them. Empowah might have more to say here.

How would crash standards make that window happen?

I'm not seeing the connection.

NOS2006 · January 6, 2011

This is simple: if your main concern in buying a new vehicle is to seat tall people in the backseat, buy a bigger car.

Also, the Cruze weights ~200 lbs less, so there goes your 30-40 HP.

Camino LS6 · January 6, 2011

A quiet car is something that is important to a lot of people. Some people would rather listen to music than their engine or wind.

I get that, but it seems like it was the only priority for the car. That's what I found to be a bit odd.

frogger · January 6, 2011

This is simple: if your main concern in buying a new vehicle is to seat tall people in the backseat, buy a bigger car.

Exactly.. This car will probably be priced similarly to many midsized family sedans with more room that are cheaper to own but not "quiet tuned", no wood trim, lower end interior materials, and less chrome on the outside.

regfootball · January 6, 2011

Wow, VW certainly was able to make sufficient legroom for adults in the back of its like sized car, the jetta.

Maybe GM is simply incompetent.

Sign In

2012 Buick Verano Official Release

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

regfootball

Drew Dowdell

regfootball

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment