• Sign in to follow this  

    Whoops! Buick Canada Reveals Existence of V6 for Regal GS


    • Thanks Buick Canada!

    We know from rumors that a GS variant of the next-generation Regal is incoming. But we have been wondering what would be powering it. Would it be a turbocharged-four like in the current GS or go with a V6? Thanks to a slip-up on Buick Canada's website, we might have an answer.

    The Truth About Cars reports that a couple of days ago, this line appeared on the Regal landing page of Buick Canada’s site.

    "Engineered to make getting there all the fun, the all-new Regal’s excellent driving performance is something to be experienced with available new powertrain and AWD system (3.6L V6 on GS and Twin Clutch AWD)."

    This was removed from Buick Canada's site, but if you do a Google for this line, you'll find it. This line is still cached in Google's servers.

    Unsurprisingly, a Buick spokesperson declined to comment.

    To us, the V6 option for the GS seems possibly legit and our reasoning behind it deals with the all-new Holden Commodore. As we have reported previously, the top engine for the Commodore will be a 3.6L V6 producing 306 horsepower and 273 pound-feet of torque. We wouldn't be shocked if this is what powers the Regal GS. 

    We'll be keeping a close eye on this story.

    Source: The Truth About Cars



      Report Article
    Sign in to follow this  


    User Feedback



    Recommended Comments

    12 hours ago, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

      The new LaCrosse has the same wheelbase as the Regal and Malibu.


    The 2017 LaCrosse has a 114.4" wheelbase, which is 3" longer than the Regal's.

    Edited by KevinW

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    1 hour ago, regfootball said:

    Fusion sport 2.7v6 far cheaper than caddy

    Which is still $35-40k, and the Regal costs more than a Fusion.  They'll probably want $45k for the 3.6 V6 Regal, a turbo would go $5k over that easily.  Why not make a Enclave Avista 3.0TT and price it at $76,000, they would sell more of those.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    10 hours ago, KevinW said:


    The 2017 LaCrosse has a 114.4" wheelbase, which is 3" longer than the Regal's.

    Yes, I thought I read the '18 Insignia/Regal was on the longer wheelbase..but it has the same 111.x wheelbase as the Malibu.   I assume the next Impala will be on the longer wheelbase, as it is currently only 111.x also (as is the XTS IIRC).

    Edited by Cubical-aka-Moltar

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    12 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

    ..... Once the torque kicks in....

    Like I said. I'd rather have the lag free version.

    NO turbo has no lag... It's physically impossible.

    Go drive many of the 3.6 models from 2011-2016 and you find much throttle lag. GM really did something wrong on many of these models. My Terrain has it. Nox have it the Canyon and Colorado had it and several other models. 

    You can hit the gas and it is dead for 1-2 seconds which can be a thrill when you are trying to be a Yellow light. It is much longer than any present day turbo. 

    Second my 2.0 can hit max torque at 1800 RPM and hold it till 5300. The only issue I have if I try to beat a yellow light is not lighting the tires up through the intersection. Yes try to spin thje tires rolling at 40 MPH with any automatic 3.6 and see if you get traction control to kick in. I have even done it over 50 MPH.

    You can toss anything you like here but I can go out to my garage at any moment and disprove your thoughts with the very engines we are speaking about. You may have driven them but I own and live with them daily.

    While I may own more 3.6 models the Turbo is much more a pleasure to drive.

    Now to clarify the new Denali has the new 3.6 and it is fixed. There is no lag or throttle response issues. Many 15-16 owners have traded for the new engine and tranny on the forum.

    There was a fix call a Pedal Commander that would let you dial out the throttle issues for $299. It appears normally on the DI versions. My 08 for the most part did not have this issue but it can at time drop the throttle at time but no where as bad. The Denali with the new engine is sweet and has good response and shift measures.  

    The observations here are my own and also those of the many owners who have complained about the same thing on the forums. So this is no an isolated deal. 


    As for the V6 in the Regal yes they could have done it but the MPG would have been down. Many cried for the Insignia with the TT also but they failed to grasp it was a $60K car new in Europe we were already struggling just to sell the GS here at $40K.

    The truth is they need to find a way to sell a normal sedan at a reasonable price to the average customers. GS models are great but they do not carry the load. You are going to sell the 5% of the model in these cars no matter what.  

    Edited by hyperv6

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    12 hours ago, regfootball said:

    Hopefully the insistence of ridiculous cafe increases will get beat back for awhile. 2.0 t 4 pot is a great choice but should only be the base mill in any Buick. 

     

    Gm's done well with 4t but the advantage of a 6 is smoother engine  

     

    I think there will be a slight pause in the CAFE but I do not see the companies changing their strategy. They are just looking to buy time. 

    I agree the V6 has a smoothness to it that is one true advantage to anyone willing to be honest. That is as long as it is a 60 degree engine. The 43 even with balance shafts can still have an edge to it. 

    I would love to see the Turbo 4 standard and a V6 as an option in many models as to give people a choice. 

    The real issue coming up is the stop start systems. While they work fine there is not much public acceptance to them. Most people just do not like them. Yes it is not always legitimate complaints but an unhappy customer is not a buying customer and going to a six may require the stop start with no shut off. Hmmmm what is one to do. 

    I know there is nothing wrong with stop start but to me I would rather leave it in my golf cart LOL! Younger buyers may be more receptive but they are not the majority of the buyers yet. 

     

     

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Apparently I'm not allowed a preference. I find the experience behind the 3.6 V6 to be much more satisfying than a 2.0t in nearly all situations. The same holds true for similar situations in other brands. 

    And I am in fact quite stupid and have never driven any of these cars.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Drew, I will take a v6 over a turbo 4 any day of the week.

    Also, if the Regal and the LaCrosse are so close dimensionally, the next LaCrosse should have the same dimensions of an Impala to give everyone (especially GM) some real space difference and a reason to either stay at a Regal or really move up to a LaCrosse.  There is no good reason a midsize and a large car should be so similar externally or inside the cabin.  Too many buyers will orphan the LaCrosse and buy Regals instead.  I know we live in a time where the crossover is king, but I am not sure that a wagon is necessarily going to make much of a difference in the sales tables when Buick already has THREE crossovers.

    A V6 in every (non-small) car and crossover please.  4 cylinders just don't cut the mustard.

    • Upvote 1

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    5 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

    Apparently I'm not allowed a preference. I find the experience behind the 3.6 V6 to be much more satisfying than a 2.0t in nearly all situations. The same holds true for similar situations in other brands. 

    And I am in fact quite stupid and have never driven any of these cars.

    Stop playing the victim. 

    You can believe what you want but I will call you out if you drift from the truth. 

    Since I own both engines involved and even own more 3.6 models I should have a right to defend the turbo when it is being put down for untrue reasons. I would think owning and driving one for 8 years would give me a little more insight over someone that just drove one here and there. 

    If you want an informed opinion on a medical issue do you speak to  a Doctor or someone who has put a band aide on. 

    I have no problem if you don't like the Turbo just prefer the V6 but when you give reasons that are not true. 

    To better qualify this I just bought my last 3.6 two weeks ago so I have nothing against that engine either as the latest version is the best refined one so far. 
    By the way I never called you stupid. Trust me if I felt that way I would have no problem doing so. I will say you are not accurate in your assessment due to your limited time with the product. 

    The only advantage on this is I have for the last 9 years owned these engines and bought a few more and have first hand experience. I do not disagree based on opinion but based on experience. 

    I was once a never a 4 or turbo guy and I have been converted as I have spent enough time with this engine to know what it can do and how well it can hold up. Spinning this thing to 23 PSI and never having enough traction due to the FWD is enough to tell  me the advantages of this engine as it will do things the V6 never would do. 

    All I say is be honest and I would like to see both engines offered. Make the V6 a higher cost option to those who just have to have it and leave the Turbo standard. 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    The transmission in my 3.6L truck is very reluctant to downshift, and I am not just talking about hooning.  I am talking about trying to get up hills, of which there are plenty round here.  Once it does though, it gits.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Start Stop still needs plenty of work. Had a loaner from the diesel and both the wife and I did not like it. Yes it did it's job fine in terms of turning off at a stop and back on when you lifted your gas foot. Sucky thing is that it is not silky smooth. It is very abrupt and just not a pleasant experience. 

    While I see no advantage to the V6 over the Turbo 4 in terms of performance like in the ATS which I have driven plenty of since they have both versions in the loaner mix at the cadillac dealership I use, I do agree with everyone that the V6 is smoother than the turbo.

    I also in regards to lag just get into the habit of pressing the gas pedal sooner to get it to spin up which does make it pull harder than I notice in the V6.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    12 hours ago, ocnblu said:

    The transmission in my 3.6L truck is very reluctant to downshift, and I am not just talking about hooning.  I am talking about trying to get up hills, of which there are plenty round here.  Once it does though, it gits.

    I take it that you have the six speed?

     

    The 8 speed has resolved much of the down shift and low end complaints.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    On ‎4‎/‎8‎/‎2017 at 9:23 PM, Drew Dowdell said:

    ..... Once the torque kicks in....

    Like I said. I'd rather have the lag free version.

    NO turbo has no lag... It's physically impossible.

    There are ways to spin a turbo constantly to create no lag. It definitely costs fuel to do that though. It's one way the GT keeps its turbos spooled up AND gets abysmal mileage. I believe there are also electronic ways to spool them.

    I also don't really know how you feel so much lag in these small turbo motors. I've felt next to none in the couple I've driven. At least nothing you'd notice in daily driving situations. I've never stood on the pedal and felt like I was waiting any amount of time. If anything I was waiting for a down shift before hearing the turbo spinning.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    15 hours ago, hyperv6 said:

    Stop playing the victim. 

    You can believe what you want but I will call you out if you drift from the truth. 

    Since I own both engines involved and even own more 3.6 models I should have a right to defend the turbo when it is being put down for untrue reasons. I would think owning and driving one for 8 years would give me a little more insight over someone that just drove one here and there. 

    If you want an informed opinion on a medical issue do you speak to  a Doctor or someone who has put a band aide on. 

    I have no problem if you don't like the Turbo just prefer the V6 but when you give reasons that are not true. 

    To better qualify this I just bought my last 3.6 two weeks ago so I have nothing against that engine either as the latest version is the best refined one so far. 
    By the way I never called you stupid. Trust me if I felt that way I would have no problem doing so. I will say you are not accurate in your assessment due to your limited time with the product. 

    The only advantage on this is I have for the last 9 years owned these engines and bought a few more and have first hand experience. I do not disagree based on opinion but based on experience. 

    I was once a never a 4 or turbo guy and I have been converted as I have spent enough time with this engine to know what it can do and how well it can hold up. Spinning this thing to 23 PSI and never having enough traction due to the FWD is enough to tell  me the advantages of this engine as it will do things the V6 never would do. 

    All I say is be honest and I would like to see both engines offered. Make the V6 a higher cost option to those who just have to have it and leave the Turbo standard. 

    I gave Turbo-4s a chance.... I really did believe they were a decent replacement for a larger displacement V6.  But the power delivery just isn't as good. Too long to wait to spool up... even on the light duty ones.   Are turbo-4s an improvement over non-turbo-4s? Absolutely... but they are still no V6.  A V6 still has a baseline level of torque there that a that a turbo-4 doesn't.  V6es have a level of refinement that 4s cannot match. 

    I also want to be clear. This is not just GM products I'm objecting to.  I'd rather have a V6 explorer than a 2.3T Explorer. 

    As far as CAFE, GM can turn their V6es into 4-cylinders and back in less than a single revolution of the crank. Much less lag than a turbo. 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    36 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

    There are ways to spin a turbo constantly to create no lag. It definitely costs fuel to do that though. It's one way the GT keeps its turbos spooled up AND gets abysmal mileage. I believe there are also electronic ways to spool them.

    I also don't really know how you feel so much lag in these small turbo motors. I've felt next to none in the couple I've driven. At least nothing you'd notice in daily driving situations. I've never stood on the pedal and felt like I was waiting any amount of time. If anything I was waiting for a down shift before hearing the turbo spinning.

    When you drive such a wide variety of vehicles like I do, you notice it.

    I am more forgiving to Turbo-V6es because they still have a baseline torque that comes on sooner. They aren't a true V8 replacement either, but they are more satisfactory than a Turbo-4. 

    • Upvote 1

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    On 4/7/2017 at 6:42 PM, regfootball said:

    It probably has the v6, maybe because the new GM crossovers with the fancy AWD and the lacrosse have the 3.6 mated to that new system.

    IMO don't call it a GS unless it has a TURBO VEE SIX.

    why not the 3.0 TT?

    Agree 100%.  make the 3.6 an option on lesser Regals and give the GS a version of the 3.0TT, even detuned to 350HP it would be a beast for what it is. 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    It's a really simple thing to figure out.  Go test drive two Ford Explorers... one with the turbo 2.3 and one with the V6.  Drive them normally, not as race cars.  Drive them in normal traffic... take them on a jaunt on the highway for a bit. Try and pass someone at highway speeds. 

    Head on over to the Buick dealership and drive a Regal GS back to back with a V6 Lacrosse...

    Then head over to Kia... try out an Optima Turbo and then a Cadenza.  Which one handles daily driving in a more competent way? 

    I'm trying to imagine what kind of pig the new Traverse is going to feel like with the 2.0T spinning under the hood of the base models.  It will probably be more pig-like than the much heavier current traverse with the V6. 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    18 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

    When you drive such a wide variety of vehicles like I do, you notice it.

    I am more forgiving to Turbo-V6es because they still have a baseline torque that comes on sooner. They aren't a true V8 replacement either, but they are more satisfactory than a Turbo-4. 

    Mt brother had a Fusion 2.0 rental a few years ago while his CTS was in the shop and had a 3.6 13 Impala for work.  Back to back, the turbo had WAY more torque off the line, but the V6 had stronger top end, but a less torquey feel.  Average FE was pretty similar though.  Modern turbo 4s are not what the used to be in the 90s.  My old Talon auto with the larger manual turbo was dead until 4k RPMs, then punched you in the back.  In my bug there is the slightest hint of turbo lag, but man that engine pulls once the turbo hits (which there is rarely any lag) it is a little rocket for what it is.  Now, torque was my old modified 00 GTP.  THAT had low end torque, but also a roots SC.  That said for 400ish in mods, I ran high 13s in that beast.  that said, top end was absolutely horrible when stock, but did get considerable better with the mods. 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    3 minutes ago, Stew said:

    Mt brother had a Fusion 2.0 rental a few years ago while his CTS was in the shop and had a 3.6 13 Impala for work.  Back to back, the turbo had WAY more torque off the line, but the V6 had stronger top end, but a less torquey feel.  Average FE was pretty similar though.  Modern turbo 4s are not what the used to be in the 90s.  My old Talon auto with the larger manual turbo was dead until 4k RPMs, then punched you in the back.  In my bug there is the slightest hint of turbo lag, but man that engine pulls once the turbo hits (which there is rarely any lag) it is a little rocket for what it is.  Now, torque was my old modified 00 GTP.  THAT had low end torque, but also a roots SC.  That said for 400ish in mods, I ran high 13s in that beast.  that said, top end was absolutely horrible when stock, but did get considerable better with the mods. 

    "....off the line...."

    That's the key that I'm getting at.  If you're flooring it every time you leave the stop light, sure, the Turbo may be better... but that's not a normal situation. People just don't drive like that.  I'm in NYC this week in my underpowered Encore... and I still don't drive like that. 

    Buick took a bunch of us out to a track to drive GSes for a day.... it was just about the most boring day of track driving I've ever had. Sure they handled well in the corners, but I could watch a full episode of House of Cards on the straight-aways. Something as mundane as a Camry V6 or Cadenza feels much faster and effortless in its acceleration though neither of them would handle turns like the GS does.  

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    5 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

    "....off the line...."

    That's the key that I'm getting at.  If you're flooring it every time you leave the stop light, sure, the Turbo may be better... but that's not a normal situation. People just don't drive like that.  I'm in NYC this week in my underpowered Encore... and I still don't drive like that. 

    Buick took a bunch of us out to a track to drive GSes for a day.... it was just about the most boring day of track driving I've ever had. Sure they handled well in the corners, but I could watch a full episode of House of Cards on the straight-aways. Something as mundane as a Camry V6 or Cadenza feels much faster and effortless in its acceleration though neither of them would handle turns like the GS does.  

    You don't have to floor them.  i don't my bug unless I want to go in a hurry (just like an NA motor), and I didn't have to the 2.0 Fusion either.  The ease of getting going really impressed me there and it was stronger even at part throttle off the line that the Impala.  Most DOHC do suffer some softness in the low end generally and that has always been an issue. 

    Oh, I am not surprised your Encore feels under-powered because every GM i have driven with the 1.4 turbo fel weak and the auto trans was always reluctant to downshift, even if you are losing speed at full throttle while climbing a hill. 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    42 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

    It's a really simple thing to figure out.  Go test drive two Ford Explorers... one with the turbo 2.3 and one with the V6.  Drive them normally, not as race cars.  Drive them in normal traffic... take them on a jaunt on the highway for a bit. Try and pass someone at highway speeds. 

    Head on over to the Buick dealership and drive a Regal GS back to back with a V6 Lacrosse...

    Then head over to Kia... try out an Optima Turbo and then a Cadenza.  Which one handles daily driving in a more competent way? 

    I'm trying to imagine what kind of pig the new Traverse is going to feel like with the 2.0T spinning under the hood of the base models.  It will probably be more pig-like than the much heavier current traverse with the V6. 

    That is probably all true, but manufacturers are still going to go with the turbo 4 because they get better gas mileage, weigh less, and take up less space.  If a car is designed for 4 cylinder only they can cut weight on the body and cut space under hood and apply that to the cabin.  And even on something like an E-class wilhich is made to fit a V8 they dropped that 3.5 V6 in favor of 2.0t because of fuel economy regs, emissions regs and displacement tax.  It isn't about what the consumer wants it is about meeting regulations to a lot of these cars.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    1 minute ago, smk4565 said:

    That is probably all true, but manufacturers are still going to go with the turbo 4 because they get better gas mileage, weigh less, and take up less space.  If a car is designed for 4 cylinder only they can cut weight on the body and cut space under hood and apply that to the cabin.  And even on something like an E-class wilhich is made to fit a V8 they dropped that 3.5 V6 in favor of 2.0t because of fuel economy regs, emissions regs and displacement tax.  It isn't about what the consumer wants it is about meeting regulations to a lot of these cars.

    There are other ways to get there.... GM and Honda's active displacement works really well.   The ATS-V is essentially a turbo-4 at highway cruise.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    2 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

    I gave Turbo-4s a chance.... I really did believe they were a decent replacement for a larger displacement V6.  But the power delivery just isn't as good. Too long to wait to spool up... even on the light duty ones.   Are turbo-4s an improvement over non-turbo-4s? Absolutely... but they are still no V6.  A V6 still has a baseline level of torque there that a that a turbo-4 doesn't.  V6es have a level of refinement that 4s cannot match. 

    I also want to be clear. This is not just GM products I'm objecting to.  I'd rather have a V6 explorer than a 2.3T Explorer. 

    As far as CAFE, GM can turn their V6es into 4-cylinders and back in less than a single revolution of the crank. Much less lag than a turbo. 

    First off since this was a GM Buick thread that is all I am speaking on just for full disclosure. Not all Turbo engines are the same and can not all be lumped into one group no more than all V6.

    Now take a look at most of the GM torque curves and you will see what is going on. In most of them it is not even a curve but a table top is a better reference.

    As for the AFM on the V6. Funny you bring this up. Guess what one of my 3.6 has this too. So here is a first hand observation of someone who owns one and drives it more than one.

    Yes the engine will drop two cylinders to improve MPG but generally you have to be very light on the throttle or even coasting down hill. Moving down the freeway at 65 MPG you will remain most times in V6 mode.

    I am sure there is some fuel savings but 85% of the time it is in V6 mode and the MPG is no where near what the Turbo 4 can get even driven hard.

    Yes there is half a second less lag on the 2017 V6 but about the same on the older version that many in the Mid size trucks complain about. Go to Coloradofans forum and see the topic Pedal Commander and just see what they say about lag in the 15-16 V6.

    Now go to the HHR and Cobalt sites and see if anyone there complains about lag? Not really a topic anyone has an issue with. Even the non performance models the lag is even less noticed and most of the people really if they are not told would even understand it has a turbo.

    I fully agree on the smooth and as for noise both are about the same as the V6 is far from a silent engine even in a well insulated truck.

    I like both engines and would not own both if not. I even own more 3.6 than the Turbo 4 but having as many miles as I have I have really gotten to know the engine inside and out and the lag argument is negated as well as the durability complaints that are today groundless with the better materials and oils.

    You have a right to your opinion but I do also. Yours comes from limited driving my comes from where I put my money. I have 4 vehicles purchased new with these engines and know them very well by this point. The weakest is the Terrain as the lag is at times scary. The throttle lag is 10 times worse than the Turbo. The Malibu once in a while gets a dead spot too. The new 2017 3.6 it appears to have been resolved.

    I challenge you to spend some time in a 2010-2016 Equilnox and not say how the lag is in the throttle.

    Here is a SRX thread but I can also give them for the Terrain and Nox. Even my Bu will do it on a turn.

    http://www.srxforum.net/index.php?topic=2226.0

    It I would imagine is a drive train issue in the combo of the engine and transmission. But the lag is much more than you will ever get in a turbo. It often feels like the engine died. It also covered cars for 8-10 years as my bu is a 08.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites



    Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

    Guest
    You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoticons maximum are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.