Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Tailfin61

R.I.P. Lucerne CXS

42 posts in this topic

CARS.com is always updated (and accurately) ahead of the BUICK website. Just as BUICK rolled out the LaX Super and axed the CXS model, looks like the same thing is happening with the Lucerne CXS. You can now build a Lucerne Super on CARS, but the CXS has disappeared. It also looks like they rebundled some of the option packages as well on Lucerne.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The CXL needed to have a V8 Option now more than ever.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They kinda killed the wrong model....its the CX and CXL trims that desperately need to die.....rename CXS the Reserve, give it no-charge leather and/or buckets (and credit or standard front split-bench and/or cloth) for both LaCrosse and Lucerne, keep building.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They kinda killed the wrong model....its the CX and CXL trims that desperately need to die.....rename CXS the Reserve, give it no-charge leather and/or buckets (and credit or standard front split-bench and/or cloth) for both LaCrosse and Lucerne, keep building.

Honestly? The renaming stuff HAS to stop. People are JUST starting to get accustomed to CX, CXL, CXS... no more name changing for a while. Everyone needs to just deal with it.

The CXL could have retained a V8 option, but honestly, when there's a 17hp difference between the 2 V8 engines, is there really a point to having the option of a V8 in the CXL? What really should be done is the offering of a 3.6L in the CX and CXL trims as standard. Okay, we're early in the 2009 model year, the 3800 just needs to die. I know it was a good engine, but COME ON ALREADY, we know it's leaving, but it just always seems to linger. Make the Lucerne a little more competitive in base trim. What's wrong with that?

Edited by Paolino
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So can you get a V8 CXL? I hope so and the 3.6 should come standard along with a 6spd. auto. Same for the DTS six cogs would make these to good cars great.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You Can't Put a 6A into a G-Body. 3.6L Base engine on CX and CXL and optional V8 on the CXL would be welcome though.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rather buy a Malibu or Aura to be honest... Okay maybe just the Malibu (no Kommunists for me)

A Loaded Malibu LT2 3.6L with the Suede and every available option goes for the same price that the Lucerne CX bases at, it's a no-brainer.

Edited by vonVeezelsnider
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the Buick website is updated... I don't know if this is their new slogan, but "Drive Beautiful" is gone. I see now "Immerse Yourself in the Craft of Modern Luxury".

The Lucerne Super is up... they have... no joke... one interior picture and one exterior picture that shows the Super. They make essentially no fanfare over it... like there's no special promotion to it.

However, it still shows the CXS as an available trim level, so I don't know if it's dead.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lacross and the 3.8 dies early next year, yes?

3.6 into the lucerne, and then replaced on zeta for MY '11?

it has been a great engine(if not updated), minus the broader gasket issues, but for the good of the brand/company, KILL IT.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lacross and the 3.8 dies early next year, yes?

3.6 into the lucerne, and then replaced on zeta for MY '11?

it has been a great engine(if not updated), minus the broader gasket issues, but for the good of the brand/company, KILL IT.

I bet there will be enough 3800's to keep the Lucerne stocked until it's replaced in 2011. I totally agree with you, but I just don't see it happening.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I bet there will be enough 3800's to keep the Lucerne stocked until it's replaced in 2011. I totally agree with you, but I just don't see it happening.

I had heard something about the 3800 not meeting updated emissions standards....but I forget what year that was. Something tells me it was 2009 or 2010.....?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I had heard something about the 3800 not meeting updated emissions standards....but I forget what year that was. Something tells me it was 2009 or 2010.....?

I can't imagine what it may be... it's SULEV.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was just going to say that how many 3800 blocks do they have left another million?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, they're going to have more than enough to supply `09 LaCrosses and `09/10 Lucernes.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can't imagine what it may be... it's SULEV.

Oh it's something far more than just if an engine is rated "SULEV" or "PLEV".....I don't remember the specifics but it was far more involved......

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh it's something far more than just if an engine is rated "SULEV" or "PLEV".....I don't remember the specifics but it was far more involved......

Thing is, I can't imagine them making a big change like putting in a new engine for just one or two model years.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thing is, I can't imagine them making a big change like putting in a new engine for just one or two model years.

Why not? The original 3.2 in the CTS was a 2 1/2 year only engine. It was replaced by the 2.8HF.

If there ever was an example of a DOHC V6 being less refined than a pushrod V6.... the 3.2 would be it. It sounded awful, had a rough idle due to it's oddball 54 degree cylinder bank <I always describe it as a "limp">, used timing belts, wasn't particularly powerful for it's size and is the main cause for the poor rating for the CTS in CR in it's first year.... and thusly CR ignoring the substantially superior and better selling 3.6HF in subsequent years and continuing to base the CTS's rating on just the 3.2.

Strangely it was based on the 3.0 available in the final years of the Saturn LS.... which, while not being a barn burner, was completely the opposite in terms of running mannerisms when compared to the 3.2. Additionally, the 3.0 had comparable power to the pushrod 3.4 and could have been directly swapped in and silenced all the whining about pushrods in the Minivans, N-bodies, W-bodies, etc.

Sorry for the oddball GM DOHC V6 history lesson.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why not? The original 3.2 in the CTS was a 2 1/2 year only engine. It was replaced by the 2.8HF.

If there ever was an example of a DOHC V6 being less refined than a pushrod V6.... the 3.2 would be it. It sounded awful, had a rough idle due to it's oddball 54 degree cylinder bank <I always describe it as a "limp">, used timing belts, wasn't particularly powerful for it's size and is the main cause for the poor rating for the CTS in CR in it's first year.... and thusly CR ignoring the substantially superior and better selling 3.6HF in subsequent years and continuing to base the CTS's rating on just the 3.2.

Strangely it was based on the 3.0 available in the final years of the Saturn LS.... which, while not being a barn burner, was completely the opposite in terms of running mannerisms when compared to the 3.2. Additionally, the 3.0 had comparable power to the pushrod 3.4 and could have been directly swapped in and silenced all the whining about pushrods in the Minivans, N-bodies, W-bodies, etc.

Sorry for the oddball GM DOHC V6 history lesson.

No apologies needed, I enjoy the learning.

I still don't think they'd do it. I mean, it would totally make sense... GP isn't around anymore after this year, LaCrosse could use the stock leftover, and since they're no longer producing them, it'd make sense to add a different engine to the Lucerne. However, that being said, they just don't have a high enough demand of LaX and Lucernes... so the engine stock would just fill their needs til the Lucerne replacement came.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I dom't know if I would waste the time....though I do hear that there could be a couple of nice engines... :yes:

Short of offering more value-nothing is going to change much on this car.

Very soon, the base model (CX) also disappears..

I wouldn't be surprised if the they kill these models off earlier, to add new models to D-ham, and add the upcoming Volt.

(Either that, or a plant closing..)

There have been some GM people in that plant...I have a feeling changes are coming.... :yes:

I do know that they plan to trim the models and packages down of the Lucerne for 2009 even more...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't forget... D-Ham production commitments have already been announced as part of the Union agreement:

Detroit Hamtramck, Mich.

*Buick Lucerne and Cadillac DTS continue until 2010

*Global Delta MPV7 beginning in 2009

*Global Delta Volt beginning in 2010

*Global Epsilon Chevrolet beginning in 2012

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dave... speaking of More Value (you had mentioned in your post)...

One thing that really irritates me is, standard on the base LaCrosse is tilt/telescopic steering, dual zone auto climate control.

Not standard on the more expensive Lucerne, which now starts over 27K.

Not to mention, they decontented the CXL a little, yet the price starts over 30K now!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Prices go up... inflation and all that.

Yes, but the price went up and the content went down. That's a big jump in my opinion.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't forget... D-Ham production commitments have already been announced as part of the Union agreement:

Yes, but you and I know that it could change on a dime..union or not.

Though I think when the plant sheds more workers, it will make GM happy. ( There are quite a few 30+(years) workers still there, even after a shift cut)

But my gut says there will be product there. But they might retool early...

0

Share this post


Link to post
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.
Reply to this topic...

×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Remove formatting

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0