wildcat

Burgess: Lucerne Super, same as it ever was

47 posts in this topic

Scott Burgess of the Detroit News has written a review of the Buick Lucerne Super. To read it, click here.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If he wanted everyone to put aside their stereotypes of Buick, why did he, in every chance he could, remind us how old the average Buick driver is--or as he perceives it, in their 80's (a decade for each porthole), or over 200 (for having signed the Declaration of Independence).

He liked it. Leave it at that. No need to constantly badger a car you thought was a great ride. The Lucerne Super shouldn't claim to be a sportscar--and I don't believe it does. It's a slightly athletic barge.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He did like it. There is alot of car to like there literally. It is a great car and drives similar to any other G-platform car which is pleasent and nice. It is like a velvet hammer with the quad-cam N* in there though. I would love that car or a DTS Performance.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would love that car or a DTS Performance.

Yesterday I saw a white DTS with smoked windows. chromed spoke wheels and possibly a raised ride hight. Looked good.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They all do except ones with those lame fake tops and ugly extra trim around the wheel wells.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't think of a modern, reasonably priced car, that I'd rather take a long road trip in over the Lucerne.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate the grill the Super has. Otherwise it's not bad.

Still, I'd rather have a 300 Touring or 300C

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I hate the grill the Super has. Otherwise it's not bad.

Still, I'd rather have a 300 Touring or 300C

Not as quiet, not as smooth, not as roomy, not as ergonomic

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not as quiet, not as smooth, not as roomy, not as ergonomic

Handles better, V6 / 5sseed a more lively powertrain, faster, I don't know how tall or wide you are but neither of these cars feel cramped by any means, more electronic goodies, RWD with optional AWD, the only ergonmic hiccup I encountered was the cruise control, which was fixed in the MCE.

Both are nice, but my personal pick is the Chrysler.

Edited by Dodgefan
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Lucerne Super prolly get a sub-7 seconds scank to sixty no doubt. A Bonneville GXP with only 275hp did in 6.8. I don't think a 300 Touring with a 3.5/5spd combo would be any faster... But I agree a DTS or Lucerne on a cross country road trip would rock, smooth ride, plenty of pass power and more than enough balls to blow off most ricers in there Celica's and Civic's.

Edited by gm4life
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Lucerne Super prolly get a sub-7 seconds scank to sixty no doubt. A Bonneville GXP with only 275hp did in 6.8. I don't think a 300 Touring with a 3.5/5spd combo would be any faster... But I agree a DTS or Lucerne on a cross country road trip would rock, smooth ride, plenty of pass power and more than enough balls to blow off most ricers in there Celica's and Civic's.

Just to clarify, I'm comparing V6's not V8s.

From Motor Trend:

With the most potent engine and lowest curb weight (3776 pounds), it's only logical that the 300 Touring would motor off with acceleration honors when we finally hit the test track. The real surprise was that the Montego--heaviest and most challenged in the weight/horsepower area--took the measure of the Lucerne in virtually all the benchmark sprints. While the Chrysler's 7.6-second 0-to-60-mph time eclipsed the Mercury's 8.4-second best, the Buick needed 8.8 ticks to make that speed. Interestingly enough, the Lucerne bested the Merc from 0 to 50 mph, but at that point, the extra torque of its bigger engine could no longer counter the CVT's greater efficiency in exploiting the full potential of the Montego's smaller six. From there on, it was advantage Mercury. Another tangible benefit of the CVT could be seen in the Merc's 45-to-65-mph interval time: a Chrysler-matching 4.0 seconds against a 4.7-second best for the Buick. Formal stopping exercises proved equally eye-opening. While there was unresolved debate about which vehicle had the most consistent pedal feel, when the brake dust finally settled, it was the Montego's 127-foot 60-to-0 mark that stood ahead of the Chrysler's 134-foot effort and the Lucerne's 136-foot best.
Edited by Dodgefan
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Handles better, V6 / 5sseed a more lively powertrain, faster, I don't know how tall or wide you are but neither of these cars feel cramped by any means, more electronic goodies, RWD with optional AWD, the only ergonmic hiccup I encountered was the cruise control, which was fixed in the MCE.

Both are nice, but my personal pick is the Chrysler.

I understand, I'm favoring ultimate comfort over all else.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand the 3.8 vs the 3.5 no contest the 3.5 in an LX could kill the 3.8 Lucerne now when the 3.9 comes out the it prolly will get a little bit closer. As for the N* vs the 3.5 the N* wins no doubt.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just to clarify, I'm comparing V6's not V8s.

This thread is about the Super.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I understand the 3.8 vs the 3.5 no contest the 3.5 in an LX could kill the 3.8 Lucerne now when the 3.9 comes out the it prolly will get a little bit closer. As for the N* vs the 3.5 the N* wins no doubt.

This thread is about the Super.

Mk, from a quick search:

Buick Lucerene Super 0-60 in 6.2 sec

Chrysler 300C 0-60 in 5.6 sec (although I just saw MT reports it as 5.8 sec)

Anyway, I like the interior colors scheme of the Super, it looks quite rich, and more upscale than the lower models.

2008.buick.lucerne.20215765-E.jpg

Edited by Dodgefan
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I gotcha I never doubted that the Super was slower than the 300C as for the 300 Touring I knew that.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt the Super does 0-60 in 6.2 seconds, the 275 hp version was barely under 7 seconds, 16 hp isn't going to speed it up that much. The 1998 STS had the same engine and a little less weight and took 6.7 seconds 0-60. I'd bet on an Altima, Accord, Camry or Malibu V6 in a drag race over a Lucerne Super.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I doubt the Super does 0-60 in 6.2 seconds, the 275 hp version was barely under 7 seconds, 16 hp isn't going to speed it up that much. The 1998 STS had the same engine and a little less weight and took 6.7 seconds 0-60. I'd bet on an Altima, Accord, Camry or Malibu V6 in a drag race over a Lucerne Super.

We don't care. The Super is not about being the fastest. It never was and never will be. The Super gets you from point a to point b at a brisk pace silently, smoothly, and handsomely. Super's motto is, "It's not how fast you get there, but how good the going is."

No Super owner is going to be drag racing someone who feels inadequate in their Accord.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I might. :AH-HA_wink: Nothing like a large refined FWD GM barge with a N* in it, I love mine and it only has a 3800. SMK sometimes speed is not the only concern. I would blow 80% of the other cars of on the road while listening to Bach through my Bose audio system while setting atop Nuance heated and cooled leather seats while your stuck on cheap cloth in your Camry. 8) Oldsmobli and I have great tastes in cars. Bottom line.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I might. :AH-HA_wink: Nothing like a large refined FWD GM barge with a N* in it, I love mine and it only has a 3800. SMK sometimes speed is not the only concern. I would blow 80% of the other cars of on the road while listening to Bach through my Bose audio system while setting atop Nuance heated and cooled leather seats while your stuck on cheap cloth in your Camry. 8) Oldsmobli and I have great tastes in cars. Bottom line.

I have an Aurora 4.0, so I've had 5 years of listening to Bose and enjoying heated seats, rain sensing wipers, air leveling suspension, and the Northstar derived 4 liter V8. I've found that the Aurora handles better than the Seville or DTS, it isn't as floaty and weighs less. It shouldn't have much problem in beating a Buick in handling.

For $40,000, people that want a floaty ride, sound deadening and free AARP membership with purchase, can get a Lexus. They make a better Buick than Buick does.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For 2009 it appears that GM only offers the V-8 in the Super version. The CXL with the V-8 hit a very nice price point. what a shame that the V-8 is only available in a version that will be priced at over $40,000.00.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For 2009 it appears that GM only offers the V-8 in the Super version. The CXL with the V-8 hit a very nice price point. what a shame that the V-8 is only available in a version that will be priced at over $40,000.00.

You can get a V8 CXL Special Edition.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You can get a V8 CXL Special Edition.

Edmunds' site for the 2009 Lucerne does not show a V-8 option for any of the Lucerne CXL configurations. That is why I am concerned. The Super looks a bit gaudy and is very expensive.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For $40,000, people that want a floaty ride, sound deadening and free AARP membership with purchase, can get a Lexus. They make a better Buick than Buick does.

Here's the crux of the problem with cars like the Lucerne, Super, and DTS.

Even I can imagine enjoying a "traditional" big, luxurious, highway cruiser.....and in fact if given a choice over an STS or DTS, I'd most likely take a DTS (performance) for around the same money.

BUT....people like us are a HUGE minority.....and cars like the Lucerne and DTS (even in "Super" form) are about as far away as can be from the types of products Buick and Cadillac need to be offering in order to insure long-term sucess.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Edmunds' site for the 2009 Lucerne does not show a V-8 option for any of the Lucerne CXL configurations. That is why I am concerned. The Super looks a bit gaudy and is very expensive.

You're right, the 275hp version of the Northstar is gone for 2009. So, you get a choice: 227hp V6 or a 292hp V8.

People are going to have to cope. I mean, how many people who would spend the money for the V8 aim for a boulevard cruiser? The numbers are low... as are the numbers of Lucernes actually sold.

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