Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
ponchoman49

2009 Lucerne 3900 fuel economy

26 posts in this topic

Just saw some 09 Lucernes freshly delivered. Shockingly they were rated at one better city and highway than last years 3800 V6 at 17/26 vs 16/25. And these are non AFM 3900's from what I can tell. They must have coaxed a tad more mileage out of the regular detuned 227 HP version of this engine compared to the G6 convertible with it's 15/22 rating. The Lucernes 2.93:1 gears probably help too!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats good fuel economy for such a large car. I wonder how much quicker it is, and I bet they drive nice. I have driven my brothers 2008 Impala LTZ with AFM and a 3900 VVT couldn't believe it was a W-Body. I can't imagine how great a G-Body Lucerne would drive with a 3900.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's terrible fuel economy compared to the LeSabre.

Not really considering the LeSabre was rated under the old EPA system and had 22 less horsepower and less displacement in the motor. Most cars took a 2-4 mpg even more in some cases loss in fuel economy and the 3900 is more efficent than they 3800 that is impressive.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not really considering the LeSabre was rated under the old EPA system and had 22 less horsepower and less displacement in the motor. Most cars took a 2-4 mpg even more in some cases loss in fuel economy and the 3900 is more efficent than they 3800 that is impressive.

prolly a little lighter, and a package that is more manageable in terms of size.... sounds like part of a dirty joke.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
prolly a little lighter, and a package that is more manageable in terms of size.... sounds like part of a dirty joke.

Really? :neenerneener:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not really considering the LeSabre was rated under the old EPA system and had 22 less horsepower and less displacement in the motor. Most cars took a 2-4 mpg even more in some cases loss in fuel economy and the 3900 is more efficent than they 3800 that is impressive.

Within my family we've had 8 LeSabres, the last model years always get about 33 - 35 for highway. The mileage checks out to be sure theres no error with the Information Center. They're either severely underrated or we've had the luckiest group of LeSabres ever.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

17/26 mpg out of a 229 hp engine, the Toyota Avalon has 268 hp and gets 19/28 mpg. Buick is 40 hp and 2 mpg short, and the Avalon is nothing amazing.

The Genesis gets 18/27 mpg and has 290 hp, and is rear drive. But GM says they can't do rear drive due to CAFE.

Does anyone else find it odd that Buick's flagship is upgrading it's engine by using the mid-level engine from an 06 Impala/Monte Carlo? They aren't a premium brand if the best they can do is what Chevy had 3 years ago.

Edited by smk4565
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17/26 mpg out of a 229 hp engine, the Toyota Avalon has 268 hp and gets 19/28 mpg. Buick is 40 hp and 2 mpg short, and the Avalon is nothing amazing.

Does anyone else find it odd that Buick's flagship is upgrading it's engine by using the mid-level engine from an 06 Impala/Monte Carlo? They aren't a premium brand if the best they can do is what Chevy had 3 years ago.

avalon- Curb weight (lb.) 3490

lucerne 08 Curb weight, lbs. 3764

almost 300lbs and 2 gears different (other than engines) in the 08's don't you think that those spec differences could cause 2 mpg in difference?

but yes, buick and olds used to be upscale test beds, but now things go directly into the hipo vehicles or cadi.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then the Lucerne should weigh less and not have a 4-speed automatic designed in 1987 or whenever the 4T60 came out. GM has overweight vehicles all across their lineup. Maybe they should invest in newer platforms with more aluminum or high tensile steel to save weight.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Then the Lucerne should weigh less and not have a 4-speed automatic designed in 1987 or whenever the 4T60 came out. GM has overweight vehicles all across their lineup. Maybe they should invest in newer platforms with more aluminum or high tensile steel to save weight.

I'll give you that it should have a 6-speed, but weigh less than what? It's 300lbs more than an Avalon, yet it's 6" longer and 1" wider. If the car was smaller and weighed that much, I'd say it should be lighter, but the Lucerne is a big car.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's unimpressive since the Panther's V8 can pull nearly 27mpg highway. It's no powerhouse, but it is still a V8 hauling a large, BOF, RWD car.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's unimpressive since the Panther's V8 can pull nearly 27mpg highway. It's no powerhouse, but it is still a V8 hauling a large, BOF, RWD car.

Gearing + torque ...

and you're really not saying much about the Ford since the 3.9 V6 has more horsepower than the 4.6 V8.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Then the Lucerne should weigh less and not have a 4-speed automatic designed in 1987 or whenever the 4T60 came out. GM has overweight vehicles all across their lineup. Maybe they should invest in newer platforms with more aluminum or high tensile steel to save weight.

Would you be willing to pay 48k for a Lucerne if the body was made of aluminum and it had a 6-speed?

Do you think the typical buyer of this car would?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gearing + torque ...

and you're really not saying much about the Ford since the 3.9 V6 has more horsepower than the 4.6 V8.

It puts out more HP but not more torque if the source I looked at was right, the 3900 makes 240 ft-lbs VS the 1993 4.6's 260 ft-lbs.)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lucerne's torque is listed at 237 v. 275 for the 2007 Merc

thus allowing lower gearing.... as I said.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Would you be willing to pay 48k for a Lucerne if the body was made of aluminum and it had a 6-speed?

Do you think the typical buyer of this car would?

No, personally I wouldn't pay anything for a Buick, but I agree the typical buyer won't pay $48k for one. But a $24k Malibu, or Fusion has a 6 speed and a platform made in the past 5 years. At least the Lincoln MKZ and MKS have modern chassis/powertrains, Buick should have been more like those cars or like the Avalon is.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17/26 mpg out of a 229 hp engine, the Toyota Avalon has 268 hp and gets 19/28 mpg. Buick is 40 hp and 2 mpg short, and the Avalon is nothing amazing.

The Genesis gets 18/27 mpg and has 290 hp, and is rear drive. But GM says they can't do rear drive due to CAFE.

Does anyone else find it odd that Buick's flagship is upgrading it's engine by using the mid-level engine from an 06 Impala/Monte Carlo? They aren't a premium brand if the best they can do is what Chevy had 3 years ago.

The worst part is that the 2006 Monte/Impala 3900 which did not have DOD put out 242 HP and 242 torque. Here we are in 2009 with a 3900 without DOD putting out only 227 HP and 237 torque in a larger, heavier car and a more upsacle car to boot! Typical GM- one step forward and two back thinking going on here.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The worst part is that the 2006 Monte/Impala 3900 which did not have DOD put out 242 HP and 242 torque. Here we are in 2009 with a 3900 without DOD putting out only 227 HP and 237 torque in a larger, heavier car and a more upsacle car to boot! Typical GM- one step forward and two back thinking going on here.

I'm sure we'll hear it has something to do with the "exhaust note" like it did for losing 3hp on the LaCrosse Super.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of the Lucerne's competitors have fuel-efficient V6s quicker than the Lucerne's V8 and four-speed.

Hell, the Traverse weighs 1000+ lbs more than the Lucerne 3.9L and has 50+ more hp, yet it earns the same city fuel economy of 17 mpg.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The worst part is that the 2006 Monte/Impala 3900 which did not have DOD put out 242 HP and 242 torque. Here we are in 2009 with a 3900 without DOD putting out only 227 HP and 237 torque in a larger, heavier car and a more upsacle car to boot! Typical GM- one step forward and two back thinking going on here.

At this point, there are only a few cost effective ways to increase fuel economy:

1) Reduce weight

2) Improve aerodynamics

3) Improve powertrain efficiency (6 speed transmissions, direct injection, hybrid, etc.)

4) Reduce horsepower.

That is how the laws of physics work. They didn't reduce weight. They didn't improve aerodynamics and they actually reduced powertrain efficiency (removed DOD) so by default they had drop horsepower. I guess you can also play with the HP/Torque curve so you have more peak power but less area under the curve. People get to focused on peak HP anyway.

Edited by 2QuickZ's
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Within my family we've had 8 LeSabres, the last model years always get about 33 - 35 for highway. The mileage checks out to be sure theres no error with the Information Center. They're either severely underrated or we've had the luckiest group of LeSabres ever.

Then you have been lucky my Bonneville barely gets 27 on the hwy.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just saw some 09 Lucernes freshly delivered. Shockingly they were rated at one better city and highway than last years 3800 V6 at 17/26 vs 16/25. And these are non AFM 3900's from what I can tell. They must have coaxed a tad more mileage out of the regular detuned 227 HP version of this engine compared to the G6 convertible with it's 15/22 rating. The Lucernes 2.93:1 gears probably help too!

There will be no more AFM six-cylinder engines for 2009. The Impala 3.9's fuel economy will drop from 18/28 mpg to 17/27 mpg for MY 2008. Renters won't notice the difference.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There will be no more AFM six-cylinder engines for 2009. The Impala 3.9's fuel economy will drop from 18/28 mpg to 17/27 mpg for MY 2008. Renters won't notice the difference.

Renters may not notice the difference but regular customers like me may. It's odd that they would drop a fuel saving device like this unless of course it was troublesome. They also still list the 2009 Impala 3900 at 233 HP and 240 Torque like the AFM engines. I wonder if they just reprogrammed the chip to not drop to 3 cylinder mode or something

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



  • Who's Online (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

  • Who's Chatting

    There are no users currently in the chat room