Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
NewsFeeder

AutoBlog: Four Play: GM confirms 2010 Buick LaCrosse will be available with 2.4-liter Ecotech I4

64 posts in this topic

Filed under: Sedans/Saloons, Buick, GM

2010-buick-lacrosse-live-studio-580.jpg
2010 Buick LaCrosse - Click above for a high-res image gallery

General Motors has announced that its new 2010 Buick LaCrosse will be available with its fuel-sipping 2.4-liter Ecotec four-cylinder. Equipped with the direct injected engine and paired with the sedan's standard six-speed automatic, GM says the combination should deliver 30 mpg on the highway and 20 mpg in town.

It will be interesting to see if the 182 horsepower, 172 pound-foot of torque inline-four will be able to effectively motivate a car of the LaCrosse's size, but either way, plugging the capable engine in the Buick ought to give GM a unique selling point against V6-only competitors like the Lincoln MKZ.

Buick says it expects about 25% of LaCrosse buyers will check the four-cylinder box at purchase time. Check out the official press verbiage after the jump.



[source: General Motors]

Continue reading Four Play: GM confirms 2010 Buick LaCrosse will be available with 2.4-liter Ecotech I4

Four Play: GM confirms 2010 Buick LaCrosse will be available with 2.4-liter Ecotech I4 originally appeared on Autoblog on Mon, 22 Jun 2009 13:57:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

di
di

autoblog?i=l_CAwVfIljM:oJNK166WJjo:wF9xT autoblog?i=l_CAwVfIljM:oJNK166WJjo:V_sGL
l_CAwVfIljM

View the full article
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This car will be slooooooow. Will the 0-60 clear 10 seconds? Also the city gas mileage is pretty pathetic, but I guess that's what happens when you have such a puny power output for a 4,000 lb car.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It will be MUCH slower than a Malibu due to the extra weight. Frankly I think it is a bad idea, because honestly the 3.0L will have decent power but why would you ruin an otherwise nice car with a whimpy motor, if it was a turbo I might think differently. Hopefully you can only get in on base CX models. I think a 4 cylinder in this class cheapens the car. A 4 cylinder belongs in the up-coming Regal, not LaX. I do hope on the CX they can offer the 3.0L as an option or sport package with say alloy wheels. I know I would pay for the 3.0L in that car, because it needs it.

Edited by gm4life
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering it's buyer base, it's still more power than they will ever use anyway. Didn't the Lacrosse have a V6 with only 192hp not to long ago anyway?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Considering it's buyer base, it's still more power than they will ever use anyway. Didn't the Lacrosse have a V6 with only 192hp not to long ago anyway?

2009 LaX with the 3800 Series III cranked out 200hp. If Buick wants to sell one to me depending upon what I am looking for I better be able to get the 3.0L V6 in CX trim, and CXL trim as well. I would be most interested in a CX with the Bluetooth and 17 inch alloy wheels and the 3.0L or a FWD CXL with a 3.0L stripper with 18inch chrome wheels.

Edited by gm4life
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose this is to take the place of the 4cyl Aura and G6.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If people want a four-cylinder because of the perceived fuel-efficiency gains, then give it to them.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I suppose this is to take the place of the 4cyl Aura and G6.

Seems like it. I don't understand the logic behind getting rid of the "damaged brands" then continuing to use the same strategy that made those previous brands damaged on the surviving brand.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So.. wait, how does this affect pricing? Weren't the numbers out already? I can't imagine that the 4-cylinder will start at like 26/27 or whatever it was for the original 3.0L CX.

182/172 isn't TERRIBLE... I mean, I'm working with 160/185 and a 4-speed. Then again, my car is significantly lighter than this. I do think it's a mistake though. 2.4 DI in the Regal, fine. In this car, no, it's to become the flagship sedan, no?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally think this is a bad move, especially with the Insignia making the portfolio.

Insignia should mirror the Aura and have a combination of 4's and 6's. Lacrosse should keep 6's only.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So.. wait, how does this affect pricing? Weren't the numbers out already? I can't imagine that the 4-cylinder will start at like 26/27 or whatever it was for the original 3.0L CX.

182/172 isn't TERRIBLE... I mean, I'm working with 160/185 and a 4-speed. Then again, my car is significantly lighter than this. I do think it's a mistake though. 2.4 DI in the Regal, fine. In this car, no, it's to become the flagship sedan, no?

Maybe it's fleet filler or just until the Regalsignia is out.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe it's fleet filler or just until the Regalsignia is out.

I didn't think in terms of fleet, but if that's the case, aren't people who rent them get a poor impression of the car thinking it's so sluggish?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I didn't think in terms of fleet, but if that's the case, aren't people who rent them get a poor impression of the car thinking it's so sluggish?

Absolutely. I think GM should follow the same strategy like it did for Malibu, load the fleets with top models. If such is the case, then why would it need the I-4? Possibly CAFE. The Lacrosse weighs almost the same as the Equinox. I would guess it would return the same figures if not better to have bragging rights.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well.... at least it's the DI version and not the one in the malibu.....

20/30 is less than what the 10 nox is rated, that's quite sad.

yes, if the 3.0L cars don't change price, than it's not terrible.

but yes, this can easily cheapen buick's new image (with the lucerne still here)

if the car had 500lbs less on it, the 2.4 wouldn't be too bad.

if the regal comes and this still has the 2.4, it better only be offered with a BASII system them, that would be a selling point others wouldn't have (outside of fusion/milan)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wonder if this car will have 2 portholes on each side?

:lol:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wonder if this car will have 2 portholes on each side?

Oh geez. I didn't think of that. I just got sad. LOL

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:nono: BAD IDEA, WRONG IDEA :nono:

Buick is not a gutless fuel sipper, leave it to Chevy, this should NEVER be a part of Buicks line up.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not exactly sure what to think about this one. This engine seems more appropriate for an Insignia based Buick sedan (as the base engine) or a Delta based Buick sedan (as an optional engine). If the 2010 LaCrosse is supposed to eventually become the brand's flagship sedan, then this engine seems a little out place for that particular car. A turbocharged DI 2.0L I4 seems like it would be a better choice.

Even if Buick uses this engine as a base engine in the Insignia based Regal, it should be tuned to produce more horsepower than the engine does in Chevrolet products. GM needs to do little things like this for Buick to properly position the brand upmarket from Chevrolet.

Edited by cire
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Big mistake and wrong EcoTech.

This engine will do better in a Bu if someone wants that. Buick class buyers are not big fuel economy people.

If you want a 4 cylinder this car calls for a version of the LNF 2.0 Turbo. It would not turn the car into a performance car but it would provide a premium engine that can provide good mileage and enough power to get onto a freeway.

The last I knew the 2.4 before DI recomended Premium fuel just as the turbo. Not not required but recomended on both.

There is no shame offering a top Cobalt engine as a entry option but a mid option Cobalt engine as a entry is an insult to the up level buyer.

The Turbo does well with my 3200 pound HHR in performance and economy. The Buick each would be less but still better than the V6. Note my HHR beats posted MPG on the sticker even driven hard. 24 City and 30-31 Highway. The Buicks bulk would knock off a couple MPG.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wanted one, but don't want the bad gas mileage of the 6-cyl. I hope they offer it in the CXL because I will not own another vehicle without heated leather seats. My parents had hoped for a hybrid so they could trade in their 2008 Malibu for one. Maybe they will reconsider it because of the smaller engine option.

I know the 4-cyl will be a success because people are looking at mileage numbers nowdays.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Big mistake and wrong EcoTech.

This engine will do better in a Bu if someone wants that. Buick class buyers are not big fuel economy people.

If you want a 4 cylinder this car calls for a version of the LNF 2.0 Turbo. It would not turn the car into a performance car but it would provide a premium engine that can provide good mileage and enough power to get onto a freeway.

The last I knew the 2.4 before DI recomended Premium fuel just as the turbo. Not not required but recomended on both.

There is no shame offering a top Cobalt engine as a entry option but a mid option Cobalt engine as a entry is an insult to the up level buyer.

The Turbo does well with my 3200 pound HHR in performance and economy. The Buick each would be less but still better than the V6. Note my HHR beats posted MPG on the sticker even driven hard. 24 City and 30-31 Highway. The Buicks bulk would knock off a couple MPG.

And doesn't the 2.0L turbo get better gas mileage than the 2.4L? It would be a much better engine for a heavy car.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's amazing is that these are the exact same MPG specs as the 3800 got in base W body LaCrosses and Regals. Only diffrence is, those 38800-powered cars didn't work hard while producing those figures. A 2.4L 4cyl in a 4000 pound car will be strained, and I'm thinking buyers won't like the way it sounds going uphill with a few reasonably sized people in it. The only rationale I can think of is planning a hybrid LaCrosse that utilizes this engine. But these days GM doesn't plan, it just reacts after it's too late.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Buick's premium sedan shouldn't have a normally aspirated 4 cylinder engine. This reminds me of the 1976 LeSabre having a 231 even though I know this car will perform much better.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Lucerne had a 195 hp V6 and weighed 4,000 lbs. And it had a four-speed auto that shifted to 2nd at 55 mph. The LaCrosse, with its 182 hp and six-speeds, will be fine.

As long as it's "quiet tuned", the typical Buick owner won't notice a thing. The four-cylinder Equinox has a similar power-to-weight ratio, and that's expected to be a volume seller.

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