Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
regfootball

LUCERNE - future?

42 posts in this topic

Curious to know, what is the current future status of the Lucerne?

I'll be honest I have never really been interested in one before but big incentives on them lately have led me to look into them and it seems like a good buy? Just want to know, is 2010 the last year, or 2011?

The 3.9 is new for 2009. ANyone have any experience driving the Lucerne with this powertrain? Decent power? I knows its still the 4 speed........

Will the v8 be discontinued? I think I have seen a few SUpers still on the lots.

RIght now with my status as a Pontiac owner, and with my GM card, i can get a new 09 holdover Lucerne CX for 19 and change, and compared with a Malibu, considering resale, its something i may consider.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are two 3.9s.

I had the lesser powerful of the two as a rental and it performs just fine. You won't be winning any drag races with 5-series, but it's nice around town. Cruising at 80 is effortless and frugal. I managed 27mpg with a trunk stuffed full of computer equipment. If I recall it was 8 PC towers and 9, 19" flat screens, plus keyboards/mice/wires, and my luggage. All of that fit in the trunk.

I got 30mpg on the way back with the car unloaded. Both trips were steady 70mph-75mph range.

The Lucerne is likely dead soon. It and the DTS will be going out of production to make room for Volt production.

edit: Updated with link to engine information.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the hp and torque numbers are decent. I didn't realize they were that good. I don't know which motor is flex fuel.

i might be testing one for research tonight. if not tonight, soon.

my angle on this is that if you compare basic line Lucernes to v6 Malibus when factoring incentives, there is not much difference!

Obviously the price of the Lucerne goes nuts with a few options. But my premise is that the Lucerne seems to hold its value extremely well on the used market. Buying one at a great price, you might actually have a car worth something when you are done with it. A Malibu is a good car but is in a class of car that generally is a disposable car on the market, and the values don't stay up quite as much.

The Lucerne too is a very solid car. All the mid sizers have that slightly flimsy feel to them.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

by the way the back seat is huge on them. i knew they were cavernous, but the seating itself is quite plush compared to any midsizer.

I think Buick should redo the front end in the style of the new Jaguar sedans and that would be a nice look on the Lucerne sheetmetal.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are two 3.9s.

I had the lesser powerful of the two as a rental and it performs just fine. You won't be winning any drag races with 5-series, but it's nice around town. Cruising at 80 is effortless and frugal. I managed 27mpg with a trunk stuffed full of computer equipment. If I recall it was 8 PC towers and 9, 19" flat screens, plus keyboards/mice/wires, and my luggage. All of that fit in the trunk.

I got 30mpg on the way back with the car unloaded. Both trips were steady 70mph-75mph range.

The Lucerne is likely dead soon. It and the DTS will be going out of production to make room for Volt production.

edit: Updated with link to engine information.

what i like to hear. my Altima rental was a 2.5 and at 75-80 mph could only muster the same 27 mpg over close to 900 miles.

I would love to know what typical long haul mpg on the 3.9 is.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what i like to hear. my Altima rental was a 2.5 and at 75-80 mph could only muster the same 27 mpg over close to 900 miles.

I would love to know what typical long haul mpg on the 3.9 is.

What do you mean "long haul"?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the hp and torque numbers are decent. I didn't realize they were that good. I don't know which motor is flex fuel.

i might be testing one for research tonight. if not tonight, soon.

my angle on this is that if you compare basic line Lucernes to v6 Malibus when factoring incentives, there is not much difference!

Obviously the price of the Lucerne goes nuts with a few options. But my premise is that the Lucerne seems to hold its value extremely well on the used market. Buying one at a great price, you might actually have a car worth something when you are done with it. A Malibu is a good car but is in a class of car that generally is a disposable car on the market, and the values don't stay up quite as much.

The Lucerne too is a very solid car. All the mid sizers have that slightly flimsy feel to them.

The 219hp is the gas only. The 227hp is the FlexFuel.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what i like to hear. my Altima rental was a 2.5 and at 75-80 mph could only muster the same 27 mpg over close to 900 miles.

I would love to know what typical long haul mpg on the 3.9 is.

I don't recall if your Altima was a CVT or not, but I assume it was. From simply a NHV standpoint, the 3.9 would completely pwn a Nissan 2.4.

An experiment that I had with the Lucerne was that I unwittingly put the car in 3 rather than D when leaving a rest stop. Drove that way for 20 miles before I realized.... and it was only the MPG indicator that tipped me off. There is virtually no difference in NHV in the Lucerne between 3 and D. Try doing that in any 4-cylinder... especially a Nissan one.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just looked at the 2010 model and it needs replaced yesterday. It was a good car a few years ago but it has been passed up for several years now.

Anyone who walks out with the Lucern over the Lacrosse either had to get a hell of a deal or is insane.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just looked at the 2010 model and it needs replaced yesterday. It was a good car a few years ago but it has been passed up for several years now.

Anyone who walks out with the Lucern over the Lacrosse either had to get a hell of a deal or is insane.

obviously the deal. but a lucerne vs. a typical midsize....

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't recall if your Altima was a CVT or not, but I assume it was. From simply a NHV standpoint, the 3.9 would completely pwn a Nissan 2.4.

An experiment that I had with the Lucerne was that I unwittingly put the car in 3 rather than D when leaving a rest stop. Drove that way for 20 miles before I realized.... and it was only the MPG indicator that tipped me off. There is virtually no difference in NHV in the Lucerne between 3 and D. Try doing that in any 4-cylinder... especially a Nissan one.

the altima was a CVT. to its credit (4 cyl), the car had balls, the tranny was responsive and really didn't give away that it was a CVT, and its NVH was pretty good actually. it was just dull.

of course, the idea, the Lucerne NVH i would assume would be much better in cabin quiet.

by long haul, i mean say a 500 mile trip. could you count on it to touch 30 or at least consistently match the 27? I know the northstar will get the 27 if not closer to 30.

in my estimation, as far as interior, Buick should have invested in an instrument panel redo for the Lucerne. The door panels are actually pretty good (even if the wood is fake). Lucerne's leather is quite good. LaCrosse leather and plastic to be kind is mediocre for its class.

Edited by regfootball
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the altima was a CVT. to its credit, the car had balls, the tranny was responsive and really didn't give away that it was a CVT, and its NVH was pretty good actually.

of course, the idea, the Lucerne NVH i would assume would be much better in cabin quiet.

by long haul, i mean say a 500 mile trip. could you count on it to touch 30 or at least consistently match the 27?

Well the trip out, 225 miles at 27mpg. Rolling hills of Western PA, West VA, and Eastern Ohio for the first 25% of that, Flat Ohio for the remaining 75%, with a trunk full of equipment.

Trip back, 30mpg with mostly empty trunk

70-75mph each way.

So, I'd say, yes.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Go for a Lucerne they really are a nice car. I have driven a 2006 CXL with a 3.8 and loved it. If it would have been a Pontiac I would have liked it even more. Oh thats why I have a Bonneville. :smilewide: Honestly if you can get a Lucey that cheap you'd be nuts not to get one.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bigger = Better in my books

Lucerne/DTS/Impala > Malibu/CTS

The new LaCrosse is alright.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Better hurry, they are only going to build them for a few more months...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bigger = Better in my books

Lucerne/DTS/Impala > Malibu/CTS

The new LaCrosse is alright.

i like the Malibu. but its merely a competent light duty midsize. at the price its at, its a good buy.

as far as the Lucerne, its generally been overpriced in the MSRP department however, it looks like it might be a good incentivized value at the end of its run. and like the mid-late nineties GM large cars and cars like the DTS etc. it will still feel like a tank 10 years from now.

Edited by regfootball
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i like the Malibu. but its merely a competent light duty midsize. at the price its at, its a good buy.

as far as the Lucerne, its generally been overpriced in the MSRP department however, it looks like it might be a good incentivized value at the end of its run. and like the mid-late nineties GM large cars and cars like the DTS etc. it will still feel like a tank 10 years from now.

I can vouch for that, the 1992 Sedan Deville I had up to 2005 was the same way. So is my Bonneville after almost 5 years, but I need one rattle fixed on it. Hopefully it is an easy fix and not hard to get at.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My in-laws have a 3.8L Lucerne. They loaned it to us this past december a few times for running around doing christmas shopping. Very nice car, especially if you have a relaxed driving style (though it has enough guts to giddy-up when needed, just saying it's certainly not going to please a sports car enthusiast). We also rode in the back seat for about 2.5hrs from the airport, and it was very comfortable. I'd pick up an '09 Lucerne for ~$19k over a malibu any day of the week. The only complaint my in-laws have had about the car is the fuel economy. While it's not bad, they had a Park Avenue (also 3.8L) before the Lucerne, and the Lucerne consistantly gets 2-3mpg less than the Park Avenue did.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can vouch for that, the 1992 Sedan Deville I had up to 2005 was the same way. So is my Bonneville after almost 5 years, but I need one rattle fixed on it. Hopefully it is an easy fix and not hard to get at.

my dad just sold his 92 seville, that thing was a tank, too. almost twenty years old, and yeah it wasn't new but GM at least put plenty of solid sheetmetal in those large cars.

i should mention that part of what makes the Lucerne pricing good right now for Saturn or Pontiac owners is that its an extra 2 grand as opposed to 1 grand on the malibu, and of course, not everyone is a saturn or pontiac owner either.

to be honest, even 2 grand in my opinion is not much considering they shut down the brand. how about 5 grand? now that's showing appreciation. 2 grand won't barely pay sales tax on the lucerne.

Edited by regfootball
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm laying odds on Reg's chances of purchase at 4-1 against.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW, the LaCrosse with the V6 gets 17 mpg city and 26 mpg highway, compared to 22 mpg city and 33 mpg highway on the Malibu. Of course your mileage my vary, but the EPA numbers are still relevant for comparison purposes. If you can get 30 mpg in a 4,000-lb 3.9-liter Lucerne, then it's possible you will get 38 mpg in the lighter four-cylinder Malibu under the same circumstances.

The Lucerne is also an older design, so it only gets an "acceptable" rating in side crashes ("marginal" structure rating) and a "marginal" rating for rear crash protection. Stabilitrak may also be difficult to find (not available on CX-1 or CXL-1). The Malibu (and most other midsizers) get "good" ratings all around and have stability control as standard. And the cheapest Lucerne starts at $29,995; if you can really get $11,000 off MSRP, I doubt the resale will be that good.

That said, I do agree the Lucerne has nice door panels. The LaCrosse and XTS appear to be replacing the Lucerne and DTS.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Reg was comparing V6 to V6. The 3.6 litre in the Malibu is thirstier than the 3.9 in the Lucy.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reg, I've driven the Lucerne a lot with the 3.8 (My parents have a 2006 CXL) and I'll say this, it is always quiet, smooth, seamless shifts, and easy on the wallet. Anyone who has gotten in the car has been impressed. The TONS of features that are included in the CXL trim really make you feel spoiled.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Reg was comparing V6 to V6. The 3.6 litre in the Malibu is thirstier than the 3.9 in the Lucy.

yes. the only epsilon HF car i've driven is the aura, and that 3.6 has nuts. but i do know its a thirsty engine.

absolutely this is a comparison between v6's.

now, using edmunds user reviews as a guide....what i see across the several cars with the 3.9 is that it really doesn't get great mpg. however, out of all the cars that HAVE the 3.9....the Lucerne is among the better.

The 3.5 in the Impala is the mpg champ since the 3.8 was put away. The Lucerne gets a bit less with the 3.9 than the 3.8. However, I have never really liked the 3.8. And to be honest the flex fuel option Intrigues me. There is 5+ E85 pumps in town here where i live and the state corn growers association office is here. The only reason flex fuel intrigues me is because lets say your tank is empty but you just want to put in a couple gallons to get you through til payday. You can save a couple bucks, keep your miles down for a little, and then go back to reg gas as needed.

Edited by regfootball
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