Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
NewsFeeder

2011 Buick LaCrosse drops 3.0L V6, adds four-cylinder

26 posts in this topic

Filed under: Car Buying, Sedan, Buick, Luxury

buicklacrossereview05.jpg
2010 Buick LaCrosse - Click above for high-res image gallery

The all-new Buick LaCrosse hasn't even been on the market for a year, but we're already seeing slight changes to the sedan's lineup. First and foremost, the 3.0-liter V6 (originally offered on CX and CXL models) has been discontinued, meaning customers who want six-pot power will have to make due with the well-received 3.6-liter direct-injected mill. However, all-wheel drive, which was initially only offered with the 3.0, can now be had on 3.6 CXL models.

x10pt4c031.jpgThe big update for 2011, though, is the addition of General Motors' 2.4-liter direct-injected inline-four to the LaCrosse. Available only on the base CX, the 2.4-liter mill is good for 182 horsepower and 172 pound-feet of torque, and achieves up to 30 miles per gallon on the highway. While that might sound relatively impressive, keep in mind that GM managed to squeeze 30 mpg out of the larger V6 in the Camaro, and that the Equinox CUV also trumpets a 30 mpg rating out of its four-banger, too.

Will 182 ponies and 172 pound-feet of twist be enough for the relatively large LaCrosse? We'll be driving the car in the very near future, so stay tuned. In the meantime, hit the jump to read Buick's press release.



[source: Buick]

Continue reading 2011 Buick LaCrosse drops 3.0L V6, adds four-cylinder

2011 Buick LaCrosse drops 3.0L V6, adds four-cylinder originally appeared on Autoblog on Wed, 24 Mar 2010 15:32:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

di
di

autoblog?i=7u4aWhtPTLk:3S2WXAoTNPI:wF9xT autoblog?i=7u4aWhtPTLk:3S2WXAoTNPI:V_sGL
7u4aWhtPTLk

View the full article
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just can't see this being enough. Good the 3.6L is available on the CXL though.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What would your guess on weight be for this guise of LaX?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About 3900lbs.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thing will be slooooow. However, AWD on the 3.6 is good news.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Odd about dropping the 3.0. Why not keep it to fit between the 2.4 and 3.6?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They couldn't just make the 3.6L standard on the LaCrosse and leave the smaller engines for the Regal? :/

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Odd about dropping the 3.0. Why not keep it to fit between the 2.4 and 3.6?

Exactly... would be nice if they would have had:

CX 2.4 standard/3.0 option

CXL 3.0 standard/3.6 option

CXS 3.6 standard

...and if they wanted to try this again...

Super 300+hp version of 3.6L

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They couldn't just make the 3.6L standard on the LaCrosse and leave the smaller engines for the Regal? :/

+1. I would rather see that. Lacrosse getting a nice premium jump over the Regal. I highly doubt people will get into the 4-banger. Or rather put the turbo 4 with 220 hp as the base engine - so it feels like a step above the Regal.

The other scenario I see is, may be they are looking for a Super with 3.0 TT to come on top of the 3.6 with AWD, that would be one heck of a ride.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The other scenario I see is, may be they are looking for a Super with 3.0 TT to come on top of the 3.6 with AWD, that would be one heck of a ride.

Well, that would compete with the SHO I suppose.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I drove the LaCrosse CX with 3.0 a couple weeks ago.

It was fine honestly.

The transmission is programmed to upshift, and not kick down until you get on the gas. The car was a lot like my old Ford 500. A 3.0 v6 that didn't have a lot of torque, yet was fine once you learned how to drive it. The 500 ran much better after the tranny flash. I am suspecting a future software update for the LaCrosse would help as well. As it is the LaCrosse 3.0 was that much better of a drive than my 500 was.

But honestly for most customers the 3.0 was fine! Silky smooth, nice snarl. Great top end.

Its only if you know the 3.6 is available and that is has basically the same mpg is why you say, why not the 3.6?

Really the LaCrosse needs the 3.6 for an even bigger reason....the Ford Taurus is a principle competitor, and that has the 3.5 v6, and the Taurus starts for less money, gets better mpg and has more power.

I know they want to proclaim good mpg for the LaCrosse but the 4 cylinder is even marginal in the Malibu if you want to get around with alacrity.

The better option would be to retune the 3.0 6 cylinder's hp and torque curves and transmission programming, and leave it as the base engine.

I would buy the LaCrosse with the 3.0 as it is now, and would enjoy it. Absolutely I would! It drives so much nicer than the old 3800's and such.

But if the 3.6 costs no more to make and gets the same mpg then the 3.6 really should be the feature engine. Leave the 3.0 for CHina or whatever.

I'll be curious to see if the 4 cyl is a big slug. I bet not even 10% of the LaCrosse get sold with 4 poppers.

Honestly even with the 3.0 after a test drive the LaCrosse is one of my new favorite cars. Believe the hype, its nice. I would drive the LaCrosse before I would drive the G8 v6 from 09.

I really think the four cylinder is a mistake.

Edited by regfootball
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think part of this is GM betting on gas shooting back up to $4.00 a gallon and beyond this summer. Think of it in that very likely scenario and suddenly the LaX makes a lot of sense.

edit: and it's the most risk free bet they can make... if gas doesn't shoot up.. or if people don't care about the price, there is still the 3.6. If fuel efficiency goes back on the front burner, people can buy the 2.4.

yay for more options!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is a pure CAFE move. Unless they have some type of shortage on the 3.0 V6... what else is that in? SRX...?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is a pure CAFE move. Unless they have some type of shortage on the 3.0 V6... what else is that in? SRX...?

Odd that they would do a 4cyl LaCrosse with the 4cyl Regal coming. Maybe it's needed to make the car cheaper for fleet sales.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 3.0 was pointless since it had no fuel economy gain over the 3.6. The 4-cylinder may have a good EPA rating, but I wonder what real world numbers will be since that engine will be taxed moving 3900 pounds. It is no different than putting the 2.4 in the Equinox though, similar weight of vehicle. Although personally, in a vehicle near 4,000 lbs, I want 300 horses.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they can up the power on the 2.4 maybe premium only

better yet put the LNF in here with 220-230 HP

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a good move. The 3.0 has no better MPG than the 3.6 on paper. And the 2.4 will be fine for the vast majority of Buick buyers, so long as it's refined and isolated. In the rest of the world, there are cars with way worse power-to-weight ratios but they're still capable of doing 80 MPH all day.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Odd that they would do a 4cyl LaCrosse with the 4cyl Regal coming. Maybe it's needed to make the car cheaper for fleet sales.

NOOOOOOOOO

sorry, a better explanation: if i ever have to rent a bench seated, cloth, anemic Buick ever again (i mean a new Buick that's been fitted with these traits) Buick is doomed

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Siennas and highlanders and venzas have 4 poppers now. But I'd like to see Buick get at least 200/200 with one before putting it in a lacrosse.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peak HP doesn't matter. Low end torque is what matters.

are you suggesting we switch to comparing torque in ads, similar, to something like....

a LAWNMOWER?

Edited by CanadianBacon94
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 2.4 LaCrosse is a dissapointment on several fronts. It's mileage rating with the 2.4 DI/6 speed automatic is down 3 city and 2 highway from the just as heavy and taller, higher off the ground Equinox which is ludicrous. It's mileage is also down 3 city and 5 highway from the newly introduced 2011 Hyundai Sonata and it's 2.4 makes more power and torque to boot. The Accord, Camry, Fusion/Milan, Altima and GM's own Malibu all make better mileage numbers on both city/highway cycles too but are these cars really the LaCrosses target? Buick is still trying to be Lexus and you don't see a 4 cylinder ES, a 4 cylinder Avalon, Azera, Taurus or 300C so the new Buick is in a class all by it's self with 4 cylinder power, plastic hubcaps and cloth seat trim as std equipment. Time will tell how this will play out but I see it as far too many Buick models in the same price range. Regal is starting at $26995. LaCrosse 2.4 starts at 26995 and the older Lucerne with a tiny bit discounted off the price will be around 27 grand. Want a decently equipped mid level 2LT Malibu? Well you guessed it for around 26 grand. An LT Impala also base at around this price meaning that GM has no less than 5 models all around the same sticker price.

The fat overweight LaCrosse is going to check in around 3850-3900 LBS with but 172 LBS FT of torque to work with with resulting increases in noise to get this whale moving on the open road. It probably will be fine for many folks but it just doesn't fit the title this car has garnered as flagship.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a four cylinder in this car is a bad move. it is too large for the 2.4L. When I bought my 2006 pontiac G6 I drove one with the 4 cyl and I thought it wasnt powerful enough for that car. So I went with a base GT with the 3.5L.

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