Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
NewsFeeder

First Drive: 2011 Buick LaCrosse CX gets four cylinders for fuel economy

13 posts in this topic

Filed under: Sedan, Buick, First Drive

lacrossei4---01opt.jpg
2011 Buick LaCrosse four-cylinder - Click above for high-res image gallery

For the foreseeable future, the LaCrosse will remain the flagship of the Buick lineup, so at first glance, it might seem peculiar that General Motors is adding a seemingly modest inline-four cylinder engine to the sedan's powertrain list. However, at the time the LaCrosse was being developed in 2007-2008, gasoline prices in the United States had spiked to their highest levels ever, topping $4 per gallon. General Motors product planners were understandably working on the assumption that fuel prices would remain high and continue an upward trend in the coming years.

Although Buick officials won't say so explicitly, another factor that likely played into the decision to offer the 2.4-liter EcoTec four-cylinder engine was the underwhelming response to the new 3.0-liter direct injected V6. While the new smaller V6 is a smooth runner and produces similar power to the company's earlier 3.6-liter port injected V6, it was lacking in torque compared to its larger counterpart and actually got slightly inferior fuel economy. We recently had the chance to sample the new four-cylinder-powered LaCrosse CX in rural Virginia. Read on to find out if less is indeed more when it comes to Buick's handsome sedan.



Photos by Sam Abuelsamid / Copyright ©2010 Weblogs, Inc.

Continue reading First Drive: 2011 Buick LaCrosse CX gets four cylinders for fuel economy

First Drive: 2011 Buick LaCrosse CX gets four cylinders for fuel economy originally appeared on Autoblog on Fri, 02 Apr 2010 11:58:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

di
di

autoblog?i=OPEd8ZmnDlk:MhLPCbfvpcA:wF9xT autoblog?i=OPEd8ZmnDlk:MhLPCbfvpcA:V_sGL
OPEd8ZmnDlk

View the full article
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't mind the 3.0 when I drove it, but the fact that it didn't get better mpg than the 3.6 made it pointless. I don't see a 25% take rate on the four with this thing, but at least it's there when gas goes up again. With a dealer discount and 1500 on the hood it makes a lot more sense than a Malibu though. And it's still a way nicer car than the sonata despite the idiot commenters on the AB thread.

I actually will drive the car again when the four hits here. A base lacrosse with 4 on a cheap lease would be a great family car and a major upgrade over the likes of accord, fusion, Malibu. One car that it has to get over on the value equation is the new Taurus with STD v6 and nice interior an huge trunk.

Edited by regfootball
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a car that screams for a 2.0 Turbo. It does not have to have to be tuned for performance but it would give it the power when needed and the MPG rolling down the road. This car needs the 225 HP Turbo from the Regal.

A premium car should have a premuim engine that Chevy does not use in a sedan.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the 3.0 to the 3.6 seems the same problem the 3.1 vs the 3.8 in Wbody's had... it certainly was enough to move the car, but it didn't have better numbers overall.

the best i ever got from my 3.1 was ~37, in Indiana.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That gray cloth interior and faux wood trim just reminds me of an Impala or LeSabre of old. Very rental car like. I am guessing 0-60 is on the wrong side of 9 seconds, this car has to be slow.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a car that screams for a 2.0 Turbo. It does not have to have to be tuned for performance but it would give it the power when needed and the MPG rolling down the road. This car needs the 225 HP Turbo from the Regal.

A premium car should have a premuim engine that Chevy does not use in a sedan.

just a larger non turbo four would be ok too. i agree the turbo makes sense but again if there is no cost diff between the turbo and a 6,........

toyota has a new 2.7l 4 pot mill for the minivan and highlander.

if the 4 was a 2.6 with DI then it could make 200/200 which would be fine for the base version of this car.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That gray cloth interior and faux wood trim just reminds me of an Impala or LeSabre of old. Very rental car like. I am guessing 0-60 is on the wrong side of 9 seconds, this car has to be slow.

the fake wood is a concern and i don't like the cloth myself, its the mouse fur kind. also i think the plastics still have some cheapness. all stuff GM can and should fix. still overall its a good interior. Depending on trim the interior is no detriment to purchase. It just doesn't have that Audi feel......but its better than the midsize mid price cars. GM should step up to the plate and improve the things it can.

At least they got the seating right. THe seats are comfy and supportive and firm..

Edited by regfootball
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well its not as big of a dog as I figured it would be... So I am not as mad as I could have been, 0-60 falls slightly above 9 seconds, certainly impressive given the porky curb weight. You just wouldn't catch me in one, I would go for the 3.6L no question. If it helps CAFE and the "old" Buick customers who are used to cloth seats and large ol' land yachts it works for me. Especially if 25% of the chumps opt for it then it really helps CAFE and allows more LSX V8 powered cars to roll around its fine by me. Having said that it erks me Buick did this, after all this is an ES350/TL fighter not a TSX/S40 4 cylinder fighter that will be the Regal. Then again giving consumers options and helping "green" GM's CAFE rating isn't a bad thing I suppose. Still if Buick wanted to truely do a ES350 killer exactly right it would CXL and CXS trim and 3.6L only. Then again I got half my wish they got rid of the worthless and less fuel efficent 3.0L V6.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just a larger non turbo four would be ok too. i agree the turbo makes sense but again if there is no cost diff between the turbo and a 6,........

toyota has a new 2.7l 4 pot mill for the minivan and highlander.

if the 4 was a 2.6 with DI then it could make 200/200 which would be fine for the base version of this car.

But Hyundai can get 200 hp out of a 2.4 liter. And 276 hp out of their 2.0 turbo. A slightly bigger 4-banger isn't really the issue, I think it is the size and weight of the car. The LaCrosse is a big car, bigger than a Genesis, STS or G8, it just doesn't seem like the type of car that should have a 4-cylinder.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just a larger non turbo four would be ok too. i agree the turbo makes sense but again if there is no cost diff between the turbo and a 6,........

toyota has a new 2.7l 4 pot mill for the minivan and highlander.

if the 4 was a 2.6 with DI then it could make 200/200 which would be fine for the base version of this car.

Cost is not really that much of an issue here as the added cost for the 6 or 4 are really not the issue here.

The real issue is GM needs to accelerate the MPG of all their cars and the 2.0 Turbo with 225 would give them a good performer in not only daily driving but also in MPG. I know what the engine can do and the MPG would be much better than many expect. It does not need all the performance since this is not a race or performance car but it would be nice to have a 4 cylinder MPG with better performace for passing and getting on the freeway.

The turbo engines are coming to most lines anyway and the prices will get a little better since they will be selling in greater volumes.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That gray cloth interior and faux wood trim just reminds me of an Impala or LeSabre of old. Very rental car like. I am guessing 0-60 is on the wrong side of 9 seconds, this car has to be slow.

I would assume Avis is the target market.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Color me as unipressed as that drab gray interior! Sticking a 4 banger in what is supposed to be a flagship sedan is already a mistake and this car has more faults than Carter has liver pills! The 0-60 times are projected at 9.5 seconds which is something most any minivan today can beat. Worse, the new 2011 Sonata has the same size 2.4 DI motor with 18 more HP and 5 more highway MPG in a similar mid size package. The trouble is the Buick weights an astounding 600 LBS more! The interior of the LaCrosse is a mish mash of styles. The dash looks downright gaudy and very busy with tacked on dash puffs and pads and lots of overdone stitching everywhere. The guages are nice but the overly large center console is slammed up against my drivers leg leaving no room to move it. The front seat feels tight, the mail slit windows give a feeling of clausterphobia and the A-pilars are as bloated as the general shape of the Lexus inspired exterior. On the plus side rear seat legroom is massive and kudos for finally putting rear seat air vents back there. The ride and handling of this car are also good as should be with such a heavy over built structure. Too bad that massive rear seat legroom costs trunk space along with the silly boxed in goose neck hinges. Even a Chevy Cruze compact has a larger trunk! Other clunkers include the dumb interior door pull handles, the telescoping wheel that barely goes up more than two inches, light tan and gray only cloth interior color choices, no interior trunk release(you have to go outside to the trunk and open it that way if you don't have the fob with you), the former exterior chrome bodyside moldings of the 05-09 generation have been moved down to the bottom of the doors where it does no good whatsoever and the base CX models now have plastic hubcaps instead of the 09 models std alloys. Adding a Chevy Equinox type 4 cylinder with increased noise further sends this car downscale in my eyes and it for sure does not deserve to be called a "Flagship" of any kind! More a Hertz rental car in fact.

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

Loading...
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