Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
NINETY EIGHT REGENCY

MotorWeek Car Keys: 2010 Buick Lacrosse I-4 Ecotec

Recommended Posts

I still feel this is the wrong engine for this car. But then again, I haven't driven it.

I, too, pronounce it "ECO-tec" whereas my brother always says, "Echo-tech".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still feel this is the wrong engine for this car. But then again, I haven't driven it.

I, too, pronounce it "ECO-tec" whereas my brother always says, "Echo-tech".

even if it has a good flat torque curve, i don't think it's enough power, but in china they get the right engine.

http://www.chinacartimes.com/2010/04/08/buick-2-0t-lacrosse-to-launch-soon/

maybe 98 should make a separate thing in the Buick thread on that.

BTW at 1:13 he says ECO tec

Edited by CanadianBacon94

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It should do fine as this is aht same combo in the Nox. The trick is in the gearing in the tranny and how it uses the torque.

Mind you this is not going to make this a M series killer in any way. But this will make for a car that would make most Honda and Toyota owners happy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don't understand the point of the 3.0L in any application. It is less fuel-efficient and less powerful than the DI 3.6L, so why bother?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the lacrosse i drove had the 3.0. i didn't mind it, even though it had lazy kickdowns. thing is, there is no advantage in mpg or production cost for the 3.0 vs the 3.6. so just make the 3.6 standard!

ah, but if GM can hook a few with the 4, it brings up the CAFE and they make money selling cheaper motors for a high price.

its pretty much an admission they can't bring the mpg down to where they want with any of their v6's. So give the illusion of fuel efficiency they added the 4.

as hyp says if its geared right it may be ok. but then its working harder. its a tightrope, they have to get it right. but there is actual mpg improvements and selling the same priced car with a cheaper motor means more money in the bank.

they SAY they will sell 25% of them with 4's but my guess is they'll rot on lots. So the 4 poppers will go fleet. which is bad i think.

couldn't they have found a way to retune the 3.0 so it would at least match the base taurus on mpg?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don't understand the point of the 3.0L in any application. It is less fuel-efficient and less powerful than the DI 3.6L, so why bother?!

I'm not sure either...in markets where they tax based on displacement it would make sense, but I thought they also have the 2.4 and 2.0T in China so who really knows

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure either...in markets where they tax based on displacement it would make sense, but I thought they also have the 2.4 and 2.0T in China so who really knows

Well, see, the 2.0T makes more sense. Better fuel economy than the 3.0L, a LOT more power, lighter, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOVE the little retro "T" emblem. Brings back memories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that GM needs to develop a line of smaller V6es, not in displacement, but in over all packaging. The HF series is made to go all the way up to 4 litres, which means even if you're only driving around a 2.8, you're still lugging around all the components needed for a 4 litre and then some.

Make a scaled down version of the HFs that max out at say, 3.3 litres. It'll fit into smaller places and have lighter weight parts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Make a scaled down version of the HFs that max out at say, 3.3 litres. It'll fit into smaller places and have lighter weight parts.

i would agree, but then you'll get into the economies of scale argument again...

unless GM starts doing what ford has done... make the same "engine" in say, 2 sizes... 3.5 and a 3.7 for ford, maybe a 3.3L and a 3.8L or something. think their (ford's) 3.0L will be dead in a few years? for the equinox and such, the 2.4L seems like it's a great fit for the base. but seems like that will be the only large market for the 3.0L (not counting the small cadilac use in the srx and the cts...wagon? the 2.0L T seems liek it should be the 3.0L replacement, not some smaller v6.

again, only talking in terms of dev and manufacturing cost would keep a smaller v6 from being built barring some displacement tax like in europe and other places.

sad really, an updated 3.1/3.4/3.5L CIB engine at 3.4L +/- .1 L should beable to make 3.0L power without stepping on any other engine's toes, and be a fairly compact engine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ONLY reason I would take a 3.0L V6 over a 4-cylinder engine is simply because it doesn't sound like a four. I like the smooth purr of a V6. However, when talking fuel economy and power, it's obvious what is a smart choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The ONLY reason I would take a 3.0L V6 over a 4-cylinder engine is simply because it doesn't sound like a four. I like the smooth purr of a V6. However, when talking fuel economy and power, it's obvious what is a smart choice.

I think it was that "6-cyl purr" that prompted GM to offer the 3.0L; the expectation that a car that big needs to have a V6 for image reasons even if it adds nothing to the joy of driving the car.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it was that "6-cyl purr" that prompted GM to offer the 3.0L; the expectation that a car that big needs to have a V6 for image reasons even if it adds nothing to the joy of driving the car.

I truly believe that was the only reason it was offered. I'll say this, the car is beautiful, it's damn near perfect, but the cloth seats are so so and the base wheels are horrendous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, see, the 2.0T makes more sense. Better fuel economy than the 3.0L, a LOT more power, lighter, etc.

I thought the same thing. The 2.0T should be the base engine.

The one mistake that I think a lot of us are making (including myself) is assuming that GM intends on positioning the LaCrosse above the Regal. Instead of positioning the LaCrosse above the Regal, I think GM is aiming them at different buyers. The LaCrosse is a modern take on Buick's traditional identity of elegant luxury. The Regal is being marketed as more of a Euro sourced sports sedan. I guess both cars offering the same base engine makes more sense (possibly?) if you don't view one being positioned above the other. I think the upcoming Excelle/Verano (hopefully GM doesn't use either name in the U.S.) sedan will actually be marketed as a smaller sibling to the LaCrosse. I think the Regal is intended to be the Buick that "zigs".

Still, I think the base engine for the LaCrosse should be the 2.0T based on the fact that the LaCrosse is larger and heavier than the Regal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
but the cloth seats are so so and the base wheels are horrendous.

I agree (based on what I see in photos - never seen the LaCrosse in the metal) and to me that is a shame: it does not add to what is a very good looking American car.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree (based on what I see in photos - never seen the LaCrosse in the metal) and to me that is a shame: it does not add to what is a very good looking American car.

+1 on that.

I drove through the Buick dealership yesterday and I was shocked to see some LaCrosse models with reflector type headlights also. When quite a few mainstream midsize sedans come standard with projector beam headlights, Buick is looking a little pathetic offering reflector type headlights on what may become their flagship sedan in the future.

Sometimes I wonder if GM is really serious about making Buick "The New Class Of World Class". No Buick should be without foglights, alloy wheels, projector beam headlights, etc.

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...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoticons maximum are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  



About us

CheersandGears.com - Founded 2001

We  Cars

Get in touch

Follow us

Recent tweets

facebook

×