Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
NINETY EIGHT REGENCY

Buick sees 6-7 models in its lineup

Recommended Posts

I believe the 3.0 displacement to be correct but it leaves out that its a turbo.

That still bugs me. The 3.0L has poorer fuel economy and throwing a turbo on it, although will probably add more power than the DI 3.6L, will eat up even more fuel.

Not necessarily... the 3.0's problem is not that it has higher brake specific fuel consumption than the 3.6. The 3.0 is actually a very good design and a refinement over the first generation DI 3.6. In fact, many of its features, including the integral 3-to-1 exhaust collector within the heads, are copied by the 2nd generation DI 3.6 (LFX).

The problem with the 3.0 is that it is under torqued for the SRX and CTS applications. This forces wider throttle openings and compels sticking to a lower gear at a wide variety of operating conditions. More throttle and having to be in 5th when the 3.6 equipped car would have shifted to 6th lead to inferior fuel economy on heavy vehicles like the SRX and the CTS. The 3.0 may be a more economical engine than the 3.6 if it was applied to, let's say a 3200 lbs Corvette or 3000 lbs Solstice. It is simply poorly matched to the CTS and SRX.

A 300~360hp class Bi-Turbo LF3 may not be afflicted by the issues. But this is assuming that the Enclave is getting a forcefed 3.0 and not the LF1.

Okay, but sans turbo we can safely say the 3.0L in an Enclave is a stupid idea, no?

Given the poor performance of putting it in the Lacrosse, I can't imagine that it will be lifted as-is into the Enclave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would GM put a 3 liter v6 in the new Enclave? That engine does not belong in anything bigger than a Regal at best! I am glad that they are bringing in a smaller Enclave in the Encore. I hope that BOTH get the 3.6 v6 since it sounds like the 3L is gutless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the 3.0 displacement to be correct but it leaves out that its a turbo.

That still bugs me. The 3.0L has poorer fuel economy and throwing a turbo on it, although will probably add more power than the DI 3.6L, will eat up even more fuel.

Not necessarily... the 3.0's problem is not that it has higher brake specific fuel consumption than the 3.6. The 3.0 is actually a very good design and a refinement over the first generation DI 3.6. In fact, many of its features, including the integral 3-to-1 exhaust collector within the heads, are copied by the 2nd generation DI 3.6 (LFX).

The problem with the 3.0 is that it is under torqued for the SRX and CTS applications. This forces wider throttle openings and compels sticking to a lower gear at a wide variety of operating conditions. More throttle and having to be in 5th when the 3.6 equipped car would have shifted to 6th lead to inferior fuel economy on heavy vehicles like the SRX and the CTS. The 3.0 may be a more economical engine than the 3.6 if it was applied to, let's say a 3200 lbs Corvette or 3000 lbs Solstice. It is simply poorly matched to the CTS and SRX.

A 300~360hp class Bi-Turbo LF3 may not be afflicted by the issues. But this is assuming that the Enclave is getting a forcefed 3.0 and not the LF1.

Okay, but sans turbo we can safely say the 3.0L in an Enclave is a stupid idea, no?

Given the poor performance of putting it in the Lacrosse, I can't imagine that it will be lifted as-is into the Enclave.

I agree that it doesn't make sense to put it in the Enclave as is, however, GM has done things like that and it's looked ridiculous. Honestly, I feel like the CTS should have always had the 3.6L and never gone down to the 3.0L, the Equinox/Terrain have no reason to have the 3.0L when the 3.6L yields almost identical fuel economy if not a little better, as well as a lot more torque. I'm not quite sure the reason behind the 3.0L without having it turbo'd. I'm not saying it's a bad engine, it's just not great in these times without assistance for the overweight and huge vehicles it's being used in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The CTS didn't "go down" to the 3.0. It "moved up" from the 2.8, which was a move up from the awful Opel 3.2.

In that regard, the 3.0 made the base engine of the CTS palatable to many buyers unlike the 2.8 and 3.2 before it.

In fact, the 3.0 in the base CTS beats the 3-series, 5-series, C-Class, and A4 by a wide margin of no less than 30 horsepower (for the 5-series) and up to 59 horsepower (for the A4)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The CTS didn't "go down" to the 3.0. It "moved up" from the 2.8, which was a move up from the awful Opel 3.2.

In that regard, the 3.0 made the base engine of the CTS palatable to many buyers unlike the 2.8 and 3.2 before it.

In fact, the 3.0 in the base CTS beats the 3-series, 5-series, C-Class, and A4 by a wide margin of no less than 30 horsepower (for the 5-series) and up to 59 horsepower (for the A4)

I could have sworn when the 2008 CTS came out, there were the choices of the regular 3.6L, DI 3.6, and then eventually the V. I don't recall any 2.8 or 3.2 in this generation CTS, but I could be wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was right about the CTS... when it debuted it came with the 263hp and 304hp versions of the 3.6L as its engine choices:

http://www.autos.ca/car-buyers-guide/buyers-guide-2008-cadillac-cts

Sure, the 3.0L beats in hp at 7,000rpm by SEVEN HORSEPOWER, but trails the 3.6L by 30lb-ft. That's not an upgrade to me... especially when it lost 1mpg in fuel economy.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was right about the CTS... when it debuted it came with the 263hp and 304hp versions of the 3.6L as its engine choices:

http://www.autos.ca/...08-cadillac-cts

Sure, the 3.0L beats in hp at 7,000rpm by SEVEN HORSEPOWER, but trails the 3.6L by 30lb-ft. That's not an upgrade to me... especially when it lost 1mpg in fuel economy.

It didn't lose 1mpg in fuel economy, it gained 1 to 2mpg depending on transmission.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was right about the CTS... when it debuted it came with the 263hp and 304hp versions of the 3.6L as its engine choices:

http://www.autos.ca/...08-cadillac-cts

Sure, the 3.0L beats in hp at 7,000rpm by SEVEN HORSEPOWER, but trails the 3.6L by 30lb-ft. That's not an upgrade to me... especially when it lost 1mpg in fuel economy.

It didn't lose 1mpg in fuel economy, it gained 1 to 2mpg depending on transmission.

I can't argue with seeing those numbers and I wish I could prove it, but I'm POSITIVE it lost 1mpg according to the Cadillac website when I checked last year. I even recall messaging you why they'd do that if it was less fuel efficient. However, getting back to my point, you have the 3.6L DI which beats the 3.0L's city mpg you posted and adds a LOT more power, which again makes me wonder, WHY the 3.0L?

EDIT: On a small side note, anyone know why when I'm in Firefox and I type www.cadillac.com it takes me to: http://www.gm.ca/gm/english/vehicles/cadillac/?adv=14238, yet I have no problem in IE?

Edited by Paolino

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EDIT: On a small side note, anyone know why when I'm in Firefox and I type www.cadillac.com it takes me to: http://www.gm.ca/gm/...llac/?adv=14238, yet I have no problem in IE?

Clear your cookies.

Thanks, it worked. Not sure why it was sending me to Canada's website.. I've never gone there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EDIT: On a small side note, anyone know why when I'm in Firefox and I type www.cadillac.com it takes me to: http://www.gm.ca/gm/...llac/?adv=14238, yet I have no problem in IE?

Clear your cookies.

Thanks, it worked. Not sure why it was sending me to Canada's website.. I've never gone there.

The assimilation begins!

post-1376-0-54374800-1304894465.jpg

:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was right about the CTS... when it debuted it came with the 263hp and 304hp versions of the 3.6L as its engine choices:

http://www.autos.ca/...08-cadillac-cts

Sure, the 3.0L beats in hp at 7,000rpm by SEVEN HORSEPOWER, but trails the 3.6L by 30lb-ft. That's not an upgrade to me... especially when it lost 1mpg in fuel economy.

It didn't lose 1mpg in fuel economy, it gained 1 to 2mpg depending on transmission.

I can't argue with seeing those numbers and I wish I could prove it, but I'm POSITIVE it lost 1mpg according to the Cadillac website when I checked last year. I even recall messaging you why they'd do that if it was less fuel efficient. However, getting back to my point, you have the 3.6L DI which beats the 3.0L's city mpg you posted and adds a LOT more power, which again makes me wonder, WHY the 3.0L?

EDIT: On a small side note, anyone know why when I'm in Firefox and I type www.cadillac.com it takes me to: http://www.gm.ca/gm/...llac/?adv=14238, yet I have no problem in IE?

Why does BMW put a 230hp I6 in the 3-series? Why does Audi put a 211hp I4 in the A4? Why does Mercedes put a 220hp V6 in the C-class? Why does Lexus put a 204hp V6 in the IS?*

Answer: To get you to pony up the cash for the bigger engine.

GM is in the business of making money. Their base engine in the CTS is much more powerful than those in the similarly priced competition. It's even more powerful than the base 5-series engine and equal to the base E-class engine.

So GM has one of the best in class base engines in terms of power for those people who don't spend their life at 0-60 and has two options (the 3.6 DI and V-series) for people who want to go faster, and is able to extract the appropriate fee for the privilege.

Edit: 204 HP V6.. and with 185 ft-lb @4800? What is this, 2001? Oh no, it can't be, they had 45 ft-lb more at 800rpm less back then... and got better mpg on the highway in a 200lbs. heavier package while using a 4-speed auto.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was right about the CTS... when it debuted it came with the 263hp and 304hp versions of the 3.6L as its engine choices:

http://www.autos.ca/...08-cadillac-cts

Sure, the 3.0L beats in hp at 7,000rpm by SEVEN HORSEPOWER, but trails the 3.6L by 30lb-ft. That's not an upgrade to me... especially when it lost 1mpg in fuel economy.

It didn't lose 1mpg in fuel economy, it gained 1 to 2mpg depending on transmission.

I can't argue with seeing those numbers and I wish I could prove it, but I'm POSITIVE it lost 1mpg according to the Cadillac website when I checked last year. I even recall messaging you why they'd do that if it was less fuel efficient. However, getting back to my point, you have the 3.6L DI which beats the 3.0L's city mpg you posted and adds a LOT more power, which again makes me wonder, WHY the 3.0L?

EDIT: On a small side note, anyone know why when I'm in Firefox and I type www.cadillac.com it takes me to: http://www.gm.ca/gm/...llac/?adv=14238, yet I have no problem in IE?

Why does BMW put a 230hp I6 in the 3-series? Why does Audi put a 211hp I4 in the A4? Why does Mercedes put a 220hp V6 in the C-class? Why does Lexus put a 204hp V6 in the IS?*

Answer: To get you to pony up the cash for the bigger engine.

GM is in the business of making money. Their base engine in the CTS is much more powerful than those in the similarly priced competition. It's even more powerful than the base 5-series engine and equal to the base E-class engine.

So GM has one of the best in class base engines in terms of power for those people who don't spend their life at 0-60 and has two options (the 3.6 DI and V-series) for people who want to go faster, and is able to extract the appropriate fee for the privilege.

Edit: 204 HP V6.. and with 185 ft-lb @4800? What is this, 2001? Oh no, it can't be, they had 45 ft-lb more at 800rpm less back then... and got better mpg on the highway in a 200lbs. heavier package while using a 4-speed auto.

In all fairness, you're looking at the fuel economy numbers from two sets of standards... remember, they were all revised a few years ago. I get what you mean though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also happen to know from experience that the 2001 Bonneville will easily beat it's EPA rated number during a long highway cruise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also happen to know from experience that the 2001 Bonneville will easily beat it's EPA rated number during a long highway cruise.

Fine but maybe the IS does too! :AH-HA:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also happen to know from experience that the 2001 Bonneville will easily beat it's EPA rated number during a long highway cruise.

Fine but maybe the IS does too! :AH-HA:

Most people on Edmunds report hitting 27 - 29mpg on the highway.

oh, and it requires premium too.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I'm enjoying the pissing contest, I'll stop now because I just don't have the knowledge to keep arguing ;)

Edited by Paolino

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A really huge lineup with a few small volume imports. (My thoughts)

1 Verano

2 Verano GTC (Astra GTC Coupe)

3 Verano 5 (Astra 5 door)

4 Regal

5 Regal TourSport (Insignia sport wagon,optional AWD)

6 Encore (compact Astra based Crossover)

7 Lacrosse

8 Velite (soft top coupe,epII Lacrosse wheelbase,187-190 in length optional AWD)

9 Riviera (coupe epII Lacrosse wheelbase,187-190 in length optional AWD)

10 Enclave

11? Lucerne? I'm 50/50 on if a larger then lacrosse sedan is needed.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A really huge lineup with a few small volume imports. (My thoughts)

1 Verano

2 Verano GTC (Astra GTC Coupe)

3 Verano 5 (Astra 5 door)

4 Regal

5 Regal TourSport (Insignia sport wagon,optional AWD)

6 Encore (compact Astra based Crossover)

7 Lacrosse

8 Velite (soft top coupe,epII Lacrosse wheelbase,187-190 in length optional AWD)

9 Riviera (coupe epII Lacrosse wheelbase,187-190 in length optional AWD)

10 Enclave

11? Lucerne? I'm 50/50 on if a larger then lacrosse sedan is needed.

Since the Lucerne is dead after this year (along with platform twin DTS), I suspect that Buick does not see a traditional large sedan as necessary. They now consider the Lacrosse a large sedan. . . . which I find a bit strange since it is not as large as a current Impala, or the next one coming out in a few months.

Otherwise, Ghost Dog, I do like your proposed vehicle lineup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji 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

×
×
  • Create New...