ALL NEW 2021 Buick Lacrosse - Exterior And Interior- Buick China

[NINETY EIGHT REGENCY]

 

[Drew Dowdell]

Looks like just a mild visual refresh externally and I didn’t notice any changes internally. 
 

looks like a Taurus from the front

[trinacriabob]

Thanks for this video.

The front does look like the last Ford Taurus, and a step backwards compared to the last rendition of the grille we had in North America.  It's a lot less exciting.

The rear also looks like another Ford - either the last Fusion or the Mondeo (if overseas).  It's also a step backwards compared to the boomerang shaped rear taillamps we got accustomed to.

The interior is much the same and, since the Chinese aren't known for being tall, I don't know why they kept on with that raised up and confining console.  I'm of average height, and I think it's one of the last LaCrosse's few demerits for the interior.  I like the shape of the greenhouse compared to that of the 2010-2016 model, where I never much cared for the raised beltline.

I'm betting it's powered by a 4 cylinder.  For its last 2 years here, they threw in an EcoTec 2.5 L 4 with e-assist in the cost conscious base model.

Well, too bad we don't have it over here.  I'd actually have something to redeem my GM points on.  It would work fine for me.

[David]

Surprised it still has the old Buick logo on the front and back rather than the updated Buick badge.

Overall, just a Meh car to me, but I understand that those that like cars over trucks or SUVs would enjoy it.

@trinacriabob You are correct that most Chinese are not tall though we have seen a few basketball players here that are super tall. I was wondering how it compares to the US where Woman on Average are 5'7" tall and men are 5'10" tall. According to the online info.

The average height for Chinese men is 177cm or 5’6 ½ ft and for women it is and 5’2½ (163cm). Moreover, In China, Men 5’3 (162cm) and shorter are considered short whereas, women heighted 5 feet or shorter are considered short. And, Men 5’11 (179cm) and taller are considered tall whereas, women heighted 5’5 or higher are considered tall.

[Drew Dowdell]

On 4/17/2022 at 8:32 PM, trinacriabob said:

Thanks for this video.

The front does look like the last Ford Taurus, and a step backwards compared to the last rendition of the grille we had in North America.  It's a lot less exciting.

The rear also looks like another Ford - either the last Fusion or the Mondeo (if overseas).  It's also a step backwards compared to the boomerang shaped rear taillamps we got accustomed to.

The interior is much the same and, since the Chinese aren't known for being tall, I don't know why they kept on with that raised up and confining console.  I'm of average height, and I think it's one of the last LaCrosse's few demerits for the interior.  I like the shape of the greenhouse compared to that of the 2010-2016 model, where I never much cared for the raised beltline.

I'm betting it's powered by a 4 cylinder.  For its last 2 years here, they threw in an EcoTec 2.5 L 4 with e-assist in the cost conscious base model.

Well, too bad we don't have it over here.  I'd actually have something to redeem my GM points on.  It would work fine for me.

Because the displacement tax in China kicks in at 2.0 liters, they're probably running the 2.0T which is actually 1,998 cubic centimeters to get below the tax.

[trinacriabob]

I wish I could reflexively think in both imperial and metric terms for most things.

The one thing I can do it for is engine displacement.  Since each liter is ~ 60 cubic inches, that would mean about 120 cubic inches of powerplant.

Funny how things change - 2 liters can power Buicks and even Cadillacs today, yet 2.5 liters was laughed at when the "Iron Duke" was rolled out.

[Drew Dowdell]

1 hour ago, trinacriabob said:

I wish I could reflexively think in both imperial and metric terms for most things.

The one thing I can do it for is engine displacement.  Since each liter is ~ 60 cubic inches, that would mean about 120 cubic inches of powerplant.

Funny how things change - 2 liters can power Buicks and even Cadillacs today, yet 2.5 liters was laughed at when the "Iron Duke" was rolled out.

I only know that 3.8 liters = 1 gallon because that’s what they write on the top of the urinals. 
 

so the 3800 is a 1 gallon engine

[ccap41]

12 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

I only know that 3.8 liters = 1 gallon because that’s what they write on the top of the urinals. 
 

so the 3800 is a 1 gallon engine

I'm so glad I'm not the only one to notice this! 

[trinacriabob]

Haha.  It's 3.785, if I recall correctly.  

I know I have to convert twice:

First, convert the Euro per liter cost to U.S. dollars.

Then, multiply that amount by 3.785 to get the price per gallon in dollars: to see what I'm paying in US $ ... and to get slightly depressed about it.

[oldshurst442]

A Buick 3.8 liter is a gallon?

This?

 

Makes sense.  Buicks ARE land yachts, you know. 

[oldshurst442]

 I feel the need to explain my little joke that fell flat on my face. 

Step by step.  (cue in a certain boy band song from the late '80s. Which Ill Refuse to post. NOT because of  possible embarrassment of a boy band post, but for an embarrassment of another possible joke fail...)  

1. OK...a gallon.  3.8 or so liters.

2. A GALLEON. A ship to sail a thousand seas. 

3. The 231 cubic inch Buick V6 is indeed 3.8 liters.

4. simulate confusion of definition between gallon and galleon and post a pic of a stereotypical pirate ship Spanish galleon.

5. Use that in connection to Buick's 3.8 liter V6, urinals and galleons  and make a nod to Buicks past of producing legit land yachts. 

6. proceed to post an actual Buick, um, land...yacht.

7. technically...hilarity and laughter should have  ensued.

 

 

8. but alas, it didnt. 

[Robert Hall]

Gallons would have felt odd for measuring engine displacement, but is a valid unit.  So 3.8 L is approx 1 gallon, and Buick's historical biggie the 455 would be approx 1.99 gallons...    A Stage 1 1.99G doesn't sound as impressive as a Stage 1 455 does...

[oldshurst442]

yeah... gallons as a metric is just as impressive as using the metric system.  

To compliment @Robert Hall's example:

Rolling in my 5.0  as opposed to Boss 302

Maybe ze Germans knew that higher numbers on a car were the way to go so they bamboozled us with shyte like a 2002 or a 318i...as opposed to leaving it short as a 1.8 liter.

I tell you one thing, Id rather have a 318 cubic inch Dodge Charger (the actual displacement OF the TV General Lee)

 

any day of the week and twice on Sundays, Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays than a sorority girl BMW 318

[Robert Hall]

3 minutes ago, oldshurst442 said:

yeah... gallons as a metric is just as impressive as using the metric system.  

To compliment @Robert Hall's example:

Rolling in my 5.0  as opposed to Boss 302

 

5.0 is what I'm most familiar with as that is what is on my '80s Mustang's fenders.. now 289, 302, 351 and 390 are what I'm familiar with for the 60s cars in my family and barn... 

[David]

🤔 Can we just kill the stupid American Standard system since metric is superior and easier to learn and just over all makes way more sense than dealing with 7/32 or any other stupid fraction. Yup, I am sure I will get hounded by those that think otherwise, but metric is just so much better to use on all things and lately, I have noticed metric is already pretty standard on current auto's as well as just about everything else.

[Drew Dowdell]

5 hours ago, Robert Hall said:

Gallons would have felt odd for measuring engine displacement, but is a valid unit.  So 3.8 L is approx 1 gallon, and Buick's historical biggie the 455 would be approx 1.99 gallons...    A Stage 1 1.99G doesn't sound as impressive as a Stage 1 455 does...

They would have rounded it to 2 like they round 1998cc engines to 2 liters.

a 2 gallon Buick Wildcat has a certain twang to it…