Cory Wolfe

On another note, I should probably update my sig. The Accord and Firebird are long gone.

I was really enjoying the peace around here until yesterday when, lo and behold, another Ford vs Chevy thread popped up. 

 

 

 

In my case is just seemed like a rough and louder idle along with more noise under hard acceleration.  Seems back to its normal self after the oil change.

We'll I was told by my dealership that due to the close tolerances even on a pure synthetic, the engines get nosier as the oil gets dirtier and one should replace it. Also with the new dexos 1 and 2 spec GM, Ford, or any auto company could decline warranty if the wrong oil is used. Pretty clear to either use dexos specific oil or go pure synthetic.

 

Good explanation on the new oils here:

 

http://www.autoblog.com/2010/10/02/gm-engine-oil/

 

The Dexos is full synthetic anyway I thought

No, there are syn blends that are dexos approved. Actually more GM dealers will us an AC Delco oil that is a syn blend that's dexos approved. It's only like 3.5/qt retail. But that doesn't mean it is a bad oil. If it's what they use for their oil life monitors and you can go ~10k on it then it's still gotta be pretty good.

And yes, I did have a senior moment.... but I have no way of knowing how many miles are on the oil. I've always used the oil life monitor. It was probably the 4th 5th oil change ever, so if you figure the oil change monitor is fairly consistent, then I average either 6,600 per oil change or 8,250 per oil change.   This is the lowest I've ever let the oil change monitor go though.. I usually change right at 10%.

Okay I gotcha I gotcha.

I guess I just always set my second trip odometer for my oil changes. That way I can also see what my mpg was over that entire span as well.

 

If my car doesn't have an active maintenance reminder, I usually try to stick with even numbers and just memorize the mileage.

And yes, Dexos is an oil specification and it's generally a minimum of synthetic blend or higher. It's also just a marketing/licensing scheme, so Dexos approved doesn't necessarily mean anything. This is a good read about all that nonsense. 

Material items.

Saw an article that claimed the average household has 300,000 items in it/on its property, and I fear I am wildly over that number, by a factor of many.

We're a species of hoarders.

Anyone notice their car being sensitive to needing an oil change? I just did the oil on the Buick and it is noticeably quieter. It still had 5% left on the DIC oil change monitor.

VW recommends a 10k service interval for my GTI. For the last 1k, it was a little more coarse sounding on a cold start-up. 

I just picked up some German-made Mobil 1 0w-40 and a matching filter for the GTI. 

Ain't nothing going to stop me this winter. 

I love this picture of the LaCrosse. 

This one, too. 

Found this on a local FB classified... Centarua... Sounds exotic. Why have I not of this model before?!

Dude! That's awful. These pesky deer need to be equipped with shock collars that keep them away from the roads. 

My friend just went through that twice with her brand new WRX.

She ended up buying one of these: Deer Alert System

I would certainly rock this Buick.

22/31 mpg was the OLD rating system. The 2005 Avalon is rated 19/28 mpg by the new system, a whopping ONE mpg better in the city compared to the much heavier outgoing 18/28 mpg Lacrosse. Meanwhile the actual quality and luxury differences between an old Avalon and the epsilon II Lacrosse is night and day. Total apples and oranges comparison.

Your post-count elitism is adorable and your facts are dubious.

If you will remember, they never retested those older vehicles; the EPA simply estimated a loss. My personal 60k worth of test data perfectly matched up to the old rating. Same could be said of my old Cobalt which also had it's loss estimated.

If you wish to match up a current Avalon to a current LaCrosse, be my guest. You'll find that Toyota hasn't advanced since 2005 either. And in terms of luxury and the current LaCrosse, its not night and day. A little quieter, more convincing fake wood, and a more swanky design. Not exactly apples and oranges there. Though, yes, the new one appears to have an interior that's more on par with a Cadillac than a fancy Toyota.

Also, it's not elitism, merely the fact that the influx of new members have, on the whole, been extremely argumentative, quick to throw attacks, and generally dismissive towards reason. There are standouts among all of you who certainly add a lot of positive material to this forum. I'm not even saying that you aren't one of the standouts, but calling my facts a "f@#cking joke" isn't doing yourself any favors here. When I first joined way back in 2003, anyone who's been here that long can tell you I was the same way-argumentative and likely immature. I received my fair share of castrating reality checks by many of the more senior members.

 

 

 

So, this is like the complete opposite of the MKZ. The exterior and interior are very well done, if not a bit too understated. The powertrain is bit disappointing, though. I would have liked to see something more than just the run-of-mill V6. I suppose Buick still has to cater to its long-living demographic regardless of what the advertising will tell you. 

 

The new powertrain is hardly run of the mill. The V6 has start/stop and cylinder deactivation mated to a brand new 8-speed. With a huge drop in curb weight, this big sedan is likely to be QUICK (like running mid-14s) and still achieve over 20/30 mpg.

 

 

I'm sorry... is that really considered quick these days? My 11 year old Avalon would run mid-14s and hit 60 in about 6 seconds (and would do over 31 mpg highway), which is likely where the new LaCrosse will be at. I wasn't wowed by that car's power, so I'm not going to be wowed by this either. The current LaCrosse is a 2-ton porker, so losing 300lbs merely brings it back down to average weight and performance for the class. Again, there's nothing exciting here. It's a run-of-the-mill powertrain in every single way for the year 2017. Kthxbai. 

 

What I would really like to see is the MKZ's powertrain with the LaCrosse's body. Perfect boulevard cruiser.

 

 

This post is a f@#king joke. A 2004 Avalon had a 3.0L V6 with just over 200 horsepower and a 4-speed auto. It's a tin can compared to modern cars, and I don't believe for a damn second it could run anywhere near 14s.

 

This is the problem with new members here. No sense of community history. Argumentative and full of attitude. Can't use facts accordingly. 

I made a typo, for which I am terribly sorry. Really, gravely sorry. I should be beaten and hung from the cross for it. Truly. If, however, you would take the time to either A: Read through my signature to see mine was a 2005, or B: Look through my history to see that indeed, it was a 2005, these filth ridden posts wouldn't have to exist. You have your opinion, I have mine, which I've completely backed up with facts to certify any claims I've made. Again, Kthxbai. 

 

 

 

So, this is like the complete opposite of the MKZ. The exterior and interior are very well done, if not a bit too understated. The powertrain is bit disappointing, though. I would have liked to see something more than just the run-of-mill V6. I suppose Buick still has to cater to its long-living demographic regardless of what the advertising will tell you. 

 

The new powertrain is hardly run of the mill. The V6 has start/stop and cylinder deactivation mated to a brand new 8-speed. With a huge drop in curb weight, this big sedan is likely to be QUICK (like running mid-14s) and still achieve over 20/30 mpg.

 

 

I'm sorry... is that really considered quick these days? My 11 year old Avalon would run mid-14s and hit 60 in about 6 seconds (and would do over 31 mpg highway), which is likely where the new LaCrosse will be at. I wasn't wowed by that car's power, so I'm not going to be wowed by this either. The current LaCrosse is a 2-ton porker, so losing 300lbs merely brings it back down to average weight and performance for the class. Again, there's nothing exciting here. It's a run-of-the-mill powertrain in every single way for the year 2017. Kthxbai. 

 

What I would really like to see is the MKZ's powertrain with the LaCrosse's body. Perfect boulevard cruiser.

 

 

 

 

Second the idea that your 2010HP 2004 Avalon is going to be faster than the new LaX, while getting superior fuel economy is ridiculous. The 2004 Camry SE barely pulled it off with a 14.6 seconds @ 97.0 mph, and was lighter. This Lacrosse, should certainly improve upon the numbers laid by my heavier Impala.. Fuel economy is certainly going into the 30s.. 

 

I love the idea of Run of the Mill when is incorporating start/stop, cylinder deactivation and an 8-speed tranny.. all wrapped in a sweet honey bun of an exterior. U want 12 second 1/4 miles.. go buy a Cadillac.. or even a Chevy. Buick is about smooth luxury. Everyone doesn't need their car to be a performance car.. and that's coming from some one who predominately has REAL performance cars.

 

Excuse my typo, I meant 10 year old.

My 2005 Avalon weighed a hair over 3600lbs, was rated at 280 hp, quoted at 14.6 seconds @ 99 mph in the quarter and 6.0 seconds to 60, and was rated at 22/31 mpg.

I'm not saying the LaCrosse won't be able to match it, I simply don't see it exceeding it by much, if at all. Also, for what it's worth, 10 years on, and the Avalon hasn't improved upon itself either. It is also just run-of-the-mill these days. It's not necessarily a bad thing for Buick to do the same, but there's nothing exciting here besides an 8 speed auto that others have had for years. With Buick itself stating they are perfectly happy with the LaCrosse being their flagship sedan, I would've expected more... a risk or two. Instead, it's been played safe, likely to keep its current cult of owners happy. Meanwhile, Lincoln, which is basically just a Buick competitor these days, is taking those risks... It's just too bad they don't have a better stylist. 

So, I've found that buying phones on ebay probably wasn't my best idea...

 

So, this is like the complete opposite of the MKZ. The exterior and interior are very well done, if not a bit too understated. The powertrain is bit disappointing, though. I would have liked to see something more than just the run-of-mill V6. I suppose Buick still has to cater to its long-living demographic regardless of what the advertising will tell you. 

 

The new powertrain is hardly run of the mill. The V6 has start/stop and cylinder deactivation mated to a brand new 8-speed. With a huge drop in curb weight, this big sedan is likely to be QUICK (like running mid-14s) and still achieve over 20/30 mpg.

 

I'm sorry... is that really considered quick these days? My 11 year old Avalon would run mid-14s and hit 60 in about 6 seconds (and would do over 31 mpg highway), which is likely where the new LaCrosse will be at. I wasn't wowed by that car's power, so I'm not going to be wowed by this either. The current LaCrosse is a 2-ton porker, so losing 300lbs merely brings it back down to average weight and performance for the class. Again, there's nothing exciting here. It's a run-of-the-mill powertrain in every single way for the year 2017. Kthxbai. 

What I would really like to see is the MKZ's powertrain with the LaCrosse's body. Perfect boulevard cruiser.

Whatever happened to that "substantial" refresh? This is completely underwhelming. I'd rather buy a Corolla. 

Lol. At least its not as much of a penalty box as before, but that's not saying much. 

So... Mazda is proving that its the master of design. Each model it introduces with its Kodo design instantly becomes the best looking vehicle in its respective class. The engineering ain't too shabby, either. Imagine, all Mazda needed was to be on its own without a blue-oval hovering above, sucking the life out of it. Now they simply need to get that diesel here and maybe put that turbo-charged 2.5L into the 6 and the 3 for some extra scrumptious spice. 

I have mixed feelings on this. I love the idea of turbo-charging a Miata, but I'd rather Mazda engineer it. This is the part where I'd normally say the opposite for the design, except... I feel like Mazda also has the edge here with their Kodo design. So, essentially, what we have here is a slightly uglier, likely far less reliable, but slightly angrier version of a car nearly everyone loves. Uh... win? I... guess?

Hyundai was really on a roll for a while there. The last Sonata and Elantra really stood out and at least gave you a reason to check them out. The last few (with the exception of the new Tuscon) have been entirely underwhelming. It's almost as if Hyundai has stopped trying, or stopped caring. 

So, this is like the complete opposite of the MKZ. The exterior and interior are very well done, if not a bit too understated. The powertrain is bit disappointing, though. I would have liked to see something more than just the run-of-mill V6. I suppose Buick still has to cater to its long-living demographic regardless of what the advertising will tell you. 

I have to admit, the drivetrain sounds enticing. I'm not really convinced the rest of it is worthy of any compliments, however. I really thought the current MKZ was a fantastic design and this just seems like a step backwards. I mean, the front clip looks okay by itself, but it doesn't mesh well with the sharp lines elsewhere. It's a sort of a generic mess. 

White Honda Accords have been the running joke 'round these parts for quite some time... Except, I found beige. Perfect car right here.

On a more serious note (that Accord actually isn't that bad of a choice), You might be able to find new Focus's in that price range with decent mileage. They seem to be reliable according to Consumer Reports' data. Here's one in my area that meets the criteria: Second perfect car right here. And another: Third perfect car right here.

I'm not in love with the refresh, though the interior improvements are nice.