Can someone please straighten me out here? What is a Buick? I mean, what’s the point? I’m serious. I don’t get it. The brand’s manager, Susan Docherty, is no bloody help at all. “We’re working hard to change the perception of the brand and to let people know Buick may not be what they think it is,” Ms. Dohery pronounced in a recent web chat. May not be, but might? How do we parse the fact that the brand is sticking a four cylinder engine into its forthcoming sedan? Sure the Honda Accord has one. A mighty fine four pot, in fact. But how does this engine option square with Buick’s “entry level luxury” schtick? AutoWeek is forced to go for the historical angle. ”The four-banger is thought to be the first in a Buick since the 1998 Skylark,” AW reports. “It’s from GM’s Ecotec family and makes 182 hp and 172 lb·ft of torque. It’s an inline setup and employs direct injection; look for it to get an estimated 20 mpg in the city and 30 mpg on the highway.” So who’s looking?
84 Comments on “New Buick LaCrosse Gets Four-Cylinder Engine, AWD...”
Back to TopLeave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You can also login using Facebook Connect.
Four cylinders, all-wheel-drive? Clearly, they’re chasing after the Audi A4 then. (Not seriously, as it’s not a turbo apparently.)
But yeah, expect to see more four-bangers, especially turbos, replace V6s, V6s replacing V8s, etc. All part of the fuel economy rules.
i actually think that’s a pretty attractive looking car… sure it looks like it’s knocking off nissan and the like
but i doubt i ever want to drive a 3,400lb car (I’m guessing) with those kind of power/torque figures
The V6 weighs around 4,000 pounds. The four MIGHT cut that to 3,800. Very heavy for a non-turbo four.
Another oddity: AWD is offered with the 3.0 V6, but not with the 3.6. Based on the specs, the 3.0 has a strong top end, but the torque is, well, that of a 3.0-liter.
All of this made possible by a six-speed automatic with some very short initial ratios.
I think it’s a resonable idea. When gas goes back to $5 a gallon, automakers will likely rush to get 4 bangers in everything they’ll work in. Buick is getting ahead of the game. European midsized cars have available 4 holers, and VW/Audi offers them here in some of their larger-than-compact sedans. Besides, 182hp/172ft.lb. isn’t exactly the same thing as the wheezy, powerless 4 cylinders of the ’80s.
As far as “what is Buick”, I haven’t a clue. GM reckons it to be a Lexus fighter in the works, but I don’t see it. The problem is that Buick has way too much potential to bump into Cadillac’s territory, especially if Caddy tries to move down market with a new “entry level” car. Buick should not have survived the bankruptcy, but since they did, then they should get decent products to sell. The LaCrosse looks like exactly that. We shall see.
I wonder if someone among the B&B can enlighten me on the CAFE rules. I have always understood that if GM does not meet CAFE on its entire car line, then it is fined for each vehicle produced from its entire car line. In other words, if 5 V8 Cadillacs edges all of GM cars over the max mpg limit, GM is not fined just on those 5 V8 Cads but on every car it builds that year. Am I correct?
Because if I am, this is why Buick is going to put a 4 into its Lacrosse. Just like they were doing in the 80s until technology caught up with the rules and allowed cars with decent drivabiliy again.
If my understanding of CAFE is wrong, though, then there is absolutely no reason for a 4 cyl Buick (just like there is no reason for a 6 cyl Cadillac).
Aside from AWD and the badge, there’s nothing a LaCrosse has that a Malibu LTZ doesn’t. However, that 4-cylinder option will be quite handy in China where the majority of LaCrosses are likely to be sold.
And someone should tell Autoweek about the 4-banger in the Buick Excelle.
The car looks nice… but at least should be V6, or turbo
So it gets 20/30 for mileage. Which is what I get in my 2005 Impala with the 3.8. With a lot less power. Granted, the LaCrosse is much better looking, but how is this a step forward?
I know of someone that traded in a 2 yr. old Lucerne for a new 4 cyl. Camry because the Lucerne did not get the milage that his Park Avenue got.
Damned if they do, damned if they don’t. As some others have mentioned… when high gas prices return we’d be killing them if they weren’t ready. OTOH a non-turbo four pushing a big, weighty car? Not exactly the right stance for an entry car to the luxury segment. Luxury buyers either (a) don’t care about efficiency or (b) pretend to care by buying a Lexus hybrid.
Maybe it gets the turbo at its next refresh… if it lasts that long. It’s a fairly handsome car.
Shouldn’t this be filed under Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?
Seriously?
If I’m buying Buick or Cadillac it damn sure better have a V8, at least as an option.
You can buy a A6 2.0T, E200, and a 520i in Europe, right?
OK. This has to be said: TTAC is branding-obsessed.
“What is a Lamborghini?”
“What is a Toyota?”
“What is a Ford?”
“What is a Buick?”
…and I can go on.
In all honesty, I would not be surprised if some of Farago et. al. had backgrounds and / or degrees in marketing.
Despite my soft-spot for Buick (I blame my father, who remembers when they were great), and the new Lacrosse admittedly a looker, inside and out, the price is a non-starter, and the brand overlap in the near-lux pricepoint is still as brutal as ever.
I wish them the best though.
Buick doesn’t need to waste any money reinventing itself to become “not what you thought it was.” Most people think of Buick as a car for old people that has armchair seats and easy ingress and egress. This is already perfect positioning. With our aging population of people with money and who can’t remember what their last tank of gas cost, the marketing is done and dusted. Just make ‘em like that and sell ‘em. There’s no competition.
@Vorenus
“What is a Lamborghini?”
“What is a Toyota?”
“What is a Ford?”
“What is a Buick?”
- Expensive Audi supercar when only a name-brand supercar will do.
- A bathtub full of oatmeal with a few bits of fruit floating in it.
- Got me. New domestic turnaround king, now producing plenty of solid product?
- Constantly trying to shed their codger image, failing, repeating.
Vorenus
English major, Child Psychology minor, FYI.
And it’s true: branding isn’t everything. It’s the only thing. (Apologies to Vince.)
You might say that this Vehicle with a 4 Cy engine could be underpowered don’t you think? including all accessories it will have, besides the size of this Car, time will tell I guess.
Ha! We’re opposites.
Psychology major, English minor.
@ Geo. Levecque…
We could say the same thing about the current Camry, which is freakin’ huge, considering most are powered by 4-cyls.
@Geo
It depends on the transmission and on the curb weight. Lots of family sedans today are powered by 4cylinder engines and have no trouble outrunning their V6 ancestors.
GM is shredding brands to focus on stronger product. So what do they do? Ah, add more cars to their four brands so they overlap just as much when they had eight. For example, Buick is getting a version of the Chevrolet Cruize.
They just don’t get it at all.
Geo,
this Vehicle with a 4 Cy engine could be underpowered don’t you think?
The 3.8L V-6 in the current car makes 200bhp and 230lb/ft or torque. My GTI makes 200bhp and a little less torque.
The BMW 2.0 4cyl diesel makes the same BHP and way more torque. No reason in this day and age for a 4cyl car to be underpowered.
I know of someone that traded in a 2 yr. old Lucerne for a new 4 cyl. Camry because the Lucerne did not get the milage that his Park Avenue got.
My 92 LeSabre with the 3800/4T65 got mid-20s mixed cycle driving. 100% Highway it was close to 30MPG. The old H-Car may have been the last great car GM made. Or maybe the W-Car.
As much as the tech spec snobs like to turn their noses up at things like Push Rod Engines and 4 Speed Transmissions, the sad fact is GM’s early 90s Line Up was more attractive in many ways than what they’re selling now.
I’d rather have an A-Car for a reasonable price than any of the Epsilon clones. THAT was a true GM, not a GM trying (and failing) to be an Acura.
Branding (or lack thereof) is sort of like the old saying, if you don’t know where you’re going, any road will you get you there.
My Father-in-law (pushing 70) has a Lucerne. 3.8 V6 (old, but folks around here swear by it), base model, cloth seats.
If a Buick is “near-luxury”, it should have modern/premium engines and luxurious interiors. Shouldn’t even make stripper models.
If GM wants to sell traditional big cars that old folks want to buy/drive, why not just make and market a big FWD Chevy (go larger than an Impala if you have to)? That would free up Buick to appeal to the Acura or Audi crowd.
Cadillac could then go upscale to (really) take on BMW, M-B, Lexus, etc.
Vorenus
TTAC has always been about the brand from its inception.
Why, I don’t know as while you can buy into
the image, you still have to purchase product to do that.
What image has a four banger Buick got?
Incidentally GM has been down this route before as in the early nineties Holden had the bright idea to put a four in the Commodore (the G8 sized thing) which not surprisingly didn’t sell either.
@ jmo:
“No reason in this day and age for a 4cyl car to be underpowered.”
No reason today for a 4-cyl *engine* to be underpowered. Stick that engine in a bloated me-too sedan, and it’s a little different than sticking the same engine in a (much smaller) GTI.
It’s all relative to the application.
Lots of family sedans today are powered by 4cylinder engines and have no trouble outrunning their V6 ancestors.
in the old days 3 litre 6 cyl will put out anywhere from 100 to 160 HP.
180HP at 60% efficiency is very much race car technology.
And right after the Cat was mandatory put in, even a 5.7 V8 puts out not more than 160 HP.
None the less a 4cyl sounds inadequate, only gave u a false sense of security, when u need to go places u need to be pedal to metal most of the time, and trying to pass or merge into freeway will be a challenge.
@educatordan:
If I’m buying Buick or Cadillac it damn sure better have a V8, at least as an option.
You’re going to be disappointed then.
GM has all but said that in the future the Camaro, Corvette, and truck/SUV applications are going to be the only place a customer is going to find 8 cylinders (Although, the CTS-V should be around for a few more years). The LS4 program is gone, along with the Zeta-sedan, and there is no replacement for the Northstar; so the Lucerne, DTS, and STS replacements will probably be V6-powered.
Mulally, OTOH, has explicitly said that the Mustang and truck/SUV applications are the only place a V8 is going to be offered because they want to push the Ecoboost system.
Now these companies do notoriously change their minds, so these plans aren’t set in stone. However, it looks like if you want a V8 sedan in the future for under $55K, Fiatsler and Hyundai are going to be the only two options.
Vorenus,
True, I’m just saying a modern 4cyl makes the same bhp and about the same torque as a 3.8L v-6 lump from GM. If the 2009 wasn’t underpowered with it’s 200bhp v-6, 4-speed auto, then there is no reason the 2010 would be underpowered with a 200bhp 4-cyl with a 6-speed auto.
Well, first off, CAFE is changing to a footprint mechanism, where cars with different footprint sizes have different targets.
But currently, you figure out the sales-weighted harmonic mean of your mpg. Then, if it falls the limit, you pay $5.50 per 0.1 mpg below the limit, multiplied by total production for the US market. So yes, you’re fined on every car you build that year, but the cars that pass the limit improve your average and so may decrease the overall fine.
Sure, and one of the expected results of the fuel economy changes and any gas price increases is more turbo fours replacing V-6s. (Audi’s already doing something similar with their S4, replacing a naturally breathing V8 with a supercharged V6 in the 2010.) You can indeed get similar hp and torque with better fuel economy. More expensive gas and costs of repair, of course, but there’s obviously would be reason why companies aren’t using them already. (And no, worse engine note would not be a sufficient reason by itself.)
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Wouldn’t you really rather have a
Chevrolet, Oldsmobile, Pontiac, ahm, Buick?This isn’t your father’s
, Chevrolet, Oldsmobile, Pontiac, ahm, Buick?The same old guys using the same old logic:
Well, the B/P dealers are losing the Pontiac, so they need a small car to sell…. and we’re off to the race to the bottom again.
let me tell you this
Hyundia/Kia have a new 2.2 liter turbo diesel four that does 200hp but get this… 320lb/ft
this kind of motor would motivate the fatty Taurus SHO
thankfully the Koreans will limit its use to 3,750lb SUVs
that is irrelevant of course
now my question is this… why is it medium sized sedans are 3,800 – 4,000lb? this is patently ridiculous. Unless you so solve this CAFE is meaningless than it is now.
What gets me is that the same engine with the 6-speed autobox is EPA rated @ 22/32 in the upcoming 2010 Equinox (FWD), with a 0-60 time rumored @ 9.5 seconds. The Equinox 4cyl is listed @ 3800 lb curb weight.
So this lower, more aero and lighter vehicle with the same engine gets worse mileage?
Something is rotten in Detroit…
“More expensive gas and costs of repair,”
True, but you are “adding lightness” the 4 or 6 is going to be much lighter than the V-8. So better braking, acceleration and handling.
Invariably…..some Joe/Jane Buicks will buy the 4-cyl. car and then complain six months into ownership that the car doesn’t have enough merging/passing power.
What’s a Buick? It’s an appliance car that’s more comfortable than other appliance cars, and serves as a good choice for people who want a luxury car, but don’t actually care about cars.
That seems like a simple enough definition, and a four-cylinder engine isn’t out of place in such a car.
The problem with the Buick LaCrosse is not that it will have an I4, it is that it will have a crappy I4.
GM knows how to make a direct injection 260HP, 260LB/FT Ecotec, and it puts it in cars as low rent as the Cobalt and HHR.
That 260 HP engine gets 22/30 MPG in the Cobalt and 21/29 MPG in the HHR, with a 5 speed, not a 6 speed like the Buick will have.
To put a much less advanced, much less powerful engine in a larger Buick, especially when Buick is supposed to represent “premium”, and has historically represented technology and engineering, is a major blunder.
From a branding perspective the 260 HP Ecotec should be the base engine in the LaCrosse, for those who don’t need that much technology and power there is the Malibu.
It’s not a 200-hp four-cylinder, it’s 180. And it’s propelling a car that weighs nearly 4,000 pounds. Reminds me of the 2.7-liter V6 Chrysler saw fit to put in the 300 and Charger.
The six-speed, four-cylinder combination in the new Equinox generates so much NVH that they had to add an active noise cancellation system. GM can’t build a refined four-cylinder like Honda can.
In the USA, the 2010 Audi A4 is 2.0L turbo four cylinder only. No more V6. That said, the Audi 2.0L will probably outrun the AWD Buick V6 anyway.
If the car is good enough, it could be reasonable competition for the Lexus ES, which is itself not that much of a stand-out, but is very comfortable and nicely appointed. The problem is that it has to be really, really good in order to do this, or people are going to walk past this fancy Malibu in favour of the fancy Camry.
That four-cyl, though, I’m not sure about. In principle it’s not a bad thing and I don’t have real issues with four-cylinder luxury cars, but it runs this risk of being the rental fleet special (which never, ever happens to Lexuses) and, if my experience with base Buicks of the past is worth anything, will be pared with a depressingly rental interior (again, not something Lexus does).
If they have to do the four the meet CAFE requirements, they must make sure it’s at least as balanced and inaudible as a Japanese four, and it must not come with the industrial-grey interior and mouse-fur seats typical of your entry-level Buick. If it does, it’ll a) get “why bother?” when lined up to Chevy’s own Malibu, and b) will cement Buick on the path it began when it started hocking decontented Skylarks, Centuries and Regals/
Buick… Setting today’s rental car standard for lackluster performance and insular driving experience.
Psarhjinian : “which is itself not that much of a stand-out” Right, but it is a Lexus… and you can put that name on an excrement slathered shingle and still have a good chance of selling it to some image obsessed fool, at a profit.
Help I’m channeling Bob Lutz. People who can afford a Buick aren’t that concerned about a few mpg. It will however be amusement for the neighbours when the owner pops the hood to reveal a mighty Ecotec 4.
The NVH of the turbo Ecotec is far from where it would need to be for this application. No doubt they’re working on this, but it’s going to take a lot of work.
The LaCrosse is heavier than the Equinox, and much heavier than an Accord or Camry. I assume to make is really smooth and quiet–which would make a buzzy engine stick out like a sore thumb.
What’s it got over a Malibu? The best interior yet from GM.
“still have a good chance of selling it to some image obsessed fool, at a profit.”
Lexus seems to be, at least to me, what Buick was back in its heyday. It’s a car for the decently employed professional – a doctor’s car one might say. Not something the real image and fashion obsessed go with. They are more into the Range Rover Sports and RS4’s.
I mean you wouldn’t want your radiation oncologist to pull up in a beater – one could only assume he’d had one too many malpractice suits. Hence the Lexus. Respectable transportation for the respectable.
Looks a bit like an ES350. It seems like a good alternative to a Maxima, ES350 and TL, if it goes as good as it looks. I think I like the car best as a Chevy. The Chevy Buick.
“People who can afford a Buick aren’t that concerned about a few mpg. It will however be amusement for the neighbours when the owner pops the hood to reveal a mighty Ecotec 4″
Potemkin, you’re absolutely right and was exactly my argument why people wouldn’t want a Mercedes three cylinder in the USA.
What is a Buick?
Isn’t it the sound you make when you retch up too much Tequila?
As shaker mentioned earlier, the 2010 Equinox has the same engine and is about the same weight (3800 lbs) and makes the run to 60 in about 9.5 seconds. Even if better aerodynamics will help the LaCrosse, it will mean high revving to get even adequate amounts of power and that means the type of noises that are simply inconsistent with the Buick brand.
If they wanted an entry level engine then the de-tuned DI 2.0 turbo 4 cyl would have been a good choice – maybe 200hp and 250lbs of torque would have delivered good MPGs and made a good combo with the auto box.