“The company’s survival depends on the success of this car.” Though regularly trotted out, this statement is almost always BS (not to be confused with the Bertel kind). Typically when the hyped new car fails, the company seems to somehow scrape by. But the 2010 LaCrosse might just warrant such an extreme statement, at least with regard to Buick’s survival outside China. GM has been on a brand-killing spree lately, and this car will test whether or not Buick is beyond saving in the U.S. The Enclave has proved that American car buyers are open to a Buick crossover. But a Buick sedan, with more baggage to overcome, poses a greater challenge. So, does the new Buick LaCrosse–and the brand that’s banking on it–deserve to succeed?
My initial impressions of the new LaCrosse’s exterior styling, during NAIAS press days last January, were mixed. The traditional Buick “sweep spear” seemed forced on the ultramodern, cab forward proportions. Ideally the line on the front fender would be an inch or so lower, which would require that the fender itself be lower. Out in the real world, the new LaCrosse stands out–in a good way–with a premium and somewhat futuristic appearance. The proportions and dimensions are similar to those of the new TL, but the Buick is far more attractive than Acura’s brick. Is that faint praise? Try this: one will mistake it for a Chevrolet. Because of its large wheels and stocky build, the LaCrosse appears smaller than it actually is–which is nearly full-size. In today’s climate this probably helps, more than it hurts.
The LaCrosse’s interior is GM’s best yet, dominated by flowing curves that encapsulate the driver and front passenger. Beyond the original and attractive design, I was especially impressed by the way real stitching was incorporated into the molded instrument panel, for the appearance of an upholstered IP at a much lower cost.
But there’s the rub: Buick’s interior ambition is lofty, but the bean-counter’s hand is still all over the execution. In sunlight, the materials aren’t as convincing and various small details (such as the sliding cover of the console’s storage compartment) seem less finished than they should be. I drove an HS 250 earlier the same day, and the LaCrosse’s interior materials simply can’t match one of the cheapest sedans Lexus makes. Still, it is a step up from the Malibu, and better than that of any Ford or Chrysler. GM is very close to getting this bit right.
The front seats are comfortable, and even provide a modicum of lateral support. The rear seat, a bit low to the floor in the traditional GM manner, and offers plenty of room for legs, but not so much for shoulders. It still remains to be seen whether GM can offer an Epsilon-based car that feels roomy. The specs are almost competitive, but subjectively the cabin fails to feel expansive. Credit the high beltline, prominent console, and organic curves that are otherwise so appealing. The trunk would have been narrow anyway, but the decision to fully encapsulated the door hinges further constricts the space.
Extraordinarily broad A-pillars (why?) and a high cowl dominate the view forward from the driver’s seat. Visibility in turns ranks among the worst I’ve experienced in a sedan. I found myself leaning forward to check that nothing was in the resulting front quarter blind spot. The transmission can be manually shifted, but the shifter needs to be repositioned farther from the driver for optimal comfort. The view rearward between the also thick rear pillars and over the high trunk…good thing there’s a rearview camera.
I spent most of my time in the LaCrosse CXL AWD. In case anyone has been wondering how well a 3.0-liter V6 engine, even one with 252 horsepower, can motivate 4,200 pounds of sedan…not so well. Especially at low speeds, acceleration verges on sluggish. Even in typical driving, with shifts occurring between 2,500 and 3,000 rpm, the engine sounds like it’s working more than a luxury car engine ought to. Things could be worse: the engine could sound as rough as it does overworked. 
I briefly drove the top-of-the-line LaCrosse CXS, and that car’s 280-horsepower 3.6-liter V6 feels much more energetic and sounds considerably less strained. On the other hand, the 3.6 too easily provokes both wheelspin and torque steer. Why isn’t all-wheel-drive available with the 3.6? Working with the same basic transmission, Ford now offers a twin-turbo 3.5-liter with AWD.
GM probably specified a 3.0-liter as the LaCrosse’s principal engine for fuel economy reasons. Or perhaps they figured that a 3.0-liter with the same peak horsepower as their previous generation 3.6 would provide the same driving experience as that 3.6. Either way, the 3.0-liter engine fails. In normal driving, it feels like a 3.0, not a 3.6. The 252 horses dwell at 6,900 rpm, where few Buick drivers will dare to tread. Peak torque, more constrained by displacement, is only 215 pound-feet. But there’s always fuel economy, right? Wrong. The EPA ratings of 16 city and 25 highway are no better than those of more powerful competitors. Even the Lincoln MKS, with a 355-horsepower turbo six and even more poundage, does a bit better. So what’s the point of the 3.0, when it’s both less powerful and less efficient?
The new LaCrosse being a Buick, sloppy handling might be expected. In truth, the CXL AWD feels composed and stable, with well-controlled body motions, an acceptable amount of lean in turns, and a minimal amount of understeer. The all-wheel-drive system includes the active rear differential pioneered by the Saab 9-3 Turbo X. This differential counteracts understeer by routing torque to the outside wheel in turns. Throttle-induced oversteer is theoretically possible, but this would require more twist than the V6 can deliver (or possibly an unpaved road surface.) Even with the trick differential and nicely-weighted steering, the LaCrosse doesn’t feel agile, but then nothing in this class does.
The ride isn’t quite as creamy as that of a Lexus, with some clomping over bumps but no untoward jitters. Aside from the engine under acceleration, noise levels are very low. In fact, even when the engine isn’t particularly loud, the absence of other noise makes it sound louder than it is. This solid feel and quietness partly justify why the new LaCrosse weighs so much. Stress the partly. A Lexus ES is also quiet inside, and weighs nearly a quarter-ton less than the front-wheel-drive LaCrosse. Even the bloated Acura TL weighs a couple hundred pounds less. Check the specs of any new GM product, and you’ll find that the company has a serious mass control problem. Too little room in the budget for ultra-high-strength steel?
So, what’s the verdict? The new Buick LaCrosse turns heads and is a viable alternative to the similarly sized Acura TL and Lexus ES, for less money. If Buick weren’t struggling with a load of baggage, this car would succeed. As it is, anyone looking for an excuse not to buy a Buick can still find one in the sluggish 3.0-liter, the EPA figures, or the driving position. The LaCrosse may be a step in the right direction, but Buick is still on a thousand-mile journey.
The last weakness isn’t fixable without a major redesign. But giving the 3.0 the heave-ho would make the largest difference, and it’s something GM could do, and should do, right away. Forget the 182-horspower four-cylinder that’s on the way–do they want to kill another brand? The 3.6 should be the base engine. For the up-level engine, offer a turbo 3.6 with all-wheel-drive. This shouldn’t pose too much of a challenge. GM was rumored to have a turbo 3.6 in development nearly a decade ago, and Ford has proven that the transmission can handle the resulting torque. More than anything else, Buick needs a sedan people feel compelled to consider. A LaCrosse with enough horsepower to fully exploit the fine chassis–a SHO-matching 365 for example–would be compelling.
Michael Karesh operates TrueDelta.com, a provider of car reliability and real-world gas mileage information
120 Comments on “Review: 2010 Buick LaCrosse...”
Back to TopLeave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You can also login using Facebook Connect.
It seems like the 3.0 AWD is designed to compete with the IS250 AWD, while the 3.6 is designed to go against the ES350. The 4 cylinder? Who knows. GM put a lot of 4 cylinders in Buicks back in the 80’s, so it is not without precedent.
Few, if any, cars do everything better than their competition. A new car just has to survive the 10 minute test drive with no negatives, and be competitive on features and price. If a prospective customer drives the Buick, doesn’t find any negatives, sees some surprise and delight features, and finds the price/value proposition appealing, they may bite. Most will follow the herd and buy the established brand.
Funny how much the world has changed. New Buick buyers will now be considered “early adopters.”
can i ask why a medium sedan needs to be 4,200lb?
and why do they think a 3.0 v6 is gonna motivate it?
Nice review, Michael. If I were in the market for an oversized sedan with SUV like height, the SHO has it all over the LaCrosse from a performance standpoint, and likely in the luxo-gadget count as well. A Ford with more performance and luxury than a Buick…imagine telling someone from 1955 about that!
I looked up and down in this review but, despite its length, there was not a single number about the allegedly lower than the TL price.
I think the bare bones version starts at $28k, and with options few LAcrosses will go for less than $35k.
That is Seven times what Buicks cost back in 1980.
My question to the reviewer is, assuming my above numbers are correct (change them with more accurate ones if you like),
Would YOU, Michael Karesh specifically, spend $35k of your own hard-earned $ (or, insert a more accurate number) on this Lacrosse, based on your examination?
Very fair, informative and objective review Michael.
Silght error in the text: HS 250 should be IS 250, I assume.
If it feels burdened with the 3.0 V6 how is the 4 cylinder (now with wheel covers!) going to perform?
For what it’s worth, Edmunds compared the LaCrosse to the ES 350 and declared the Buick the winner by a decent margin.
I drove an HS 250 earlier the same day, and the LaCrosse’s interior materials simply can’t match those of the cheapest Lexus. Still, it is a step up from the Malibu, and better than that of any Ford or Chrysler. GM is very close to getting this bit right.
What about the inteior materials found on a Lincoln? isn´t that a much more fair comparison?
It’s the nicest Buick I’ve ever seen.
Hopefully Buick will succeed but it sounds like LaCrosse is a lot like the MKS– good enough to attract its core demographics but not great enough to really gain noticeablely v. the ES350.
Time is against Buick….the median age in the US is 36-ish. So literally at least half the people in the US have never lived in a time when Buick was a gotta-have-it car.
…the LaCrosse CXL AWD. In case anyone has been wondering how well a 3.0-liter V6 engine, even one with 252 horsepower, can motivate 4,200 pounds of sedan…not so well.
No effin’ way? Seriously? Didn’t anyone at GM listen to the bellyaching through the blogisphere about the bloated and not beloved Ford Five Hundred? Add to this stuff like fuel, passengers, and luggage and you’re pushing 5K. Putting a V8 such as the NorthStar would help motivate this porkstar, but would add more weight.
Still its a Buick. Something Octegenarians want to move like they were piloting their living room couch. To this crowd the new Lucerne does very well by.
I think the bare bones version starts at $28k, and with options few LAcrosses will go for less than $35k.
When was the last time someone paid sticker for a Buick? 1968?
When was the last time someone paid sticker for ANY Domestic, or even for a Nissan for that matter?
So do not be hampered with that.
To rephrase my question:
How much of your own hard-earned $ would you, personally, Micheal Karesh, be willing to part, to get a Lacrosse (and which specific model and options?)?
The other huge problem is the Buick needs to be at least 20% better than Lexus. GM can’t make any market share headway by making products that are just as good – they need products that are both better and cheaper.
Nice review, Michael, looking forwards to your Lexus HS writeup.
I think that ‘10 LaCrosse pricing is on a slippery perch, that you can go for a loaded and larger sedan for the same or a little less money, or a entry-level luxury brand for a little more with dealership perks (and the alleged envy of your neighbors).
FWIW, Edmunds.com noted last month that on their site the top 10 vehicles cross-shopped vs. the LaCrosse were:
1. 2010 Taurus
2. Cadillac CTS
3. Buick Lucerne
4. Chevy Malibu
5. Hyundai Genesis
6. Honda Accord
7. Buick Enclave
8. Ford Fusion
9. Chevy Equinox
10. Lexus ES350
I realize this may be a bit ranty and off topic, but lets talk design for a moment…
Some parts of current atheistic and mechanical vehicle design we are stuck with.
Aerodynamic shapes, front wheel drive and automatic transmissions are top of that list. Regardless of what the enthusiast minority wishes, those items are here to stay.
But the following design trends need to die:
- Statutory chrome, aka chrome-under-glass (statutory because even though it looks good, if you touch it your doing something very, very wrong)
- Chrome window surrounds
- Blacked out pillars. I mean come-on, your not fooling anyone, it’s a four door. The wehicle does not have one giant piece of side glass.
- Over stylized wheels
- Over sized wheels
- Cockpit interiors, doesn’t anyone make a vehicle interior that isn’t claustrophobicly cocooned around the driver anymore?
- Gangster slit side windows
- Fake fasteners
- I’m sure the list could go on…
I’m not saying these are bad or wrong design trends… they just are overdone trends and need to go away. For how much the design weenies are paid, it would be nice to see something original out of the studios.
And while on the rant…. not that anyone has used the following words in this thread, BUT… The phrases Design Language and Design DNA need to be eradicated from the face of the earth. They are overblown words used to justify someone’s over-bloated paycheck for copying everyone else.
OK, I feel better now…
WHY, oh why do they have to be so half-assed w/everything that they do? The Japanese hit it out of the box, always it seems, on the first try. Clearly, the old GM is still with us.
Great assessment of this car. GM has just missed the mark on every model it produces. Price point may be the key. It’s hard to turn out a perfect car while focusing on the give and take of cost. With that said, in 2 years, when the car is worth half of wholesale book, it will be a fantastic buy.
So how much does it cost? That seems to be a big omission to have the price left out of the review. I think if it is about equal to the Taurus on price, i would rather have the Taurus.
“NoChryslers :
October 14th, 2009 at 11:48 am
WHY, oh why do they have to be so half-assed w/everything that they do? The Japanese hit it out of the box, always it seems, on the first try. Clearly, the old GM is still with us.”
And even what they got now is far better to what Buick would offer if LUTZ did not turn down as utterly unacceptable their first designs and sent Buick designers back to the drawing board.
Notably the base CX model weighs in at about 3900 lbs (300 lbs less than the CXL AWD) so the 3.0L engine should work somewhat better in that configuration.
Even being good enough is probably not enough. Hyundai is doing what it needs to establish its brand- massively cheaper than the competition and putting its dollars where its mouth is. My dad, who loves his Toyota Avalon and thinks the Lexus ES might even be too sporty – basically the perfect potential Buick customer – is considering a Hyundai just for that 10 year warranty.
Buick is sorta in the position of Mercury – slightly upscale packages of Chevy models, and wedged in a narrow niche between Chevy and Cadillac.
Ok to address some inaccuracies in some of the posts and to put some things in perspective
At 4200lbs and 252hp the LaCrosse AWD 3.0 is lugging 16.6lbs/hp and at 3650lbs and 205hp the IS250 AWD is struggling under 17.9lbs/hp. Point, Buick.
The base IS250 is $35k and the base AWD LaCross is <a href="http://www.edmunds.com/new/2010/buick/lacrosse/101159582/specs.html"$31.8k. Point, Buick.
Go and option them out similarly and the Buick is consistently about $1k less. Point, Buick.
The IS250 is faster (function of torque profile and transmission gearing). Point, Lexus.
The Buick is bigger in just about every measurement. Point, Buick.
Compared to the ES the Buick loses more of those competitions but becomes more of a bargain.
The arguments then boil down to style, design, material appearance/quality, and any brand preference. The $ advantage I think will give Lexus buyers a reason to enter a Buick showroom. If that happens and Buick wins some (not a ton) conquests then I think this car will have done it’s job.
@Durwood: So how much does it cost? That seems to be a big omission to have the price left out of the review. I think if it is about equal to the Taurus on price, i would rather have the Taurus.
It starts at $27K, about the same as the Taurus SEL. Taurus SE is about $2K less but the SEL appears closer in terms of equipment (for example, it has climate control and satellite radio like the CX).
Ok to address some inaccuracies in some of the posts and to put some things in perspective
At 4200lbs and 252hp the LaCrosse AWD 3.0 is lugging 16.6lbs/hp and at 3650lbs and 205hp the IS250 AWD is struggling under 17.9lbs/hp. Point, Buick.
The base IS250 is $35k and the base AWD LaCross is <a href="http://www.edmunds.com/new/2010/buick/lacrosse/101159582/specs.html"$31.8k. Point, Buick.
Go and option them out similarly and the Buick is consistently about $1k less. Point, Buick.
The IS250 is faster (function of torque profile and transmission gearing). Point, Lexus.
The Buick is bigger in just about every measurement. Point, Buick.
Compared to the ES the Buick loses more of those competitions but becomes more of a bargain.
The arguments then boil down to style, design, material appearance/quality, and any brand preference. The $ advantage I think will give Lexus buyers a reason to enter a Buick showroom. If that happens and Buick wins some (not a ton) conquests then I think this car will have done it’s job.
I did mean to say HS, not IS. But it somehow slipped my mind that the IS is less expensive (perhaps because the HS seems like less car).
I have a whole section on pricing and price comparisons in my reviews at epinions.com, but RF in the past didn’t want me to discuss pricing, so I don’t. You can run price comparisons here:
http://www.truedelta.com/prices.php
The LaCrosse is about equally priced with the Taurus, and thousands less than any other direct competitor. It seems expensive, until you look at the alternatives.
If I was willing to buy an automatic, the CXS AWD would be a fine car to buy–except they don’t offer it. I like a lot about this car, which is what makes its shortcomings especially frustrating.
I would like to provide quick reliability stats on the new LaCrosse, but it’s going to be tough to get enough of them signed up.
Know someone with one? Please send them here:
http://www.truedelta.com/reliability.php
@ Sutures – another thing that needs to die is mile wide consoles between the front seats on sedans.
Sure a console with a console shifter is nice in a sporty car. But, does the console in a sedan have to be so wide that you cannot sit comfortably without your right knee touching the console? (Which isn’t really that comfortable.)
Also, Since this is a big sedan, can you buy one with bench seat and a column shifter? There are buyers who want a car with a roomy interior where you do not feel shoehorned in between the door and console.
I have no clue why is anybody comparing the IS250 (instead of the ES350 camry clone) to the Buick.
It makes zero sense. The much smaller IS is a direct competitor to the 3 series BMW.
Unless one is totally deranged, one would not care to look at the Buick, any buick, if one is looking at the BMW 3 series, the Lexus IS, or even the Audi 4 for that matter.
Maybe the Merc C class is a better comparison? (the non-sporty versions)?
Michael Karesh :
October 14th, 2009 at 12:06 pm
I did mean to say HS, not IS.
Neither car is even remotely related to the Lacrosse.
The HS is a COMPACT HYBRID while the IS is a COMPACT performance car like the 3 series or the A4.
Nobody in his or her right mind would seriously onsider BOTH the Lacrosse and these above cars.
The Lacrosse’s clear and obvious rival is the Lexus ES 350.
GM cranks out the best interiors you can get in an American car and has been doing so for many years now. The corporate switchgear and headunits in Ford products are especially disgusting. And given the new Taurus’ price point in the more expensive models it’s especially bad.
What Ford did right though was they renamed the Five Hundred back to Taurus instead of shedding that famous name. GM should name the LaCrosse back to Regal instead of selling the Opel Insignia here as the Regal. They should also bring back the LeSabre, Park Avenue and Riviera names for Buick as well.
GM gutting their brand’s of their famous names is one of the worst things they have done to kill their brands.
Autosavant: HS250 is about the same base price as the ES350. Yes it’s smaller, but Michael was making a comparison of interior material quality.
Also, take a look at the trunk here. http://tinyurl.com/yzfbpv3
Michael is far from the first to call the trunk uncompetitive.
We’ve got some misguided pot shots here.
I’m not saying that the HS 250 is a LaCrosse competitor. But it would only be wrong to compare the two if I was saying the LaCrosse was superior. Then people could rightfully respond, “Of course the LaCrosse is nicer. It’s near the top of the Buick line, while the HS is at the bottom of the Lexus line.”
Since the HS is at the bottom of the Lexus line-up, we can assume that the interior of the ES is at least as nice, if not nicer. Thus by saying that the HS has better interior materials than the LaCrosse, we are also saying that the ES has better interior materials.
It’s just even worse if a lesser car has nicer interior materials.
If I said, “Even the Ford Focus has a nicer interior than the new Mercedes E-Class” (not true, but for the sake of arguement), would people only respond, “Stupic comparison, the two don’t compete”? Or would it be clear that the Mercedes should have better materials, even more than if I compared the E-Class to a Lincoln MKS?
A couple of comments: First, I suspect that the wide A pillars are due to requirements for increased roof strength in rollovers. Myself, I’d prefer to see out of the thing, better to keep it on its wheels.
Second, I agree: “Also, Since this is a big sedan, can you buy one with bench seat and a column shifter? There are buyers who want a car with a roomy interior where you do not feel shoehorned in between the door and console.” Was this not supposed to be an advantage of front wheel drive, the lack of a big tunnel going down the middle of the passenger compartment, so that the added room could be an advantage to people riding in the car. While I do like bucket seats and consoles (perhaps because they remind me of my old 300L) they are certainly not necessary in a sedan.
I won’t go so far as to recommend a bench seat though. I’m six feet tall, and riding on a bench seat with a short driver can be hell.
Thank you Michael Karesh and TTAC for calling out the horrible boat anchor that is GM’s new 3.0L “LF1″ V6. It has absolutely no torque, unimpressive fuel economy, and underachieving power.
I think it is embarrassing for Cadillacs(!) and Buicks to be stuck with this thing while the Malibu still gets the LY7 V6.
“# Edward Niedermeyer :
October 14th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
Autosavant: HS250 is about the same base price as the ES350. Yes it’s smaller, but Michael was making a comparison of interior material quality.”
While I thought of that, there are plenty of cars in different categories that have almost identical prices, but very different target audiences, so there is little chance that if you want one, you will investigate the other.
The HS is not just smaller, it is a Hybrid. That is a different class than the ES, which is almost identical to the Lacrosse.
Same idea with the IS, it is a HS-sized non-hybrid performance compact designed to compete against the very successful (sales wise) 3 series mainly.
PS I did not notice the trunk. Unusual for a Buick to have a small one. But as long as space is efficiently designed (the geometry) it will still be able to carry the minimum luggage needed.
I would not complain about the trunk because even my own huge, long and heavy 740IL 98 has a rather modest trunk (parhaps due to the ful size spare underneath), probably smaller than the more family-oriented 5-series’ trunk, and the 5 is a much smaller vehicle esp. in length. The 7s trunk is designed to carry the obligatory 4 or 5 sets of golf clubs and little else.
I think it’s a nice car. A clean design that should offend very few.
As for the weight of the car? Why is this always a question among car-people? Car-people should know EXACTLY why cars weigh so much now. Between government crash regulations and consumers who want every damn gadget possible shoved into their cars, we are doomed to have heavy cars.
Compare any American car with a foreign vehicle in the same class and you’ll see they are no different.
Even with the trick differential and nicely-weighted steering, the LaCrosse doesn’t feel agile, but then nothing in this class does.
Maxima? Afore mentioned TL?
Despite it looking like a “brick”, a brick from the planet Vulcan even, it’ll still run rings around this car. Pass. Hyundai Genesis, thanks. But then, what do I know? I’m still under 30.
@Autojunkie Lexus manages the lower weight and the gizmos.
“Autojunkie :
October 14th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
I think it’s a nice car. A clean design that should offend very few.
As for the weight of the car? Why is this always a question among car-people? Car-people should know EXACTLY why cars weigh so much now. Between government crash regulations and consumers who want every damn gadget possible shoved into their cars, we are doomed to have heavy cars”
Not all cars are poorly designed and obese.
The New Taurus, no matter how cute it looks and what a great engine it has, has far less interior space and weighs much more than the Accord V6, which not only aced it in a comparison test, but also costs $4k LESS, quite unusual, since for decades the so-called imports were always far more expensive than the same-size domestics.
“GM cranks out the best interiors you can get in an American car and has been doing so for many years now.”
That’s news to me.
“The New Taurus, no matter how cute it looks and what a great engine it has, has far less interior space and weighs much more than the Accord V6″
I was very disappointed with the interior specs of the new Taurus, especially for a vehicle that is this large. Having said that I’m not sure if I’d call the interior space far less than the Accord, especially if you end up with an Accord w/moonroof.
“but the decision to fully encapsulated the (trunk) hinges make it nearly unuseable …”
Actually, it’s not the encapsulation that’s the primary problem: it’s the cost-cutting that dictated old-style intrusive trunk hinges rather than modern non-intrusive ones with struts.
The 2.8 turbo used in the SRX and some Saabs is based on the HF engine so it should fir and could deliver 300HP and 300lb of twist way down low which would lend itself much more to Buick effortless progress than revving the hell out of an NA 3 liter V6.
Nice review.
Does anybody really cross shop Lexus and Buick? Maybe an RX and a Enclave, but for cars, I think that the Avalon or a top of the line Camry are the correct Toyota products to compare to any Buick sedan, in terms of price and market segment. No matter how much GM wishes it to be so, Buick doesn’t compete with Lexus; that’s Cadillac’s job.
Tell a Lexus buyer that the Buick is cheaper. Or that GM has good inital quality.
They won’t care one bit. Why would they give up a great product that can go 150k miles or more without problems, and take a gamble on a company that ran itself into bankruptcy?
Closer inspection of this vehicle shows a lot of cost cutting. Closer inspection of a Lexus shows lots of nice little details. Big difference. You think buyer’s don’t care? GM’s recent bankruptcy proves my point about the “meh” attitude toward that company and it products.’
Wife has a Lexus. Her next car will be a Lexus. And the one after that, unless Lexus somehow manages to build a lemon. Not likely.
“When was the last time someone paid sticker for a Buick? 1968?”
“When was the last time someone paid sticker for ANY Domestic, or even for a Nissan for that matter?”
NEWSFLASH- I can verify that Buick LaCrosse sells for at least MSRP right now.
screw a turbo 6 – a Buick needs a lopey, lumpy, lazy v8.
NEWSFLASH- I can verify that Buick LaCrosse sells for at least MSRP right now.
Dude – here is the list of incentives and special financing deals available on the 2010 LaCrosse.
http://www.edmunds.com/new/2010/buick/lacrosse/101135361/incentives.html
In futre please don’t resort of spreading lies.
First time I saw one of these on the road was when it was leaving…the Austin/Bergstrom rental car lot. Come on GM – I’m rooting for you, but you have to help yourself! To paraphrase Whitney Houston, “[fleet sales] is whack!”
Lexus buyers are very Brand/ Label conscious and will not cross shop a Buick. Lexus has years of good reliability stats and the LaCrosse is a huge unknown in this regard. The interior of the LaCrosse looks much better in pictures than in it does in the flesh- the materials look inferior to any Lexus. I can see current Lacrosse, Lucerne, DTS, Deville owners buying the new LaCrosse. The minor success of the Enclave shows that there are people who will buy a heavy underpowered vehicle.