ponchoman49

i would rather have that Cutlass over 98% of the bland rubbish on out roadways today myself. That was when cars actually had style and interior colors other than tan/black and gray!

$19320 for automatic. Wow for that sum you get a car that looks like a Mazda in front, droopy in the rear, naked bland side looks with bodyside moldings deleted, smaller trunk, less 4 cylinder hp that before and basically the same underpinnings as last years model. Wow such progress! Oh and i'll be willing ot bet the hybrid doesn't get the mileage on the sticker too!

I have some definate changes that I would like to see on the 07's after spending a whole weekend in a base LS rental. 1 ) make the 3500 a little quieter 2 ) Add a woorgrain accent or something to break up the large chunk of plastic on the passenger side of the dash 3 ) Make the dash grain finer and nicer looking 4 ) Darken up the cloth seat fabrics and please bring back the blue interior option 5 ) 6 speed automatic please 6 ) Change the SS wheels 7 ) make the rear spoiler an option on LT3 models with the 3900 or better yet just drop that model and make the 3900 an option on all LT's 8 ) make the taillights more distinctive

I remember what killed a lot of engines in the 70's and 80's was out of tune carbs, bad oxygen sensors or faulty temp sensors which caused many an engine to run too rich which in turn litterally washed out the bearings and cylinders. I have a 1980 Grand Prix SJ with a Pontiac 301 4 bbl, an engine not know to last much past 100-150 k miles. Yet here is my Grand Prix with over 150K with the only engine work being a new timing chain and valve cover gaskets with almost perfect compression on all 8 cylinders and no strange noises or knocks. The reason.... maintenance. Oil gets done evey 3000 miles. The carb was rebuilt around 100K. The antifreeze has been changed every 2 years. So in theory the engine always has fresh oil/antifreeze and never is allowed to run rich or poorly. The modern engines most always run perfect with fuel injection and seldom have rich running conditions and such. Add to that better modern day oils, more precise fuel delivery systems and improved quality gaskets and such and it's no wonder newer engine last so long. The biggest reason for so many engine failures years ago was lack of maintenance.

[quote name='razoredge' date='Feb 3 2006, 05:59 PM'] BOb - the FWD 3.0 90* Buick V6 was on market before the 3.8 believe it or not, I think it was one year, but Id have to look it up. Its in the link that 91z4me posted above. So we had the 3.0 & 3.8 until their complete retool engines the 3800 & 3300 were ready for market. Also some info that should help those not understanding why the 3.6 is not currently in every car GM has :rolleyes: The 2.8 & 3.1 were also used in Buicks and Oldsmobiles and Pontiacs because it was hard to meet the production needs just from the 38. The 38 was just available for the higher end BOP cars. Also the 4.1 V8 Caddy engine is not the same as the RWD 4.1 Buick V6, the Caddy was a 4.1 V8, completely different and so was its reputation, at least in the FWD cars. Another interesting note on the RWD 4.1 Buick, it was the standard engine in the FWD Riv, the big one, you know, 79-85 (confused :unsure: ). The 4.1 had more HP than the 307 Olds V8 yet Americas frame of mind was "gotta have a V8" so most all Rivieras were delivered with the 307. This once again shows why and or how GM was slow to answer the call that today they are blamed for. America didnt want the call..at that time...damned if the did and damned if they didnt. another interesting note is there was a FWD 4.1 V6 diesel...RARE ! Very rare, I also forget the details on that one. So Bob ? Your saying the 3.9 achieved decent gas milage ? Compared to your Regal ? The EPA stats show it to be a tad low compared to competition.......I still say screw these V6's and let GM have all sizes of aluminum V8's with DOD....then Ill never have to have another V6 arguement again :P Im serious. I want 3 & 4 litre V8 added to the current lineup and forget the damn v6's. Want smooth.... you got it, want sound......you got it....V8! 90*, compact, lightweight. I predict we will see GM build smaller displacement v8's. [post="84857"][/post] The fwd 3.0 liter V6 actually debuted on the 1982 Olds Ciera and Buick Century in 2bbl form with 110 hp which was the same as the 3.8 2 bbl V6 of the time. In the middle of 1980 Caddy did indeed use Buicks 4.1 liter 4 bbl 252-cid V6 in several of Caddy's full size models like the Deville/Fleetwood series. It produced 125 hp and 210 torque. The 4.1 (HT-4100) V8 you are reffering to was introduced in 1982 to replace the trouble prone 8-6-4 Caddy motor introduced in 1981! In fact in 1982 Caddy offered both the 4.1 liter 4 bbl V6 and the 4.1 liter (HT-4100 V8) which caused much confusion. The 4.1 V6 was offerd as a $165.00 credit option in place of the HT-4100 V8. The amazing part was that the V6 actually made the same hp and more torque than Caddy's HT-4100! 190 vs 210 for the V6! The 4.1 V6 was dropped in 1983 for image reasons according to Cadillac info of the time and the HT-4100 gained 10 hp and torque this year. The 1979-80 Riv didn't come with the 4.1 liter V6. That motor was introduced in 1980. The Riv of 79-80 only came with 2 engines- the 3.8 liter 4 bbl turbo V6 and Buicks 5.7 liter 350-cid V8. It wasn't until 1981 that the 4.1 liter V6 was really into play. It was the std mill for the Riv, Electra/Park Ave, optional for the LeSabre, std on the Toronado and Olds 98, as was a credit option on all Caddys except for limos and the just introduced 1982 Cimmaron. The 4.1 liter (252-cid) 4 bbl V6 did not have more hp than the Olds (307-cid) 4 bbl V8. Not sure were you got this idea from. The 4.1 V6 was rated at 125 hp and 205 torque in all but the Caddys which were rated at 210 torque. The olds 307 was rated at 150 hp and 240 torque in 1980, 140 hp 240 torque from 81-84 and 140 hp and 255 torque from 1985-1990 when it received the new 7A heads and revised computer. I have driven both 4.1 liter V6 Rivs and 307 Rivs and the 307 would eat the 4.1's lunch. In fact I had the chance to buy a prestine 1981 Riv with the 4.1 liter V6 but it felt too slow for my liking and my buddies 1981 Riv with the 307 always felt much quicker. The Olds 4.3 liter V6 diesel V6 was introduced in 1982 in the fwd A-bodies but also was available in some rwd G-bodies like the Cutlass Supreme. I had a good friend that bought a 1982 Cutlass Calais which had this motor in it. The 4.3 diesel lasted up to 1985 along with the 5.7 diesel V8 when GM pulled the plug on this engine in all passenger cars. The Regals of 1997-2004 vintage with the 3800 series II guise could easily see 30 highway mainly because they had the 3.05:1 axle ratio which kept the engine at a lower rpm than cars with the 3.29:1 ratio like the new 3900 Impala. If the 3900 Impala had the 3.05:1 gears it would be possible for that car to acheive 29-30 mpg also. Note the slightly lighter 06 Monte Carlo which had less changes than the 06 Impala has mileage ratings of 20/28 with the very same 3900/4 speed automatic and 3.29:1 gears. Also take note that the G6 GTP with it's 26 highway rating uses a 3.69:1 ratio. I think GM wanted the 3900 to be a performance option more than a fuel economy engine. If people want economy they would get the 3500 which is more than adequate.

We just had a 1998 Lumina do that but in all fairness it does have 170K miles!

G-bodies are awesome!

I always liked these cars and was so angry at GM for dropping the b-bodies. They are what cars used to be. Not asian/european wannabes like most every car made today. They have presence an style that is lacking in many and have a nice low effert ride and smooth V8 power. I realize this is not what many people want in a car but it's being offered for those that appreciate our past.

I'll ask him. Gosh I miss that car.

As a current 2002 Intrigue owner, I can testify that this IS the best W-body ever produced by a long shot. Those that say they aren't must not have driven one. They have a much different feel than any Impala, LaCrosse/Regal and Grand Prix. The seats fit you like a glove. The steering is super precise and sporty. The Shortstar is a 3800 series II and III killer both in performance and smoothness/quietness as I can routinely blow away my buddies 01 Impala LS 3800 or anyone who races me and I often see 26-30 mpg with it and thats not all highway driving. The interior had nice padded dash surfaces and two tone hues without all this silly new satin nickel silver that flakes off and quality control is very good. The only problem I have had in 65k miles is the flickering headlight problem which turned out to be the alternator. No big deal there. The only thing I could wish for is a trip computer and outside temp guage as mine is the base model. The current LaCrosse could learn a thing or two from the Intrigue series like making the 3.6 std across the board like Olds did with the 3.5 Shortstar and making a sporty suspension std across the board and not just in super expensive 32K models!

Interesting, 23.5 average and 31 on a short highway stretch. Now lets see I can get an Impala LT for about 10K off that insane figure, that does have an outside temp indicator, Onstar, moonroof, ABS and traction control and superior styling. And in my tests gets 25 plus combined mileage and 31 plus on the highway! The Accord Hybrid is the perfect car for lemmings.

I loved those old Monte Carlos. Some of the best cars GM made back then. I would be a current MC owner if it wasn't for Chevys bungling of the current design. The overall shape isn't bad and is actually quite distinctive in it's way but the constant cost cutting drives me nuts and the new 06 I sat in the other day revealed but one padded surface in the whole car, the center console armrest. If only Chevy had used a similar interior setup like the Impala with more padded surfaces I would like it a lot more. As for the older gen, I will never forget my Buddies 1987 LS Monte with factory buckets/console, guage package, 305 4 bbl V8 and F41 suspension plus rallye wheels. That was one sweet ass ride and with a little tweaking on my part would rip a shot for a good part of a block.

Thats strange because GM was reportedly going to offer the 6 speed auto on the Impala next year which is a W-body. Although knowing GM you are probably right in that the 6 speed won't ever see the engine bay of a W-body. Time will tell.

Recently had the opportunity to rent a base LaCrosse CX for a weekend from Friday to Monday morning. It was a blue fleet model without the Onstar. I was relieved to see that it at least had the bucket seats because every Impala they had was a split bench. Upon pulling out of the rental agency, I noticed right away that the LaCrosse was a bit quieter than it's Regal/Century predecessors. The 3800 sounded almost identical to my 00 LeSabre with a more muted exhaust and a very refined idle. This was one of my biggest beefs with the W-bodies in the past. The 3800's always sounded thrashy and course but this one was noticeably more refined overall, just as advertised! Road noise was quieter on certain surfaces but not all. We have some rough roads here in Upstate, NY and it was on these that the LaCrosse transmitted some road noise and impacts through to the cabin. It wasn't bothersome but noticeable. Perhaps a little sound insulation in the rear end is in order too as my mom, who was sitting in the back seat when we all went to dinner friday evening, said it was noisy back there. I was dissapointed right away in the cloth seats which were about 4 shades too light. The material felt pleasant and the seats themselves were fairly comfortable but they looked plain and lacked detail. Some darker seat material in the gray and tan cloth is in order along with some stitching or pattern in the seats. Interior quality was first rate and there was not a squeak or rattle to be heard. The glovebox opened and closed smoothly and kudos for Buick in installing a light in there! The black center stack looked a bit plain but it didn't really bother me much. What did bother me throughout the whole day was the chrome strip that runs along the whole top of the dash. It was a very sunny day and it glared right into my eyes on occasion which was very distracting. I also preffered the dash and door panal grains on my 00 LeSabre over the course grains in the LaCrosse. Overall though the interior was very classy and well put together and a huge improvement over the old Regal. The powertrain was a mixed bag also. While the 3800 is regarded as a very torque laden mill this setup seems at odds with your right foot. It took a heavy throttle foot to induce brisk response as opposed to the instant torque rush the older 3800's gave you. The 2.86:1 lazy axle and drive by wire may have played a role here. It was also bewilderingly slower than any other 3800 I have driven to date, including my buddy's 98 Regal which had less power and torque than this car. Against a stop watch I clocked a 0-60 time of 8.5 seconds as a best figure and sometimes it was 8.6-8.7. That was in comparison to the consistant 7.8 seconds I acheived from a 06 base Impala from another review with it's more powerful 3500. The over 3500 lb curbweight is partly to blame and I think GM needs to fine tune the drive by wire system. The ride overall was very good on most surfaces and the car did handle pretty well overall. But I never really liked the steering, finding it too darty and twitchy and less than precise. Buick could learn a lot from my 02 Intrigue in this respect. Front seat room was good but the back seat was a bit cramped with the seats moved a little more than half way back. This was an issue on the Impala too. To wrap up, the exterior was pretty well done but I really wish Buick was more adventuresome on the front end treatment with a more bold grille and better looking headlights. I really like the CXL and CXS versions with the optional chrome appearance package and chrome wheels. They are very sharp. Lastly fuel mileage: I overall got 23.5 mpg and a best highway figure of 28. Changes I would like to see on the 07 LaCrosse: 1) 3900 replacing the 3800 2) 6 speed automatic replacing the 4 speed across the board. 3) Upgrade the gears to 3.05:1 with the 3900 which should net 20/29 mpg ratings 4) Give the 3.6 a shot of adrenaline and around 270 hp in CSX versions 5) Darken the cloth seats in the base models and change the fake wood to a more realistic look. Also get rid of the chrome bar on the dash 6) Revamp the base and CXL models steering 7) Make the front end look bolder My pro and con table would look like this: Pros: Quiet on the move, engine more refined than before, decent highway mileage, attractive package and much improved interior quality. Cons: Chrome bar on dash distracting in sunlight, cloth seat material way too light, rear seat legroom could be better, bland front end look, so so engine response, steering feel needs to be improved.

I think 2007 will be a good year for this car. That is if they usher in the 3900, 6 speed auto, new grille and headlights and that new V8 Super version. The things keeping me from purchasing the current LaCrosse is the lackluster 3800/4 speed auto 2.86:1 axle combo which in my weekend rental of one just left a bad taste in my mouth, the way too light seat fabrics and the bland wimpy looking front end treatment. Also the CX and CXL need steering like my 02 Intrigue which is far superior and precise to the darty vague setup in the LaCrosse. All they need to do is fix a few simple things with this car to make it a success.

I had the chance of buying a really clean 2 door Delta 88 Holiday coupe with bucket seats/floor shifter, guages, rear sway bar and a 301 2 bbl Pontiac V8 at a local auction several years back. I couldn't believe how much money that car sold for, about $1000 more than I would have topped out at. Now I could kick myself for not buying it. These cars are very rare and hard to find. If it had a Olds rocket 350 I probably would have got it. Anybody ever see these cars anymore?

People that do this to a "G' body need to be taken out in the field and put out of there misery!

Wow, how did he crack the block on that 307 olds motor. I never heard of one doing that before. I remember renting one of those in the 80's at "wrent a reck". It had nearly 100K miles and still drove pretty well. It was dog slow of course but had tons of room and could seat 8 people. Too bad there still isn't a wagon like this around anymore.

You also get a pretty well equipped V8 model for that money. This is the step up CXL model with bigger 17" tires, leather, dual power seats, leather wheel with redundant controls, dual zone automatic A/C, compass and auto day/night mirror and of course the Northstar engine. It's a pretty good value if you aren't into all the extra gadgets. Add a moonroof for $900.00 more and you would have a pretty well equipped vehicle.

The only problem was that your 99 model was considerably lighter and had a bit more power and torque than the 06 model. I presume you had the LeSabre. Those cars typically weighted in a little over 3400 lbs. A 06 CXL Lucerne weights a touch under 4000 lbs. That is going to considerably blunt performance in the Lucerne I would think. I agree with your thoughts about the s/c engine. Why Pontiac should have exclusive rights to it makes no sence. This would have been a perfect engine for the V6 CXL model which weights nearly 200 lbs more than the base CX version. Really wish GM had thought of doing that.

I would think that Buick would have the black grille on all models with the chrome surround. It just looks better. I hope they change the weak looking grille on the LaCrosse for 07.

Strike 3 in my book. Toyota just can't seem to style anything the way I like and the dash is just peculiar. The grille is just a garish cartoonish huge rip off of what Dodge is doing with it's larger than life look and the rear rips off the current Silverado. However the North American buying public probably won't see it that way. Becuase it has the word Toyota on it people will buy it in droves.

What sence does this make exactly? $20490 is G6 territory which hardly qualifies as entry level. They need something in the $13990 price range, with different sheetmetal than the Cobalt and maybe make the 2.4 the std engine instead of the 2.2. That would at least justify it's existance. Dropping the van is a good idea. Gm finally appears to be listening. I however find the G names very silly and meaningless.

I actually sat in both a 2005 Lesabre Limited with a tan interior and a 2006 Lucerne CXL 3800. I was very surprised to find myself liking the LeSabres dash and door panal material better than the Lucernes. Everything from the lower portion of the dash to the passenger side to the top part and even the glovebox and door panals had a much more pleasing finer grain and it was all soft touch material that pushed in slightly when touched. In contrast the Lucerne's dash was hard course grain plastic in most of the same areas with that black center stack that looks at odds with everything else. I did like the woodgrain better in the Lucerne and the guages themselves were nicer but I really wish Buick had carried over the previous finer grain soft touch dash pad covering. I also wish the passenger side of the dash was broken up with two tone or some kind of speration line. The 06 Impala suffers this too.

I have heard that the 3800 base models move along pretty well but the CXL versions weight almost 200 lbs more than the CX versions. They all use the 2.86:1 axle and have the 197 hp engine. I'm curious to see how a Lucerne responds with this setup. I have driven many 2000-2005 LeSabres and Bonnys with this same setup with the slightly more powerful 205 hp series II motors. They get up to speed in first gear pretty well but feel quite tame on the highway or in second gear in general. I heard that the LaCrosse was getting the 3900 and the Lucerne the 3.6 HF. Not sure if this is true.