mettech Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 "...The LaCrosse interior is also very well done (interestingly, it was conceived in Buick’s Chinese studios)..." Anyway, I believe that this is the level that Mercury should be marketing to. The new LaCrosse looks nice. 2010 Buick LaCrosse Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LSFan00 Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 I really like these cars, but like many, won't even consider buying a government/UAW owned product. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sixt9coug Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 I think its a rather attractive car. I still think it looks very Lexus-esque in the back, but it looks good. My only real dislike about it is the weird looking dash that reminds me too much of the Buick of old. Overall, its a great step in the reinvention direction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reigner92 Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 I like that car a lot! The interior and exterior are executed very very well. I would actually prefer this car more than the Mks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 I like that car a lot! The interior and exterior are executed very very well.I would actually prefer this car more than the Mks Its smaller then a MKS....its closer to price and size of a MKZ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Car Examiner Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 Its smaller then a MKS....its closer to price and size of a MKZ The size is right between the two and the price is lower than either. The Ford product it lines up most closely with would be the Taurus, not either of the Lincolns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 I like that car a lot! The interior and exterior are executed very very well.I would actually prefer this car more than the Mks Interior looks good except for the odd shape of the center stack. :blink: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PREMiERdrum Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 Interior looks good except for the odd shape of the center stack. :blink: And the pancake hat on the guage binnacle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 going to be interesting reading the inevitable Taurus, LaCrosse comparo....,. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twintornados Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 The LaCrosse is aimed at the midsize market...Milan is the likely comparison to this car...the Taurus would be compared to Lucerne. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 (edited) The LaCrosse is aimed at the midsize market...Milan is the likely comparison to this car...the Taurus would be compared to Lucerne. not from what i read about pricing...its FIRMLY in the taurus camp...wonder how mush she weighs? Edited July 27, 2009 by Deanh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrewfanGRB Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 I think its a rather attractive car. I still think it looks very Lexus-esque in the back, but it looks good. My only real dislike about it is the weird looking dash that reminds me too much of the Buick of old. Overall, its a great step in the reinvention direction. I thought the same when I first saw this car a few weeks ago The rear is VERY ES350. In fact, if following this vehicle without badging, I would immediately identify it as an ES350. I like the interior, IMO, a fairly "crisp" center stack that stands out. I am sort of addicted to Fords at the moment, though--I just don't know if I could buy anything else right now. The CTS is GM's most compelling product to me (early 30's male, middle-middle class, a stretch to afford something CTS/SHO/MKZ). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 not from what i read about pricing...its FIRMLY in the taurus camp...wonder how mush she weighs? According to True Delta, the Taurus is still cheaper and bigger then it. The Lucenie or whatever hell its called is breathtakingly more expensive then the Taurus. Strangely enough, the MKZ costs more then the LaCrosse Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twintornados Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 You guys realize that you are comparing a "near luxury" vehicle (the Buick) to a "value price" vehicle (the Ford)....as previously stated, a more apt comparison is to Mercury. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Extreme4x4 Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 Everyone has said that the Taurus is more like a luxury car, in a value brand. It is also Fords flagship. The Taurus and Lacrosse are very similar in weight, at, around 4000lbs............ give or take. Huge Taurus advantage, is fuel economy and standard engine. The standard engine in the Lacrosse, is their new DI 3.0. It has very poor torque, and all reviews have commented on how sluggish it feels. Fuel economy is equally poor, at an EPA average 17/26 for the FWD version. Compare this to 18/28 for the FWD Taurus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exploder48 Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 You guys realize that you are comparing a "near luxury" vehicle (the Buick) to a "value price" vehicle (the Ford)....as previously stated, a more apt comparison is to Mercury. Sorry twin but to call new Taurus a "value price" vehicle is way off the mark. I've seen and driven one and it's a lot more upscale than you may think. I'm not sure what you mean by "near luxury"- is it or is it not? Taurus has some radical new technology and interior is awesome, and I'd put it on a par with the MKS, and certainly in a better class than the LaCrosse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonj80 Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 (edited) Everyone has said that the Taurus is more like a luxury car, in a value brand. It is also Fords flagship. The Taurus and Lacrosse are very similar in weight, at, around 4000lbs............ give or take. Huge Taurus advantage, is fuel economy and standard engine. The standard engine in the Lacrosse, is their new DI 3.0. It has very poor torque, and all reviews have commented on how sluggish it feels. Fuel economy is equally poor, at an EPA average 17/26 for the FWD version. Compare this to 18/28 for the FWD Taurus. Std engine in the LaCrosse is the 2.4L I4 -- GM wanted a mileage leader engine. http://www.leftlanenews.com/buick-lacrosse...r-cylinder.html Edited July 28, 2009 by jasonj80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 Std engine in the LaCrosse is the 2.4L I4 -- GM wanted a mileage leader engine. wonder what would happen if fuel economy ratings threw in a hill or two......... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BORG Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 The LaCrosse is a handsome car, but another fairly dull Buick. No technological innovation here, just playing catch up. It will work well to hold onto loyal Buick customers which have been under-serviced on this side of the sedan spectrum for awhile. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 wonder what would happen if fuel economy ratings threw in a hill or two......... Funny you should mention that, looks like that 3.0 DI V6 don't work so well.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AM2 Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 (edited) Std engine in the LaCrosse is the 2.4L I4 -- GM wanted a mileage leader engine. http://www.leftlanenews.com/buick-lacrosse...r-cylinder.html wonder what would happen if fuel economy ratings threw in a hill or two......... The FWD Equinox LTZ with a 2.4 liter SIDI engine isn't light at 3838 lbs, but according to GM it can still manage to get 22 mpg city, 32 mph highway (EPA estimate). A LaCrosse with a 2.4 liter SIDI will probably weigh about as much as the FWD Equinox with the same engine, it should also have better aerodynamics. 30 mpg highway seems possible... Update: In China, the new LaCrosse with a non-SIDI(?) 125 kW (168hp) 2.4 liter Ecotec has a curb weight of 1695 kg (3729 lbs) to 1750 kg (3850 lbs) depending on the trim level/options. Edited July 30, 2009 by AM2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenCaylor Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 Funny you should mention that, looks like that 3.0 DI V6 don't work so well.... Apples to Apples. The AWD SRT8 is rated at 16/23 compared to the 17/25 for the equivalent MKS. Fueleconomy.gov only lists the FWD 3.0 for the LaCrosse so, I'm guessing that the AWD model will come in at 16/24. Not that impressive given the the MKS has 100 more hp. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Extreme4x4 Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 Std engine in the LaCrosse is the 2.4L I4 -- GM wanted a mileage leader engine. http://www.leftlanenews.com/buick-lacrosse...r-cylinder.html The 4cyl is not available in the LaCrosse, at this time. Thus, the 3.0 is the base engine. When the 4cyl is available, it will probably be the base engine in lower trims only. That said, if there are complaints about performance with the 255hp 3.0, how is the 2.4L 4cyl going to fare??? Even "rose colored glasses" GM folks, are very displeased with the fuel economy of the 3.0, as GM had estimated it would get 18/27. I guess GM was wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twintornados Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 .......it will probably be the base engine in lower trims only. AKA....rental fleet queen. .... I guess GM was wrong. What?!?!?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 I am going to say what i have said before...i seriously think GM IS over exagerating their mileage claims ala Toyota...staing the Equinox gets better mileage than an Escape Hybrid is a classic case...I really WOULD like a head to head there...toss the numbers out and actually do a road test........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.