Buick Lucerne and some comments on reputation, quality
Car reviews are nothing new, and unless a particular writeup touches off a firestorma (remember
the infamous Dan Neil review of the Pontiac
G6?), we at Autoblog rarely consider them post-worthy.
Well, here's an exception: USA Today's James R.
Healey’s review of the new Buick Lucerne. Though press has been largely positive on the replacement for the Buick
Park Avenue and LaSabre, most enthusiasts have shownabout as much interest as they have in visiting their grandparents
on a Friday night.
According to Healey, the naysayers may want to reconsider.
Healey goes beyond
discussing the car's engines or its portholes, instead addressing popular “prejudices” many consumers
have when it comes to domestic vehicles. This includes Buick’s reputation of being a “fogey car." He
contrasts the Lucerne with its most well-known competitor, the Toyota Avalon (“the best Buick GM never
built”) and concludes that many buyers may well prefer the new Buick's features over the Toyota's.
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
D. Schwartz 8:58PM (2/07/2006)
I took delivery of one of the first Licerne's in my area (late Oct.). I belive Buick has finally put out a car that easily competes with the Japanese. The car is stylish, peppy, and the sound system is better than my Lexus. 4,000 wondeful miles out if the block, and quality is there! Test one and you'll buy it. It's not what you think from Buicks old past!!
Reply
TP 11:42PM (2/14/2006)
Have you driven a Lucerne CXS?
Quiet. Quick. Handles well. Rides nicer than a DeVille.
I have an 05 Lacrosse. Not one squeak or rattle, not one problem in 7 months, and very quiet. Can't be sure its running its so quiet and its the 3.8.
I drove the Lucerne and its even better.
Reply
Nikita Reva 7:43PM (3/04/2006)
Typical of GM to make a new make a fancy new wrapper with withered internals. I see this land yacht still uses the 3.8 OHV engine-circa 1980-is it too much to ask for an aluminum engine? While toyota puts out new revolutionary engines every year, GM has always been stuck in the parts bin mentality. Why of course it's much cheaper, but is it better...Most certainly not! The only folks who will buy these are the loyalist gramps who cringe at the idea of driving a "foreign" car.
Reply
Rick Lefebvre 5:38PM (3/20/2006)
At first glance, it looks like a recent Oldsmobile Aurora. Looking closer, it is an Aurora (but maybe not quite as nice in my opinion) The pushrod V-6 will never be as sweet as the "Shortstar V-6" was (where is this engine now?) The interior is almost identical to the Aurora's. Maybe GM realized the mistake they made by killing the Aurora with the demise of the Oldsmobile marque. My 2002 Aurora is a beautiful ride, certainly better than the Lexus ES 300, and the Volvo S-80 I compared to before deciding on the Aurora. If the Buick Lucerne is 70% as good as my Aurora, it will be a great car. Forget trying to compare it to much higher priced European cars, dollar for dollar, the Lucerne will be a better, more dependable, long term ride.
Reply
Mark D 3:46AM (3/31/2006)
I'm 31 and I bought a Lucerne... interesting for me to come to terms with. I'm coming out of a 2003 Lexus ES300. I was looking for a bigger, SAFE family car with a high feature list. Got two growing kids and I do shuttle colleagues around too. I had the Avalon & 300 in mind. For the heck of it, I went over to the Buick dealership because of all the positive buzz I'm hearing from the press and posts I read on Edmunds.com. First off, the dealership experience was excellent and respectful above Chrysler and leagues above Toyota. Then, I drove the car and it became apparent this one was the one to buy. Incredibly silent & packed with features including OnStar. That feature alone is a standout. Hands free phone standard and free for a year. Get on-line and check out the features of that service. Far better than any DVD or SAT based Navigation system. I have the CXL V6 with some goodies like remote start, heated seats et.al. for under 29K. Though it's not as powerful as the other two, you really don't feel it driving around town... highway passing yes. Far more responsive than my old Lexus though. Fit, finish, materials and textures are WAY better than 300 and right under Avalon. I then researched J.D. Powers, Consurmers report et.al. and came across a revalation I never expected. Buicks come in 3rd, 4th right under Lexus, Jags and well above "high" reputation monakers like Benz, BMW, Caddys, Infiniti and YES the venerable Toyotas, Hondas and Nissans. Shocked me and I didn't realize that. How many car buyers would that surprise? So, factor in customer satisfaction, problems after 3 years of ownership, quality index etc. and the picture becomes clearer. In the larger car market segment, the Lucerne is a best buy. I too hate the name, but oh well. I still stun myself thinking I bought a Buick, but then I get in and drive it and I just smile. Watching the marketing and proposed product line at Buick, people will start to see the shift GM is taking with this line of vehicles. Just like the article suggests, you just have to put your prejudice in check and open your mind to the posibilities.
Reply
Ron 11:29AM (4/07/2006)
Lucerne headlight bulb replacement.......Do you actually have to remove the front bumper fascia to remove the headlights???? Sounds like lots of work to replace a $4 bulb to me. I would be interested in knowing how much a dealer will charge for this.
Reply
Peter Larouse 6:37PM (4/23/2006)
We are on the market for a new car and have test driven two Buick Lucerne, one Honda Accord V6 (the top of the line)and two 2007 Camry XLE. We now own two Honda Accord cars and we have been very happy with them. One a 1993 and the other an almost antique 1987.
We might be old ( late 50's)and ignorant about all that jargon mrps, torque, etc. However, we are very impressed with the Lucerne. In our oppinion, there is nothing ugly or cheap about this car. It is extremely comfortable and the ride is great. The only reason we are still undecided is because of the MPG. By the way, we found the leather seats in the Honda hard as rocks. They will kill your butt on a long trip!! Can not understand why the Acccord and the Camry do not offer multiple positions in the passenger seat as they do for the driver. Also the bright idea in the Camry of recling back seats (about 2 inches) at the expense of not being able to collapse the seats' back and the smaller trunk. The carpets look cheap in the Camry.
I think GM has a winner here, and we are inclined to go with it.
Too bad some people do nothing but praise the imports and bash Detoit.
Reply
iQuack 6:25PM (1/28/2006)
Good review, but would have been helped to see some acceleration numbers for the V6 and V8.
The Avalon is an excellent car, but there is evidence of cheapness: side mirrors that are fixed and can't be folded, for example.
Certainly anyone shopping for a large sedan should take the Buick Lucerne for a test drive IMO.
Reply
Mal Fuller 6:57PM (1/28/2006)
It's too bad that Lucerne is the worst choice for a car model name since Kaiser came out with the Dragon!
Reply
AlmostAwake 7:36PM (1/28/2006)
Isn't Lucerne the name Safeway uses for its store-brand dairy products?
Reply
Ron Casebeer 7:43PM (1/28/2006)
GM must be trying to kill Buick now just like they did with Oldsmobile. The styling and the name of this car or so utterly forgetable it is sickning. If GM is wanting to go out of buisness then they should just do it and I will take my checkbook elsewere. Harley Earl and Bill Mitchell are spinning in their graves! Fire everyone on your styling staff and get someone who can design cars, not some damn kid who wants to do nothing but style Hot Wheels. Give us somthing to get us in the showrooms, we want to spend the money with you! The world used to follow GM!!!
We want style, flash, chrome and color; not another jap car!!!
Signed by an up-set long time customer!
Reply
Joel H. 7:55PM (1/28/2006)
yeah... I think with buick it would help to switch to a letter number naming... Lucerne sounds like an old persons car and if you are trying to break old sterotypes you have to do something new...
I'm not really a fan of the alpla numeric naming but I bet it would help buick...
Reply
RayRay 7:55PM (1/28/2006)
I understand the emphasis of "no replacement for displacement" but a huge V6 engine at 3.8L to put out 197hp @ 5,200 rpm, and 227lbs/ft of torque at 3,800 rpm is pretty pathetic. All that waste of gas for such sluggish power is definetly something I would avoid at all costs when considering a brand new car. This is 2006, yes GM has come up with a new/shared body style for Buick, but the rear end looks just like a Volkswagon. This car may be bigger, but being considered to compete against the Toyota Avalon and similar rivals, I think the Lucerne will need a lot more than just size.
Reply
starlightmica 8:00PM (1/28/2006)
Buick isn't hip for very good reason - they were building rolling coffins such as the Century for years. The Ranier is a badge-engineered Bravada and the Rendevous a warmed over Aztek. Anyone remember the last Skylark with its pointed beak? or the ho-hum last generation Riviera? Or the *cough* Reatta?
There hasn't been anything particularly inspiring about production Buicks for decades. It's going to take something major such as a good Enclave launch to do anything about it. By then Buick will be down to 3 models, which would be just enough by Robert Farago's estimates.
Reply
whofan 8:01PM (1/28/2006)
Buick is probably one of the best cars on the road for the price.They just don`t have the prestige that the other cars have they compare to. I`d buy the Buick and laugh at the guy in the Mercedes. For the money Buick is great and close in comfort. I never owned one but on inspection I like what I see. Its a very well built car.
Reply
Wrench 8:19PM (1/28/2006)
RayRay, GM tunes their engines correctly. That is why this 3.9L will get the same mpg as a European/Japanese 3.0L. They opperate at lower rpms than smaller engines. They also have greater low end power. Meaning you don't have to the rev the shit of them. That is where you waste gas. GM is actually ahead of the curve on that fact. Notice how the import engines have grown over the past couple of years from 2.7L to 3.0L to 3.5L... American 3.9L engines can get you 30mpg highway.
You'd be fool to want a smaller engine. For example, if your carrying 3-4 people you should op for a V6 over the I4 in an American midsize car. The V6 will work alot less and probably get you better "real-world" mpg.
I get so tired of people acting like the Japs do everthing better. GM/Ford know the American roads best! They infact build the best value product on the road.
Reply
ron 8:26PM (1/28/2006)
I've read a lot of comments critical of Buick, but to-date I haven't read one recommendation regarding what Buick should do to improve its products/image! So how about what YOU THINK Buick should do (other than roll over and die)!
Reply
whofan 8:58PM (1/28/2006)
I was dumbfounded when I learned of the buick minivan. That was a silly move by GM. Buick should be focused on affordible up scale cars.
Reply
Hammer 9:03PM (1/28/2006)
RON
I would get a little daring with Buick. GM is shying away from retro. They should use Buick as a retro design test case. It's clear to everyone Buick's best design days are far behind them. They should follow the Chrysler 300 with a 1950's fastback RWD sedan, kind of like the Ford FortyNine Concept. They should base it on the next CTS (RWD) Sigma Platform. They should also offer a GMX Supercharged version, that's my opinion.
Reply
whofan 9:05PM (1/28/2006)
I second what you said Wrench! We are in a group of the brain washed. I don`t see any advantage of the OHC over the OHV. I like the OHV engine better. GM builds both variations anyway.
Reply