2008 Buick LaCrosse Super a go
The 2008 Buick LaCrosse Super pictured here is a no-brainer for General Motors. Being based on the same platform as the Chevy Impala SS, it doesn't take much to produce a version for Buick that features the same 303-hp V8. The photo shows a mild mannered LaCrosse wearing the same wheels as the Impala SS and portholes on the front fender covered up by tape. The production version will likely have additional trim on the exterior and interior to differentiate it from other LaCrosse models. While it's not exactly the Roadmaster Coupe hoped for by members of GMInsideNews, it's a start. [Source: Straightline Blog]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Mal Fuller 10:22AM (7/07/2006)
Here's a Slogan for Buick ads.
Nothing new since '52.
Reply
zane 10:35AM (7/07/2006)
Shouldn't a V8 displacing 5.3 liters produce much much much more than 303 hp? I think this is quite indicative of GM's miserable engineering, to not only produce such a crude device but to repopulate it across several vehicles. For comparison, the present BMW M3 is equipped with a 3.2 liter inline 6 which produces 333 hp.
Reply
n1ce_hat 10:49AM (7/07/2006)
Mal Fuller, have you forgotten about so many nice buicks? the '70 Buick GSX? the '87 Grand National/GNX? and all the other beauties..
but i agree, this is nothing special.. just a v8 in a sedan, we've seen thousands of cars like this.
Reply
Vega 10:49AM (7/07/2006)
zane:
Great comparison, I bet senior Buick drivers can't wait to hear their engine scream at 8,000 rpm.
yeah, and you know what? In the 80s, BMW F1 1.5 litre inline 4s produced over 1500hp. Isn't that even better?
Don't post here, if you know nothing about cars, torque and engine concepts.
Reply
G 10:50AM (7/07/2006)
Actually the LaCrosse is something new and quite splendid for Buick. A 300 + hp version can only improve matters. Take that Lexus ES350!
http://www.automobilesdeluxe.blogspot.com
Reply
tony belligerent 10:51AM (7/07/2006)
At least the 303 has DOD. But it's a small block V8, and a GM. 303HP sounds /terrific/ when you take those tidbits into consideration.
Reply
starlightmica 10:52AM (7/07/2006)
LCX V8: answering a question no one asked. Would a facelift (aka Chinese LaCrosse for the US market) have cost any more money? I guess so, since we're looking at the answer.
Reply
Alex Nunez 10:58AM (7/07/2006)
The V8 is a good thing, but that styling...
Reply
aaron 10:59AM (7/07/2006)
the 303 horse motor is just fine. I'm wondering what sort of mongoloid compares the BMW M motor with a mass produced lower level one. lmao. How is the 3.3 on torque? Are they still grenading motors?
http://members.roadfly.com/jason/m3engines.htm
Reply
Corey W. 10:59AM (7/07/2006)
Here'a slogan for AutoBlog:
A great site for reporting anything from Aston Martin to Land Rover, too bad our commentors post the same sh*t over and over....
Reply
Den in IN 11:01AM (7/07/2006)
Zane,
I think the problem may be your miserable understanding of engineering. Every system involves a series of compromises. The GM engine is an inexpensive reliable and economical power plant. None of those apply to the BMW engine you cited. You don't put a racecar engine in a family car, the compromises will drive you crazy. Premium fuel, noise, narrow power band and higher maintenance are all at odds with the family hauler MO. There is much more to engineering than creating winning specifications. GM may not seem all that cutting edge, but it is ideal for a wide range of applications.
Reply
Corey W. 11:03AM (7/07/2006)
#9 was in response to the first two lovely posts.
Reply
Joe 11:28AM (7/07/2006)
I agree with number #10. Its not always about putting the highest tech in a car, its about putting the right tech in the car at the right price.
The 5.3L V8 will give lacrosse some much needed guts. The impala SS runs 0 to 60 in less than 6 seconds, whis is pretty darn quick for a family car and the Lacrosse will likely post similar numbers while delivering reasonable, though not great fuel economy.
Now if they could just make it handle like an M3....
Reply
mr lux 11:51AM (7/07/2006)
i still won't buy a buick
http://luxuryaffair.com
Reply
EC 12:16PM (7/07/2006)
Zane,
If BMW can make such a great 3.2 inline 6 with 333 bhp, why on god's green earth would they also make a 3.0 inline 6 with a dismal 215 bhp? You think the 0.2 L difference is worth 118 hp to BMW? You shouldn't just compare displacement to HP. How can someone hate GM so bad?
Reply
ghughes 12:20PM (7/07/2006)
Im waiting for those concepts to be delivered- and a 64 rivera clone-
Reply
zane 12:31PM (7/07/2006)
@4
You're right an inline-6 is MUCH louder than a V8. My mistake I must have confused the relationship between cylinders and noise, but I am corrected now; fewer cylinders, more noise.
@11
The GM V8 is not only expensive but it is also unreliable and uneconomical when compared to the inline-6 previously cited. It has many more parts which must be designed, tested, forged and installed by union half wits. It is unreliable for the same reasons, it has exponentially more moving parts to break down and is crafted by simian gentlemen who, as studies have shown, cannot maintain consistent build quality through the work week. The GM V8, like all American engines, is glutenous. The cost of providing the amount of fuel it requires it certainly higher than providing premium fuel for a more efficient engine. If you have trouble with the M engine comparison, take a look at the 4.8 liter V8 which manages to produce 119% of GM's horsepower while displacing only 91% of the volume.
Reply
Chris Smith 12:48PM (7/07/2006)
Zane, you might want to compare the fuel efficiency of the BMW engines vs the GM V8. Although the BMW has a smaller displacement, it's going to be hitting higher RPMs more often and thus will use more or the same amount of fuel as a low-revving V8. In fact, the EPA's mileage numbers bear this out: the M3 gets 16/24 and the Impala SS gets 18/28 in a heavier car with a slushbox (albeit with DOD, but what's wrong with that?). HP/Liter is a nice way to try to show technical superiority, but what really matters is how much power an engine makes and how much fuel it uses to do so, period. I'll bet the alloy V8 is even lighter than the iron block S54 in the M3.
I consider myself a BMW fanboy, but GM really does know what they're doing in the drivetrain department.
Reply
Chris Smith 12:55PM (7/07/2006)
Zane, another point too, about the complexity: the Valvetronic V8's in the newer BMW's are an ORDER OF MAGNITUDE more complex than the simple pushrod V8 in GM's. Not only are they DOHC, but they have variable cam phasing AND cam lift. In fact, BMW has been backing away from Valvetronic for the very reason that it makes the engine too large, too complex and too top-heavy (lots of moving metal parts in those heads, not to mention the Valvetronic actuator). Why do you think they don't use it in the M engines and the new 3 is coming out with 2 turbos bolted to the older M54?
Oh, and as far as mileage, the 4.8L in the BMW may only have 91% of the volume, but it still gets similar mileage numbers to the M3 (16/23). So how does the smaller displacement do any good in that case...?
Reply
AR 12:57PM (7/07/2006)
Those Impala SS wheels look ridiculous on a Buick.
Reply