• 45
2010 Buick LaCrosse – Click above for high-res image gallery

The all-new Buick LaCrosse hasn't even been on the market for a year, but we're already seeing slight changes to the sedan's lineup. First and foremost, the 3.0-liter V6 (originally offered on CX and CXL models) has been discontinued, meaning customers who want six-pot power will have to make due with the well-received 3.6-liter direct-injected mill. However, all-wheel drive, which was initially only offered with the 3.0, can now be had on 3.6 CXL models.

The big update for 2011, though, is the addition of General Motors' 2.4-liter direct-injected inline-four to the LaCrosse. Available only on the base CX, the 2.4-liter mill is good for 182 horsepower and 172 pound-feet of torque, and achieves up to 30 miles per gallon on the highway. While that might sound relatively impressive, keep in mind that GM managed to squeeze 30 mpg out of the larger V6 in the Camaro, and that the Equinox CUV also trumpets a 30 mpg rating out of its four-banger, too.

Will 182 ponies and 172 pound-feet of twist be enough for the relatively large LaCrosse? We'll be driving the car in the very near future, so stay tuned. In the meantime, hit the jump to read Buick's press release.



[Source: Buick]
Show full PR text
2010 Buick LaCrosse's Efficient Ecotec 2.4L Engine Helps Deliver An EPA-Rated 30 MPG On The Highway

- 2011 LaCrosse will be offered with 2.4L four-cylinder and 3.6L V-6 engines
- AWD will be offered with the 3.6L V-6 on the 2011 LaCrosse CXL

DETROIT – A fuel-efficient, direct injected Ecotec 2.4L four-cylinder engine is now the standard engine in the 2010 Buick LaCrosse CX luxury sedan. Backed by a fuel-saving six-speed automatic transmission, this powertrain combination delivers an EPA-rated 30 mpg on the highway and 19 mpg in the city – making LaCrosse one of the most fuel-efficient cars in its segment.

The LaCrosse CX with the Ecotec 2.4L has an MSRP of $26,995. Buick expects about 25 percent of LaCrosse customers will opt for it.

"As Buick continues its transformation, new products like the 2.4L-powered LaCrosse CX are helping us reach all-new customers," said Craig Bierley, Buick's product marketing director. "It gives them a fuel-efficient option that's simply not available with the competition."

Direct injection technology helps the Ecotec 2.4L deliver 182 horsepower (136 kW) and 172 lb-ft. of torque (233 Nm). The injection of fuel directly into the combustion chamber enables a higher compression ratio to increase efficiency and horsepower. That means more power is made with less fuel and lower emissions. In fact, cold-start emissions are reduced by up to 25 percent with direct injection. Engineers tuned the engine to deliver greater torque at lower rpm and build it smoothly toward its peak at 4,900 rpm, giving the LaCrosse excellent performance in all driving conditions.

The Ecotec 2.4L diversifies the LaCrosse's powertrain lineup. For 2011, the current 3.0L V-6 will be discontinued and the Ecotec 2.4L and 3.6L V-6 with variable valve timing will be the two engines offered in the vehicle. AWD will be offered with 3.6L-equipped models starting in the 2011 model year.

Like the Ecotec 2.4L, the 3.6L V-6 features direct injection.

"Direct injection is a key component of GM's ongoing strategy to use advanced propulsion technology to help us deliver more fuel-efficient cars today and in the future," said Tom Stephens, vice chairman, Global Product Development. "GM is using multiple technology pathways to achieve increased efficiency and to diversify energy sources – and we're applying them where they make the most sense for customers when it comes to efficiency, performance and cost."

Quiet, low-maintenance performance

The Ecotec 2.4L is designed to deliver exceptional quietness with low maintenance requirements and minimal environmental impact – including 100,000-mile service life ratings for the spark plugs and accessory drive belt. It is also equipped with GM's Oil Life system, which uses a sophisticated algorithm to determine when it's time for an oil change. The system calculates the oil life based on a variety of closely monitored variables, such as engine speed, temperature, load and others, allowing fewer oil changes over the life of the vehicle for a significantly reduced amount of used oil that must be recycled.


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 45 Comments
      • 5 Years Ago
      I drove the 2.4 in the Saturn Aura when I rented one once. I think that's the same engine, could be wrong. It wasn't a bad motor, and dare I say, even the flappy paddle trans wasn't bonkers awful.
      • 5 Years Ago
      The domestics have never built a quality, reliable, durable four cylinder engine. I would wait several years before putting my money down on this one.
        • 5 Years Ago
        I think the entire Ecotec Lineup would like to have a word with you as well.. especially the 2.0turbo..
        • 5 Years Ago
        My 1992 Cavalier's 2.2L 4 banger Would like to have a word with you.
      • 5 Years Ago
      Good, a 4-cyl is more than enough.

      Brian E: Some people, including me, like cloth seats better.
        • 5 Years Ago
        the 4 cyl Lacrosse weighs 3,800+ lbs...the 4 cylinder would get you around fine but I would much rather have the 3.6L V6 with 304hp and comparable gas milage
        • 5 Years Ago
        Agreed. The 2.4 and the 3.0 are the only two engines in the Equinox. And the 3.0's real world numbers are very disappointing -- I don't know if it's because of transmission tuning, but every test comparing the 2.4 and the 3.0 says the 2.4 is nearly as quick and more efficient. And every test that compares the 3.0L and the 3.6L says the 3.6 is far quicker and gets the same fuel economy. So what's up with the 3.0? Weird.
        • 5 Years Ago
        GM has morons somewhere in their operation.

        You would agree that a big engine should have taller gearing than a smaller one.

        The 3.0 V6 is UNBELIEVABLY tall geared in the Equinox. That is what happens when you use the 2.77 axle ratio (which is what the Ecoboost uses. Hell the 3.16 is optional in the SHO)
        The 3.0 in the Equinox/Terrain/Lacrosse should be 3.16 for front wheel drive, 3.39 for 'awd'.
        They would be far quicker, smoother, and return better real world mileage.
        • 5 Years Ago
        ...and a turbo 4cyl is even better. They should put the Regal GS turbo in here and charge a premium for it.
      • 5 Years Ago
      This is just a marketing ploy to say they offer a car in this class with class leading economy. I don't think they expect many buyers would opt for this engine.

      Why didn't they just offer the 220 Hp turbo 4 as the base engine. This buick is way to heavy for 182 hp - 172 pound-feet of torque 4 cylinder engine.

      At 3,800 lbs unloaded it's gone be a strain on the engine. Consider this. The Sonata, Altima, and Accord all offer 4cyl with similar HP, except for the Sonata which has 200 hp. and they all weigh about 600 pounds less than this Buick.

      Anyone who says those HP figures are adequate should load up an 4cyl mid-size sedan with 4 people and drive for a week with that extra weight and report back.
      • 5 Years Ago
      To that 3.0 V6: Good riddance.

      Props to GM for making a very smart running change. Two really -- dropping the 3.0 and making AWD available with the 3.6. Should have been how they launched the car.
        • 5 Years Ago
        I agree, it was my only reservation. Finally 3.6 with AWD
      • 5 Years Ago
      I can never understand why cant American make a light car? The only light car that is American and I also like is Z06. Is it that hard?? why cant they learn from something that work? Look at Japanese and now Korean light cars always get better efficiency and handling. I know German cars also handle great with their heavy weight but they are in different class of engineering all together ( Japanese copy from Germans and Korean copy from Japanese) Why cant American learn from somebody who know something?
        • 5 Years Ago
        a lot of people hate tin cans, myself included...
      • 5 Years Ago
      I still prefer the old 3800 V6 that Buick use to have. They could of made some modern improvement during it's production.
      • 5 Years Ago
      Considering that a sizeable portion of Buick buyers are elderly, this makes perfect sense.
      jsweeneybuickgmc
      • 5 Years Ago
      The Buick brochures says the 3.6 engine is 280ish HP while the same engine in the Cadillac CTS gets 304 HP, go figure...
      • 5 Years Ago
      This is great news. The 3.0DI engine has not been well received. Also, this gives them an excuse to finally offer AWD on the 3.6DI. It's about time.
      • 5 Years Ago
      lets be honest, a V6 engine simply has too much power for your average buick buyer (as of current) A four cylinder will suit most buick drivers just fine. Heck you could prolly use a 2 cylinder with only 30hp and that would be enough. Honestly, how much power is required to 20mph everywhere you go?
      • 5 Years Ago
      The 3.0 has less power and worse mileage than the 3.6 in this application and I haven't read a review of it in any vehicle that gave it better than a cold "meh". What is the point of this engine anyway?
        • 5 Years Ago
        The point of this engine is that it gets better mileage on the original EPA treadmill test - the driving like a granny version from 1978 - which is used to determine CAFE compliance.

        • 5 Years Ago
        If GM would have used the correct gearing, the mileage would have been better.
        Makes sense for the smaller engine to have shorter gearing, right?
        So with 3 axle ratios to pick from, you'd think the 3.6 would use 2.77, the 3.0 with front drive would use 3.16, and the 'awd' 3.0 would use 3.39.

        That would be just too logical.

        The point is to be under the 3 liter threshold, not that is of any significance in the USA.
    • Load More Comments