2011 Buick Regal CXL Turbo: Track Tested

What a JOKE! As the saying goes, "You can't polish a turd". A turbo time of 8+ to sixty is great for my grandma. Exactly who is this car built for, the sporty over 80+ crowd? I test drove the Kia Optima Turbo last week. My guess is that car with a real engine will deliver a number with a 6 handle.

Those acceleration numbers are very disappointing, especially with that torque rating.

TSX: 201hp/4cylinder auto/8.0 second 0-60
IS250: 205hp/6cylinder auto/8.3 second 0-60
G25: 218hp/6cylinder auto/8.0 second 0-60
328i: 230hp/6cylinder auto/7.3 second 0-60

All of the above cars mentioned have almost 200 lb/ft of torque as well (G25 only has 187). This car is also slower from 0-60 and in the 1/4 mile than a 4cylinder Honda Accord (190 hp) and the Altima 2.5 with the CVT.

I'll take the GS, please. GM seriously needs to recalibrate something here, or put the Regal on a diet. The best evidence of this is that an Audi A4 with the 2.0T makes nearly identical numbers to this Regal (except with 9 less hp) and sprints from 0-60 in 6.7 seconds with the 6-speed auto.

Disappointing.

...maybe I just wanted it to be the manual.

-mm

What's even scarier than these acceleration times is that of the standard 2.4- 9.8 seconds by the IL full test of a CXL (http://www.insideline.com/buick/regal/2011/2011-buick-regal-cxl-24-liter-full-test-and-video.html).

Seriously, pushing 10 seconds in what is supposed to be a luxury car??! The cars zoomzoom mentions are already on the 'slow' side for this category; 10 seconds is just a joke.

Sounds like some serious weight reduction is in order for this car whenever it gets redesigned.

Also worth mentioning: the Regal Turbo is within spitting distance of a Genesis 4.6 (V8)'s weight- 4006 lb vs the 3760 listed here, and is just 30lbs lighter than a GS350.

Wasn't the point of turbos a 2-prong attack for fuel efficiency, by lightening vehicles and reducing engine size? Seems like GM has only bothered to do half of that

I'm not going to name them all but I see many other below 30k family sedans are making significantly better performance numbers. Hope this buick is upscale than them.. otherwise it's just crazy.

^

Made even more disappointing by the fact that it is marketed as a "sports sedan". The G37, 335, A4, IS350, CTS-V, C63 AMG, and hell, even the Mazda6 V6 are what I consider to be "sports sedans".... Regal doesn't even come close.

One of my favorite true sports sedans? The last-gen TL Type-S. It had - and still has - what was probably the best engine/manual transmission combination in its class.

Just read the post on the G25 and its more or less a dead heat (the G25 is a bit quicker and goes around the skidpad better), but it comes in at grand less as equipped in the test and, most importantly, is RWD. You couple that with the fact that a V6 Camry or Turbo Sonata will show it the taillights or V6 Mazda 6 with summer tires will probably walk a Regal any way you want it to I can see how this can be a hard sell. .

No surprise. Having driven it, I know it's a slug. Just about any V6 family sedan will flat out run away from this thing. The Passat CC 2.0T makes less power and will still handily outrun this bloated corn-fed "sports sedan". And you best be careful about being too bold with some normally aspirated fours - like the Altima, for example. Fail.

I'd be chosing the G25 over this in a heartbeat.

zzzzzzzzzzzz somebody wake me when the GS gets here.

"All of the above cars mentioned have almost 200 lb/ft of torque as well (G25 only has 187). This car is also slower from 0-60 and in the 1/4 mile than a 4cylinder Honda Accord (190 hp) and the Altima 2.5 with the CVT."

Incorrect, you cannot compare Regal times from insideline to acceleratoin times for other cars from other mags. You should know that. The Accord gets to 60 in 9.1 per IL- which is slower than this car last time I checked. And please find an IL roadtest where the altima I4 is faster than this. Can't wait to see that.

The G25 is barely faster and people are saying this acceleration is unacceptable. You'd have to be pretty good to tell the difference between 8secs and 8.2 secs from the seat of your pants. The best test of handling is slalom and the Regal more or less matched the lighter G25 in speed through the cones. Not sure where the big disappointment is considering it's FWD and better equipped than a $35k G25. Better interior as well.

"No surprise. Having driven it, I know it's a slug. Just about any V6 family sedan will flat out run away from this thing."

The Camry/Malibu/Mazda6/etc. can run away from the G25, TSX and a host of other cars that cost thousands more. Are they all bad cars as well? Didn't think so. If 0-60 was all that mattered why would anyone ever pay $35k for a G25 or 328i or IS250 when you can get a family sedan that can run to 60 in a little over 6 secs for $25k or less? I don't expect an answer. Like it or not, there are plenty of $25k cars that are faster than $35k luxury sedans.

"I'd be chosing the G25 over this in a heartbeat. "

Because its .2 secs faster to 60? Sounds like a major performance gap to me.

"Also worth mentioning: the Regal Turbo is within spitting distance of a Genesis 4.6 (V8)'s weight- 4006 lb vs the 3760 listed here, and is just 30lbs lighter than a GS350."

In spite of its longer wheelbase the GS is about the same length as a regal. Width is probably nearly identical as well. Couple that with the fact that the GS is 6 years old and you shouldn't be surprised that the two cars have similar weight. In addition, this car has heavy 19" wheels while the GS only has 18s.

"Made even more disappointing by the fact that it is marketed as a "sports sedan". The G37, 335, A4, IS350, CTS-V, C63 AMG, and hell, even the Mazda6 V6 are what I consider to be "sports sedans".... Regal doesn't even come close. "

But the G25 with identical slalom speed is a sports sedan? Got it. You're right, not even close. This slalom speed is close to the last 5 series they tested. You make perfect sense.

"Just read the post on the G25 and its more or less a dead heat (the G25 is a bit quicker and goes around the skidpad better), but it comes in at grand less as equipped in the test and, most importantly, is RWD."

I will point out the obvious, the G25 has far less equipment. You can't even equip a G25 like this car. When you can get a G25 with 19s, adjustable damping, nav, hard drive, premium sound, dual 12 way seats, etc. for the price of this car let me know. Unlike BMW and MB, Infiniti wont let you combine all the options with the weaker motor.

"I'm not going to name them all but I see many other below 30k family sedans are making significantly better performance numbers. Hope this buick is upscale than them.. otherwise it's just crazy."

I'm not going to name them, but there are likely a half dozen sedans that cost over $30k that are slower than the Camry V6. The 528i isn't even as fast and it starts at $45k. But let's ignore all that and act like the Regal turbo is the first and only car over $30k that can't do 0-60 in 6 secs or less.

"Seriously, pushing 10 seconds in what is supposed to be a luxury car??! The cars zoomzoom mentions are already on the 'slow' side for this category; 10 seconds is just a joke."

8.7 secs per C&D, 9.1 secs per MT. IL always has the slowest times- everyone knows that. Furthermore, Pop Mech, MT and C&D all got 0-60 times for the Regal turbo that were equal to or faster for the regal relative to the similarly priced G25. IL is the only source where the Regal came out slower.

1487 - Those gm checks getting fatter and fatter as you post more and more?

But the Regal has a 4 banger and the G a smooth V6....it is a huge difference in feel and sound if not in power.

"1487 - Those gm checks getting fatter and fatter as you post more and more?"

I don't have to be paid to consider all relevant facts. And they are facts which is why all responses will have to revolve around personal attacks, accusations of working for GM, etc.

"But the Regal has a 4 banger and the G a smooth V6....it is a huge difference in feel and sound if not in power."

tell that to A4 buyers. Stop with the excuses. I guess MB didnt get your memo since the C250 will come with a turbo 1.8L. Oh and BMW is will add a turbo 4 to the X1 and next gen 3 series.

"But let's ignore all that and act like the Regal turbo is the first and only car over $30k that can't do 0-60 in 6 secs or less. "

None of that matters. This was a test of a Regal Turbo not anything else.

"tell that to A4 buyers. Stop with the excuses. I guess MB didnt get your memo since the C250 will come with a turbo 1.8L. Oh and BMW is will add a turbo 4 to the X1 and next gen 3 series. "

What does that have to do with anything? You say you deal in facts, right? Here are some for you:

The V6 is smoother than the 4 in the Regal. The BMW 1 is not a competitor for the Regal; it is smaller and only comes in a coupe. The C250 also will never be cross shopped with a MB. You are the one making excuses for the slow and flabby Regal Turbo and especially the gutless CXL. If the Turbo was faster it would be easy to forgive the rough nature of the 4.....but it is just average in acceleration and above average in NVH compared to a V6. GM has lots of nice modern 6s....they should have just used one.

"And they are facts which is why all responses will have to revolve around personal attacks, accusations of working for GM, etc. "

You should be used to it by now...you hear it on whatever blog you post on. Do you ever wonder why?

Bodyblue: 'none of that matters. This was a test of a regal turbo not anything else'

Um....his facts are usually all over the place, but this is definitely an argument that I would challenge, as alll the complaints are bringing up cars not tested here.

And bodyblue, the 2.5 is the first infinity six to be smooth in quite some time.

I'm disappointed in the skidpad numbers, but eagle rs-a's are craptastic tires, but that begs the question: why put them on a 'sport sedan'? Plenty of high performance all-seasons out there that don't suck. I expected the acceleration times too, because (and this is for you 1487), other cars that put up similar numbers usually have less power. Those with similar power are faster. By alot

"Bodyblue: 'none of that matters. This was a test of a regal turbo not anything else'

Um....his facts are usually all over the place, but this is definitely an argument that I would challenge, as alll the complaints are bringing up cars not tested here.

And bodyblue, the 2.5 is the first infinity six to be smooth in quite some time."

ED2 I would say the same to all on here bringing up other cars....this was just a track test of the Regal Turbo...nothing more. Everybody gets up in arms over every test on here now...fanboys, nuts like him...it is exhausting at times.

Are you really saying that a buick 4 is smother than the previous Infinity 6? Really? And if so what does the past matter if the new one is better?

The fact is as you stated....cars with this much power are usually faster but because the Buick is so porky it falls short.

"None of that matters. This was a test of a Regal Turbo not anything else. "

The regal isnt the only car available for $35k. It absolutely matters how the car stacks up vs similar cars. How can you call one car disappointing without comparing it to others? Oh yes, its a GM so that's all you needed to know.

"Plenty of high performance all-seasons out there that don't suck. I expected the acceleration times too, because (and this is for you 1487), other cars that put up similar numbers usually have less power. Those with similar power are faster. By alot"

Contrary to popular belief, I'm not stupid. With this much torque the car should be faster. That doesn't change its performance relative to similar cars. And most of those cars are several hundred pounds lighter and smaller which explains some of the performance discrepancy. And how can "facts" be all over the place? Either they're correct or incorrect.

"The V6 is smoother than the 4 in the Regal. The BMW 1 is not a competitor for the Regal; it is smaller and only comes in a coupe. The C250 also will never be cross shopped with a MB. You are the one making excuses for the slow and flabby Regal Turbo and especially the gutless CXL. If the Turbo was faster it would be easy to forgive the rough nature of the 4.....but it is just average in acceleration and above average in NVH compared to a V6. GM has lots of nice modern 6s....they should have just used one."

No, here are the facts- you said the G25 was clearly superior because it has a smooth V^ vs an I4. I pointed out that the A4 and C250 have turbo fours and soon the 3 series will as well. The CC also has a turbo 4. The point is several cars in this class have fours and more will have them over the coming months so if the G25 is better than the Regal based on having a V6 its also superior to CC, A4, C250 and any other car with an I4. The NVH issues you state cannot be backed up, in fact the noise levels between the regal and G25 are very close. The Buick is actually quieter at 70mph. If you look at the C&D comparo the Regal was quietest at full throttle and 70mph which means it was quiter than the smooth Acura V6. Those are the facts.

"ED2 I would say the same to all on here bringing up other cars....this was just a track test of the Regal Turbo...nothing more. Everybody gets up in arms over every test on here now...fanboys, nuts like him...it is exhausting at times."

At what point in the above track test or the INfiniti G25 test is it stated that the G25's engine is far superior to the Regal's? You keep making that statement as if its a fact. Who said that? In addition, are you saying that anyone who buys a CC or A4 is making a bad decision because those cars lack V6s? You say the Regal could be a good car with a V6 and yet the S60, C250, A4 and CC all lack V6s and cost about the same (or will) as the regal turbo. Are all those cars inferior as well?

"The fact is as you stated....cars with this much power are usually faster but because the Buick is so porky it falls short."

Actually, its performance doesn't really fall short, its just that better acceleration is expected considering the torque. Relative to cars like the TSX, G25, IS250, etc. the Regal's acceleration is average, if not slightly above average. You don't have to like it, but that's reality. People evaluate cars based on how they feel from behind the wheel, not hp ratings. The fact that the G25 has only 187lb-ft of torque isnt going to be test drivers more forgiving of its acceleration. It cost $34k as does the Regal and both cars need about 8 secs (per IL) to hit 60- thats all that counts if your a customer.

"o, here are the facts- you said the G25 was clearly superior because it has a smooth V^ vs an I4"

LIE (how many times do I have to prove that you lie?)

This is what I said. ".it is a huge difference in feel and sound if not in power."

I did not even infer what you said I did. You lied about what I said. If you are a man you will take it back. You say over and over that no one can prove that you lie....well I just did.

I think the 0-60 on the regal is hurt most by it's traction control rather than it's weight or power. 258 ft lbs of torque should move even this car with more authority. Especially from 2000rpm.

Test driving the regal leads me to believe that gm made the traction control very intrusive below 20 mph to eliminate torque steer, this would kill any acceleration stat from a standing start. Can we have 40-70 times?

Like il said, this car can't be launched with any bit of authority, but I found it pulls rather well around 20-30 mph which is more real world useful anyway. This is just speculation on my part however.

"At what point in the above track test or the INfiniti G25 test is it stated that the G25's engine is far superior to the Regal's?"

No, you are lying. I simply said that it is smoother. Where did I say "far superior" ?? you opened this can of worms about how you blow things up on here now you have to eat your words.

I suspect that a manual gearbox would shave about 2 sec off the 0-60 run in this car.

Pretty positive comments, except for the horrid automatic transmission. This is especially disappointing compared to GM's terrific old 4T65E automatic...

Brake pads are probably one of the few things they changed for the American market. It would be so cool to retest this with a set of European-spec brake pads.

Bb: there you go, as long as you are willing to call others out on bringing up other cars I'm good.

As far as the g goes, the current 3:7 is still harsh. The 2.5 is better, I'm just saying the old 'v6's are smoother than 4's adage doesn't typically apply as far as infiniti is concerned.

But nor does buick do that great in changing that notion either

Why should anyone bother getting this over the Legacy GT?

"This is what I said. ".it is a huge difference in feel and sound if not in power."

I did not even infer what you said I did. You lied about what I said. If you are a man you will take it back. You say over and over that no one can prove that you lie....well I just did."

Oh I thought you were saying the G25 was better due to superior sound and feel of a smooth V6 vs an unrefined I4. You werent? Oh, great than we agree that the V6 isnt necessarily better and that the sound readings dont back your assertions that it has superior NVH characteristics. See? There is common ground.

"No, you are lying. I simply said that it is smoother. Where did I say "far superior" ?? you opened this can of worms about how you blow things up on here now you have to eat your words."

Where was there any direct comparison between the two engines in either test? I asked you who claimed the G25 mill was better, smoother, quieter or whatever. You made an asbolute claim as if it was factual and I asked how you came to that conclusion. I also asked if ANY four cylinder sedan would be considered an acceptable buy relative to the G25.

"Why should anyone bother getting this over the Legacy GT?"

sit inside both cars- there's one reason. The Legacy whips most $35k cars in performance, Regal included but Suburu isn't known for premium interiors or ride/NVH characteristics. In terms of bang for your buck, the GT is nice- although it gets pricey.

@eldaino-
Regarding the Eagle RS-As, the full-test G25 had smaller ones as well and STILL put up equal or better braking, skidpad and slalom numbers:
60-0 mph (ft.) - 109
Slalom, 6 x 100 ft. (mph) - 65.7
Slalom, 6 x 100 ft. (mph) ESC ON - 64.8
Skid pad, 200-ft. diameter (lateral g) - 0.91
Skid pad, 200-ft. diameter (lateral g) - ESC ON 0.90

The 0-60 times are equal to the Regal CXL, but then the G25 has a 7A and less weight to compensate for the 218hp/187 ft-lbs.

"I will point out the obvious, the G25 has far less equipment. You can't even equip a G25 like this car. When you can get a G25 with 19s, adjustable damping, nav, hard drive, premium sound, dual 12 way seats, etc. for the price of this car let me know.
@1487-
True that the G25 has less equipment, but the equipment missing aren't essential. The 19"s can be bought aftermarket or used, the "adjustable damping" apparently didn't make much of a difference (see above for the numbers); the hard drive isn't needed because the G25 has a USB/flash drive connection, the term "premium sound" is applied to every brand-named OEM stereo and we all know about how IL feel about the "12 way seats" are:
http://blogs.insideline.com/roadtests/2011/03/2011-buick-regal-cxl-turbo-not-very-supportive.html

"True that the G25 has less equipment, but the equipment missing aren't essential. The 19"s can be bought aftermarket or used, the "adjustable damping" apparently didn't make much of a difference (see above for the numbers); the hard drive isn't needed because the G25 has a USB/flash drive connection, the term "premium sound" is applied to every brand-named OEM stereo and we all know about how IL feel about the "12 way seats" are:"

Excellent excuse making and it would be mighty impressive if I was a complete idiot. If all the features you mentioned don't count why does Infiniti offer them on the G37? If you dont want them, leave them off the Regal turbo and the car's price drops to as low as $30k- which is well under the comparably equipped G25. With less weight and near 50/50 weight distribution the G37 should be doing something better than the Regal or any FWD sedan. For $35k it offers more grip and better braking (MT got Regal to stop in 113ft- shockingly IL can't match that)as well as less equipment and what i find to be cheaper interior.

As for the HD, teh regal has USB standard as well for $30k. The HD is for on board music storage obviously. Infiniti has one so I guess they think its a nice option to have.

As for how IL feels about the regal and its seats: Are you surprised? HAs it had any impact on the sales of the regal so far? If consumers primarily consulted IL or CR before buying cars you can rest assured GM wouldn't sell many cars in the US.

Oww, reading this thread makes my head hurt. Enough comparing this Buick to a V6 Camry or Accord or turbo Sonatima. The engines are about the only thing those cars seem to have over the Regal, and I really doubt they are being cross shopped with this.

What I really want to know is why this Buick is so much slower than an Audi A4 with similar power ratings and a curb weight only 225 lbs less. Those look like robust hp and lb-ft ratings to me, and this thing is a dog. Could someone that knows more about cars than me (everyone) tell me why that is?

And give this thing some steering feel, because it appears to handle very well otherwise.

Emajor see my post above, that is the best explanation I can come up with

I'd really like to see a retest of this car with a manual transmission.

vvks estimate is likely correct in how much faster the car would be.

The other option would be to put this powerful motor in the Cruze and leave the Buick for the 3.6 V6.

Thanks dracy69. You would think that would have been ironed out by the engineers. I second the call for a 40-70 mph acceleration time.

Insideline, have you considered testing cars for passing time or in-gear acceleration? Some other publications (even Consumer Reports) give 45-65 mph acceleration times, and I think it is almost a better indicator of real world engine performance. I'm guessing more people use their engine's full potential during passing than gunning it from a stoplight.

What do you say, Insideline? Please!

"What I really want to know is why this Buick is so much slower than an Audi A4 with similar power ratings and a curb weight only 225 lbs less. Those look like robust hp and lb-ft ratings to me, and this thing is a dog. Could someone that knows more about cars than me (everyone) tell me why that is? "

Well, for one the A4 has to be the fastest 211hp sedan ever sold. Its acceleration times dont match up with its power/weight ratio and I suspect the car is underrated. IN addition, AWD always helps with 0-60 times. The regal is definitely about .5secs slower than it should be, but it still wouldnt catch the A4. I do think it has something to do with limited power/boost in lower gears to qwell torque steer. The engine is supposed to get more power next year. The Verano will have 250hp so I hope the Regal gets the same boost.

"The other option would be to put this powerful motor in the Cruze and leave the Buick for the 3.6 V6."

One reason this car wont have a V6 is because there would be too much overlap with CTS and Lacrosse. The regal is close to the same size of CTS and has an interior that is as nice- if they dropped the 3.6L DI in this car and sold it for $5k less than CTS it really doesn't help Cadillac. What they need to do is add more power and correct whatever powertrain logic that is retarding power to such a high degree.

E major, that would have been intended

When the gs comes out it will be equipped with the hi per struts to eliminate torque steer.I suspect gm will pull better performance numbers with scaled back traction control rather than increased power.

Well it will be a combination of both but the difference will probably come from the struts allowing the car to launch with more authority

Give me a six speed CC. Great interior though not as many features at the entry level as the Buick. (no manual offered on Luxury model). I havent seen ANY Buicks where I live, but then again it is a young professionals city. No Buicks here. I just don't see this pushing that average Buick buyer age any lower. Not with Infiniti, CC, used BMWs and A4s etc in the same range.
1487 is usually all the place as one
Person said but the Buick apparently has quite a bit refinement as well as a lot of features for the money. I am sure u pay for that refinement with the weight of the sound deadening etc. This car is a solid entry but doesn't raise the bar.

I Bet the Edmunds editors cringe whenever they post a test like this.

Hey, if you want an underpowered, overpriced tubbo like the Regal-- buy it. It's a free country. I just don't see the value in it. Buick doesn't have any luxury credentials, as far as I know. To me, buying a Sonata Turbo or this Regal has nothing to do with "street cred" because you aren't going to get it with either car. Nor will you with an Inifiniti with a "2.5 on the trunk.

If you don't like a certain brand (for me that would be Audi), then don't buy it.

Buy what you want. And stop saying people are stupid idiots (or implying that they are) for buying brand X when you like brand Y.

A lot of the issues above are nitpicking ones. Maybe it is just fun to do this, but the 1487 vs. bodyblue thing is really getting tiring.

"True that the G25 has less equipment, but the equipment missing aren't essential. The 19"s can be bought aftermarket or used"

Totally agree.

Just like how the Navi in the Regal is such a POS so one should just skip it and buy an aftermarket one so it doesn't matter as one of the posters has previously suggested...

"the "adjustable damping" apparently didn't make much of a difference (see above for the numbers)"

Agree again.

If the G25 can match and/or surpass Regal's performance without the adjustable damping then I say good for Inifiniti. To knock the G25 just because it doesn't have that feature is like Me matching your math test score but I get a penalty because you used a calculator and I didn't... Doesn't make any sense right?

"1487 is usually all the place as one"

Um, OK.

do you live on the west coast? if so I'm not shocked that you never see Buicks. Someone is buying them though. Buick already released info about the lower age demographics of this model- they are attracting younger buyers. The car has been outselling the CC for the last 3-4 months. Not that I dont like the CC- but the regal is indeed gaining in popularity. One issue with the CC is the base sport model has one or two options, you have to step up to the $33k model to get some features that are standard on Regal.

I think we all can agree it doesnt really raise the bar- its just another good option and really the only domestic branded vehicle that is realistically a competitor for the cars you mentioned. The MKZ is nice but Lincoln is really having trouble digging out of its hole and the MKZ shares too many features and components with the much cheaper Fusion V6.

This new Regal is no powerhouse, that's for sure.

"Hey, if you want an underpowered, overpriced tubbo like the Regal-- buy it. It's a free country. I just don't see the value in it. Buick doesn't have any luxury credentials, as far as I know. To me, buying a Sonata Turbo or this Regal has nothing to do with "street cred" because you aren't going to get it with either car. Nor will you with an Inifiniti with a "2.5 on the trunk."

So what is your point? You dont like the Regal so you are upset that others don't think its crap? IF you dont like it, skip the thread. You dont like the car, you're too cool for Buick, blah, blah, blah. Believe it or not some people like cars that aren't Audis. Didn't realize that was a crime.

"If the G25 can match and/or surpass Regal's performance without the adjustable damping then I say good for Inifiniti. To knock the G25 just because it doesn't have that feature is like Me matching your math test score but I get a penalty because you used a calculator and I didn't... Doesn't make any sense right?"

Wrong again. The asjustable damping isnt about "improving handling", its about having different settings. The touring mode would be for highway cruising when ride compliance is paramount. Sport mode would be for driving on twisty roads. The point isnt that the IDC gives you BETTER handling, its that it gives you more control options as a driver. And most luxury brands offer this type of technology- Infiniti is one of the few that doesn't. Ever notice how the M puts up great test numbers but gets criticized for harsh ride quality? Adjustable dampers would come in handy there.

"Just like how the Navi in the Regal is such a POS so one should just skip it and buy an aftermarket one so it doesn't matter as one of the posters has previously suggested..."

Exactly, but deleting the nav makes the regal cheaper and still better equipped than the G25 so it kind of ruins the whole "I'll take the G25 since it costs the same and performs slightly better" argument. As I said, equipped like the G25 the regal is $30k, not $35k. Don't shoot the messenger- but continue to try to spin the facts to justify your position on the superiority of the G25.

Thanks 1487 @ 8:37 a.m. You know, when you are not going full-out online fisticuffs with bodyblue or whoever else is baiting you, or trying to bait the Insideline editors yourself, you provide some really useful comments and information. Any chance we can see more of this side of you?

I am lost as to how claiming the regal's options are pointless (as argued by Louiswei and mrryte) bolsters the argument that its a poor value vs the G25. If you think the features like nav, h/k stereo, 19s, IDC, etc. are stupid than you can skip them and save $5k and get a base Regal turbo. Even if you add sunroof and HIDs you are under $32k which means the Buick is still cheaper.

"Wrong again. The adjustable damping isnt about "improving handling", its about having different settings. The touring mode would be for highway cruising when ride compliance is paramount. Sport mode would be for driving on twisty roads. The point isnt that the IDC gives you BETTER handling, its that it gives you more control options as a driver."

Guess the CXL Turbo's 19in rims and 245/40R19 tires are mainly for looks then....

No shit the Buick is cheaper because it is FWD and G25 is RWD...

Maybe IL should have a comparo between the G25, CXL Turbo and whatever other vehicles it competes with.....

@ mrryte,

What's the point? We all know what the outcome will be...

I say IL should wait for the Regal GS then compare that to all the sports sedans in the $35k range.

This Regal CXL (turbo or not) is a lost cause... Great interior though.

So can you (Edmunds.com) please remove the stupid Regal ad from the InsideLine home page now? This is after all a site for enthusiasts and having this lamo car plastered front and center for months is kind of annoying. I hope GM, I mean we taxpayers are paying you plenty to keep that stupid ad up there.

The numbers were pretty much as expected, we've all been over the Regal's slow acceleration numbers ad nauseum. The issue I have still stands with the Regal's fuel economy compared to its competitors. It's essentially the worst of all worlds: it's among the slowest while getting 6-cylinder-like economy. IMO a slow 4-banger is kind of ok as long as you are beating everyone else in efficiency.

Here's a re-post of some information I posted in the LT intro entry. These are all IL-published numbers for 2WD/AT cars (except where noted):

TSX: 201hp - 21/30 - 0-60 in 8.3s
Mazda6i: 170hp - 22/31 - 0-60 in 9.4s
328i: 230hp - 18/28 - 0-60 not tested by IL (*AT times are usually 6.3-6.5s)
C300: 228hp - 18/26 - 0-60 in 6.9s
CC: 200hp - 22/31 - 0-60 in 7.3s
IS250: 204hp - 21/29 - 0-60 in 7.5s (*6MT, IL has not tested an AT)
Regal CXL Turbo: 220 hp - 18/28 and 0-60 in 8.4s/8.2s

"For $35k it offers more grip and better braking (MT got Regal to stop in 113ft- shockingly IL can't match that)as well as less equipment and what i find to be cheaper interior. "

The painted plastic that tries to looking like metal in the Regal is definitely more expensive than the real aluminum trim in the G25. I take the "cheaper" real metal trim over the cheap painted plastic any day and I won't have to worry about the paint peeling from the plastic.

@VVK

I don't think so

http://www.caranddriver.com/var/ezflow_site/storage/original/application/a3f28afdf8c5451b35b83b06720d4d53.pdf

"but it still wouldnt catch the A4. I do think it has something to do with limited power/boost in lower gears to qwell torque steer."

Too bad GM cant come up with a system as good as Ford's RevoKnuckle (sp?).....

Jay,
Yes the Buick is slow and thirsty but you can get more dingle-hoppers and go-gadgets for less money (esp with incentives) so it is just as good as anything else.

Ed24 I am sorry for all of the crap but as you can see you were attacked as well. This is the way it will be from now on....all that say A WORD against any GM car will be attacked...get used to it.

"Guess the CXL Turbo's 19in rims and 245/40R19 tires are mainly for looks then...."

could be. Wouldnt be the first time that happened.

bimmerjay:

your point is valid except for the fact that the Regal turbo is considerably cheaper than the other luxury cars you listed (not counting TSX). So while you may save $20 on gas buy buying those cars, you will spend thousands more to acquire the car. And no need to post the 328i's time from other publications when IL's figures are usually a second or more slower. Based on data from other mags we can presume the 328i is about 1 sec faster to 60 vs the regal. With a weight of 3300-3400lbs its not surprising.

'"NVH? The regal was the quiestest car at full throttle so what rational person could claim that it lost due to poor NVH control?"

NVH = noise, vibration, AND harshness. How does a dB meter pick up vibration and harshness? Quality of sound and smoothness is just as important as the actual dB level. Did you read the article? Here's what they said about the engine:

""Equally disappointing, there’s a grittiness here that, combined with the turbo’s part-throttle hissy whistle, aurally wends its way too freely into the cockpit. It isn’t that the engine is loud—it isn’t. Rather, it’s a murmuring metal-on-metal hubbub that registers the moment the starter is engaged. At any speed, this engine announces way too proudly that it’s a four-banger.""

Jay, my apologies for snagging your reply...I was afraid it would get buried and it is very relevant for el Shill to see.......if he was really an engineer he would know the above of course.

In other words 1487 the powertrain is not competitive in this class....in acceleration, in MPGs and NVH.

Get over it.

"The painted plastic that tries to looking like metal in the Regal is definitely more expensive than the real aluminum trim in the G25. I take the "cheaper" real metal trim over the cheap painted plastic any day and I won't have to worry about the paint peeling from the plastic."

The G has one of the cheapest interiors of any car in this price range, with or without real alum trim. Check out the non adjustable headrests in the rear- which I was once told by an edmunds editor was a surefire sign of cost cutting in GM products. The G's interior did get a slight upgrade for 2009 or 2010 with more chrome accents, but overall its not better than the Maxima or Altima inside. There is a reason the G costs far less than a comparable German car.

"Maybe IL should have a comparo between the G25, CXL Turbo and whatever other vehicles it competes with..... "

Popular mechanics compared both cars. I believe they G25 eked out the win by a slight margin. I'd rather see the turbo compared to TSX and CC and S60.

"Too bad GM cant come up with a system as good as Ford's RevoKnuckle (sp?)....."

They have one, its called hiPerstrut- someone already mentioned it and the GS will have it. C&D did a feature on both systems.

"No shit the Buick is cheaper because it is FWD and G25 is RWD..."

So you feel that the driveshaft connecting the transmission to the rear differntial costs a fortune? If that be the case how can the 3 pony cars be sold for under $25k? They are RWD if you didn't know. RWD doesn't have to mean expensive- check out the Genesis coupe.

"Thanks 1487 @ 8:37 a.m. You know, when you are not going full-out online fisticuffs with bodyblue or whoever else is baiting you, or trying to bait the Insideline editors yourself, you provide some really useful comments and information. Any chance we can see more of this side of you? "

I have no interest in baiting any IL editors. If I see something that doesn't make sense, I will point it out. I don't expect them to respond because in most cases there is nothing credible that can be said. Hopefully in the long run there will be changes (this guy Sadlier was the worst, but he left) but I'm not holding my breath or looking for any back and forth with them. I've got a lot of info- don't believe the hype- if you stay independent you'll see for yourself.

"In other words 1487 the powertrain is not competitive in this class....in acceleration, in MPGs and NVH."

Three lies. I suppose you think that works better than one at a time. PROVE what you're saying. Only the mpg claims are remotely accurate. Apparently, you don't even know what "competitive" means. Two reasonable competitors (G25 and TSX) are roughly as fast as as the Regal turbo as evidenced by today's test data and what BJ posted. I already told you that MT/C&D got BETTER times for the Regal than for the Infiniti.

"your point is valid except for the fact that the Regal turbo is considerably cheaper than the other luxury cars you listed (not counting TSX)."

Actually, 1487, you may have forgotten that you yourself originally posted those cars as competitors when arguing about fuel economy. I posted that to correct the errors in your numbers and provide the acceleration data.

And you yourself said only 3 of them cost more. Here's your exact quote:

"TSX- 201hp- 21/3-
Mazda6- 170hp- 21/30
328i-230hp- 19/28
C300- 228hp- 18/26
CC- 200hp- 22/31
IS250- 204hp- 21/30.

Except for the 6 all of those cars are smaller than the Buick and 3 of them cost more."

http://blogs.insideline.com/roadtests/2011/02/2011-buick-regal-cxl-turbo-introduction.html#comments

So you're contradicting your own post?

"haha- when have you proven me wrong? Do tell."

See above.

"NVH = noise, vibration, AND harshness. How does a dB meter pick up vibration and harshness? Quality of sound and smoothness is just as important as the actual dB level. Did you read the article? Here's what they said about the engine:"

I read it, I have a subsription. They say the engine makes too much racket but also say its not really loud- as their sound reading verify. See if you can make sense of that. Good luck. If the engine isn't making a lot of racket, I'm not sure you can can objectively quantify "thrashiness" or whatever the hell C&D was talking about. As you probably know, there are numerous other reviews that had no issue with the refinement of the engine. Who you gonna believe? A four never sounds like a good V6, thats just inherent to the design and configuration of the pistons. If you like a good V6 chances are you arent going to like the sounds of a turbo four, no matter how refined. As usual, C&D was splitting hairs and contradicting their own recorded information to justify their rankings.

"So you're contradicting your own post?"

Um, no. What are you talking about? I said that the BMW, MB and Lexus cost more than the Regal turbo so you arent saving money by buying them even though they have slightly better mileage. I'm not clear on what your "gotcha" quote was supposed to show. The IS, C300 and 328i do cost more than the Regal. Are you still confused? Your desperation is approaching that of your mentor. The Mazda6 isnt part of this discussion since it's a considerably cheaper car, but it doesn't get great mileage for a 170hp car. And that quote wasn't about direct competitors specifically, it was about sedans that are somewhat close in size that get mileage that isn't much better than the Regal.

No contradiction- keep trying.

"In other words 1487 the powertrain is not competitive in this class....in acceleration, in MPGs and NVH."

I really think that with a decent powertrain the Regal would be such a better car, as it already has a capable chassis. Unfortunately the M/T doesn't seem to offer much of an improvement either-

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/car/11q1/2011_buick_regal_cxl_turbo_manual-first_drive_review

Overweight, overslow, overbrook to the rescue!

cr_driver says:
10:53 AM, 03/14/2011
In fact, this lowly car puts to shame the regal turbo.

That car, with a turbocharged engine, with huge amounts of torque (258 at 2000 rpms) and with 245/40R19 tires.....is not better at the slalom, has an even worst 60-0 stopping distance (121ft), and has a very mediocre .84g of grip!

LOL!! Talk about a joke!!!

And yes, it even has a slower 0-60 time ,........LOL!!!! (8.4s)

http://www.insideline.com/buick/regal/2011/1987-buick-regal-grand-national-vs-2011-buick-regal-cxl-turbo.html

And the best joke of all, the standard 2.4L Regal...........

"I said that the BMW, MB and Lexus cost more than the Regal turbo so you arent saving money by buying them even though they have slightly better mileage."

Except that they all offer other things over the Regal as well besides better fuel economy, better acceleration or both. You are citing cost of the car to justify its poorer fuel economy? That's a ridiculous argument considering there are many other factors that go into a car's sticker price. You can also get many cheaper cars - like a Sonata Turbo - that also best it. Yet you're going to predictably make the reverse argument that the Regal offers things the Sonata doesn't to justify its higher price. You can't have it both ways.

"As tested Curb Weight (lb): 3,759"

Spot the lardass.

I suspect that GM have also "torque managed" the drivetrain to death for EPA reasons and to eliminate any wheelspin so as not to upset the "typical" Buick owner. Yawnalicious.

"Except that they all offer other things over the Regal as well besides better fuel economy, better acceleration or both."

If we are talking about base models with base engines I'd love to see the extensive list of advantages. If you pay more, you will get a faster 0-60- no argument there. Spend more, get more. Will you get a quieter, better built cabin? No. Better ride? No. More features? Maybe, if you're willing to spend another $5k or more.

"You are citing cost of the car to justify its poorer fuel economy? That's a ridiculous argument considering there are many other factors that go into a car's sticker price. "

No what's ridiculous is making the stupid argument that better fuel efficiency isnt primarily about saving money. I'm sure you would also argue that the $45k 528i is a smart buy if you want to save gas becuase it gets better mileage than most V6 powered sedans costing thousands less. What is the point of getting an extra 2mpg if you have to pay a few grand more to get that mileage? There is no point. I stated a fact, its not a "defense" of the Regal's mileage. If you really want better mileage get the stick- it gets 20/32 which matches or exceeds the cars you are talking about.

"Yet you're going to predictably make the reverse argument that the Regal offers things the Sonata doesn't to justify its higher price. You can't have it both ways."

Uh- no. Again, I'm not stupid so I dont make stupid arguments. YOu spend a lot of time reading everythign I say but you dont learn anything. I have said MANY times that lower brands ALWAYS offer more bang for the buck. Your a hypocrite of the highest order because when we talk BMWs you shout down anyone who claims BMWs are pricey for what you get. You lecture us about German engineering (BTW, Regal has that), alum suspension parts, superior materials, magnesium blocks, etc. and you make it clear that less expensive cars cost less because they are wholly inferior to BMW. When it comes to Regal (or likely anyting but BMW) you are quick to start talking about Hyundais. The Soanta has more bang for your dollar than a 230hp 328i and better mileage but I'm willing to bet you wouldnt buy one over the 3 series. If you want the most car for your dollar it makes no sense to even be looking at the Regal or any Buick or any BMW or anything that is remotely upmarket. The regal has a nicer interior than the Sonata, but aside from that its objective advantages are minimal. Now news there, perhaps you can explain why anyone would buy a TSX for $30k when a better equipped Sonata 2.0T with 73 more hp is $28k loaded. I wasn't comparing the Sonata to the Regal- I was comparing the Regal to the more expensive cars YOU mentioned earlier.

Good day everyone, I’ve been following this blog/site for some time now and thought I’d put in my two cents based on my personal experience and what I’ve observed here. A few months ago my wife and I started looking for a new sedan to replace our current one (2000 Ford Taurus SEL w/ 134k – purchased new – paid off in four years and enjoyed ever since). After hours spent researching, debating, test-driving, and evaluating numerous models we both came back to the vehicle that originally caught our attention and we enjoyed the most (2011 Hyundai Sonata Limited 2.0T). How does all this relate to the Buick Regal CXL Turbo here on IL? Well this was one site I researched and followed and because of their long-term road test looked into the Buick as well. I’ve found the information and comments from everyone here quite informative and entertaining (special thanks to bimmerjay, bodyblue, firstwagon, and dougtheeng – you gentlemen’s knowledge and automotive insight was great).

"The G has one of the cheapest interiors of any car in this price range, with or without real alum trim. Check out the non adjustable headrests in the rear- which I was once told by an edmunds editor was a surefire sign of cost cutting in GM products. The G's interior did get a slight upgrade for 2009 or 2010 with more chrome accents, but overall its not better than the Maxima or Altima inside. There is a reason the G costs far less than a comparable German car. "

So how is the Regal's interior better? Please provide specifics. Does it use really metal trim? Nope. How about real wood trim? You can get real wood trim if aluminum isn't your thing in the G. Does the G use hard plastic on the dash and doors? Nope. They're squishy plastic just like the Regal. Does the Regal have shift paddles made of magnesium and leather? If the Regal have such a high quality interior, why is the paint on dash button already peeling? Take look at the button next to the volume knob. It's already scratched and peeling.

http://blogs.insideline.com/roadtests/2011/03/2011-buick-regal-cxl-turbo-central-locking-literally.html

I'm sure this Regal Turbo isn't meant to be a performer. That's totally OK!
but still these numbers are downright disappointing. they aren't competitive by any means! It's heavy, slow, not fuel efficient.
what good is this car? what makes this car so desirable? I'm not a performance shopper either but I don't find any attraction point in this car.

I see 1487 gets all worked up on Buick Regal Turbo.. I'm sure he has many reasons to choose it over other cars in smiliar range. It tickles my curiosity.

"So how is the Regal's interior better? Please provide specifics. Does it use really metal trim? Nope. How about real wood trim? You can get real wood trim if aluminum isn't your thing in the G. Does the G use hard plastic on the dash and doors? Nope. They're squishy plastic just like the Regal. Does the Regal have shift paddles made of magnesium and leather? If the Regal have such a high quality interior, why is the paint on dash button already peeling? Take look at the button next to the volume knob. It's already scratched and peeling."

The G does indeed have real metal or wood trim (although neither looks real to me) but that's about it. If you look at the door panels, the door pulls, the switchgear, the panels, flashing, etc. the G37 interior is simply OK for the money. They did add some chrome bits to the interior a couple years ago which made it look better and the Regal has similar trim around its knobs. Compared to other luxury cars I think the G's steering wheel looks cheap as well. For $30k the G's interior is definitely competitive, but a loaded G is over $50k while a loaded Regal is $35k. With the exception of the 3 series and the soon to be replaced C class interiors I prefer most other competing cars relative to the G in terms of interior design and materials.

I saw that pic, they never said that was peeling paint. Do you really tink paint is peeling after 2k miles? Even a rabid GM hater shouldn't believe that. BTW, as VW was shown high quality tactile materials don't ensure durability. A car with a rock hard plastic interior can be quite durable- you are confusing the two.

"but still these numbers are downright disappointing. they aren't competitive by any means! It's heavy, slow, not fuel efficient."

We've been over the competitive issue already. Thats not a true statement no matter how many times its made. In what world is a G25 competitive with an 8sec 0-60 but the Regal a dog at 8.2ecs to 60? Do you really think that's anyting but a tie in terms of seat of the pants impression? What's the threshold for "disappointment"? If the Regal could get to 60 in 7.9secs or less (which it can per every other magazine) would it be OK? MT just tested the IS250 with the F sport package and it got to 60 in 7.1 secs which is .3 secs faster than the Regal they tested. The IS250 was over $40k. They have also tested the Charger and 300 V6s with 292hp and both cars need over 7 secs to hit 60, as does the 265hp Taurus. Sure, they have more interior room, but they cost just as much as the Regal and they aren't really faster.

It's pathetic that they call this a "sport sedan" a regular civic is quicker to 60. SHAME.

Tempesting, If you would like a slightly un biased opinion in this flaming thread of hate, here it goes.

I bought my regal because I fell in love with styling in white and LOVE the cashmere (tan) interior.
I like that the car is flex fuel capable, I have convenient access to e85 that is on average 70 cents cheaper than mid range gas. I like the cars big trunk and the seats fold downto one large flat area. The rear seat is spacious and very comfortable, head room is lack ing for the taller bunch but I don't have a lot of really tall friends and the rear seat is no deal breaker just a bonus. the leather in this car is actually pretty high quality, I like the power 4 way lumbar heated seats, which I find very comfortable (maybe it's my small frame). I wanted on star so that's a plus. I love how much storage there is throughout the interior of the regal and the standard 110v outlet. The hid's are very good and the led outline is a great touch.

The IDCS works very well, the car is very quiet at speed but can be driven hard through back roads.the mid range torque is more than adequate for passing and merging. The blue tooth works excellent, the harmon kardon stereo sounds awesome. The build quality is great. And best of all I got my t05 for 30,000 thanks to the fact that I know the sales men at the buick/gmc/cadillac dealer. the car fits my needs extremely well, I love the way it looks, I like the way it drives and I'll admit I have some gm bias. If cars are close to even I will pick the gm.the most logical competitor, the CCis too ugly imo (thais in MY opinion) inside and out, and my personal experience points to audi/vw being so that car is out.

That's my reasoning, I'm on my phone so sorry for typos, and I left some info out because typing this much on my phone got old

@ dracy69,

I am glad that you are happy with the Regal simply because...

YOU LIKE IT.

That's the most important thing when buying a car isn't it?

Absolutely, I prefer to treat professional reviews as guidelines rather than law

And I meant to say through personal experience I've found audi/vw to be unreliable

@ dracy69 Thank you, that was actually much more convincing than Havard blowing essays from 1487. and you typed all that on your phone? wow!

"The G does indeed have real metal or wood trim (although neither looks real to me) but that's about it. "

That's because you've been dining on fake painted plastic from GM for so long that you don't know what real wood and metal looks like.

"With the exception of the 3 series and the soon to be replaced C class interiors I prefer most other competing cars relative to the G in terms of interior design and materials."

That must be because the 3 and C uses real wood and metal too. Why are you comparing the G to the 3 & C series? I thought we're comparing how the G25's interior is "cheaper" than the Regal's. The Regal's interior isn't any better than the G. In fact, it's worst in terms of material quality because it uses painted plastic. They could have at least use plastics that are molded in that color and not painted.

"I saw that pic, they never said that was peeling paint. Do you really tink paint is peeling after 2k miles? Even a rabid GM hater shouldn't believe that. "

You're right, it shouldn't be peeling after 2k miles but I believe what I see. It looks like peeling paint to me. What do you see? You can zoom in on the picture to get a better look at the area in question to overcome your GM blinders.

"BTW, as VW was shown high quality tactile materials don't ensure durability. A car with a rock hard plastic interior can be quite durable- you are confusing the two."

Completely agree. (OMG, did I just typed that!?) Hard plastic does not equal cheap quality. Yet you constantly beat up on other manufacturers for using hard plastic.

I agree with dracy69. It refuses to take off off the line; traction control might be the reason. But I found it pulls quite strongly at higher speeds. It will do poorly in 0-60 as seen here, but its torque numbers and chassis will show with better performance in a slalom or track setting.

No wonder is still called Buick..........
But hey, is a "sport sedan", right? ;)

Yep, those braking and grip numbers tell me is a "sport sedan", right?
Those 245/40 R19 tires do wonders, right?
Having a turbocharged engine do wonders, right?
Having a car that delivers below average fuel economy and the worst acceleration makes it a "sport sedan", right?

OH yeah, I got it now.

No need to write an essay to understand what a "sport sedan" this car is, given those facts.

"If you pay more, you will get a faster 0-60- no argument there. Spend more, get more. Will you get a quieter, better built cabin? No. Better ride? No. More features? Maybe, if you're willing to spend another $5k or more."

Who says so? All of those things are easily debatable.

"Uh- no. Again, I'm not stupid so I dont make stupid arguments."

Like this one?

"Almost anyone I've ever met that talks about golf or plays is hardly young. Young people now are facebooking and playing on smart phones- they aren't golfing."

8 commenters downright mocked you for this ridiculous statement.

"YOu spend a lot of time reading everythign I say but you dont learn anything."

Well you have nothing to teach me.

"You lecture us about German engineering (BTW, Regal has that), alum suspension parts, superior materials, magnesium blocks, etc. and you make it clear that less expensive cars cost less because they are wholly inferior to BMW."

Actually, you missed my point entirely. I've never spoken about "German engineering" being superior to anyone else's nor have I inferred that less expensive cars cost less because they're "inferior". I spoke about why RWD performance-oriented sedans like the Lexus IS and BMW 3-Series cost more than a FWD Lexus ES350. I didn't say anything about them being "better" because clearly they're designed for different customers.

"When it comes to Regal (or likely anyting but BMW) you are quick to start talking about Hyundais."

Really? Because that was probably the first time I've ever brought up the Sonata much less a Hyundai, I think you have me confused with someone else.

The rest of your arguments are way off tangent. The Regal Turbo's mileage is similar to a 6-cylinder C300 or a 328i but both of those cars give you much better powertrain performance and acceleration. And the Infiniti G25 that you're bashing now? It also beats the Regal's EPA numbers - 20/29.

@iceman100,

Thanks for the compliment and congrats on your purchase.

@dracy69,

Thanks for sharing your experience. You're entirely correct that the reviews should be treated as guidelines, because ultimately it comes down to what car works best for you.

As a side note, definitely don't take it too personally some of the 'hater' comments on the Regal. Some of us here enjoy the free entertainment of pissing off 1487 (a.k.a. overbrook) because he owns a Regal and has it out to prove the superiority of all GM vehicles. Most of the other long-time commenters on here are pretty reasonable with their arguments. Enjoy your new car.

Whew! Finally, I understand the decision to sacrafice Pontiac and keep Buick. Thank God we no longer have the G8 to kick around....

Memo to Buick - a "premium sports sedan" should not be freakin' slow. That's okay for the geriatric transportation appliances that you are used to making, but not for a sports sedan, 'kay? Next time do a little market research before you make a big bold entry into a new segment - then you are less likely to come off looking quite so very foolish. Sheesh. This is like entering a sumo wrestler in a sprint. Comically out of its element.

I'm still puzzled why GM didn't do the following:

1. Why didn't they use the same rating 2.0T DI engine that was in the '09 Cobalt SS & HHR SS? That was rated at 260hp/260tq and there was a service cal available from GM with 300hp which did not void the warranty. All the engineering work was done on that higher output engine, so it seems like a no brainer.
2. Why not offer the 3.6 DI as an option. The camaro V6 weighs slightly more than the Regal, yet gets a better EPA rating (19/30 vs. 18/28) and is much more powerful.
3. The 2.4DI engine is EPA rated at 19/30 (same as the Camaro 3.6 6A). The rating should be at least as high as the heavier Equinox/Terrain (22/32). There might be some tuning work on their end to optimize this, but why offer the engine at all if the 2.0T and 3.6 are significantly more powerful and get nearly identical fuel economy?

With that said, I think there's probably some optimizing they can do with the current setup with respect to 1) torque management in lower gears and 2) transmission tuning based on the article above that would have a big impact on the performance #s. The handling numbers look excellent, especially for a car with all season tires.

Bimmerjay, thanks.

though in regards to your last comment, I'm not seeing it.

"It's pathetic that they call this a "sport sedan" a regular civic is quicker to 60. SHAME."

Per IL the civic needs well over 9 secs to hit 60.

"That's because you've been dining on fake painted plastic from GM for so long that you don't know what real wood and metal looks like."

No, I think the G has some of the least convincing real wood I've ever seen. In fact, its no better than the faux trim in the Regal. I wasn't even sure if the Regal's trim was fake at first because it's so covincing. Cadillacs have plenty of real wood trim so I'm not sure I get the "GM" insult thing- but if you feel it works go with it.

"Some of us here enjoy the free entertainment of pissing off 1487 (a.k.a. overbrook) because he owns a Regal and has it out to prove the superiority of all GM vehicles. Most of the other long-time commenters on here are pretty reasonable with their arguments. Enjoy your new car."

Anyone who's not a complte moron, jackass, fool, idiot, etc. would know your statement is pure BS. Again, since you devote much of your time to reading what I write you should know better. I already noted where Regal can be improved. Better wheel design, 20-30more hp, remote start, availability of HIDs on 2.4L model, more rear seat space, etc. In addition, the car lacks quiet tuning like other Buicks and isnt as quiet as my old car which had laminated glass all around. My arguments have nothing to do with the "superiority" of the Regal and I have claimed it was hands down superior to ANY car. The real issue is we have people like you who know nothing about the car besides what IL tells you who claim the car isn't even competitive with cars like TSX, CC, etc which is a flat out lie and one that has been proven as such by the sales so far.

dracy69:

Maybe if you tell the truth about the car they will accept it to save face. Good luck to you. On these threads all that matters is who says what, not what you say. If I say BMW is the greatest automaker in the world and I dream of owning a 3 series one day I will get attacked. They don't even read what I write, they just attack. IL doesn't like the car so they don't like it- even though most of them have never even driven one. Some haven't even SEEN one in real life but they speak authoritatively about the shortcomings of this car. BTW, this only happens with the GM vehicles in the LT test- you have tons of people who have ZERO interest in the car who post in every thread about the car to criticize it and remind us of how GM has struck out again. Same soup, warmed over.

jaeger:

check acceleration on cars like G25, IS250 and TSX and then get back to me.

"8 commenters downright mocked you for this ridiculous statement."

What was ridiculous about it? It was fact. Where I live golf is a non factor for people of my age. I live in Philly, not florida. Going to bars, lounges, outdoor restaurants, concerts, etc.? Popular. Golfing? Not popular. And that statement wasn't an argument, it was a statement of my observations.

"The rest of your arguments are way off tangent. The Regal Turbo's mileage is similar to a 6-cylinder C300 or a 328i but both of those cars give you much better powertrain performance and acceleration. And the Infiniti G25 that you're bashing now? It also beats the Regal's EPA numbers - 20/29."

actually per other test results the Regal's acceleration is only slightly behind cars like the C300, IS250 and 328i with automatic. The buick ties the 328i in mileage and tops the C300 by 2mpg on the highway while tying it in the city. The G25 has a slight advantage in mileage although I doubt 1mpg is a deal breaker for people spending well over $30k on a car. I'm not sure why you are arguing about facts- we already know the regal's mileage is just OK. The Juke only gets 22/30 (or something close) with a tiny turbo 4 and 180hp in spite of being relatively lightweight and tiny. There are a host of 4 cylinder powered cars that get mediocre mileage. In fact, the Accord V6 tops many four cylinder cars in mileage including the TSX.

"You're right, it shouldn't be peeling after 2k miles but I believe what I see. It looks like peeling paint to me. What do you see? You can zoom in on the picture to get a better look at the area in question to overcome your GM blinders."

did anyone from IL say it was peeling? Did the other interior pics show peeling? No and no. When you have any actual proof that the paint was coming off (like a comment from the IL staff) let me know.

"Completely agree. (OMG, did I just typed that!?) Hard plastic does not equal cheap quality. Yet you constantly beat up on other manufacturers for using hard plastic."

Wake the hell up man- I dont really care about hard plastic. I am using the standards used by IL and other car mags. THEY are the ones who told us that hard plastics are a bad thing- well as long as they are in American cars. I have LONG said that the pliability of plastics has NO bearing on build quality or durability. Don't get mad at me for using the lessons I've learned from years of reading IL.

"2. Why not offer the 3.6 DI as an option. The camaro V6 weighs slightly more than the Regal, yet gets a better EPA rating (19/30 vs. 18/28) and is much more powerful."

vtirocz: someone noted earlier that including the 3.6DI would bring the Regal too close to the Cadillac CTS. I would tend to agree with this statement; however, that also begs the question as to WHY Buick exists when GM has Cadillac. I think if the Regal was going to get a V6, it would still have to have less power then the CTS to ensure differentiation between the two products. I like the Regal, but I don't understand how it fits into the grand scheme of things. If Cadillac is the luxury brand, whats the point of a pseudo luxury brand that isn't targeted at the older demographic?

"What was ridiculous about it? It was fact. Where I live golf is a non factor for people of my age. I live in Philly, not florida. Going to bars, lounges, outdoor restaurants, concerts, etc.? Popular. Golfing? Not popular. And that statement wasn't an argument, it was a statement of my observations."

In the above statement, you claim it is both a fact and your observation. But your observations do not equal fact.

You were also originally talking about young people and now you say "people your age". I don't claim to know your age, but you've hinted before that you're not in the 15-30 range that I would consider "young".

dracy69: great review of your personal experiences in choosing and living with the Regal. Your reasons make sense, and I tend to agree with you on them. Its a vehicle I could see myself buying, were I in the market for something in that price range. It would take a lot to tempt me away from the CC, but stranger things have happened. You will have to let us know how the tan interior holds up. I'm a fan of the all black interior myself, just like the one IL has. In my experience tan interiors always end up looking worse then their all black counter parts.

Doug,
I'd typically choose black but a white car with a black interior just isn't right.and the tan looks awesome compared to the black (have you seen them in person?) Also, my tahoe's tan interior holds up well. I thought about it and I shouldn't have a problem. I'm neat leather is easy to clean and I'll be the only occupant most of the time and the seats will be folded down most of the time for my school supplies.

I'm also avoiding a black exterior because they are next to impossibleto keep clean

Wow..just wow
I have a 2010 Equinox with the same engine with slightly larger displacement (2.4 vs 2.0) sans the turbo, and even though it weighs about 100lbs more and is taller/less aerodynamic....it can do 8.6 in the 0-60mph. Something is wrong if GM's "domestic BMW" can barely beat a crossover with basically the same engine even though it has a turbo and more HP. I think Gm will eventually get this car right....but I would avoid the 2011 models.

"In the above statement, you claim it is both a fact and your observation. But your observations do not equal fact.

You were also originally talking about young people and now you say "people your age". I don't claim to know your age, but you've hinted before that you're not in the 15-30 range that I would consider "young". "

I'm very much in the 30 range. And no one I know that is close to my age devotes any real time to golf or invests in gold equipment. Its amazing that so many have wasted so much time arguing a mundane point that has no relevance to the Regal or anything else. My original statment (which no one commented on) was that the Regal's trunk is no worse than the competition with regards to golf capacity so I didnt see how it was being singled out as "too small". Anyone who watches TV can tell you what audience is targeted in ads shown during Golf matches. They can also tell you that programs geared an Gen Y folks don't really run ads for Golf products. Any visit to golf course will show you which generation has more affinity for golf. So in fact everything I've seen, read, watched or heard in relation to Golf has shown me that people 30 and under are not the primary players of the game. In fact, before this recent attack session I never thought any reasonable person would claim Golf is a young man's game or that golfing is one of the top pasttimes for people 35 and under. Must me why Scion and Mazda sponsor a lot of tournaments.

"No, I think the G has some of the least convincing real wood I've ever seen. In fact, its no better than the faux trim in the Regal. I wasn't even sure if the Regal's trim was fake at first because it's so covincing. Cadillacs have plenty of real wood trim so I'm not sure I get the "GM" insult thing- but if you feel it works go with it. "

First you say you "think" then you say it's "fact". Which is it? If it's a "fact" that it's no better than the faux stuff in the Regal, do you have some actual facts (i.e. data) to back that up? By your own admission, you can't even tell what's real and what's fake, yet you want to claim that your opinions are "fact". LMAO. And yes, I know Cadillacs use real wood, I've seen it. But I could also tell right away that the Regal's were plwood and not even close to be as convincing as the real one's in the Cadillac STS that I sat in (olive wood IIRC) or the G's. Unlike you, I can tell the real stuff from the fake stuff.

"did anyone from IL say it was peeling? Did the other interior pics show peeling? No and no. When you have any actual proof that the paint was coming off (like a comment from the IL staff) let me know."

The picture is proof enough. And there was only one picture in that post of the dash buttons. You still haven't answer my question, what do you see then? What's that bare plastic spot?

"though in regards to your last comment, I'm not seeing it."

Well I said some, not all. :)

"Anyone who's not a complte moron, jackass, fool, idiot, etc. would know your statement is pure BS."

Surprise surprise, only because you don't like it.

"What was ridiculous about it? It was fact."

How about for starters that it wasn't a fact yet you made a statement as if it were fact.

"Where I live golf is a non factor for people of my age. I live in Philly, not florida. Going to bars, lounges, outdoor restaurants, concerts, etc.? Popular. Golfing? Not popular. And that statement wasn't an argument, it was a statement of my observations."

And "where you live" is not a statistically significant sample size to throw in the entire country or an entire age group. You didn't state any of those other things either, and if you toned down your massive arrogance for second you might realize that not everyone is just like you.

"Young people now are facebooking and playing on smart phones- they aren't golfing."

That was your statement. If this was merely an observation you were sharing, maybe you should have said so to avoid the ridicule. You seem to think that your observations are enough to make broad-based factual statements.

"actually per other test results the Regal's acceleration is only slightly behind cars like the C300, IS250 and 328i with automatic. The buick ties the 328i in mileage and tops the C300 by 2mpg on the highway while tying it in the city."

"Other tests" should have essentially the same margin of difference whether higher or lower, so arguing what "other tests" get compared to IL's numbers is a moot point. Being an engineer as you claim you are you should certainly understand how introducing dissimilar variables invalidates a comparison. In C/D testing, the 328i A/T is still over a second faster to 60 than the Regal Turbo while returning the same 18/28 estimates.

@noobnox - GM may well eventually "get this car right" - but two questions: 1) at what price, and 2) will anyone still care? GM has all but cemented the credentials of the Regal as an overweight, underpowered underperforming slug - so by the time they get around to equipping it with enough motor to adequately haul its poundage around, will (comparatively) youthful sports sedan shoppers even be willing to give it another try, or will they figure that Buick is once again crying wolf?

And what would such a vehicle cost? A loaded up Regal Turbo already dips its pudgy toes into Infiniti G37 territory. Which sports sedan shopper in their right might (by definition, someone otehr than 1487) would rather have this grandpamobile over a G?

"My original statment (which no one commented on) was that the Regal's trunk is no worse than the competition with regards to golf capacity so I didnt see how it was being singled out as "too small"."

Again you make baseless assumptions. The post was talking about how easy it was to accommodate the golf bags, not the total trunk volume. How the total volume compares to the competition is almost completely irrelevant in this situation. The size and shape of the opening and the width and configuration of the volume itself is what would make a relevant comparison for fitting oddly-shaped cargo like golf bags. Generally speaking, this is done simply by testing it out as the author of the post did. You didn't provide any merit to your argument that those other cars are any worse.

Should never have stripped the turbo-V6 from the Euro market! Bad move, GM!

This car gets out-muscled by the new Optima Turbo all day... how is it that GM is letting their powertrain engineering (supposedly the ONLY thing that GM has ever done right) get destroyed by a company that was churning out Far East Yugos until 3 years ago?

New Optima SX/EX-T beats this car by fifty horsepower and 10 ft/lbs (and that's on 87-octane). To boot, it gets 34 mpg freeway and does the 0-60 sprint over a full second faster. And you get to pocket a cool $5,000.00 + tax in savings to boot, at LEAST. EX model only MSRP's at $25,000.

What exactly is Buick doing with this one? This thing does a 0-60 sprint barely faster than my N/A 2002 LeSabre... with 104000 on the clock...

Retarded. I only hope some PCM finagling exposes some mammoth GM tuning cockup and we can have the car they advertised to us.

I can't belive this thread is still alive and still entertaining.

@jaeger1,

You make a valid point about window of opportunity. When a new model is released (see: Solstice/Sky, Contour/Mystique), it's usually relatively easy to generate interest and sales. Many consumers flock to the newest/latest/greatest that is better than the older competition in X, Y and Z. The danger of an underwhelming introduction is you may turn off those initial buyers from being repeat buyers and cause the others to wait on the fence or eventually choose something else, squandering brand equity. The big momentum you had initially drops off a cliff when people realize the car has significant flaws (see: Solstice/Sky). GM has seen this many times in the past by over-promising and under-delivering.

The Regal isn't poorly engineered but it has suffered some setbacks, like the underpowered/inefficient powertrains (compared to the competition), poor conversion to US nav software and the front seats' support. We'll find out in a year or so how much these things matter to average consumers, and if GM fixes them quickly enough to maintain the equity and sales momentum.

The 2012 Regal GS and eAssist Hybrid (37mpg hwy for the LaCrosse) will come out later this year (will undoubly spur sales)

the 2012 MY gets touchscreen navigation, remote start, some other subtle changes, the possible addition of a CX Model (priced lower, less features) though GM thinks the Verano may fill that slot.

There are also rumors that when the Verano gets this powerplant (the 2.0T) the Regal will receive more power to reduce overlap, and to answer the cries of just about everybody.

http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/f70/whats-new-2012-buick-regal-100874/
http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/f74/video-all-2012-buick-regals-get-standard-touchscreen-interface-100276/

FYI

the 2.0t in the Regal, designated LHA, is the same engine from the Saab 9-3 Turbo. The LHA is an LNF (see Cobalt/HHR SS and Solstice/Sky) that recieved a different fuel system to handle E85 and relaxed timing/weaker turbo to detune it from 260BHP to 220BHP. Also FYI the LNF had a factory remap from GM (covered under warranty) to boost that engine from 260BHP to 300BHP. The LHA will easily pull 30-40 more HP with a simple PCM flash. Companies offer them already for the 9-3, the numbers on the ECU's are the same meaning the programming is the same meaning with about 300 dollars I can make 30-40 more HP, probably 15-20 more ft lbs of torque, and even pull about 10% (optimistic) better fuel economy. I'd be happy after that personally, you could go crazy and start pulling parts from LNF motors but you can also kiss your warranty goodbye.

I'm sure putting HiPer struts from a Regal GS on a CXL Turbo would be fairly straightfoward, if I can get programming to defeat the traction control then the idea of any TSX running with my Regal would be laughable. And mind you this is only after plugging a programmer into the OBDII port (fast and straight forward) and changing struts (not as fast but not too bad). Granted I have the background for this stuff, but my experience keeps me a GM fan. I can use Regal GS parts and Saab 9-3 programming on my CXL Turbo. Try swapping ECU's between a 2000 and 2001 Cherokee Classic and see what happens.

That's why I'm (and my family) a die hard GM fan.

jaeger1,

I'd like to simply point out that you just used three words to drag out one trait.

the Regal falls short in 0-60 times

It is on par with the best in terms of braking (roughly 120 ft from 60 depending on who is testing the car) it has been praised for its chassis and pulls competitive skidpad numbers.

just 0-60

its the most fixable of problems and most basic consumers wont notice because the car isn't slow from rolling starts.

I doubt momentum will stop before the new models hit this year, the car is running on almost no TV advertising compared to most other GM cars and GM as a whole has been class by class working their way to the top (see Cruze, Equinox, LaCrosse, CTS, Silverado, Camaro). GM has the formula right for those cars and I doubt they will screw up the Regal like old GM would.

Those cars I listed:
Cruze, 18k sales for February, ahead of every competitor by at least 5k units (Focus, 3, Versa, Civic, etc) except for the corolla which sold 24k (which apparently runs off the "Underpants Gnomes" business theory).

Camaro now consistently outsells Mustang

CTS has been an on going success since 2004

Silverado needs no explanation

Equinox has been selling strong and so has the LaCrosse.

Dealers are having problems keeping an inventory of Regals, not having problems selling them. What I say is backed up in sales figures.

I'm not looking to bash or be bashed here so please come back with a structured and supported argument, its the least I can ask for.

The Regal falls short in 0-60 and every place else acceleration is called for - like midrange passing. For a sports sedan, it's slow. For a Family sedan, it's slow. When an Accord will blow your doors off, your "premium German-engineered sports sedan" is slow. I agree that it won't likely matter to Regal buyers, because they sure as heck won't be sports sedan shoppers, but more likely the traditional Buick buyer looking for something comfy and luxy. It delivers there.

@bimmerjay - re. squandering brand equity / momentum - you are exactly correct. When entering a market segment where you have ZERO presence, you don't wade in slowly, making nary a ripple. You make an attention-grabbing canonball splash, and you do that by leading with your BEST model FIRST.

Though do I have this right - even the "this is the REAL Regal sports sedan" - the GS - will STILL make less power than the Sonata / Optima turbos and ALSO weigh considerably more? Those hoping this one will be IT should give that some consideration.

jaeger, there are no confirmed HP numbers for the GS. Rumors point to possibly 255HP but rumors are also saying the 2012 CXL Turbo will recieve that output when the Verano gets the 220HP 2.0T and the GS will then have to make more than 255 (280-300?)

Like I said it's all rumor so no one really knows for sure. We know the Verano is getting the 2.0 so that would seriously imply GM will have to bump up the Regal's power to reduce product overlap.

Also can you show me a review/stat for mid range passing? This post says after launch the power builds progressively to red line and "made up time shifting 500 rpm before redline". not a lot to go on but that and experience driving the car points to good mid range power and the car losing time on its launches. If the comptetition is beating up on it from highway speeds or from 30-40mph roll offs then I'll give you that one. I just can't find anywhere that even mentions any 40-70 time, everyone just says "good passing power" and "good/great mid range like most turbo motors" and things like that.

1487 said:

"I have no interest in baiting any IL editors. If I see something that doesn't make sense, I will point it out. I don't expect them to respond because in most cases there is nothing credible that can be said. Hopefully in the long run there will be changes (this guy Sadlier was the worst, but he left)"

LOL!!

I have not had the Honor of 1487s friendship for long so I had to ask Google about this guy he mentions......I searched for Sadlier 1487 and I got this blog post,

http://blogs.insideline.com/roadtests/2008/08/2007-saturn-aura-xr-the-sunroof-situation.html

Epic coments section and Our man 1487 completely blows his fuze because Sadlier is making fun of him, its the best thing Ive read on the internet this year. No wonder the bad memories! 1487 really truly says this,

"Contrary to the straw man arguments offered by my overzealous critics"

And Sadlier goes to town on him LOL!! Check it out, 1487 fans will love it!!!

-Rod

@dracy69 - Yep - I agree, we don't yet know what the GS will offer - but haven't even herd so much as a rumour of anything more than 255hp - which would still put it 20hp shourt of Optima ?Sonata and a couple hundred extra pounds of pork is all but given.

rod - that was a great read! Sadlier absolutely tore 1487 a new one. I wish more IL editors would stand up to this blowhard.