Full Test: 2010 Buick LaCrosse CXS 3.6

Hm, fake exhaust tips again. I wonder if these will end up with the same fate in a decade or two as blacked out chrome or tailfins.

This is the first GM interior layout/design I've been impressed with in a long time. There are still too many buttons in the centre stack (I'm lookin at you, HVAC BUTTONS) but overall it looks quite nice.

The low profile windows seem really atrocious to me, but that seems to be where design is going so perhaps its not a legit complaint. The fake hood vent things are tacky, and the rear quarter view is very Lexusy. That being said, I'm sort of neutral on the overall look of the car and that probably a good thing as I tend to dislike more often then like.

I'm looking forward to checking one out in person.

"...fake exhaust tips again."

Yeah. Funny all all of the manufacturers get hot on the same stuff at the same time. Kind of like round look tail lamps.

"That being said, I'm sort of neutral on the overall look of the car and that probably a good thing as I tend to dislike more often then like. "

Understatement of the year. Can't think of anything larger than a compact that you have kind words for. The fact that you are lukewarm is a good sign for the Lacrosse.

"Understatement of the year. Can't think of anything larger than a compact that you have kind words for. "

That'd be because you don't read, you just pick fights :)

for the record: CTS, Malibu, Fusion, C300, Soul, Sonata, Passat, CC, Challenger, Camara (front end, anyways), Mustang, pretty much the whole Audi lineup....etc, etc, the list goes on.

*** Camaro, lol.

Looks good but why offer the 3.0 V-6 when the 3.6 V6 does better performance and economy. I think they will offer a 2.4 D.I 4 cyl too.

"Looks good but why offer the 3.0 V-6 when the 3.6 V6 does better performance and economy. I think they will offer a 2.4 D.I 4 cyl too."

So they can cripple the base version to make people pay more for an "upgrade" that should be standard.

"So they can cripple the base version to make people pay more for an "upgrade" that should be standard."

Works for the Germans.

"for the record: CTS, Malibu, Fusion, C300, Soul, Sonata, Passat, CC, Challenger, Camara (front end, anyways), Mustang, pretty much the whole Audi lineup....etc, etc, the list goes on. "

Thanks.

"So they can cripple the base version to make people pay more for an "upgrade" that should be standard."

If we followed your logic, why should Honda, Toyota, BMW, (insert your favorite mass-market munfacturer here) offer different levels of engines?

Reread the track test of the 3.0L CXL and also the CXS review. Or better yet, I'll let Pund's own words from the CXS review speak for itself:

"Come on, guys, you've got it all wrong. A 2-ton Buick powered by a 255-horsepower 3.0-liter V6 that gets to 60 mph in 8.4 seconds (8.1 seconds with 1 foot of rollout like at a drag strip) is not a car that General Motors needs to make apologies for."

This is a BUICK, not a BMW. Different customers. Try to keep an open mind, won't you?

You've called 1487 a homer; don't be a hater in return ;-)

I think upper level engines are always profit generators for automakers. Thats the way it goes. Shouldn't a $44k 5 series have more than 255hp standard? Shouldn't a $35k CTS have more than 263hp standard? probably so.

I like it and I hope it does well. I don't think the extra $3k for the better engine and all the other goodies is too much either.

All the domestic fan boys can now talk about how this new Buick is great and...

Good for Buick.

I still want a compact RWD sports sedan.

"If we followed your logic, why should Honda, Toyota, BMW, (insert your favorite mass-market munfacturer here) offer different levels of engines?"

In the case of Honda/Toyota, the give and take works out a little differently. Traditionally, it's been give some horsepower, take some MPG and cash. With the LaCrosse, the mileage difference between the CXL and CXS is opposite tradition.

@7driver
"In the case of Honda/Toyota, the give and take works out a little differently. Traditionally, it's been give some horsepower, take some MPG and cash. With the LaCrosse, the mileage difference between the CXL and CXS is opposite tradition."

You're right on that. This was probably the same intent on the Lacrosse (like Pund, I hate the capital C); didn't work out that way. Wouldn;t be surprised to see this corrected.

@inlinesix
Again, this is a BUICK. Give it a rest.

inlinesix - you could not possibly be further from a company that would make a compact RWD sedan than Buick. Except maybe Land Rover. Or GMC. Did you see the Caddy conference about the new 3-series fighter?

Seems the review should have mentioned the MKZ more. Then again, considering how the Buick is aiming for a different crowd...

"Works for the Germans. "

The base 328i gets 0-60 in 5.9 seconds. That's not crippled at all. It's sufficient, and if you upgrade to the N54 you get great.

I don't have any problem with offering engine options obviously, only options that stink. The CXL stickers for $32K dollars. I'm not saying it has to be sporty or fast, but that's a lot of money for a car with a gimpy engine. Where is the $3k in extra costs between the 2 engines anyway? Cast one at 3.0, cast another at 3.6. The truth is they should have gone with the 3.6 standard.

@inlinesix

Judging by your screenname, we can tell where your preferences are. fuhteng is exactly right, why would you expect a small, sporty, RWD sedan from Buick? Have you EVER seen Buick make a car like that?

Even their sportiest cars like the Riviera and the GNX were not compact or completely outright sporty, though they were RWD.

Caddillac does the sporty thing these days at GM, what with the CTS and the new 3-series competitor coming. Buick is a different crowd. Not everyone is chasing the same idea of what a car should be. That's why there are so many different kinds with different driving attitudes.

There are plenty of cars from other brands that do what you want (BMW 3, Mercedes C, Infiniti G, Caddillac CTS, Lexus IS). Go look at those. Just because THIS car isn't what YOU prefer doesn't mean it's a bad car, it means this is NOT the car for you.

Sounds like a pretty nice car.

I don't think Lexus needs to be worried though.

"Please do not compare the CXS to the Accord just because they are both large cars"

1487, I wasn't going to but I have to compare one thing. Well maybe Ill use the Accord AND its richer cousin the TL as examples. You have stated many times that both the Accord and TL have a plethora of buttons on their center stacks (which they do) yet with the LaCrosse, which also has numerous buttons, you've yet to mention it.

The LaCrosse seems like an excellent car given its competition (Avalon/ES350/TL/MKZ/Passat3.6/Maxima) and demographic targets. Isn't there going to be an EcoTec 4cyl option also?

I'm not so sure this should be compared to the ES. It sounds like a fairly large car. I'd say it is probably more like an MKS. This car almost seems like a segment bender - FWD and feature content somewhat similar to the ES, size more comparable to the LS or GS. Engines comparable to the ES or MKZ.

With the mention of the 3.0L's poorer fuel economy, I will now grant Edmunds the point made about it being a weaksauce engine. I'm fine with a weaker engine in a car like this since performance isn't the goal, but if it also gets poorer fuel economy, then what the heck is the point?

I find the small trunk opening thing interesting. The Cobalt coupe and Camaro have very small trunk openings, but I chalked that up to a coupe design. A large sedan should have a large trunk opening. I hope GM finds a way to fix that without ruining they're good streak on design.

Back in the '80s, I was somewhat of a Buick guy, since I liked their direction of sophisticated performance for the buyer who still wanted a more luxurious car. And I loved their turbo Regals, one of which I have.

So, it's nice to see that this car is an improvement over most recent Buicks. But could it *be* any heavier? 4100 pounds for a mid-size front drive car is too much. In this application, FWD offers no efficiency advantages to me over RWD, which does have handling and serviceability advantages.

cwc1 - isn't FWD safer? Especially for grandma sitting on the phone book driving to Wal-Mart in the snow?

Yes, it weighs a ton (actually over 2!) so it is too heavy, but find me a car outside of a Lotus that isn't.

Sure it could *be* heavier, give it AWD ;)

I think FWD being "safer" is a myth drilled into people by marketers wanting to convert and sell people on the compromise the manufacturer made.

FWD does have advantages. All things being equal (which they're usually not), FWD is lighter than RWD and transmits more of the engine's power to the drive wheels because there are fewer mechanical losses because the path is more direct. And for the supposed average driver, it tends to understeer, which prevents a non-involved driver from getting into trouble.

But RWD was the norm long before FWD ever became widely used during the 1980s. RWD has many advantages too beyond better handling, and was not a problem for most drivers when it was the dominant architecture.

I don't know why this car is being obsessed over. It just goes to show how badly Buick is percieved. The Lacrosse is a nice car. It should simply be seen as a quality redesign, not a groundbreaking new vehicle for a suffering brand.

And why shouldn't this car be compared to a Honda Accord. The two will clearly be cross-shopped. The Accord is probably also cross shopped with the Lexus ES.

I've never understood why understeer is supposedly so much better than oversteer. Either way, you're not going where you intend to. I remember the first time I got into a significant oversteer situation. I came off a freeway offramp onto a curving surface street in the rain in my 1970 Olds Cutlass. The back end started coming around, and I just worked the steering and pedals and corrected nearly immediately. I hadn't gone to high performance driving school. I didn't have years of experience. I just got my license and was driving a yacht with no electronic nannies, and correcting just wasn't a big deal. Maybe its just me...

Another advantage to FWD that you didn't mention is the space-savings. Keeping the entire engine and drivetrain in front of the firewall does nice things for the packaging of the passenger compartment.

"I don't have any problem with offering engine options obviously, only options that stink. The CXL stickers for $32K dollars. I'm not saying it has to be sporty or fast, but that's a lot of money for a car with a gimpy engine. Where is the $3k in extra costs between the 2 engines anyway? Cast one at 3.0, cast another at 3.6. The truth is they should have gone with the 3.6 standard. "

The engine is not the only difference between the two models. Do a little research.

"... the ES 350, which reminds us of a sweet potato."

Couldn't have said it better myself.

"1487, I wasn't going to but I have to compare one thing. Well maybe Ill use the Accord AND its richer cousin the TL as examples. You have stated many times that both the Accord and TL have a plethora of buttons on their center stacks (which they do) yet with the LaCrosse, which also has numerous buttons, you've yet to mention it."

Um no. I don't care about the Accord's number of buttons. I dont like the DESIGN of the center stack. Honda decided to install large AARP sized buttons with huge fonts. The buttons are spread out and take up a huge amount of real estate. Not so on the LAcrosse. I find the Lacrosse dash to be avant garde and stylish. The Accord's dash and gauges look about 10 years of of date. Especially without the nav screen.