IL Track Tested: 2012 Buick Regal GS

As much as I wanted to like, and perhaps even buy this car (3.5K GM Card points burning a hole in my pocket) I have to say I find this disappointing. This car seems way under-engined or something for it's weight. It has near Audi A4 performance for an Audi price (minus AWD). It's a good looking car with apparently a good chassis, why couldn't they get the total package right ?

I've driven a Regal GS. Engine/clutch operation/shifter operation seem out of whack. The engine pulls willingly in the midrange but I prefer the normal old DOCH V6. That engine, clutch, and shifter combo blows the Regal's out of the water. Not a bad engine, though, and it growls nicely.

The ride and handling feel very premium and the car responds with the eagerness of a smaller car. In my experience it is one of the best handling cars ever from GM.

* DOHC V6 in my Mazda6

She looks wicked fun in the slalom! Man, 0.92G for a "Buick" isnt bad either ;)

I love the looks of this car, and the whole package is a huge step in the right direction for Buick. However, they need to work on that powertrain. While the numbers are OK with TC off, the whole thing sounds like it's not set-up ideally.

I drove the Turbo Regal at a recent GM event and found the interior lacking, with a headliner that was already falling down right behind the sunroof.

.92 G? In a Buick? Me gusta!

Great chassis, horrible engine. I was looking back at the Accord HFP test (where the results were the opposite). That car was 10% lighter, made the same power (on paper) and almost 40 lbs-ft less torque, and had far less sticky all-season tires. Yet it ran the quarter over a second and 6 mph faster. 300 lbs does not explain that. Half second? Maybe, but not over a full second slower.

GM needs to figure out what's going on with the powertrain on the Regal. This same basic engine was an absolute monster in the Cobalt SS. Yes, the Cobalt was 600 lbs lighter, but it also made less power and torque. If they can get that dialed, this car would be a real threat to the established order.

Nice braking and skid, but those acceleration numbers are painful.

@t10- The long term A4 Avant, which weighs a few hundred lb's more than the Buick ran 0-60 in 6.3 sec and quarter mile in 14.8. It also has 60 less horsepower and less torque. I would call that a decent amount quicker.

AWD helps the Audi a bit, but where the hell is all of the power going in the Buick? Something's just not right.

I know that you can get a GS for less than $38k, but in the mid $30k range, I just can't see how anyone would logically pick the Buick.

What a shame. 38K and slower than a Camry. I also have GM card money just waiting for the proper car to buy.... I have been waiting for many years.

8.1 seconds 0-60 with TC on? What were they thinking? I will have to check the specs on the CXL Turbo to see if the GS has a better performance profile to justify the 5K higher price.

GM has done a good job, of late, with the new compact cars (well, I guess I mean the Cruze) and the top of the line Cadillac CTS versions. No so much in the middle, though. And now there is only one GM middle brand-- like it or leave it. For now, I will leave it.

pshh i'd take a lightly used 07-08 Acura TL Type S over this poser >.>

Dang it, if they would have just put the Camaro's base engine in this thing it would be a true segment-leader. As it is, I can't see spending $38k on this even if it is the best looking car in its class.

Also, am I the only one that wishes this interior was in the Camaro?

Is it just me or did the car bog down on pretty much every launch? No offense to IL, but I bet someone will find a better way to launch this car... maybe by slipping the clutch a little more. Just remember, numbers aren't everything and I bet this car has most of its' guts up top (and that's coming from a Ford guy)

@ hda6spmt,

That's a no brainer... I knew the Regal GS reminds me of some car but couldn't quiet get it until you mentioned the 07-08 TL-S.

FWD, good handling, around 280 hp and over $35k... Acura did that and done that 5 years ago with the TL-S plus the acceleration.

Buick, welcome to the year 2006.

so this car is only 17 lbs heavier than the AWD, automatic A4 yet somehow accelerates in about the same time. what is GM doing to their vehicles to make them so slow?? you guys should try testing an automatic to see if it is any better...it has got to be the transmission. this car has almost 300 lb-ft of torque and 270 hp for crying out loud! GM needs to stop tuning its transmission for fuel economy and tune them to work well with the engine...that is how they will truly get good performance and real world fuel economy numbers from their cars.

Wow, this thing is slooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooow baby!

@ louiswei

Yeah, but I don't remember a single TL Type-S that could do .92g on the skidpad. Feel free to provide test numbers saying otherwise, cause I couldn't find any.

Also, I agree with church that somethings up with the powertrain and GM needs to figure out what.

Firstly, I must ask: Why weren't TC runs made in GS mode??? Seems like a huge oversight to me. Maybe the difference wouldn't be that much. But, maybe it would....

I really want to like this car, in fact I do. I think it looks great (except the wheels need a different finish) and the handling and braking numbers are impressive given its size/weight plus the fact that it's wrong wheel drive.

Chris comments about the TC lack of cooperation in the acceleration segment. Its clear to me that the electronics/TC are to blame for the lackluster figures; it loses everything in the launch. There is certainly enough power to move the mass, the torque peak is at 2400 which is low enough. This thing simply does not want to leave the line with any kind of authority; likely to 1) protect the drivetrain and 2) prevent complaints about powerful FWD behaviour i.e. torque steer. People ALWAYS complain about it.

Given some minor tweeks, I think this car could shrug off that Accord HFP at the strip; low 14s conservatively. Its already .08g better on the skidpad, 5.3mph faster through the slalom and 16 ft shorter braking from 60. That's significantly better. The Buick also weighs 316 lbs more.

The 'weirdest' thing to me is that this is a Buick. All things change...some things are an acquired taste.

What a gutless wonder. Handles nice though.

@spgreyhound

I don't think it's just the launch. Look at the interval between 30 and 75 mph.

The Accord does it in 5.9 sec.
The Regal takes 7.7 sec.

For another turbo 2.0 liter FWD car, consider the Sonata turbo which did that interval in 6.5 seconds (with an automatic as well).

Neither car shoud be traction limited after 30 mph. The Regal should be fully spooled up by that point as well. Unless the GM ECU is pulling out some major power on shifts (like the Hyundai Genesis Coupe used to), I just can't reconcile the power to weight numbers and these acceleration numbers. The Regal is heavy, but it should have the sauce to pull the weight according to the specs.

That's wierd that it felt like it went out of boost on each upshift. The 1-2 shift should put the engine right in the meat of the pwrband... peak pwr is at 5300rpm and peak torque starts at 2400 and they clearly stated pwr really comes on after 3250.. I can't imagine the 1-2 shift would put it below 3250 or even 3900.

and then they have that strange electronic rpm drop before launch. Sound to me like some computer stuff might be going on here... perhaps that 100k mile pwrtrain warranty coming into play. Perhaps it drops some boost during shifts?

Church, I thought GM used SAE specs for their engine output? Could they be wrong?

$38,350 is a lot of money for a Buick and this one isn't quiet either. Why gave it a Buick if it behaves likes a Chevy?

270hp seems overrated given straight line performance, but the handling - WOW!!! Now I want to drive one.

http://blogs.insideline.com/straightline/2010/06/il-track-tested-2010-bmw-328i-sedan.html
- If anyone ever cross shopped this an a 328i you may get the Buick for handling and the BMW for straight line performance. Since when has that been the case???

Good job Buick!!!

@t10 -
I'll buy your GM dollars at 1/2 price in a month if you are interested. I want to make sure the Germans aren't going to announce any wagons next week before ordering a V wagon.

LOL. Buick... scratch that, GM give up on life, please.

- It costs entirely too much to be that damn slow.
- Its decent looking, but still, for the price, ehhh.
- GM did a good job wasting a turbocharger, lol.
- GM, i'd be pissed if i spend good effort shifting, and that 4 Cylinder over there just left me behind.
- Its only 80 lbs lighter than the 3.7L AWD TL 6-Speed, which, ahem does 60 in 5.5 secs.
- YOU DON'T, put a bunch of "electronic control systems" on a car with a turbo and a 6-speed.
- Still a Buick, BIG, BORING, and BLAH.

But... it looks good, but id be afraid to let my Grandma drive something that can stick .92g... oh wait, my grandma wouldn't drive this. LOL

teampenske3 says: "Yeah, but I don't remember a single TL Type-S that could do .92g on the skidpad. Feel free to provide test numbers saying otherwise, cause I couldn't find any."

http://www.roadandtrack.com/var/ezflow_site/storage_RT_NEW/storage/original/application/1d6b3308ba0ee3045a09d1abd609bbf8.pdf

.91 g. . .on a less aggressive summer tire.

".91 g. . .on a less aggressive summer tire. "

Ouch!

Nah bodyblue, I'm sure the engine is rated appropriately. The 2.0 Ecotec turbo has historically been a real cracker of a powerplant. With just an exhaust and a tune on the Cobalt SS they're producing nearly 400 lbs-ft by 2500 rpm and close to 350 hp on the top end (crank). This engine appears to be spec'd very similarly, maybe with a slightly smaller turbo for quicker spoolup.

I'm of the opinion that the torque management has something to do with it. GM historically has used torque management to protect their drivelines, especially the transmission. The Cadillac CTS-Vs, for example, have axle hop prevention, driveline clunk prevention, upshift and downshift torque reduction, etc. all on top of the standard TCS settings. Even relatively simple powertrains like the old 5.3 V8s with the 4L60E automatics use substantial torque management (often called abuse mode) to protect the glass jawed 4L60Es during shifts and standing starts (if you turn off torque management on a 5.3 Vortec Silverado or Tahoe they'll smoke the tires off the line. With it on, nary a chirp).

I suspect, with the falling out of boost comments, the poor performance, etc. that GM is playing games with torque management for a variety of reasons, most of them already mentioned by others - torque steer, driveline protection for warranty reasons, etc. Real shame though.

Curious if others have driven this car. I drove the non-sporty turbo model. Underwhelming. But maybe it had a ton of roll and really could handle it?

Anyway, I'm a little shocked at the sticker. Just can't see the value for 37-38k. That's some serious dough. For comparison, the G37 Sport is a couple K more and well just offers more of everything...

Wow, what a bummer. That's some really lackluster acceleration for a near $40K high performance sedan. Any new V6 midsize will run door-to-door with it (Camry, Passat, Accord).

Damn, I was really hoping for this Buick to be a really well rounded sporty sedan and the only sporty part about it is the handling. My Daily driver ( 2010 Fusion Sport FWD w/ a 6-spd auto) will hit 60mph in 6.4 sec and the msrp was only $29,000.

This is such a letdown for 38k, then GM will find out that it doesn't sell very well and they'll take the 6-spd away and give it an automatic only saying there wasn't enough interest in the manual. They will completely miss the real issue at stake here.

Its a shame GM was so close with such a good looking car but couldn't pull off the right numbers.

However I wouldn't doubt that this car is still fun to drive on a day to day basis. It really reminds me of my own car which is an 08 Saab 9-3 2.0T. I've done a few suspension braces, sticky tires, a tune, and few other mods bringing the car to roughly 250 HP and 290 torque, and playing with the turbo around 3K RPM is loads of fun.

The main difference is I picked up my decent looking, equally fast, front wheel drive turbo GM car with 35,000 miles for $16K, not $38K.

church123 says: "Real shame though."

It is. The GS may realize its full accelerative potential with a mid-cycle update or the aftermarket, but first impressions often make or break a model generation, and I fear that at this price point, the 'subpar for its power' acceleration will do the latter even though it's evident that GM put some serious work in on chassis tuning. GM front-drivers, even performance-oriented ones, have historically relied on sheer grip. So I'm pleased to see that the engineers didn't shy away from lift-throttle oversteer and that the car functions well with it.

Bring back Pontiac please.

6.9? Youkiddinme? That's not even family sedan fast by today's standards. This is the no-excuses, enthusiast-oriented max-performance version, right? Don't roll up on a Camry...

They've had the chassis right on this car from the word go. They just seem flat out determined NOT to give it enough motor to move its porky mass.

GM never did listen to consumers, they just wanted to be better than competitors, they haven't changed

HAHAHAHAHA!!!! Acceleration,or lack of it, is truley pathetic. I'm not trying to be a "hater" or anything. I seriously wanted this car when it was thought to come out with all wheel drive. Not now though. Man that's PAINFULLY slow! At least it's got really good handling and it looks good. $38 large heh.... uuhhh.... NO, not for me. I'll wait for the new Ford Fusion to come out myself. I'm hoping they keep the all wheel drive option on it and that it'll perform better.

Interesting comments, church123. Valuable to read.

If these are torque limiters that are behind the Regal subpar performance, the issue should be less disturbing in daily midrange pulls which are far more relevant than off the line sprints.

Anyway, what really matters is that no one in their right mind should buy a rebadged Opel Insignia for the price of the far superior Audi A4 or BMW 3. No one would, in Europe. Here, the GM is apparently trying to trick potental buyers, taking advantage of these buyers not knowing how the car originates. Very unhonest behaviour, in my opinion.

Skidpad and slalom performance come mostly from unrealistic tires which destroy ride comfort. 255/35R20? Old Lamborghinis rode on them, I believe. Again, this is an option with extremely low take rate, making the results pretty unrepresentative.

Manual? In a Buick? Are they trying to score some positive press headlines? Cause the take rate will be, I don't know, 1%?

The 2 litre Ecotec turbo underdelivers, offering "on paper" horsepower. And "on paper" torque, especially when measuring standing starts. Who said the advertised torque figure is to be achieved in real life on immediate demand? Turbo lag anybody?

The whole "downsizing" idea executed by GM is poor. Wanna do it properly? Go to Audi and check out their 2.0 TFSI. All this Regal thing comes at stupid price, without V6 power, sound and smoothness and with some virtual MPG savings working on the EPA dyno only (turbo ecotecs, offered for years in Europe, were always gas guzzlers when compared with the competition).

@blueguydotcom

Right on point regarding the G37. My G37S 6MT sedan stickered just over $40k and I got it for $37 before TTL. While the Regal GS is attractive looking, has an excellent interior, and seems to handle quite well for a FWD car, if you're going to go head to head in price with cars like the G37, 328 or a certified used 335, etc. with a FWD chassis, you sure as hell better offer some compelling value.

At $38k, even if the GS was as quick as my G37 (which probably wouldn't happen even if it performed up to spec), it'd have to be a fair bit cheaper to make me give up RWD dynamics for a FWD car. Fix the driveline and price it at $35-36k loaded and I think you'll have some buyers.

It's kind of the same problem that the Acura TSX V6 has. At $38k loaded its up against some stiff competition. Yes, it has plenty of motor (0-60 under 6 seconds, 1/4 mile in the mid/low 14s), but the handling is mediocre at best and it only comes with a 5AT. Price it down at $35k and firm up the chassis and there would probably be more buyers.

Of course, the TSX V6 and the Regal GS would be a perfect shootout (both in automatic though). Motor vs. chassis - who does the compromise best? But then you'd have to ask, who is limiting themselves to that subset of cars, and why?

@church123 "But then you'd have to ask, who is limiting themselves to that subset of cars, and why?"

If you buy the GM marketing spin, the TSX and Regal GS occupy some sort of exclusive subset of 2. It's about the ONLY car they claim the GS competes against. Too bad for them consumers are not limited to those choices - particularly those shopping where the GS is priced. I can't think of any reason to choose this over a G37.

@ Empee

Thanks for that link. I forgot R&T existed, probably why I missed that one.

@ BB

It's not an "ouch" for me by any means. I was looking for proof that the TL had that good handling numbers. Someone provided it. If you meant "ouch" to Buick, I'd still say it's no ouch. .92 g is still great for this car. Shame that GM borked the powertrain bit of it. A true shame indeed.

I know edmunds has experienced drivers, but C/D got 0-60 in 6.8 second on the turbo model with a manual so I know you guys must have not have figured out the right launch for the car. Its hard to believe the lesses model is faster to 60 with less power and harder tires.

Well once again the Sonata is a far better car. And $7k cheaper for a Limited Turbo

Almost 40k for a 2wd car with those numbers isn't good.

Buick is in a weird place. That car is way overpriced @ 38k. I'd buy the loaded sonata turbo @ 32 grand before I bough the Buick.

But I do like the styling and what Buick has as a concept with the car.

And when your almost 40k, so many other cars come into play. The Audi 2.0 is faster and handles way better with 50 less hp and 40 lb ft of torque.

So many people underage the chasis and handling and just look at hp numbers. But it's the way a lot of americans buy cars.

And we don't have the 2.8L turbo V-6 w/ AWD here why?

"@t10- The long term A4 Avant, which weighs a few hundred lb's more than the Buick ran 0-60 in 6.3 sec and quarter mile in 14.8. It also has 60 less horsepower and less torque. I would call that a decent amount quicker.

the AWD helps the Audi a bit, but where the hell is all of the power going in the Buick? Something's just not right.
I know that you can get a GS for less than $38k, but in the mid $30k range, I just can't see how
anyone would logically pick the Buick. "

Audisport, The AWD should be good for a 1/2 second on launch so I'll call them a tie in acceleration and handling (or within margin of error) especially since I wouldn't plan on leaving a stop light at 5K RPM in an A4, nor have I ever launched my EVO (perhaps explaining 3+ years of bulletproof reliability). Nonetheless I agree with your conclusion, which was the point I was trying to make. For the same price Buick needs to be better than the Audi or comparative BMW.

I suspect GM's (worthy) focus on the bottom line does not leave room for another engine configuration (V6 or turbo 6) or chassis (AWD) on such a niche product. I do remember a GM engineer or marketing guy when this was a concept predicting under 6 sec 0-60 which always sounded implausible given the weight and power.

That said, since this will be a low volume car I bet they sell most of them. Let's face it, styling is pretty important (ironically probably behind a lot of Audi's success in recent years) and this Buick looks pretty good. What I was really hoping for was the Chevy version of the G8 (Chevelle), but alas, I'm afraid Cafe standards will mean the sun is setting on that possibility.

Considering the power, pretty disappointing speed
But the usual suspect, a big fat @$$, slows it down.

The car is not that big. When you see it in person, it appears larger than the compacts, but smaller than the midsized family sedan

3800lbs is too much lard. Have a salad, will ya?
BD

And for $5-6,000 less I can have a Charger R/T with a red interior that will outrun it, except perhaps in the twisties. I could live with that.

Buick, Buick. I guess this is the gentleman's hot rod. Maybe you should have called this the T-Type and saved the GS for something that could run with everything else - including Camrys.

BTW, what's the weak part in the drivetrain that's behind the suspected aggressive torque management? If this is a matter of $100 in parts, how about you give buyers the option of checking a box to pay an extra $500 (see what I did there?) for those stronger parts?

Sure the Buick Regal GS is a distant cousin, but I give it a thumbs up. It's part of the GM family and made here in America.

Hard to say on what the weak link would be. If you look at aftermarket transaxles for race cars, it is hard to find one rated for more than 350 lbs-ft of torque, and that's probably in a much lighter car with regular rebuilds.

You can build a FWD transmission to handle as much torque as you want, but I suspect that space constraints, NVH and cost issues preclude that for most cars. I really don't know for sure what the limitation is here though. Could be axles, gearsets, differential, anything.

Didn't know Regal was 190"!
Hides the size VERY well
BD

First mistake, FWD instead of AWD or RWD.
Second mistake, going for gas mileage instead of power which is what GS always represented.
Third mistake, giving it a price tag reflecting a much more substantial car.
I grew up in the back seat of Buicks. My father was an avid fan and he even gave up on them in 1998 when he switched to a Continental ( before they too cratered to the small car market cry).
GM has gotten too conservative with their family cars. Chrysler seems to understand that their is still a market for a large luxury sedan with plenty of power with the 300. That is what a Buick used to be and the only reason to own one. Maybe Lincoln and Buick should be euthanized together.

zr1man,

I may be quibbling over technicalities but it is not "made" in America. It may be "assembled" here in America, but the parts are made from all over the world, including China. No such thing as an American made car any more.

I do not get why Buick did not just bring the OPC over with a buick grill, it would have cost mothership GM less and given Buick some real street creds

Plus, It would never have sold in large numbers enough to hurt Mothership GM's CAFE numbers in new calculations.

The GS is aimed at the very people who populate this blog, but very few of the posts above have been positive. Just who is going to buy this car? Traditional Buick buyers? Of course not-- they buy the LaCrosse (or, gulp, the Lucerne).

I agree, with someone above, that if the GS doesn't sell, the 6 speed manual will go away even if the GS itself still hangs around for a few more embarassing years. After all, it IS the GM way, isn't it?

No one has mentioned the Subaru Legacy GT, which is just over 30K and is much, much faster than the GS and has AWD. If Subaru hadn't gone and restricted the GT to a black leather interior only, I probably would have one-- oh, except for the fact that C&D broke two half-shafts during testing.

30K is my upper limit, and at that price the car better have AWD (Northeast winter).

Thank goodness there are plenty of reasonably priced compact cars out there that are fun to drive. I could buy a nice Focus SE with Sport Package and be able to keep my Outback for winter driving.

Too slow to be a competitor.

This car looks great, has a deicent chassie, and should be quick. It just isnt though. I could get a loaded Fusion Sport and have just as many features and just as much sporting charater for less.

You know I really thought I'd like this car, and being a GM salesman, I really had high hopes for this thing. I have to say though, the straightline numbers are definitely disappointing. I refuse to accept that this car's poor numbers aren't at least partially attributed to the driver and test conditions. I've seen published times for the regular Regal 2.0T not much worse than these.

Having said that, there is no doubt some hardcore torque management nannying going on here. Their performance cars a re notorious for it. The GTO's, the CTS-V's, and like church said, even the trucks, had torque reduction tuning to preserve the driveline. As is the case in most of GM's applications of it, though, it's a problem easily solved by the aftermarket. Which will undoubtedly at least provide tuning software and bolt-on support for it.

I really think it's hard to judge this car by this test alone. I think it's safe to say it didn't show it's full stock potential, and there is certainly a lot left on the table w/ the factory tuning. And it did turn in some impresive cornering numbers, and the tester speaks highly of the car's braking capability and handling. So there's that.

My greatest complaint is the car's weight. It shouldn't have this heavy. They could have kept the weight to ~3,500lbs. And to a lesser extent, the price. I don't think it's too overpriced, maybe just by $2,000. I just see this car being a hard sell to the average customer. The odd duck that this car appeals to, will most likely guage this car by 'competitors' w/ better peformance w/ a cheaper price. Even though they may not really be a true competitor. As much as I hate to say it, I envision this car being a sales dud.

To the complints about this car's lack of TT V6 and AWD, that's been beat to death. It would have been enourmously expensive. Think close to $50K. And it would have been heavier.

To those saying the Sonata Turbo is better, please. I used to sell them, and while they're good cars, they're lacking in several departments compared to this car. Smaller wheels, much less agressive suspension/brake setup, no manual option, fewer features, etc. And it's not any faster. The only thing it really has on the Buick is price. And I can assure you, the Regal feels like a much more substantial, expensive car.

This thing at least beats the crap out of the TSX, though.

idk what TSX you're talking about, but i'd still take the mid 7-second run, those can pull, for about 8k less.

oh yeah, and keep in mind guys, this is a lighter, "supposedly quicker 6-speed", all hope is lost for the heavier automatic. who knows what it can do, ahem, can we say 4 Cylinder Camry, LMAO.

why even come out with this? the idea was great, the execution was horrible. Should have been a Pontiac. The Regals that are on the lot, nobody wants, so... where does that leave things. Had a salesman at Buick tell me, "you'll buy it if you don't drive it first." Made my day.

This car is no faster than my A4 with a massive 211 hp and an AT. It is also no lighter, and lacks AWD and the AT. I have a feeling that the car is limiting the torque at the low end of the powerband to reduce torque steer, which is contributing to the poor launches. This car simply has too much torque for FWD.

This has to be the BIGGEST automotive dissappointment in a long time. I just hate reading new articles about this car, regardless of magazine or blog, because every new article finds a new way for this car to dissappoint me. Seriously, why did Buick even bother??? I mean come on... 6.6 sec 0-60.... WITH A MANUAL?!?! I hope Ford does'nt pull this crap with the next Fusion because that's what I'm interested in now. Good job GM:/

Well everything has already been said, but I will say it again. There is obviously something being lost in translation with the power train here. Over active torque management, overly tall gearing for gas mileage or something. GM seems to have got everything else right but the power application. I was just at a dealer lot yesterday to see if they had any of these, they didn't. I'll still go back to actually check out the car when it arrives though.

Tonkatoytruck,
You may be right. Probably no getting away from it. But that's' a real pity.

i'm sure other magazines and people will be able to get faster straight-line results, as IL consistently appears to be a tad slower. also appears my 2011 Sonata SE 2.0T will take one in a straight line. when it gets twisty, seems to be another story. i love the Regal GS, used to have a modded 2001 Regal GS, hence the screen name. love the looks, the interior, everything, but was a little out of my price range. but overall i'm happy with the Hyundai =)

and i'd agree. w/o so much torque management, the GS will be faster. the Sonata Turbo has the same problem. easily solved with the aftermarket.

the percentage take rate of a manual high powered front drive sedan made by "HONDA" was pretty low

what makes you think a high powered front drive "BUICK" will succeed

I mean come on, it'll take decades to shed off the old buick stereotype

Wow. $38K for a FWD sled that is barely .5 seconds quicker in the quarter than my 1995 Conforti-chipped Club Sport. At that price point I'm looking at a CPO G37 or 335 Sport.
Too slow for hardcore enthusiasts and too expensive for Elmer and Myrtle. Who is going to buy it?

And we don't have the 2.8L turbo V-6 w/ AWD here why?

Because of the Lucerne and LaCrosse. Maybe with the new high mpg e-assist offerings for 2012 they'll be able to add more low mpg options in the future.

And the tires are why the grip is so good. Put those tires on the SE Turbo and it would be close to the same

bmwman123

I think you're stretching it a bit. Hyundai has come a long way but it's a small crowd that thinks it's cool to drive one.

Buick has it's own fan base and I'd say a Turbo, 6 speed manual Regal is as cool as a Sonota, maybe more.

Remember both brands are carrying a huge amount of bagage but at least Buick owners of the past liked their cars.

"You are a moron. "

I thought his post was sharp and well written.

I'm s little late to the party here. I was surprised by the handling numbers, so that's a good thing. Its a great looking car, but I'm not sure its going to sell well. I don't know how many GM has to sell for it to be viable...

It sounds like traction control and gearing are holding back an otherwise surprisingly good car.

"This thing at least beats the crap out of the TSX, though."

http://www.insideline.com/acura/tsx/2010/2010-acura-tsx-v6-full-test-and-video.html

Sure...in handling and braking. But then the TSX v6 dishes out the beating in the acceleration department. Half a second in the 1/4 mile @ 90+ MPH is about 4 or 5 car lengths. That's pretty significant. Both cost about the same ($38k). But like some have already mention, I'll get a G37 for that kind of money.

Interesting comments - everyone here must be 16 years old or stoplight race at every opportunity. (I sound like an old-timer at 37!)

I have a Regal turbo (automatic - wife can't drive a manual), and I find the acceleration just fine - by seat of the pants no different than the 328xi or A4 Quattro I tested, and better than the 4cyl TSX. All for ~31K (MUCH less than a similarly equipped BMW/Audi, and not much more than a loaded Sonata or Fusion). For those of you stating that a Sonata/Fusion - when properly equipped - will out-accelerate it - fine, but who cares? They will also out-accelerate the above BMW/Audi/Acura as well.

There is more to wanting a car than 0-60 times. In the Fusion, you have to look at that garish dash all day long (this coming from a Ford fan with an 09 Mustang GT (manual) in the garage), and the Sonata is just painful to look at (especially in front - it does gets better in back) and I, for one, do not think it will age well. If you want to race everyone at every stoplight, the Regal's not for you. But the ride/steering/handling and overall refinement of the Regal puts it in another league.

That being said, I do think the acceleration on the GS is disappointing - but I would wait until other testers have reported numbers to see if they are consistent.

Why are people comparing MRSP of the GS to actual transaction prices on other cars? You don't think you could get a deal on a GS with some work. Compare apples to apples, please.

It may be a bunch of 16 year olds or stoplight drag racers buying up all those G37's and 335i's. Or it might be enthusiast-oriented sports sedan shoppers who believe a strong motor should accompany solid handling and braking.

Oh - and forget the Sonata - this thing is priced up against the 330-plus hp Genesis Sedan.

Who said the GS didn't have a stong motor? 270 hp and 295 ft-lb torgue is plenty stong, and other reviews have described the car as fun and rewarding to drive (WindingRoad, for one) Look, an enthusiast who needs a manual FWD/AWD (it does snow in the Northern part of the country) sports sedan in the $30-40,000 range has the following options:

Acura TSX (4 cyl)
Audi A4 Quattro
BMW 328xi
Buick Regal (regular turbo or GS)
Saab 9-3
Volvo S60

Infiniti/Lexus don't offer the G/IS with a manual with the smaller engine/AWD (which would be in this price range). The CTS doesn'y offer a manual with the 3.0L V6/AWD combo. A 335ix/G35/IS350 are way above $40,000 when comparitively equipped.

As to the Genesis - stop comparing cars based on price!!!! The Genesis is a great car, no doubt, but it's not a sports sedan. People who would want a Genesis would look at the LaCrosse or Chrysler 300, and maybe the Lexus ES350. A Cayman costs as much as an Infiniti QX56 - why doesn't it tow as much? People do not shop based solely on cost!

I think the majority of the comments here are spot on, people want to like this car, but GM suspiciously castrated this car for Buick and is left with a product most people will not buy. I really do like this car, I drove the base model and loved everything but the power and no AWD and had high hopes for the GS, but clearly this car just won't compete. So we are all left wondering why? Why did GM castrate the Regal GS? Only thing I can think of is they are trying to find a place for Buick and don't want to step on themselves by offering a high performance AWD sedan that competes with the upcoming ATS, so they are left with an almost made-it product that won't sell. It appears GM kept Buick around for the Chinese market, they should have just canned the whole brand if they don't want to execute with competitive models and are too afraid of offering overlapping models between their own brand.

Who said the GS didn't have a stong motor? 270 hp and 295 ft-lb torgue is plenty stong, and other reviews have described the car as fun and rewarding to drive (WindingRoad, for one) Look, an enthusiast who needs a manual FWD/AWD (it does snow in the Northern part of the country) sports sedan in the $30-40,000 range has the following options:

Acura TSX (4 cyl)
Audi A4 Quattro
BMW 328xi
Buick Regal (regular turbo or GS)
Saab 9-3
Volvo S60

Infiniti/Lexus don't offer the G/IS with a manual with the smaller engine/AWD (which would be in this price range). The CTS doesn'y offer a manual with the 3.0L V6/AWD combo. A 335ix/G35/IS350 are way above $40,000 when comparitively equipped.

As to the Genesis - stop comparing cars based on price!!!! The Genesis is a great car, no doubt, but it's not a sports sedan. People who would want a Genesis would look at the LaCrosse or Chrysler 300, and maybe the Lexus ES350. A Cayman costs as much as an Infiniti QX56 - why doesn't it tow as much? People do not shop based solely on cost!

6.9 says it's not enough motor to motivate all that bloated mass. Or else there is some other issue with getting the power to the pavement.

I don't think 0-60 is everything, but I also don't expect a dedicated premium sports sedan with a manual transmission to lag behing the accelerative abilities of plain jane midsize auto-equiooed family sedans. I expect it to be as quick, or quicker. Like the G37, for example.

And do try to give both your exclamation marks and your double posts a rest, please.

Wow, one double post (by mistake) brings such offense! (note exclamation point)

Anyway, a lot of plain jane midsize auto-equipped (note correct spelling) family sedans can thoroughly whip a dedicated premium sports sedan in 0-60 acceleration. The Buick isn't the only one of these sports sedans that would see the taillights of a V6 Camry at a stoplight. That doesn't mean I would choose a Camry over a BMW (or this Buick) though.

@ jaeger

270 bhp should be plenty to move the mass of this car. Either IL hasn't figured out the optimal way to launch it, or there's something up with the powertrain that keeps it from achieving it's true potential. I'm betting the latter, especially seeing as how it drops out of the powerband on each shift.

@ obriend

Hmm, maybe our expectations are just too high? I was expecting this car to be fairly quick, in the vein of the old Grand National. It can handle, sure, but there's no point if it doesn't feel fast, or want to be driven hard. And I'm no GM hater btw, I just want to see the return of the fast Buick--the gentleman's muscle car if you will.

I absolutely agree that the GS should be faster (by a good deal more than it is over the "regular" turbo like mine) - no argument there. I'm not sure about the comment of it not wanting to be driven hard - that's pretty subjective. Actually driving the GS - keeping the engine up in the rev range, rowing through the six-speed - I would still think would be a blast.

What I do have an argument with is the bashing it's getting for not being as fast as a 335i or G37, two cars that are significantly more expensive (especially if similarly equipped). For $35-38,000, the GS has a lot to offer, and I think a better comparison (price, power, performance, equipment, and demographic) would be to a V6 TSX, Audi A4, or BMW 328i or 328ix. Most of my colleagues have been impressed with the Regal, and this is coming from a German-centric crowd (maybe not too surprising given the Regal's roots).

little off topic but I have a 2011 Buick Lacrosse that I ABSOLUTELY am in love with, i get more compliments that off my old 300 and Acura before that and my wife his is not the tallest even loves to drive it... The day they come out with a GS version of that car I will be down there cash in hand to trade in and purchase it, I seen the Regal GS in NYC car show in the white metallic and I thought it looked nice but something just didnt click.. We actually spent more time looking at the Verano about to come out as the wifey has a Jetta and now wants something a little nicer in the same size.. I think the simple fact that a 31 year old male driving a buick and loving it speaks volumes about the changes to Buick... But if no GS comes out for the Lacrosse in the next three years I thin a slightly used CTS-V (as used they are already around $44k already) would be in my future...

GREAT JOB THOUGH BUICK!!!!

@teampenske - you may have a point about expectations. It just seems to me that for each successive model of the Regal, it has consistently proven to be underwhelming in the acceleration department. If this car were marketed or priced against Camcordimanata, it's tepid pace would be more easily overlooked in favor of its more sophisticated suspension. But it is marketed and priced against well established players in the sports sedan field - and that makes the shortcomings that much more glaring.

I drove the auto 2.0T Regal when shopping for a replacement for my V6 Altima and defiitely found the power to be well short of "just fine". A big part of the problem there was very clearly a transmission programmed to upshift as soon as possible and downshift only with great reluctance. That is why I had hoped that with a manual, this GS would prove MUCH better in that regard. But it isn't. At least, not based on this one test.

I can't argue pricing in the US, but up here in Canuckland the GS is priced right against a G37x and just a couple grand below a G37 Sport with manual transmission. I kind of doubt those cars would be out of reach of the GS-intender down south of the border.

The pricing is similar in the US too jaeger. A top of the line G37 Sport 6MT runs $40k (comes with all options except some cosmetic stuff). And the AWD model is a touch cheaper. Not enough differential that Buick could reasonably assert they wouldn't be cross shopped.

As discussed earlier the TSX V6 is priced almost identically to the GS and stomps it in a straight line. Auto only which sucks, but there you have it. It also seems to handle worse, but it only has all season tires vs. the GS summer tires.

Hey, does anyone know if it makes a difference if you were to run the 0-60 in "GS" mode. I've been following this car for about a month now, and like many I am pretty disappointed in the lack of a V8 being offered and the fact that as others have noted, an Audi A4 with their 211 horsepower engine would beat this 270 HP Buick off the line. So anyway, would it make a difference if you were to run the test in GS mode?

THIS CAR IS SLOWER THAN THE REGAL GS THAT CAME OUT IN 1997.
The only thing to say about a car that compete with its 15 year old brother is what. the. hell.

Alright!!! I think it's time to put this slow poke on the dyno and see what's going on with it. I wonder if there's a way to see what the hp/torque curves are doing in relation to gas pedal position. I realize that you probably floor the pedal while doing a dyno test but I'm wondering how intrusive the potential "torque management" system is, if it exists. Or maybe someone can talk to a Regal GS engineer and see what they say.

This car might still be on my list. I definitely want to drive one. I drove the 2011 turbo and I really liked the ride and handling. It just didn't have enough acceleration. Depending on the market reaction it seems like it might be possible to pick up the base GS model for ~$32k. We'll have to wait and see what happens when it comes out. With a little bit of mountain snow driving I do, I prefer FWD. Even with that, like many others the G37 is not really an option. There's only one dealer in our state, well over 2 hours away. The TSX v6 is not on my list. I don't really care if it smokes the GS off the line. I'm really turned off by its styling. On top of that, I test drove one and to me it felt like ... well like a Buick.

Someone above mentioned that this car would have been $50k or more if it had AWD and the TT V6. Can someone explain how the hell that is possible? I looked briefly at the Infiniti G and cost for AWD is a paltry $1600 for either G model. What gives? The premium over the base Regal or even the Regal turbo should cover the engine cost upgrade already. By my calculations you are looking at $40k even for this car with AWD and more power. They could easily have bumped that four cylinder to 320+hp (since they already offered that as an option on the Cobalt SS) and well more torque, dropped that silly torque mitigation system and had AWD without the V6. No? If not, why are premium imports only $1600 extra for AWD and yet some joker is claiming it would have been upwards of $12k for Buick to do it?

I can't help but think this would be a cool buy a year from now at a large discount......

Make mine a Hyundai Sonata YF Turbo with forged internals.

Is this still going on? If only Buick could generate this much interest/ chatter in the showrooms.

This blog keeps answering itself...For the same money, Audi A4...Don't have A4 $$$$, Hyundai Sonata SE 2.0T or Kia Optima SX 2.0T...All far better cars than the Buick...

Gramps probably don't care, but 6.9s is slow for a 270hp/295lb-ft car.

This Buick is a complete Pork/Lard mobile. Stuffed to the point to control noise, vibration and other cushmobile cheap tricks under the sleeve. The cheapest trick: get the biggest/fattest tires you can fit under the fenders. Sure the slalom & skid test looks okay, but base on the video & handling description by the author is a car that does not give any confidence to call it a sport sedan.

I would rather have a Chrysler 300 for that money.

That Buick sure is black. OK, I just wanted to be the 100th commenter.

@g35buf

I cross-shopped an A4 (quattro) before buying my Regal turbo. I have "A4$$$$", but really was impressed with the Regal, and didn't think that the Audi was worth the extra coin (can add that to kids' college fund).

Based on all of the "can get a Sonata for much less" talk on this board I went out to test drive the Sonata 2.0T (which I hadn't done prior to purchasing the Regal - it never really was I car that I wanted). I thought that it felt a unpolished after driving the Regal (BTW - I LOVE the Optima's dash, but I haven't driven one so I can't comment on it). I don't know, maybe buyer's rose-colored glasses - but I thought that the Buick "felt" closer to the more expensive Audi than the Sonata "felt" to the more expensive Regal. But that is just my opinion (and my money) - to each his/her own.

$38,000? 6.9 0-60? WHY WOULD ANYONE BUY THIS?

I'd take a BMW 3-series ANY DAY!

GM bailout was just a big scam to rob taxpayer money and invest it in China.

lower price by $10k or increase the performance big time. If you still like this car, wait a few months for the incentives kick in cuz it aint gonna sell at this price.

It isn't a barn burner, but I doubt your customer looking at Buicks cares all that much about 0-60 times and "launches". They're going to be more mature, wanting fuel economy, some luxury and comfort, and a quiet smooth ride that happens to come in a package that also handles well.

There are Mustangs and Camaros for a reason. If you want pure performance for the buck and are willing to live with the downsides, go buy one of those.

A turbo 4 delivers power quite differently. Assuming one isn't a redneck waving down passing cars trying to get a drag race going, the lack of power from a standing start is offset by decent power at higher speeds for passing. The Saab 9-3 2.0t was lousy from a start, with a 0-60 time half a second higher than the Buick, but once moving it was a rocket on the expressway and had plenty of power for passing. It also got 33mpg highway at 75mph. Nothing comes for free. Those drivers spent their money on investments and went to high paying jobs in their "slow" cars. They probably could not have cared less about what the 0-60 time was as long as it felt right when they needed the power in day-to-day use.

You can argue that they should have kept the awd and brought more power to the equation, but then it becomes a $45,000 car. It was never going to be the Grand National drag racing car some wanted it to be. I think there are better cars for the price, but 6.9 seconds to 60mph was not "pathetically slow" a decade ago and apparently people didn't feel like life wasn't worth living because of that.

Relax, 90% of commenters probably couldn't afford it anyway w/o a 72 mo loan or a lease. You're better off not gettting it.

MYOB is clearly either a GM employee or someone who has bought into the twisted marketing scheme from GM on the Regal GS to account for it's inadequacies. Not sure how anyone in their right mind believes that someone looking at this car does not care about performance when this car has been clearly marketed as a niche performance sedan, heck even the regular turbo model had TV commercials with a guy in his mid 30's zooming the thing through corners and the announcer calling it a sport sedan. It comes with 20" rims, Brembos, Recaro knock-offs. But with all of that it is not "meant" for people who care about performance?

Also, claiming AWD adds $5000 is preposterous. If it really would then GM needs their heads examined. When the difference between for example an Infiniti G is only $1600 why would GM be more than 3x that?

Reality is, most people who are commenting are wholly disappointed as most were looking for an alternative to the ragular imports. I can't speak for everyone but my price range is $40-$50k. Not sure your bashing of serious buyers here is making GM look any better.

Not much more to say that hasn't already been said. Right now I'm toggling between this review and a certified 2008 750i Sport with 41k on the odo. Amazing what 38k will buy you.

What a fantastic car, i would buy this over the TSX any day. Just for the future reference, it needs AWD. Buick, are you listening?