SLegacy99

I think that IS-SV might enjoy this karma the most.

I ran over a metal rod of some kind today and it punctured my tire beyond repair. My dad has been gracious enough to let me borrow his IS until my tires are shipped as he is away. I will admit, it is smooth, but it is so ungodly slow!!!! And it really jerks you into first gear. That part is not smooth. And I'm not sure how I feel about parking it in my apartment parking lot.

IS-SV

^^^ See post #60 for a better understanding of what the topic is here.

You are not correct, I do not find it enjoyable hearing about a metal rod puncturing your tire, plus it has nothing to do with the topic. Consider a new thread about destroying tires beyond repair, sadly I think we all have a story about that.

LexFather

Slegacy please knock off the is 250 jabs it's clear u don't like it but clearly the market does and Lexus owners on here do.

mmarshall

IF (?) that's the case, then Buick needs to update their website.....it still shows the CXL AWD with the 3.0L. (the AWD is an option only on the CXL trim-level).

http://www.buick.com/vehicles/2010/l...=tabHighlights

LaCrosse CXL AWD
Engine Power 3.0L DOHC SIDI V6
Transmission 6-speed automatic, electronically controlled with overdrive, Driver Shift Control

Och

iTrader: (3)

Of course I'm not implying that 8 cylinders are more efficient than 4 cylinders, but there are occasions when they can be more efficient. Highway driving is one of these occasions, and I wouldn't be surprised if a Camry fared same or better if you stuffed the 4.6 V8 into it instead of factory's 2.4 4cyl. People already get 30mpg highway in the LS460, so if you stuffed this drivetrain into the lighter, smaller Camry it would fare even better.

Another situation is aggressive driving. With a smaller engine, you will have to floor it more and push it harder, and in the end your fuel economy will be pretty miserable, vs a big engine that doesn't have to break a sweat to be driven aggressively. A good demonstration of that would be Top Gear's test where V8 M3 got better fuel economy than a hybrid, gutless Prius. The Prius was driven all out around the track by Stig, and JC stayed right on his *** in the M3, and got about 2mpg better efficiency.

Back on the topic of GM discontinuing V6 engine in favor of turbo fours, I think its a bad decision on many levels. Here are my reasons:

1) People who are economy minded and do not want to spend a lot of money on a car, will buy a regular non turbo four.

2) There are people who do not care about power, and do no drive aggressively, but buy the V6 (or more) purely for the refinement and smoothness. GM will simply lose these customers. And believe me, this is a good percentage of customers.

3) There are people who buy the V6 engine because they like to drive aggressively, and i4 doesn't provide them with sufficient performance. They will have to buy the turbo fours instead, and it is my strong belief that when driven aggressively, a turbo four will deliver far worse efficiency vs NA V6.

What Mike (1sicklex) said really makes sense. If they are so efficiency concerned, they should be investing more in hybrids. A turbo four will probably carry a 3-4k price premium over NA four, so if they sold a hybrid four with the same price premium, that would make more sense. They would actually accomplish better fuel economy, and offset some of the nastiness of the four banger. When I drove the HS250 for instance, which is a hybrid four, the one thing that I liked about it is that the petrol engine shuts off when the car is stopped, so you don't get any of that crude four cylinder idling.

mmarshall

BTW, the new LaCrosse is really growing on me....especially with AWD. That, the Ford Fusion Hybrid, and the Chevy Malibu seem to be three really nice American-badged vehicles. I could live with any of those three. Still, once you've sampled Subaru's AWD, it's hard to switch....they can be addicting.

mmarshall

I tend to agree....but if you don't drive a four very aggressively, or at high RPMs, then the issue of refinement is a rather moot point. And not all V6 are that refined either.....a good example was the 90-degree GM 3.8L (now discontinued) originally designed by Buick. It took a long time for engineers to get the inherent imbalance and vibration out the 90-degree layout and firing-order. That's why many other V6s are either 60-degree, or, like VW's VR-6, an extremely-narrow 15 degrees.

IS-SV

BTW, the topic is GM mid-sized sedans to only be offered with 4 bangers, not addictions, lol.

But certainly the Fusion, Malibu and various Subies sell well in 4 cylinder form, for the buyers that are willing to accept the horsepower and NVH differences.

And I agree improvements in 4 bangers can increase acceptance.

Och

iTrader: (3)

If we're going to talk about GM's unrefined V6 engines, than the 3800 series was actually one of their better designs. If you want truly horrendous, check out their 3.1 and 3.4 V6 engines, which were externally balanced. Now these were simply horrendous.

As far as the layout, technically the ideal layout for a V6 should be 120 degree. Since it is not very practical, 60 degrees would be the next best thing. A 90 degree V6 is not a very good layout, and its likely that a 90 degree V6 started out as a V8 with two cylinders "chopped off".

mmarshall

Tell that to the people addicted to GM V6s.

The Fusion Hybrid is an especially nice American-badged sedan, though its chassis/steering is not quite the equal of the new Lacrosse. If GM can do a four-cylinder hybrid with the build quality/refinement of the Fusion Hybrid, I think they will gain back at least some of the customers turned off by droping the V6s. The Malibu had a hybrid model out for a while (now discontinued), but it was a relatively simple, series-hybrid (with essentially an engine start/stop device), not a Toyota-type parallel-hybrid like the Fusion which can run solely on its electrics.

Especially hybrid ones.

mmarshall

It was an ancient design, dating back to the 1963 Buick Skylark. It took years for GM engineers to get the inherent vibrations out.


Since I haven't driven one of these for awhile, and don't remember their driving characteristics that well, I'll take your word for it. I do know, though, that the 3.4 was quite complex, and that technicians didn't like working on it.

You are correct. The 90-degree 3.8L V6 was hurriedly-developed, as a cost-cutting measure, from the existing Buick 5.0L V8. It was an experiment to try and get a more compact length than the typical in-line-sixes of the period.

(I once owned an old Buick 5.0 V8, BTW, and it was butter-smooth (when the carburator worked right)

As others have pointed out, though, we may be a little off-topic.

LexBob2

That was my understanding that AWD isn't available with the 3.6 engine.

When I was new car shopping back in February I took a long look at the LaCrosse. AWD isn't important to me, but all of them at that time had the 3.0 engine. I prefered the 3.6 engine anyway and FWD would have been fine.

You'd think that if/when the 3.0 goes away the 3.6 would be the natural choice for the AWD model. As you said, too much weight for the 4 cyl.

LexFather

Funny I just read the Quad 4 part. My father had a Grand Am with the Quad 4 as a company car then ending up buying it. It was loud, course but pulled the car reasonably well. Of course as soon as it hit 150k and the car was paid off the engine simply committed suicide and he bought another engine.

Funny my first car was a hand down Sentra with a 4 cylinder and my first car in college was a 4 cylinder Hyundai Scoupe TURBO.

4 cylinders have made tremendous improvements. The new Mazda ones sound great.

mmarshall

150K on a Quad 4 is not bad, even for a well-maintained, easily-driven one. I wouldn't bet on the average one going that far.


The Scoupe may not have been reliable or refined, but, if you remember my earlier posts on this subject, a modified Scoupe won the 1992 Pikes' Peak Hill Climb.....a not insignificant feat.

Much of what Mazda offers (the Miata and RX-8, of course, are exceptions) has a lot of Ford origin/input in it.

IS-SV

Digressing, 2.0 liter Pinto engine was a durable 4 banger in its time.

The Miata engine has been one of the nicer 4 cylinders for years.

btw, which Mazda engines have Ford orgins?
(Note: I am not asking which Ford engines have Mazda origins)