Review: 2010 LaCrosse CXL

[bradyholt]

It hasn’t been easy to follow Buick’s passenger-car lineup in recent years. In 2005 and then again in 2006 new, unfamiliar names together replaced four long-running models.

The entry-level LaCrosse, a mainstream midsize/large sedan, took over from the Century and Regal, but tried (ultimately without much success) to move upscale of those cars, and the unapologetically full-size Lucerne replaced the LeSabre and Park Avenue at a higher price bracket.

Now, for the 2010 model year, Buick has thrown another curve: the newly redesigned LaCrosse is now billed as a large luxury sedan that is expected to effectively replace the Lucerne, and the Regal name will return next year as the brand’s new entry-level model.

This transition leaves the new LaCrosse in an odd spot at the present – it tries to simultaneously be a Lexus-challenging entry-luxury sedan and a mainstream car to satisfy loyalists who traditionally bought inexpensive Buicks.

But customers who do manage to pin down what this car is will find that it mostly stacks up quite well against similarly priced large mainstream sedans and Lexus’s midsize ES350...

Continued at link, with full photo gallery:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-1...k-LaCrosse-CXL

[tbirderic]

Nice review, Brady.

[Hitman1970]

Our local dealership is loading up on used Chevrolets to try and get that below $27K sedan customer.

[Ghrankenstein]

Nice writeup, but my one item of contention would be NOT to rule out the four-cylinder model. The lighter curb weight, lighter even than the 3.0L FWD models, will place the 2.4L Lacrosse below the well-regarded 4-cylinder Equinox, meaning that it should deliver better performance, fuel economy, or both. I wouldn't be surprised if we saw the 'Nox's electric power steering, which has also received much praise by both Motor Trend and Automobile for its vastly improved feel, and give the Lacrosse an additional boost in fuel economy.

Refinement will probably not suffer all that much, due to the active noice cancellation that already works well on the Equinox. The 2.4 is turning out to be a very well done plant, and Lexus doesn't have a 4-cylinder model to compete with it.

[Neanderthal]

Nice writeup, my man. Good driving dynamics are very important, glad GM has finally noticed.

I owned a 2002 Regal LS and a 2004 Impala 3.4. BOTH needed struts, badly. I replaced stock with KYB which ain't KONIs but they improved things.
The Regal's 15" cardboard tires had to go, and with some good 16s and the GM Parts Direct anti roll bars installed the car was reasonable. As it should have been from the factory.
Seats in both cars sucked in a huge way. What is the mystery about building a good chair? This is not a manned voyage to the moon, it's a frikkin chair. Lord!

This is one heavy car, two tons squeezed into 196" oal.
And all I can say is WTF with a 13 cu. ft. trunk on a big honker like this?

The comments following the link are interesting. Fold down seats serve to increase trunk space, at least that was my impression.

I find it quite odd the way GM or Buick or The Prince of Darkness is mucking around with model names, slots, images.
Too bad they F'd it up by inventing the LaCrotch and Lucerne.
GM needs to concentrate on quality, quality, quality. Keep changing names and your customers will get further confused.

[Astra RL]

Great review, Brady.

Overall it is a very good car, but a few things really bug me. 13.3 cu. ft. really? This is a fullsize sedan that has a trunk that is smaller than the Cobalt?

The 3.0 is POINTLESS it gets worse fuel economy than the 3.6, I am sure that fitting the XWD system to the 3.6 would not be overly difficult. The 2.0t that is supposedly coming in the Regal would probably make a better mid-range engine.

[bradyholt]

Originally Posted by Neanderthal

The comments following the link are interesting. Fold down seats serve to increase trunk space, at least that was my impression.

Not exactly. They let you hold cargo that's a different shape, but in a sedan that's typically within a very small margin; the pass-through area around folded seats is quite small. You can "increase" space in the same way just by using the passenger compartment as cargo storage space with the rear seat in its upright and locked position.

[Neanderthal]

Originally Posted by bradyholt

Not exactly. They let you hold cargo that's a different shape, but in a sedan that's typically within a very small margin; the pass-through area around folded seats is quite small. You can "increase" space in the same way just by using the passenger compartment as cargo storage space with the rear seat in its upright and locked position.

Huh? Maybe the Buick Boyz don't know how to do fold down seats.

My Accord, Regal, VW Golf, Impala, and Spectra--not to mention my 92 and 94 Protege--seats fold(ed) down enough to allow large objects.

This, like making bucket seats that don't create chronic back pain, is not rocket science.
Some back seats just fold down about 45 degrees, but IMO those are simply poorly designed.

I'll have to lay hands on the car to see why the folding seats don't function terribly well. I was told many times as a child, if you're going to do something do it right or don't do it at all. It's a waste of your time to do it half arsed.

Perhaps they show the folding seats on their website. Unfortunately, there's too much flash and not enough user-friendly there, but I guess that's the way of the modern world.
edit: Flashy website shows nothing useful regarding the trunk or folding seats. Their comparison was useful, though. The Taurus I plugged in has a 20 cu. ft. trunk. Again, I can only scratch my head at how Buick achieved such a tiny trunk on such a large vehicle.

I'm pleased the car has very good driving dynamics. But GM in my experience has been remarkably thought-absent on the multitude of inexpensive details that seem obvious and pain-free to makers like Honda and KIA.

[bradyholt]

I've seen very few sedans where the fold-down rear seats are all that useful. There are a very limited number of circumstances where something will fit through the opening that wouldn't fit anywhere else. I wouldn't say that the LaCrosse is worse than the norm.

[Exploder]

Great review, Brady.

Overall it is a very good car, but a few things really bug me. 13.3 cu. ft. really? This is a fullsize sedan that has a trunk that is smaller than the Cobalt?

The 3.0 is POINTLESS it gets worse fuel economy than the 3.6, I am sure that fitting the XWD system to the 3.6 would not be overly difficult. The 2.0t that is supposedly coming in the Regal would probably make a better mid-range engine.

Agreed. They have to shrink those oversized trunk hinges or else.

To be fair, the Acura TL, roughly the same size as the LaCrosse, has only 12.5 cubic feet. And it doesn't have the rear leg room to make up for it.

[Michael_S]

It was a very good review, thanks.

My family is too big now for a sedan to work. Hypothetically if I was shopping in this segment, I think I would opt to sacrifice the extra luxury and extra rear seat leg room of the new LaCrosse in favor of the wider cabin, better visibility, larger trunk, and better fuel economy of the new Taurus.

[cdp326]

Originally Posted by Michael_S

It was a very good review, thanks.

My family is too big now for a sedan to work. Hypothetically if I was shopping in this segment, I think I would opt to sacrifice the extra luxury and extra rear seat leg room of the new LaCrosse in favor of the wider cabin, better visibility, larger trunk, and better fuel economy of the new Taurus.

The Taurus would likely be my large car pick as well. I haven't checked out the LaCrosse in person but I'm not sure the Taurus would have better visibility, out the back anyway. The C pillars are rather thick, and the rear window somewhat narrow. I know similar has been said about the LaCrosse, but like I said I haven't gotten in one yet to check out and see how they compare.

[bradyholt]

Visibility and interior space for the size aren't great in the Taurus either, but better than in the LaCrosse. The big difference between the two is that the Taurus feels like a huge car and the LaCrosse doesn't. There are other excellent choices for someone who prefers the best space and visibility.

[Michael_S]

Originally Posted by bradyholt

Visibility and interior space for the size aren't great in the Taurus either, but better than in the LaCrosse. The big difference between the two is that the Taurus feels like a huge car and the LaCrosse doesn't. There are other excellent choices for someone who prefers the best space and visibility.

What are the other choices?

Let me clarify. I think crash safety in a family vehicle is crucial. So I would want a vehicle with 5 star crash safety across the board and an IIHS 'Top Safety Pick' rating. That keeps the 2010 LaCrosse and 2010 Taurus in the game, but rules out, for example, the Hyundai Azera, Honda Accord, Volkswagen Passat, Chevy Impala, Nissan Maxima, and Buick Lucerne.

If anyone else is more flexible on crash safety, then most of those vehicles can still be included.

[Koasterking]

good review. I can't wait to see more on the road.