NO EXCUSE: 2017 Buick LaCrosse Headlights Rated "Poor" By IIHS

  1. Welcome to GM Inside News Forum General discussion forum for GM

    Welcome to GM Inside News Forum - a website dedicated to all things GM.

    You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, Join GM Inside News Forum today!
     
+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 44

Thread: NO EXCUSE: 2017 Buick LaCrosse Headlights Rated "Poor" By IIHS

  1. #1
    News Contributor Premium Member Perian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    7,469
    Thanks
    45
    Thanked 1,541 Times in 645 Posts
    My Ride
    2014 Chevy Volt

    NO EXCUSE: 2017 Buick LaCrosse Headlights Rated "Poor" By IIHS

    IIHS
    February 17, 2017



    The redesigned Buick LaCrosse earns a good rating in the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety's challenging small overlap front crash test and qualifies for a Top Safety Pick award.

    The large car held up well in the test, which replicates what happens when the front driver-side corner of a vehicle strikes another vehicle or an object such as a tree or utility pole.

    The car earns a superior rating for front crash prevention when equipped with optional automatic braking. In the 12 mph IIHS track test, the car avoided a collision. In the 25 mph test, the impact speed was reduced by an average of 24 mph. The system also has a forward collision warning component that meets National Highway Traffic Safety Administration criteria.

    When equipped with an optional warning system only, the LaCrosse earns a basic rating for front crash prevention.

    The Top Safety Pick award is given to vehicles that earn good ratings in the Institute's five crashworthiness tests and have an available front crash prevention system that earns an advanced or superior rating.

    Vehicles that also come with good or acceptable headlights can earn Top Safety Pick+. The LaCrosse's only available headlights earn a poor rating. The low beams provide inadequate visibility on the straightaway and the left curves.


    .

  2. Remove Advertisements
    GM Inside News
    Advertisements
     

  3. #2
    News Contributor Premium Member Perian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    7,469
    Thanks
    45
    Thanked 1,541 Times in 645 Posts
    My Ride
    2014 Chevy Volt

    Re: NO EXCUSE: 2017 Buick LaCrosse Headlights Rated "Poor" By IIHS

    The LaCrosse's only available headlights earn a poor rating. The low beams provide inadequate visibility on the straightaway and the left curves.
    You know what, it's 2017 and even the GD Toyota Corolla comes with LED headlamps.

    How can GM sell this all-new $40,000+ vehicle with 2003 headlamp technology (HID's are standard). Really, how much could large scale production of LED headlamp assemblies cost in comparison to the "poor" units currently fitted - which I am sure are not cheap.

    Considering how well the car did on the crash testing, this is awful.

    -------------------------------------------------

    QUESTION: How are the headlamps on your current GM car? The units fitted to my 2014 Volt are slightly more powerful than two dining room candles.

    -------------------------------------------------
    .

  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Perian For This Useful Post:

    ClassyEldo (02-18-2017),RedSkyBlackDream (02-18-2017)

  5. #3
    3.0 Liter SIDI V6
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    608
    Thanks
    463
    Thanked 364 Times in 183 Posts

    Re: NO EXCUSE: 2017 Buick LaCrosse Headlights Rated "Poor" By IIHS

    Quote Originally Posted by Perian View Post

    -------------------------------------------------

    QUESTION: How are the headlamps on your current GM car? The units fitted to my 2014 Volt are slightly more powerful than two dining room candles.

    -------------------------------------------------
    .
    I drive 2 different 1999 vehicles. My Tahoe's headlights are terrible. I recently ordered new housings and some Sylvania ultra-brights to hopefully remedy the issue. I probably should have just opted for an LED kit, but I like retaining the factory look. On my Z28, I'd say the lights are pretty good, actually. Maybe the lower driving position helps...? I do have some aftermarket housings on and Sylvania ultra-bright bulbs as well as ultra-brights in the fog lamp housings, so maybe that's the difference. Stock, they sucked, if I remember correctly.

    In the more modern realm, my wife's '15 Equinox has okay headlights. On rainy nights they are definitely not good enough, but turning on the fogs helps tremendously (night and day better, but have to be manually turned on each time).
    Current Vehicles:
    1999 Tahoe 4x4 - daily driver
    1999 Camaro Z28 - bolt-on weekend vehicle
    2015 Equinox LTX - wife's car

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Z Fury For This Useful Post:

    SierraGS (02-18-2017)

  7. Remove Advertisements
    GM Inside News
    Advertisements
     

  8. #4
    News Contributor BlackGTP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    10,207
    Thanks
    2,472
    Thanked 3,725 Times in 2,197 Posts
    My Ride
    2013 Cadillac ATS - Black

    Re: NO EXCUSE: 2017 Buick LaCrosse Headlights Rated "Poor" By IIHS

    Old people don't drive at night?

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to BlackGTP For This Useful Post:

    Neanderthal (02-19-2017)

  10. #5
    Firebird Concept (the turbine one) Ed753's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    14,341
    Thanks
    8,205
    Thanked 4,630 Times in 2,981 Posts
    My Ride
    2015 F-150 Lariat SuperCrew

    Re: NO EXCUSE: 2017 Buick LaCrosse Headlights Rated "Poor" By IIHS

    This appears to be a "thing" with Buick's, not the first.

    The up-side to poor headlights being on the LaCrosse, is that most old people don't drive after dark anyway...............

    Looks like it took the crash pretty good and the passenger side headlight didn't even fall out!
    Current: Hidden Content Hidden Content Hidden Content

    Past: '14 Volt; '13 Silverado; '13 Fusion; '11 Ram; '10 Commander; '08 Sierra; '07 Rendezvous; '05 Ram; '04 Grand Cherokee; '03 F150; '01 Silverado; '00 Jimmy; '99 Sierra; '97 Ram; '96 Mustang GT; '96 Jimmy; '90 Escort GT; '89 Ranger; '84 Omni; '76 Malibu; '78 LeMans; '85 Escort; '82 Lynx; '75 Sierra

  11. #6
    3.0 Liter SIDI V6
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    629
    Thanks
    157
    Thanked 340 Times in 197 Posts

    Re: NO EXCUSE: 2017 Buick LaCrosse Headlights Rated "Poor" By IIHS

    QUESTION: How are the headlamps on your current GM car? The units fitted to my 2014 Volt are slightly more powerful than two dining room candles.
    I installed (A Hole HID) lights in my wife's 13 F150. Direct fit, under $300 Lifetime Ballast Warranty. My 08 has Factory, Night verses Day difference, then I install my Plow on my 08 and basically see Nothing but the Center Line.

    LED here in the North, have a Freeze Up problem, but the HID's don't. Boss Plows have made a set of LED's for my 08, with heating elements on the lens but I don't do enough Night Driving (without street lights) to warrant the $900 up fit costs.

    I know Age has some to do with it, but LED bulbs verses Incandescent, the cost is trivial. I will install LED Bulbs in my Plow, and worry about the freezing if it happens.

  12. #7
    News Contributor Premium Member Perian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    7,469
    Thanks
    45
    Thanked 1,541 Times in 645 Posts
    My Ride
    2014 Chevy Volt

    Re: NO EXCUSE: 2017 Buick LaCrosse Headlights Rated "Poor" By IIHS

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackGTP View Post
    Old people don't drive at night?
    I could answer you by saying "Old people buy Buicks", but I will not do so.



    .

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to Perian For This Useful Post:

    BlackGTP (02-17-2017)

  14. #8
    emh
    emh is offline
    6.2 Liter LS3 V8 emh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    3,508
    Thanks
    67
    Thanked 209 Times in 121 Posts

    Re: NO EXCUSE: 2017 Buick LaCrosse Headlights Rated "Poor" By IIHS

    Quote Originally Posted by Perian View Post
    You know what, it's 2017 and even the GD Toyota Corolla comes with LED headlamps.

    How can GM sell this all-new $40,000+ vehicle with 2003 headlamp technology (HID's are standard). Really, how much could large scale production of LED headlamp assemblies cost in comparison to the "poor" units currently fitted - which I am sure are not cheap.

    Considering how well the car did on the crash testing, this is awful.

    -------------------------------------------------

    QUESTION: How are the headlamps on your current GM car? The units fitted to my 2014 Volt are slightly more powerful than two dining room candles.

    -------------------------------------------------
    .
    IMO, LED headlamps are not better than HIDs at this point in their development. Sure, they are cool, but HIDs are better and provide more even illumination (and I say that as someone who drives a car with LED headlamps). The only real benefit of LEDs is if you want to do selective dimming and brightening of some elements but you aren't going to get that on a $40K car and even then doesn't offset the drawbacks for the common usage.

    The IIHS also rates a lot of cars as lacking in headlight performance, including the Mercedes C class, Cadillac ATS and VW Passat rated "poor" and the BMW 3 series and Lincoln MKZ rated "marginal" (one step above poor). I don't see a lot of real-world complaints about the headlamps of any of these cars. So I don't really know how significant this rating is.
    Last edited by emh; 02-17-2017 at 11:29 AM.
    "The irony of the Information Age is that it has given new respectability to uninformed opinion" -- John Lawton

  15. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to emh For This Useful Post:

    DansGS (02-17-2017),Neanderthal (02-19-2017)

  16. #9
    3.0 Liter SIDI V6 BahamaTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Palm Beach, FL
    Posts
    522
    Thanks
    68
    Thanked 347 Times in 155 Posts
    My Ride
    04 Canyon Z71 / 08 Accord V6

    Re: NO EXCUSE: 2017 Buick LaCrosse Headlights Rated "Poor" By IIHS

    Another benefit of LED is lower power consumption. That's actually probably the main reason they are used. HID is better for light output. Poor performing HIDs are probably like that because they wanted to minimize power consumption and provide just enough light to get by. The less power used, the better the fuel efficiency.

  17. #10
    4.6 Liter Northstar V8 Mentat Bashar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Air Capital of the World
    Posts
    1,711
    Thanks
    526
    Thanked 527 Times in 317 Posts
    My Ride
    2004 Accord Coupe' V6 6spd

    Re: NO EXCUSE: 2017 Buick LaCrosse Headlights Rated "Poor" By IIHS

    If there was a rating below poor for the headlights on my Wrangler I would say they were were destitute. I upgraded to JW Speaker headlights, and tail lights, and can actually see the road again.

    Even with the fancy shmancy LED's, I agree with what smh said in that the light isn't as even and there are some weird cutoff patterns. I have attributed this in part to bad design and the housing that they have to work within (7" round space).
    "I do not care about inequality because I'm not envious. I care about poverty."

    Apostrophes: Hidden Content

    Spelling: Hidden Content

  18. The Following User Says Thank You to Mentat Bashar For This Useful Post:

    Neanderthal (02-19-2017)

  19. #11
    2.4 Liter SIDI ECOTEC
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    466
    Thanks
    11
    Thanked 172 Times in 107 Posts

    Re: NO EXCUSE: 2017 Buick LaCrosse Headlights Rated "Poor" By IIHS

    The automakers continue to make head lights smaller and smaller, look at the current Cruze, Malibu and Camaro.
    There have to be trade offs when shrinking things like that.
    I may have to drive a new Malibu at night.
    I'm betting the larger headlights on our 2009 Malibu do a better job.
    They are still the best I have driven.

  20. #12
    Firebird Concept (the turbine one) AMERICA 123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    15,115
    Thanks
    6,506
    Thanked 1,241 Times in 901 Posts
    My Ride
    The Toyota Rat Catcher

    Re: NO EXCUSE: 2017 Buick LaCrosse Headlights Rated "Poor" By IIHS

    One thing about this testing that could make it a whole lot more useful.

    Do exactly what they do ..... and add in a similar test after an OEM prescribed Aiming procedure is correctly done.

    ( IIHS has already played with this and has a note or two about it somewhere.)

    From the looks of it, it is possible the LaCrosse might have done a whole lot better with even just a 'Basic' Aim provided; because obviously or so it would seem.... a kind of Industry wide SOP Aim of Low and to the Right is provided.


    --


    As far as the 2017 Class ratings for the Large Car Class they put LaCrosse into, most do not have either a complete set of Ratings nor the Headlight Evaluation. Many have low enough scores somewhere in these partial sets in such a way as to preclude them from a Top Safety Pick / Top Safety Pick +.

    ( Have not looked at the 2016s which may be 'helpful' 'somehow' for some 2017 indication. )

    So 2017 Avalon is the other one, and it also receives the same; Top Safety Pick...... with no Plus.

    ( Remember..... 2017 LaCrosse tests at considerably higher weights while clobbering Avalon in NHTSA Frontal Impact Testing. )

    Three Headlight ratings are provided; going up in cost and down in availability they are a Poor, Poor, and a Marginal.

    ( Believe it or not.... seems possible that at least some of this endemic Head Light fail is also a factor in the Car's demise..... via the 'non Car'. Bad lighting at least feels better if you are sitting higher up - )

    --

    LEDs are arguably ..... 'most' desirable from a MPG point of view; but so far, as OEM installed and as tested @ IIHS.... they are not showing much, if any of a superiority over HID and actually even with regard to some lesser others.

    Don't know where the big Tally stands as of this post, but I do recall some Group Testing or consolidated Reporting where they actually in net, did worse.


    --

    This testing is desirable to have although it could be augmented for good effect in more than one way.

    Shame we haven't had something like or better from say 193x onward. But especially so since when the Lighting Regs were 'relaxed'.

    As usual, the Corporatists ( aka the young budding Fascista in progress regardless of their self chosen labels ) went on and on as to how all the Old Regs were holding back progress. And all that stood in the way of a bright and shining future was the Federal Regs standing in the Middle of the Road.

    To be sure, they did need to be revised, updated, and loosened up. And that, if done properly, could have been for tremendous positive effect.

    But of course, that is not what we got.

    In yet another version of the Ole' False Choice you always get when the GD Industry Lobbyists are foolishly allowed to literally write all the Law and Code Revisions etc etc.

    And sure enough, the Industry frittered away most of the possible Safety benefits while also over all providing a lesser performance with the Basics. And also introducing new and Serious Safety Fail.

    Especially in a vehicle lifetime sense.

    Foggy Lenses any one ?

    On a completely piss poor Lighting assembly to begin with ?

    Aimed improperly from Day One ?????

    So we have needed this kinda' of testing or even better with a little more....... even more so since eh... at least back to somewhere in the late '80s - early mid '90s.

    --

    Very much related in so many ways..... we can now see what a disaster it is when the fully corrupt NHTSA steps away from the common sense applications of some pretty simple rules concerning AT Shifters that worked 'perfectly' - and Companies like GM, throw out their Own Rule Books. That many on this Forum liked to make fun of.

    ( The very Real Phenomena of UA / SUA - and not just with regard to Toyota, as always, multiplies any and all things like this. )

    So..... then we need consider Stack, and Stack 'Effect'.

    Well, you go add up all the new fail and take a look at the Safety Data and the amazing thing is that the what ? death rate or serious reported incident rate ( can't remember the correct description so one of the major indices is actually best ) has now with over rounding, 'ONLY' produced a 110% increase times a 110 % increase in the wrong direction.

    Which is a first the USA can be so very proud of because, since Auto Safety became a real thing..... that has never happened before. ( And by Golly, they are all so very desperate to explain it away and also avoid certain comparisons to much further back. ) That works out to about a 31% rate increase in just Two Years time.

    And they want to go Autonomous......

    Sure enough, the Lies that this will solve all of these Problems and much much more while not creating new and even sometimes unforeseen - massively negative consequences have already been circulating for a while now.

    They now even talk of fully eliminating all, or almost all Fatalities.

    Meanwhile... all, literally damn near all the Basics continue to..... 'go to Hell...in a Handbasket'.

    We really really...... really need...... shall we say a Serious.... 'Purge' of the just the right kind......

    Feel free to take that last .......... anywhere you want.
    Last edited by AMERICA 123; 02-17-2017 at 01:28 PM.
    "From tech stocks to high gas prices, Goldman Sachs has engineered every major market manipulation since the Great Depression and they're about to do it again."
    "The world's most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money."
    "If America is circling the drain, Goldman Sachs has found a way to be that drain " Matt Taibbi

  21. #13
    Walking
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Greater Cleveland
    Posts
    13
    Thanks
    105
    Thanked 7 Times in 6 Posts
    My Ride
    '16 Buick Regal GS AWD

    Re: NO EXCUSE: 2017 Buick LaCrosse Headlights Rated "Poor" By IIHS

    This makes no sense that the new LaCrosse can't have decent HID's (or LED's for that matter). The HID's on my Regal GS are VERY good.

  22. #14
    6.2 Liter LS3 V8
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    3,098
    Thanks
    237
    Thanked 185 Times in 102 Posts

    Re: NO EXCUSE: 2017 Buick LaCrosse Headlights Rated "Poor" By IIHS

    Quote Originally Posted by DansGS View Post
    This makes no sense that the new LaCrosse can't have decent HID's (or LED's for that matter). The HID's on my Regal GS are VERY good.
    Just because you think your Regal's HID's are very good doesn't mean they would rate well on IIHS's tests.

    The issues is IIHS is driving to a standard they invented. They should be petitioning the government to make this a requirement if it were truly a issue. Maybe they are, I don't know. However, we do know they are shaming automakers with their tests since the federal government is slow to respond. I'm OK with that, but just understand IIHS is the insurance industry's pet project and not a government requirement and once automakers get the headlamps dialed in to pass the IIHS test, IIHS will come up with another test on some other issues to keep pushing the industry forward. IIHS can better communicate their new tests to automakers have years to prep for them.

    Regardless of all this, Buick should have know about this headlight test and designed a lamp that passes the tests. Now they have to live with this design for years until the next refresh.

  23. #15
    2.4 Liter SIDI ECOTEC
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    169
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 120 Times in 55 Posts

    Re: NO EXCUSE: 2017 Buick LaCrosse Headlights Rated "Poor" By IIHS

    You can use led, Hid or standard halogen and if they are projectors you don't get the good coverage you get traditional reflective headlights. Swivel headlights with projectors help on corners but straight a head your only going to get so much of light spread. Now part of that is also how far the headlights are in the design of the car look also. I also don't believe a lot of these test. I have 2016 2nd Gen Cruze and the projectors do fine straight ahead but to the sides they are not that well. I'm glad I got the RS package so I have the fog lights and they really light up the road in front of the car when you need them, especially in the rain.

  24. Remove Advertisements
    GM Inside News
    Advertisements
     

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v4.1.2