GM Inside News Forum banner

2011 LaCrosse Dropping 3.0L, 3.6L Will Get AWD

30K views 192 replies 98 participants last post by  SDVite 
#1 ·
2011 LaCrosse Dropping 3.0L, 3.6L Will Get AWD
LaCrosse will gain the ECOTEC 2.4L in favor of the 3.0L V6.
www.gminsidenews.com
March 24, 2010
By: Nick Saporito


This morning General Motors announced that the 2011 Buick LaCrosse would incur some engine changes as the company adds the ECOTEC 2.4L four-cylinder mill to the LaCrosse lineup. The changes also include making all-wheel drive optional on the 3.6L V6.

Starting in the 2011 model-year the LaCrosse will no longer offer the 3.0L High Feature V6 that the car debuted with in 2010 model-year. The new GM V6 will be dropped for the addition of the four-cylinder model as the standard engine in LaCrosse.

The ECOTEC 2.4L with direct injection will sport 182 horsepower and churn 172 lb-ft of torque. The LaCrosse CX with the ECOTEC engine will have EPA ratings of 19 city, 30 highway with a starting price of $26,995. Buick expects about 25% of LaCrosse buyers will opt for the ECOTEC engine.

Additionally the 2011 LaCrosse CXL will have optional all-wheel drive mated with the car's 3.6L V6. During the 2010 model year all-wheel drive has only been optional on cars equipped with the 3.0L V6. According to sources here on GMI the 3.6L required some modifications to be fitted with all-wheel drive in the LaCrosse, changes that GM has apparently made for 2011.
 
See less See more
1
#59 ·
That would be a great argument if Buick had a hybrid to go against Lexus. Also, Buick's traditional demographic is still around with cash to spend on softer suspension I-4 LaCrosses.
 
#63 ·
This is a 50/50 for me. The 3.0 liter was an underperforming engine in the mileage department getting one less highway than the superior 3.6 so making that the only V6 is a wise move. However using a 4 cylinder as the base engine in a luxury oriented car that is severly overweight isn't a good idea and I'm really confused as to why the just as heavy and taller/bulkier Equinox with the same powertrain is getting 22/32 compared to a more V6 like 19/30 for the LaCrosse. Sorry but I am not impressed. I can go to Hyundai and purchase a Sonata that weights 600 LBS less and get 5 more MPG with a larger trunk and more interior width along with up to 200 HP from the same 2.4 liters for much less money or I can buy a Milan with less weight, roomier trunk and greater interior width and front seat room and far more model and engine choices for less coin. The LaCrosse in lower trim levels is a dissapointment, even more so for 2011 with 4 cylinder power and cheaper smaller plastic wheels. It makes this car feel even more downscale in my eyes.
 
#66 ·
Seems pretty obvious that the 3.0 is also being dropped to make room for the 3.0 Turbo as a premium engine option down the line. I could see it being a hard sell with a NA 3.0 sitting next to a turbo 3.0. In this case you can have a lineup of 2.4L base, 3.6L, 3.6L AWD, and 3.0L Turbo AWD.
 
#69 ·
Soooooo, let me get this straight....

We hate the 255hp base motor in a $27K car, but we LOVE the 182hp motor in the $27K car?

WTF?


So I guess the LaCrosse is going to be stuck with 93hp gap!!! Whooo Hooo!!! I guess everyone here is going to rush out and buy a LaCrosse now right? I mean GM "fixed" it, the stopped offering the 3.0 litre, so everything is perfect right, where does the line for new LaCrosses start? Oh, your broke, I see....ok so your going to keep driving your 120hp 4000lb decade and a half old rust bucket? Check....well I am glad that the LaCrosse is now up to your high standards, please tell us now how to fix Cadillac while your on lunch break at Taco Bell.
 
#70 ·
Soooooo, let me get this straight....

We hate the 255hp base motor in a $27K car, but we LOVE the 182hp motor in the $27K car?

WTF?
Oh, no no, I think the 4-cylinder as it is is woefully inadequate. But, the CX trim level, hopefully, is just there for advertising numbers. The meat of the sales for the LaCrosse appears to be the CXL, and that will now have the 3.6L, which is what it should have had all along. So, that's what I'm happy about.

Now all it needs is the dual exhaust finishes of the CXS and the LaCrosse will finally be just about perfect in the CXL and CXS guises.
 
#73 ·
4 cylinder engines are going everywhere these days.
There are lots of people who want luxury and fuel efficiency. Get used to it.
 
#76 ·
My parents have been interested in this car for a long time now. They can't afford one of the higher up trim levels so they were going to get the base one. I know for a fact that my dad will never buy a 4-cylinder, especially not one in a 4000lbs car. Looks like GM just lost one sale. I wonder how many other people will look at this the same way.
 
#87 ·
Smart move. The Taurus will have a 4 cyl option soon.. Guaranteed. Lot's of folks Want 4 cylinders now. This also makes room (as mentioned) for the turbo 3.0.. As a side note, I'd want mine to have fog lamps and real wheels.. That pic above without them cheapens the image big time IMO. Especially the fog lamps! What a difference a little light can make huh? :eek:
 
#93 ·
The ECOTEC 2.4L with direct injection will sport 182 horsepower and churn 172 lb-ft of torque. The LaCrosse CX with the ECOTEC engine will have EPA ratings of 19 city, 30 highway with a starting price of $26,995. Buick expects about 25% of LaCrosse buyers will opt for the ECOTEC engine.
Wasn't this just a Ward's top 10 Engine? I realize it's an enthusiast site but trust me, there are people who can live happily with a fantastic 4 banger with 182 hp coupled to a 6 speed automatic.

And those who can't get a wonderful 3.6L V6. Seems like a win-win to me.
 
#99 ·
the 2.4L should be trubocharged, but besides that i think its a smart idea along with the 3.6L getting AWD!
 
#112 · (Edited)
What a great way for GM to thank the early adopters who have made this car a sales sucess.

So for the person who really wanted a AWD 3.6L but settled for a 3.0L is just screwed. This combo should have been in the lineup from the start.

GM has a history of this, the 2004 GTO launched with 350HP then was raised to 400HP the following year (2005). The Z06 to a lesser extent, it launched with 385HP in 2001 and 405HP in 2002.

Why should we buy a first year Regal GS, looks like the odds of being screwed the next year is a real possibiliy.

Get your ducks in a row and do model launches with all features ready so as not to make your customers not be satisified the very next year (or even months) with their purchase unless you dont want them ever to visit a GM showroom again.

I understand powetrains get upgraded but doing so in the second year of a model run is no way to support your customers.

I am happy to hear of a LaCrosse GS though.

Will the LaCrosse CXS get AWD, arent there still options exclusive to the CXS?
 
#113 ·
What a great way for GM to thank the early adopters who have made this car a sales sucess.

So for the person who really wanted a AWD 3.6L but settled for a 3.0L is just screwed. This combo should have been in the lineup from the start.

GM has a history of this, the 2004 GTO launched with 350HP then was raised to 400HP the following year (2005). The Z06 to a lesser extent, it launched with 385HP in 2001 and 405HP in 2002.

Why should we buy a first year Regal GS, looks like the odds of being screwed the next year is a real possibiliy.

Get your ducks in a row and do model launches with all features ready so as not to make your customers not be satisified the very next year (or even months) with their purchase unless you dont want them ever to visit a GM showroom again.

I understand powetrains get upgraded but doing so in the second year of a model run is no way to support your customers.

I am happy to hear of a LaCrosse GS though.
This happened with the Lambdas as well. The 3.6 got Direct Injection for late 2008-2009?

I'd rather they switch powertrains early on, it gives the car an advantage. Besides, they listened and clearly it shows. I only wish that instead of adding the 2.4 DI, they added the 2.0T from the Regal. But I'm sure the 2.4 DI will be more than acceptable.
 
#118 · (Edited)
Actually, they do, Your very mistaken. What do you think occupies the space next to the Lexus in the garage? Most of them have a full sized pickup, so what do you think they do when they come in to get their truck serviced? I've found most men will take the SHO over a Lexus (they like the power), but the wives shoot the idea down due to wanting the nameplate.

BMW is a different animal. We don't get much cross shopping there. BMW is the only brand that seems to have a mix of Sport/Luxury across the board that works, and most of the bimmer owners around here have 2 of them in the garage so we never see them to show them anything.

I grew up in the dealership, and have spent the last 15 years as a sales manager (plus more time in service dating back to changing oil before I was legal to drive), so I do know a thing or two about cars and selling cars. Again what is YOUR experience in the auto retailing world that makes you an expert?

The dealers have said for years that if the manufacturers would listen to the people that sell the cars and build what we tell them to sales would go up. We've had limited success with Ford (for example dealer council convinced Ford to start offering 20" wheels and Chrome pkg's a few years ago and thats been a big success). But usually the automakers want to spend big money on "focus groups" that don't buy the cars they're surved about instead of talking to the salesman (the lifers, not the guys working through college) what the customer comes in wanting or complaining about.
 
#120 ·
I think anything less than 200hp on the LaCrosse is just weak and damages the nameplate. My dad has 2005 LaCrosse with 200hp, and it has very poor get-up-and-go. This new model seems heavier and needs the torque and horsepower to compete.

I personally think neither LaCrosse or Regal should have less than 200hp. Period. Even the baby LaCrosse should come with 200hp to differentiate it further from the Astra and Cruze. If it gets the same engine, it isn't worth the extra money...
 
#121 ·
It all depends on your reference frame and what you're used to driving. Anybody really concerned about acceleration should go for the 3.6, otherwise I'm sure the 2.4 will be fine. A 2.4 Lacrosse can only be quicker than a 2.4 Equinox.
 
#123 ·
The base LaCrosse motor should be the 2.0T out of the Regal. Excluding GS models, the top engine should be the base engine of the vehicle above it.

Astra 1.4T/2.4L(GS 2.0T)
Regal 2.4/2.0T(GS 3.0TT)
LaCrosse 2.0T/3.6L(GS 3.0TT+ or 3.6TT)
Enclave 3.6L/3.0TT
Velite or what have ya(3.0TT+).

Every Buick should be available in AWD as well.

I made the 3.0TT+ up, think of it as the steroid enhanced version of whatever GM cooks up for the base 3.0L TT.
 
#125 ·
So what's the next engine announcement, "2011 Buick Regal CXL to also offer 3.0L V6?"

The LaCrosse CX wheel cover design really resembles those offered by the the Malibu and Pontiac G5 and G6, IMHO. I'd like to see GM get a little more creative with the designs.



 
#128 ·
So what's the next engine announcement, "2011 Buick Regal CXL to also offer 3.0L V6?"

The LaCrosse CX wheel cover design really resembles those offered by the the Malibu and Pontiac G5 and G6, IMHO. I'd like to see GM get a little more creative with the designs.
IMO, Malibu has a better wheel application across the line-up than Lacrosse.
I would never allow a crap wheel on ANY model since wheels can make or break the perception of an entire brand almost more than any other exterior cue. Packing in an extra $500 to $1,000 for a better base wheel might be a deal breaker for some people but in the end it would
be a net gain in sales for the model line. No one wants to be in a vehicle, no matter how nice only to see that same model in the neighbor's driveway looking like the red haired step-child because the manufacturer cheaped out just to hit a price point. Ruins the image across the board.
 
#127 ·
Lacrosse has got to be more aerodynamic than the Equinox/Terrain and it can't weigh more. So how do the CUVs get 32 MPG Hwy in FWD guise? Gearing? Why would you gear the Lacrosse more aggressively when the whole point of the 2.4L is to be the fuel-economy model? Besides, tall hwy gear has little impact on overall driving feel.
 
#129 ·
I always thought the 3.6 DI should be available in the Lacrosse. I have a similiar setup in my CTS and its very impressive.

The days of keeping cadillac with the better powerplant are over..

Just produce the best powerplant and put it in all your vehicles. Use tuning to drop the hp a few points for braggging rights of the cadillac lineup. (3 hp would be fine)

What I find interesting is how the 4 cylinder la crosse only equals the v6 mustang epa numbers..Now thats sad..IMO..

305 hp mustang getting better fuel economy than a four cylinder buick.. Whats wrong with that picture..

Gm needs to improve the fuel economy of its four cylinder buick...IMO
 
#136 ·
I applaud the move to offer a 4 cylinder instead of the 3.0. I don't understand why the 3.0 was ever offered. It's hp and torque wasn't markedly lower than the 3.6, and the mileage wasn't a great deal better.

I do think GM should have made the 2.0 turbo motor standard, VW/Audi style.
 
#137 ·
A 4 cyl may be for International sales + in Canada/Mexico the 4 Cyl would be cheaper to insure and until Caddy moves up market Buick is trapped as a NEAR lux option with Volvo and bottom Lexuses BUT PLEASE stop making the "cheep" model look cheep cx should IMHO be a CXL with 4 + cloth and look the same as CXL
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top