2002 Buick LeSabre Limited

Status
Not open for further replies.
Keep it! I like the light-colored interior. My '03 Park Avenue had the same, non-supercharged engine, and though it was longer and heavier than the LeSabre, I saw 21-22 mpg combined on regular gas (70% city driving) and 30-32 on the highway. The LeSabre should be able to match or even beat that while giving you the classic Buick ride.

Maintenance and repair: I had little trouble with the PA. It used a little oil, less after I started filling with QS Defy. There were entire months during its 6.5-year tenure where all I did was put gas in it, check the oil and maybe top off, and keep it clean inside and out.

The bells and whistles gave no trouble. As for the old man/Buick image, you can (a) drive it like Fangio or Stirling Moss in a Mercedes, (b) trick it out as spasm3 suggested above, (c) do both, or (d) say "Scrooo 'em."
 
Yes you can get good mileage if you drive ALL highway, but it dips very very fast in the city!! My 3.1 century and 3.0 Taurus are the same way. Both can touch 30 mpg on highway, but get an average of 15 city!

My father in law has a 2001 Lesabre 3.8 and a 2001 Regal 3.8, both are the same way. The Culprit is the 4T65e tranny, with not enough ratios.
 
Originally Posted By: 901Memphis
Yes you can get good mileage if you drive ALL highway, but it dips very very fast in the city!! My 3.1 century and 3.0 Taurus are the same way. Both can touch 30 mpg on highway, but get an average of 15 city!

My father in law has a 2001 Lesabre 3.8 and a 2001 Regal 3.8, both are the same way. The Culprit is the 4T65e tranny, with not enough ratios.


In my opinion, the culprit is the cylinder count. We have two vehicles, both with 5-speed automatics and with nearly identical gear ratios. The V-6 car (an Acura MDX) suffers dramatically in the city, and has a fairly wide spread between city and highway mileage (17/23, or a 35% "gain" on the highway). The I-4 car (a Honda CR-V) doesn't have as wide of a delta between its city and highway mileage (22/28, or a 25% "gain" on the highway).

I have found the same to be true in other vehicles. A '95 Nissan truck I had (I-4) would get 18 in town and 20 on the road...or nearly the same. An '07 Corolla I had would get about 33-34 in town and about 38 on the road. Both of these had 4-cylinders. Our Dodge minivans would get pretty good highway mileage with a dramatic drop in town. Both of them have V-6s.

Maybe it's no more than a loose correlation, but it seems that the 6-cylinder engines consume quite a bit more fuel at idle and at low speed than the 4-cylinder engines do. I suppose that it stands to reason, but at those power and engine speed levels (closed or low throttle, and around 1,000 rpm), I think cylinder count influences fuel consumption quite a bit. Think about it, if you're sitting at a stoplight. A 6-cylinder has 50% more cylinders than a 4-cylinder. Those cylinders have to be fed with fuel.
 
I get 34mpgUS regularly in mine, all highway. It's a hidden gem for those that appreciate it's qualities.

I would keep it as it is an awesome cruiser. But, if you do sell, make sure it is to someone who will take care of it the same as your mom had.
 
Sorry for your loss. I'll bet its a nice cruiser for those long, flat Iowa roads. Very well known and understood set of equipment in there, replacement parts available anywhere.

Probably more comfortably than your Hyundai, and more space.

Nice of you to reimburse the estate. I'd imagine that it could just be gifted to you somehow?
 
Originally Posted By: JHZR2

Nice of you to reimburse the estate. I'd imagine that it could just be gifted to you somehow?


It probably could be gifted, but I am taking over all of my dad's affairs and I want to make sure there is no appearance of impropriety within the family.

We are in the middle of those difficult family decisions-at 94 dad isn't able to stay on the farm now that my mother is gone. While he has assets, most of them are wrapped up in real estate so actually buying the car from the estate would give him additional cash. It is something he wouldn't take if I were to just offer cash help so it's a round about way to help my dad financially.

There are a number of other items that we will "sell" for the estate for the same reasons.
 
first , my sincere condolences for your lose.
keep the Sabre. it's at least one level up from your DD elantra (i know, i have one). even if somebody will tell you about "granpa" image, I don't think you lived your almost 70 years around what others want you to do.
nice of you for helping dad.
 
Same thing happened to me 4 years ago, I was left a 2000 Park Avenue (same chassis, more overhang really). Yes great gas mileage. Production of the 3800 V6 engine officially ended on Friday, August 22, 2008 when plant 36 was closed. There was a closing ceremony and speakers who extolled the virtues of the engine. Originally GM had set this date for January 1, 1999; however, due to the vast number of complaints from both investors and customers because of the popularity and reliability of the engine, the date was extended. At the end of production, the LZ4 3500 OHV V6 replaced the naturally aspirated 3800 applications, and the LY7 3.6L DOHC V6 replaced the supercharged 3800 applications.

My 3.6L V6 2011 Camaro is powerful (312 hp), yet much more complicated than the venerable Series II 3.8L V6 in that 2000 Park Avenue. Both cars get about the same 30 mpg on the highway and they both weigh the same!
 
My 98 lesabre could get 35mpg, but you kind of paradoxically had to bring the speed up to 70mph to get it. At the classic '55mph for best fuel efficiency' it was more like 25mpg.

It was a great car, easy to drive, decent power. Scrapped it after the lower intake manifold killed the engine at a too early 105k miles
frown.gif
 
I have a '99 Regal and love the 3800 motor. Easy on oil, decent efficiency. Originally new in the family with 178k miles on it now. Trans behaves absolutely perfect despite the reputation of say pre-'03 or so transes, no trans work ever other than fluid a few times. Fixed a number of oil leaks and the notorious intake was done. I also really appreciate on the range of efficiency of this motor- in our 2012 Impreza,it's a mileage queen but only in perfect conditions; watch out for hills, AC use and never drive it in anger. I feel like I can absolutely beat on the Regal and I'll lose just a few percent in mileage. I drive 25 and 35mpg roads, with a few lights in suburbia to the bus stop ~7 miles each way and get 22mpg avg. through the calendar year. 70mph on highway = 26mpg. ~60, maybe closing in on 30mpg. Someone mentioned the trans/gearing killing city mileage- not true. These cars have fairly aggressive lockup of the converter in both 3rd and 4th gear. On my way home, I'll lockup, uphill, in 3rd gear at 32-35mph; you really notice the drop in revs.

We drove a 2001 Lesabre for a year. It gave up 0.5mpg to the regal in general suburban driving.

I've had direct reports of the 30 to 30+ highway mileage on Park Avenues and the like and hadn't understood how. Then I read a post here that explained that Buick had a kind of secret lean cruise mode in some of these cars in this vintage -- only above a certain speed, which explains Stregone's experience exactly.

Originally Posted By: Stregone
My 98 lesabre could get 35mpg, but you kind of paradoxically had to bring the speed up to 70mph to get it. At the classic '55mph for best fuel efficiency' it was more like 25mpg.

It was a great car, easy to drive, decent power. Scrapped it after the lower intake manifold killed the engine at a too early 105k miles
frown.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top