2010 Buick LaCrosse 2.4 Liter 4 cylinder engine

[bretfraz]

The LaCrosse CX will be the only model available with the Ecotec 2.4L 4 cyl direct injection engine. Horsepower is 182. Buick expects 25% of buyers to select the 4 cyl engine.

It is the only VVT Direct Injection Ecotec 2.4L available in any GM car. All other 2.4L Ecotec's are not DI. The DI Ecotec will be mated to the 6T45 auto transmission.

I cannot find a vehicle weight of the LaCrosse with the 4 cyl as it is not available yet. Only the 3.0L V6 comes with the LaCrosse CX right now. The CX with the 3.0L V6 weighs 3948 lbs according to GM official specs. I think we can assume the 4 cyl LaCrosse CX will be noticably lighter.

 

[mechanicx]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
But that 3929lb curb weight is for the V6 model. I didn't see the weight of the 4cyl model. It's not inconceivable it could be 300-400 pounds less.

That's almost the weight of a whole engine. I would be shocked beyond words if the 4-cyl weighed THAT much less than the V6.


Well I never said the V6 alone would weigh the whole 300-400lbs more than the 4cl, although I bet it does way a good bit more. V6 models lots of times weigh up to 300-400lbs more than the 4cylinder model due to other different components and options.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: mechanicx
Well I never said the V6 alone would weigh the whole 300-400lbs more than the 4cl, although I bet it does way a good bit more. V6 models lots of times weigh up to 300-400lbs more than the 4cylinder model due to other different components and options.

Yeah, true. Good call.

 

[KrisZ]

I tried looking for Opel/Vauxhall Insignia, since they are almost identical cars and according to this web site:

http://www.conceptcarz.com/vehicle/default.aspx?carID=16885&i=2

The 2.8 V6 turbo version weights only 3314.1 lbs, this will of course vary but I don't think Buick will be that much heavier, certainly not 4000lb heavy. So the 2.4 should be adequate, it will not be a hot rod, but Buick never aspired to be sporty.

 

[d00df00d]

You're forgetting something: The Buick badging adds another 600 lbs.

 

[asiancivicmaniac]

Maybe they will decontent enough stuff to get it to a lower weight.

 

[mcrn]

I agree that it does not belong in this segment. Their commercials show it next to a Lexus. I don't see their competition putting in basically the same engine as their corolla.

 

[crazyoildude]

Im sorry but i don't recall a quad 4 ever as an option in a go kart
If you read my post carefully you would know what i was referring to..
Just in case you can't figure it out i was referring to two cars in pretty much the same weight class one with a ford high output V8 and the other one with an oldsmobile high output 4 cylinder what i was trying to explain was that the little 4 had just as much power as the big 8 its all in the engine design and the gear ratio..

 

[addyguy]

I think it will be just fine, and I think it's a good move on the part of GM.

A 182HP engine will work just fine with the right gearing. Remember, in the early 1990's, full-size Buicks were powered by a 3.8 V-6 that put out 170HP, and they were considered 'peppy'.

 

[LS2JSTS]

There is a world of difference between 4,200 lbs and 3,500 lbs. At 3,500 lbs I agree this is more than doable. But at 4,200 lbs it would be a stretch, IMO.

Working a 4 banger hard isn't going to net you better mileage vs a V6 that doesnt have to work nearly as hard is it?

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
Working a 4 banger hard isn't going to net you better mileage vs a V6 that doesnt have to work nearly as hard is it?

Not at all, as anyone who can spell "Corvette" and "S2000" can tell you...

 

[ClarkB]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
Working a 4 banger hard isn't going to net you better mileage vs a V6 that doesnt have to work nearly as hard is it?

Not at all, as anyone who can spell "Corvette" and "S2000" can tell you...


The application might be slightly different, not to mention expected outcomes. City MPGs would be better 4 vs 6, no questions asked.

Clark

 

[JTK]

Sure enough. It's on the GM powertrain site. It probably will be a weird combo for those used to silky smooth, quiet Buick powertrains w/ low end grunt. Although I couldn't imagine the business of a 6spd auto, it's probably the only thing making this setup doable.

Joel

 

[d00df00d]

Don't be so sure about that. If normal driving takes the engine out of its efficient range, which is quite likely with a weak engine, then it will get poor mileage no matter where it is.

But I know what you're saying about the example. I was just picking a colorful one.

 

[KrisZ]

Originally Posted By: JTK
Sure enough. It's on the GM powertrain site. It probably will be a weird combo for those used to silky smooth, quiet Buick powertrains w/ low end grunt. Although I couldn't imagine the business of a 6spd auto, it's probably the only thing making this setup doable.

Joel


This is a nice looking engine, the intake manifold setup is really interesting, looks like a compact design meant for a small engine bay.

 

[eljefino]

My cadillac cimarron had 33 lb/hp.

They had better come up with an exhaust that doesn't sound insane at 4-6k RPM. And skip (decontent?) the tach so people don't know what's going on under the hood.

I'm having flashbacks to the 80's buick century that came with the iron duke 4 cyl, and teeny tiny brakes that overheated and warped. And 185/75/14 tires.

 

[addyguy]

Originally Posted By: eljefino
My cadillac cimarron had 33 lb/hp.

They had better come up with an exhaust that doesn't sound insane at 4-6k RPM. And skip (decontent?) the tach so people don't know what's going on under the hood.

I'm having flashbacks to the 80's buick century that came with the iron duke 4 cyl, and teeny tiny brakes that overheated and warped. And 185/75/14 tires.


The regional manager of the TLE I used to work at had a 1986 Century I-4 that he commuted crazy distances in for work visits. He used to take staff from one store to another in it; and he apparently scared most of them senseless, flying down the road at 80mph with the thing shaking and wobbling all over the place.

 

[LS2JSTS]

Originally Posted By: eljefino
My cadillac cimarron had 33 lb/hp.

No offense, but the Cimmaron also repeatedly appears on many worst cars of all times lists. Why would another car with a bad power to weight ratio that no one wanted then, demonstrate that a poor power to weight ratio is a good thing now?

I like the looks of this Buick, but underpowered rides are, or should be a thing of the past. Why do people keep talkning about cars from the 80's and 90's? Arent these the same cars that everybody says were junk and ruined GM's reputation. Heck I have a '78 Vette that has I think 180 or 185 factory HP, is that what we want to compare what "should" be to.

Has anyone ever nailed down what the "real" weight is going to be? I think this thread is useless if it's actually going to be in the 3,500-3,600lb range. My initial shock was with the near 4,200 lbs

 

[GMBoy]

All I could come up with:

http://www.buick.com/lacrosse/2010/specs-features/?year=2010&brand=lacrosse

Same as what others have said 3900-4100lbs but specs don't show the 4cyl. I would think the 4cyl would only shave 100lbs or so off that weight. I think the 3.0L with 255hp they offer now as base is what they should stick with. I'm not in favor of a 4cyl Buick like this car.

 

[Ed_T]

Bring back the 3.8, GM.