2010 Buick Lucerne rental -- impressions

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Oct 20, 2005
Messages
12,115
Location
PA
My brother was given one as a loaner after taking our Mom's car to the dealership (the dealer didn't have any non-SUV loaners). He drove me around in it for a couple of hours on some errands. The following is a list of my impressions from the passenger's seat combined with his from behind the wheel (I couldn't drive it because my name wasn't on the rental).

This was a 2010 model with the 3.9L V6 and about 18k miles.


- Engine was what you'd expect: quiet, smooth, able to get you onto the highway without too much trouble, and that's about it. Acceleration was totally unimpressive.

- Transmission shifted nicely.

- Brakes were fantastic for a car like this. A little grabby but mostly appropriate for around-town use, with a good amount of bite in a panic stop.

- Handling was very good for such a large, softly sprung car. Decent steering, good grip, and surprisingly little body roll.

- Throttle kick-downs caused torque steer at normal-person speeds on the highway. Slight, but inexcusable for an upscale car.

- Ride quality was mostly good, with the one tiny exception that some bumps caused a disconcerting rattling noise and vibration (like a much milder version of a city bus).

- Dashboard was a joke. Instruments looked like they came from a 10 year-old econobox. Faux wood trim looked like it came from the dollar store. LCD info display was straight out of the 70s.

- The steering column could be made to flex visibly by tugging on the steering wheel.


Dynamically, this car seems to be a big step forward for Buick -- which is to say it is now par for the course in this market segment, rather than woefully inadequate. The real shame is that the interior constantly reminded us of the cars that made people stop taking GM seriously. Overall, the car was a great effort, but it has absolutely nothing on its foreign rivals, which seem vastly more complete and comprehensively engineered.

I can see the price being enticing compared to, say, a Lexus, but I can't imagine paying Lucerne money only to be greeted every morning by an interior that is at least 15 years behind its competition. I'd rather pay a bit less for a car that doesn't even pretend to be upscale. At least that way I'd feel like I was being honest with myself.
 
I think you pretty much hit the nail on the head. If I was going to get a lucern I'd have to get the 4.6 Northstar. Then I would wonder why I didn't just buy a Cadillac DTS since its the same car.
 
Not a bad review but you could nitpick many more expensive imports worse. I don't think the interior is all that downscale. Plenty of cars as expensive or more without great interiors. You make it sound worse than a KIA's.
 
You also must remember what the target market for the Lucerne is...

My parents.... the AARP crowd.... bluehairs..... whatever you want to call them. They don't look for a cutting edge interior design.... they prefer "familiar" over something new.

The Lucerne has been in production for several years now. That's why the interior seems dated.... the interior was designed several years ago. It still has a four speed transmission!

Buick has ignored the Lucerne while concentrating on the LaCrosse and the Regal.


Plus, you don't know the history of this car. A 2010 with 18,000 miles that a dealer loans out to customers could have the following history:

1) Dealer/Salesman demo from day one.
2) Former rental car that had some quick miles racked up on it, that the dealer picked up at the auction for cheap... will use as a "lot car" for a while, then sell.

I'd doubt that it was ever a one owner car that was loved and cared for.

Either way, it's likely already seen some hard use.
 
GM vehicles designed in the first half of this decade always get criticized for their interiors. It's a fair criticism.

Personally, I don't really care about the visual appeal of the interior of a car. All I need is that it doesn't hinder my ability to drive the car, and that the seats are comfortable. An example of the former is the Saturn L-series, in which the distance between the brake pedal and the console is narrower than my foot (no throttle for me!).

I own the predecessor of the Lucerne, the Park Avenue. The interior's dated (designed for the 1997 model year), but I love the car. I bought it because of the L67 engine, the big brakes, and the sport suspension. The Lucerne's lack of an L67 is why I went with a PA instead.
 
I don't know how you can accurately critique things like brake response from the passenger seat.
 
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
Not a bad review but you could nitpick many more expensive imports worse. I don't think the interior is all that downscale. Plenty of cars as expensive or more without great interiors. You make it sound worse than a KIA's.

Nitpicking? Not sure what you mean. Would you have preferred if I had just said "this car was really underwhelming" and left it at that?

Either way, I was going to say it reminded me of the Lexus ES, which gave me the same "what do you take me for" feeling. But the post was getting long already, and I don't think too many people here are morbidly interested to hear a 10-page paper on my taste in cars...
 
Originally Posted By: mrsilv04
You also must remember what the target market for the Lucerne is...

they prefer "familiar" over something new.

Ah, now that makes sense. Thanks for the reminder.
 
Originally Posted By: silverrat
I don't know how you can accurately critique things like brake response from the passenger seat.

That's because you didn't read the first paragraph of the post.
wink.gif
 
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: silverrat
I don't know how you can accurately critique things like brake response from the passenger seat.

That's because you didn't read the first paragraph of the post.
wink.gif



Sorry about that.
 
I've seen on but never driven one. I'd guess you gave it a pretty fair assesment.

Quote:
Overall, the car was a great effort, but it has absolutely nothing on its foreign rivals, which seem vastly more complete and comprehensively engineered.


I think you could say the same thing if you replaced "its foreign rivals" with "other Buicks". The Regal and Lacrosse are vastly superior as well. The Lucerne is the old peoples car and is about to be discontinued with no replacement. I think it only offers the V8 for the 2011 model year. Soon the Volt and next generation Malibu will be built at that plant.
 
Originally Posted By: WishIhadatruck
I think you could say the same thing if you replaced "its foreign rivals" with "other Buicks". The Regal and Lacrosse are vastly superior as well. The Lucerne is the old peoples car and is about to be discontinued with no replacement.

I had a feeling this was the case. The way the press is talking about Buick's latest offerings makes them sound like they're from a different planet from what I saw.
 
I'd like to see the Holden built (for the Chinese market) "Park Avenue" replace the Lucerne.

Especially so since the G8 has gone bye-bye.
 
Originally Posted By: mrsilv04
I'd like to see the Holden built (for the Chinese market) "Park Avenue" replace the Lucerne.

Strongly agree.

I'd also love to see Commodore station wagon come here too. I've been thinking about getting an old B-body wagon, but a Commodore wagon would be better.
 
Eh, driving a 1999 badge-engineered LeSabre, I'm not surprised. The Buicks of the past 20 years since they were neutered in the mid-80's or earlier have been floaty oldster mobiles. Yet there's the Park Ave. Ultra, which is very quick stock, has "gasp" handling, and easily gets over 300 whp with a smaller pulley and supporting mods/tuning.

Good riddance to the old Buick.
 
Yeah the lucerne is old news. Now the new Lacross is where it's at and the new Regal is sweet too.
 
I think Buick has a problem...

I believe that I'm pretty savvy about cars, and especially Buicks, as my Dad has driven Buicks for about 40 years now.

The problem is that I'm having a hard time seeing much of anything that differentiates the LaCrosse from the Regal.

Their base pricing is nearly the same, and they share the same engine (although the LaCrosse also has a V6). Height, width, and length are all nearly the same of each other.

Is the LaCrosse supposed to be more of a luxury model, and the Regal more of a sportier model?

Maybe it will be more obvious once I get to see both models side by side...
21.gif
 
Quote:
- Dashboard was a joke. Instruments looked like they came from a 10 year-old econobox. Faux wood trim looked like it came from the dollar store. LCD info display was straight out of the 70s.


Since you mention the driver info center and it's dated design and also talk about Lexus...

Have you seen that stupid digital clock Toyota uses on every single vehicle? From a bare-bones Carolla to a Lexus LS600h... the same $2 clock that looks like it was lifted from a 1970's Casio digital watch.
 
I'm still trying to get over the fact that the LaCrosse and Regal have gun slits for windows and C-pillars the size of Texas. The Lucerne at least lets you see out...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom