Buick Enclave/Chevy Traverse

[Rhymingmechanic]

I'm interested in hearing your experiences with either of these vehicles. My dad wants to know what I have heard about them--which is basically nothing except that their highway mileage is 24-26 at best.

Mom and Dad are ready to replace Mom's car, a 1998 or 99 Buick with the supercharged 3.8. I think it's a Regal. A family member works at a Chevy/Buick dealer, and has suggested they buy an Enclave.

I am far away from all this, but an SUV doesn't seem ideal, since Dad already has a full-size pickup. I suppose this is a separate topic, but what car from either Buick or Chevy would be a good replacement instead of the Enclave? Is the 3.8 V6 produced any more? Is there a comparable engine/mid-to-fullsize car combination? Whatever they buy, it will likely be a GM product from that dealership.

Thanks in advance for your ideas.

 

[d00df00d]

The Malibu has been getting great reviews. That would be my recommendation. More practical, better on gas, and from what I can tell, better to drive and more reliable as well. It's also available with a very good V6.

The Enclave looks radical, but really it's just another me-too SUV. We can't even delude ourselves into thinking it has any real utility over a sedan if your father already has a good pickup. I really think he'd get a lot more out of a sedan, especially a good one like the Malibu.

 

[addyguy]

I like the look of the Enclave. Personally, I'd go with that, if I had to choose. Has the good GM 3.6 DOHC V-6.

 

[oilboy123]

Seems like a sedan would make more sense......with better MPG and less money.

How long will they be making these? Will this model tank? Will parts be available in the future? Will they hold up?

HHR, Cobalt, Malibu?????

 

[IndyIan]

I like the look of the Buick Lucerne, there's a black one at work that makes me want to go on a 3000 mile road trip.
If you can find a 2008, they still had the 3.8L or a northstar V8, 2009's have a 3.9 V6.

SUV's tend to be hard to back up for older folks and maybe hard to get in and out of.

 

[Benzadmiral]

The Enclave has a beautiful interior that I wish they'd put in the Lucerne, but as others have mentioned, it's a good-sized SUV, gas will be a concern, and if your fatehr already has a full-size pickup, that should do for carrying loads.

The '98 or '99 Regal would be a very good choice, if it's been well-maintained.

 

[01rangerxl]

The Buick LaCrosse still uses the 3.8 as the base engine I think.

I'd have to suggest going for a Buick sedan as the replacement unless there is a real need for a SUV. The Enclave is thousands more than the LaCrosse and Lucerne and it gets worse mileage.

Personally, I'm not a fan of the Travesty and Enclave clones. I'm just not a fan of the funky blob styling and complete lack of off road ability.

 

[d00df00d]

I just realized that until 01rangerxl, everyone recommending a Buick was doing so on the basis of style, and everyone recommending a Chevy was doing so on the basis of functionality.

Has the LaCrosse changed drastically in the past few years? I drove an '06 model, and it was in every way one of the worst vehicles I had ever been in.

 

[IndyIan]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d

Has the LaCrosse changed drastically in the past few years? I drove an '06 model, and it was in every way one of the worst vehicles I had ever been in.


I think your 1996 M3 would probably get the same reaction from many Buick customers. Different cars for different markets...

I guess basically most Buicks are dressed up Chevys with a few more or different features. The devil is in the details for some people, maybe the seats are better in the Buick? For some people that makes the Buick better than the Chevy or the Honda, done. Or they won't buy a 4 cylinder on principal, never mind how it performs.

 

[d00df00d]

Indy, I can't tell if you're using my car to draw a facile conclusion about my argument, or saying that Buick customers are simple-minded and solipsistic. Could you clarify?

 

[IndyIan]

Well I assumed your BMW represents what attributes you like in a car, otherwise why would you have it? Based on that assumption I can see how you might not like a Buick. I think you were exaggerating a bit on how bad the car is, unless you've lived a very sheltered automotive life?

Are Buick customers simpleminded? I don't like to generalize but the age 50+ people I see buying them don't appear to be "car people" and really couldn't care less that their car has 12 valves or 24, or has 5 speeds or 4... Why should they? Why should anyone buying that type of car care?
Buying a car based on how comfortable the seat is not a poorer criteria than mileage for them. All the cars in the class get about the same mileage, they all float down the road about the same... Why not get one that you like the look of? I imagine Buicks are far cheaper now than an Avalon, probably won't cost significantly more to maintain.

As for them being solipsistic? I'll have to ask one if I'm lucky enough to be thought into their personal universe...
Ian

 

[Rhymingmechanic]

Thanks for the replies so far. I also think another sedan would make more sense. I'll talk to them soon to see where things stand.

IndyIan, the photo you posted makes that car look a lot better than it does on Buick's website. I also found out the Lacrosse still has the 3.8. Lucerne has a 3.9 with more hp, but almost the same torque.

I wouldn't say Mom drives her car hard, so she probably won't miss the supercharger after awhile. (She also doesn't like having to buy premium gas.) But I wonder if going to one of the Chevies with the 2.4 Ecotec would be disappointing. They live in a rural area, with most driving between 3500-5500 ft. elevation and maybe an occasional trip into the Rockies. I don't know whether they would consider a 4-cylinder, but I might suggest it if the power is adequate.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: IndyIan
Well I assumed your BMW represents what attributes you like in a car, otherwise why would you have it? Based on that assumption I can see how you might not like a Buick.

Quite right. Now, please tell me how you conclude that I assume everyone likes what I like, and examined the car on that assumption. That is a mystery to me.

Have you driven a LaCrosse, by the way?

 

[IndyIan]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
I drove an '06 model, and it was in every way one of the worst vehicles I had ever been in.

I guess statements like this made me think that you had a very narrow view of what a good car is.
If not, then I'm sorry to have falsely assumed.

I have never driven an 06 LaCrosse but I suspect the 3.8L drivetrain is similar to a 1989 or 1999 Lesabre... Or any other 3.8L GM sedan... It moved those cars smartly and I'd think it did just fine in 2006 for most buyers. I'll also assume the interior is quieter than an econo box and more comfortable. Also that it rides smoother than a Civic. You drove it so you can tell me if I'm wrong.

Anyways, this potential Buick buyer does have a "car guy" in their corner so I think they will be Ok. They will have someone on their side getting them to try something different than they might thought of themselves.
Ian

 

[d00df00d]

I had similar assumptions going into it, which is why I chose it as a rental car when my old car got rear-ended. I figured that if I was going to get a domestic econoboat, it might as well be comfortable.

I've driven other Buicks -- including older Park Avenues with blown dampers and worn steering racks that had dead zones of about 10 degrees -- and didn't find them that bad. A Buick is supposed to be soft everywhere. I hate that, but I can see the appeal and don't mind too much that other people like it. The LaCrosse I drove was different: It's like it was soft in only the wrong parts (handling, engine, controls), and also hard in the wrong places (ride, seats).

It didn't ride particularly comfortablly, it wasn't particularly quiet, almost every inch of it felt cheaply made, the dash and console were crude, and the visibility was so bad that I almost lost a whole semi behind the C-pillar. And THEN there were all the typical dynamic disadvantages that you presumed were 100% of the evaluation, except they were even worse than you probably thought: no control input (steering, gas, brake) ever produced the same result twice, the engine was buzzy and underwhelming, the transmission didn't always shift smoothly, and despite the firm ride, the body pitched and rolled and dove so badly that I was too scared to test the handling.

So, basically, it was neither a sensory deprivation tank nor a good car to drive. I ended up taking it back to the rental place and asking for a Cobalt, even though the insurance company was covering the rental and I wouldn't see a penny of the savings. I felt better in the Cobalt from the moment I drove off the lot to the moment I took it back.

That's why I asked if it had changed recently.