(first posted 12/3/2014) The Cadillac STS and Buick Lucerne were both introduced in the mid-2000s to serve as flagship, full-size luxury sedans for their respective brands. Both sedans were caught up in the drama of GM’s bankruptcy and reorganisation, and would prove to be developmental dead ends. Neither would be directly replaced when they both shuffled off the automotive market in 2011. Both featured a more European style than their predecessors, and they were both available with Magnetic Ride Control and the smooth Northstar V8. However, that’s where the similarities end as these two GM sedans ultimately represented quite different takes on the concept of luxury. This week, let’s look at the Lucerne.
The Lucerne was introduced in 2006 as a replacement for the aging Buick LeSabre and Park Avenue. The former was reliable and dependable, but saddled with a low-rent interior and old-fashioned styling; the latter had been on the market for almost a decade. The average age of Buick buyers had become unsustainable and the brand’s image was firmly in “joke” territory. Buick was making an effort to skew younger, and was starting to succeed with products like the Rendezvous and, later, the Enclave crossover.
The Lucerne had to retain both the traditional, bargain-oriented, full-size sedan buyers as well as those hankering for a traditional domestic luxury sedan. In addition, the Lucerne had to appeal to new, younger buyers, particularly those who would usually buy imports.
The Lucerne, on an aesthetic level, succeeded at its mission statement. It managed to add some vaguely European styling cues without looking too foreign and risk alienating traditional shoppers. For those after some heritage Buick cues, Ventiports reappeared (three on each side for the V6, four for the V8). Styling was smoother and more modern than its fellow Hamtramck-built G platform-mate, the Cadillac DTS, which attempted to apply Art & Science styling cues to the aging DeVille body. The Lucerne looked fresher and trimmer; it was 4.4 inches shorter than the DTS, but still a big ‘un with 6.6 inches on the Chrysler 300. The range-topping CXS featured tasteful chrome accented fog lights and 10-spoke aluminum wheels, giving it a more premium look.
The interior was a huge improvement, with better-quality materials and a clean, simple design. There was an optional infotainment screen with satellite navigation, and other available features included heated and ventilated front seats, remote start, 9-speaker Harmon Kardon stereo, lane departure warning, AUX input and curtain airbags. A bench seat was available on lesser models.
Where the Lucerne didn’t advance, though, was in its powertrains. The Lucerne didn’t pick up the extinct Aurora’s Shortstar V6, a smoother and more modern unit, nor the increasingly used 3.5/3.9 “High Value” V6 and up-to-date 3.6 “High Feature” V6. Instead, the venerable 3.8 V6 made a repeat appearance in CX and CXL trims. Although reliable, the 3.8 was outperformed by almost every rival V6, with only 197hp and 233 ft-lbs; 0-60 was approximately 8.8 seconds.
Source: Mikeys Max’s CarDomain page
The supercharged 3.8 was no more, replaced by the 4.6 Northstar V8 now available outside of the Cadillac stable. Available in CXL and CXS trims, this was the first V8 Buick sedan since the Roadmaster was axed in 1996. Refined over the years, the Northstar had become a more solidly reliable powertrain but no more powerful; in the Lucerne, it had the Cadillac Seville SLS’ 275hp and 295 ft-lbs tune and a 0-60 of around 7 seconds. In CXS trim, it featured Magnetic Ride Control, previously introduced in the Seville STS. Using dampers filled with magnetorheological fluid, MRC served to eliminate the float and body roll prominent in lesser Lucernes and provide flatter cornering and sharper handling. All Lucernes also featured front and rear stabilizer bars and an all-independent suspension, but it was only the CXS that had any dynamism. GM showed that MRC could significantly improve the handling of a 4000lb, nose-heavy, FWD sedan without sacrificing the ride quality that traditional Buick consumers craved.
Both the V6 and V8 were mated to smooth-shifting four-speed automatic transmissions, while most rivals were up to five or six speeds with available manual shift control; many rivals also boasted standard V6 engines that bested the V6 and even the V8. All Lucernes, however, featured Buick’s much-touted Quiet Tuning, providing occupants with a tomb-like silence. The stiff G-Body may have dated back to the 1990s, but it still had some life in it. A shame, then, that Old GM nickel-and-dimed the Lucerne by offering 4-speed autos and the 3.8 V6.
Despite the onslaught of bankruptcy proceedings and the lack of critical buzz, the Lucerne did receive some worthwhile upgrades. In 2009, the moribund 3.8 was ditched in favour of the newer, more powerful (227hp, 237 ft-lbs) 3.9 High Value V6, with available Flex-Fuel capability. Despite being more powerful, the 3.9 had the same EPA ratings (17/25mpg).
The CXL V8 and CXS were dropped after 2008, replaced by a new flagship Super trim. The Super featured a bold, new, waterfall grille, a French seam leather dash, heated steering wheel and suede trim on the seats and doors. In addition, the Super now featured the performance-tuned version of the Northstar shared with the DTS Performance. Power was up to 292hp, but torque was down slightly to 288 ft-lbs; due to the more aggressive tune, though, gas mileage was also down to 15/22 mpg. The chassis was fettled for more responsive handling, and the new flagship retained the CXS’ Magnetic Ride Control. Ultimately though, a MSRP of around $40k (when the base CX 3.9 retailed for $27k) and a lack of marketing meant the Super was bound to be rare.
The Lucerne was always a quietly unassuming player, with little in the way of critical buzz and only modest commercial success. Even GM didn’t push the flagship Buick much, with a limited airing of commercials touting its Quiet Tuning, build quality and… its heated washer fluid (“cool story, bro”). No real mention was made of the V8 models or Magnetic Ride Control. Perhaps this was wise, as such performance features weren’t high on the list of priorities for Lucerne buyers, but at the same time it left buyers unaware of the sonorous V8 and the surprising dynamism of the CXS/Super’s handling, the latter of which earned the respect of critics despite their criticism of the aged transmission and over-boosted steering.
All Lucernes received the Super’s rocker panels, grille and fog lights for 2010; this would be the last update before Buick’s flagship and its DTS sibling were axed for 2011. The full-size sedan segment had been steadily shrinking, however. Sales for the debut year were strong (96k units), but were lower than the LeSabre’s sales just a couple of years prior. Sales would continue to steadily drop, reaching a low of 20k units in 2011.
The introduction of a new LaCrosse in 2010 – featuring a sharp, fastback profile, heritage sweepspear and a gorgeous new interior, not to mention an available 3.6 V6 that outperformed the Lucerne’s engines – also served to undermine the Lucerne. This classy new LaCrosse would become Buick’s flagship sedan.
The Lucerne actually received meaningful updates – more so than its stablemates – and represented a big improvement over its predecessors. In fact, it may be the best Seville that Cadillac never made, at least in CXS and Super trims. However, it wasn’t at the top of its class and the near-luxury/full-size sedan segment didn’t sit still.
Curbsiders: has anyone ever owned or driven a Lucerne? Ever entertained the possibility of buying one? Discuss below, and tune in for the next instalment where we look at Cadillac’s mid-2000s attempt at a flagship sedan.
Related Reading:
Curbside Classic: 1998-2004 Cadillac Seville
Curbside Classic: 2000-06 Ford Taurus
Curbside Capsule: 1991-96 Buick Roadmaster
Sorry, but…yawn! These are not REAL Buick’s (or Caddy’s). Neatly done but boring, inside and out. Looks like a larger Passat, but probably without the same build quality. I know every car maker seems to think they have to make “Euro style” cars, but in so doing they have completely lost their identity and any qualities that once made them special. These will end up as bangers – many probably are already – until they are shuffled off to the wreckers.
For me it’s a yawn due to the fact that it’s still quite obviously a big Buick of the nineties variety—a FWD barge, one’s penultimate step on the Sloan ladder to Cadillac hearse. This is only Euro style in comparison with nineties GM—from a European (or in my case expat American) perspective this is recognizably quite American. FWD barges might how people like to remember Buick, but geriatric LeSabres (and to some degree unkillable Centuries) are still the first thing that comes to mind when a somewhat younger person like me thinks of the brand.
The fact that Buck’s shaved a decade or two from its median buyer age is interesting to me. When I look at their car lineup it strikes me as being mostly evolutionary from the nineties Buicks I remember—perhaps it’s CUV’s that define Buick today.
I dunno, when the word Buick comes to mind, I see a RWD hardtop with nothing less than a genuine Buick V-6 or V-8 under the hood, preferably a big block 430 or 455 for a little extra punch. Maybe a straight 8 if it’s from the 40’s. It has to have the sweep spear, in one form or another, and it definitely requires the trademark ventiports on the front fenders or hood. It may have a glitzy chrome dash or a Federal faux wood and plastic padded safety dash, but those other trademarks are a must for it to really say, “I’m unabashedly a Buick, and proud of it.” When I was small, these cars had long since been grazing under faded pennants at sketchy Kurt Russell style used car lots in north Seattle and Everett- the front wheel drive models were the ones in showrooms at the bigger corporate dealerships with plush couches and brighter signage out front. Still, as a youngun I longed for a time before my time. . . I reckon there are a fair number of folks in my generation who feel the same way. Regarding the styling of the Lucerne, it looks less Buick-like than its successor the LaCrosse, which at least has the combination of sweep spear and a sleek fastback profile not seen since the days of the 67-68 Wildcat coupe. Only wish that trunk were a bit longer. . .
Ugly. Just more lookalike jellybean cars. These days you can’t tell a Mercedes from a Buick from a Toyota. Cars used to have an identity, you could tell what they were by their appearance. That all went away back in the ’70s. Not only are they completely generic, but they are not even real cars anymore. Nothing but computers on wheels. I won’t work on anything newer than a 1980, nothing with EFI or FWD. Carbs and RWD only. Even being a diehard car guy, what they call cars today mean nothing to me.
“Get off my lawn you damn kids!”
I’d much rather drive one of today’s cars than a deathtrap from that era.
Not to mention, the dreaded M-word (MALAISE!).
Jellybean? I heard that. Okay, I’ll admit, these are boring looking cars. But I have thought about upgrading to one from my ’97 Aurora. But I love the styling of my car. I just can’t do it. Maybe a late model Super. Hmm.
I agree, the Lucerne was ugly and generic. Note to car designers: It’s never attractive when you make the whole front corner of a car a headlight.
The new LaCrosse isn’t too bad.
+1 headlight-corner thing
+2
+3
+4, looking at you too, Toyota
Though I will point out that there was a cornering lamp in that headlight on the higher end Lucernes from what I recall.
+4
I’ve had a 2007 Lucerne that I bought used in 2009. the fact that it cost half of what it cost new tells you something. It replaced a 98 Bonneville, which despite its crappy interior, really felt like a sport sedan in comparison. The Lucerne has been relatively trouble free, the 3.8 is legendary for reliability. No issues other than a broken door handle (replaced under warranty) and a defective emission control valve which prevented the gas tank from being vented properly (it would take an hour to fill the tank). It just does its job without complaint, day in and day out. 17 MPG city and usually 30-31 on the highway.
My family has owned Buicks and Cadillacs since before I was born, and I’m closing in on 60 yrs. I, myself have owned about 15 since starting to drive.
In 2009, my mother decided to buy her last car and off we went to the dealership that sold her and dad their cars for the past 30 years. My mother took one look at the Lucerne Super and decided to keep her Roadmaster. (It’s still in the garage.) Her main gripes? No column shift in the high-end model and the tail lights didn’t go all the way across the back like Buick had done since the ’60s.
I kinda liked it. I don’t ask much of a car except to be quiet, comfortable and reliable. The one complaint I had about it was the suede seat inserts. Grippy, yes, but who’s gonna toss around a Lucerne?
I wouldn’t have traded a Roadmaster for one of these either, a Park Avenue Ultra, sure, but not a Lucerne.
There were many years where full size Buicks didn’t have full width tails. Especially the 1977-85 B body LeSabre.
Shifter levers are now going away in favor of rotary dials. Next we will have Boomer buyers complaining that “new cars don’t have a real floor shift”.
Time marches on.
Floor/console shifters were a superfluous pain in the ass for years; the sooner they’re gone the better.
It’s interesting you only write about and show pictures of the decked-out, high price, high-performance versions. Realistically – much like both of its predecessors which also had a couple interesting variants – the average Lucerne you’ll actually find on the street is a medicine-blue CX model with a gray cloth bench seat, dinky 16 inch wheels, and 3800 engine. (see below for the realistic interior view)
Might as well have been the 2006-2011 LeSabre. Like the 2005-2010 Lacrosse, these cars were merely updates of old platforms meant to appeal to the exact same buyers who bought the previous versions, with only a slight bent on marketing to “younger” people. As you said, it was barely a flash in the pan, and did zero to change Buick’s image. It wasn’t until the 2010s that Buick sedans started to become genuinely appealing to a different demographic, with cars like the Regal and (truly) new Lacrosse. Still, these did sell quite well here in the Midwest.
I’m not hating on these cars, in fact, they were probably the ultimate perfection of this automotive concept – the cushy domestic freeway cruiser – but they were nothing new whatsoever. I say this as a former owner of a 2003 Buick Park Avenue, which I loved for what it was; an unapologetic American barge. Wouldn’t mind one of these at all – the interiors are much less chintzy, and they’re even quieter to drive (rented quite a few when they were still being sold).
Except for the Buick emblem on the steering wheel, sure looks like a Chevy Impala dash, to me.
Thats what I always thought too, the previous generation Park Avenue/LeSabre may have had a “dinky” interior(pssstt…..its not as bad as people who have never driven the car think it is) but at least it looked like a proper Buick interior with a unique dash.
The Lucerne was blandsville, making the previous gen Park Avenue seem like Ozzy Osbourne in comparison to the Lucernes Amish styling.
My ’03 Park Avenue was the bland base model (no head-up display or center console or anything like that), but I did like how the dash wrapped around the the door panels Lincoln MKVIII-style and the “scruchy” leather inserts on the door panels were nice in an old-school way. Some materials were very cheap and plasticy, though – the hard plastic dashboard, ash tray, and sun glass holder could’ve come out of a Kia. I mostly ignored it, because the rest of the car was smooth, quiet, and surprisingly nice to drive.
The Lucerne had much nicer quality materials, but the base models looked so much like an Impala that I briefly wondered whether they were on the same platform when I first sat in one back at the ’06 Detroit Autoshow.
The DTS of the same era uses the same steering wheel, shifter, arm rest, many of the buttons, etc.
Very nice article William. You’ve done this quickly forgotten car justice.
Although I find most GM cars from this era laughable, and this car was infected with many maladies, I always had a soft spot for it. I remember when it came out thinking how much of a leap it was in terms of styling for Buick. Up until that point, all their sedans (save for the goofy ’05 LaCrosse) had debuted in the previous Millennium. Especially in CXS trim, the Lucerne looked far more premium and international. I also saw it as a de facto replacement for the Oldsmobile Aurora. I was really rooting for the Lucerne, as around that time, rumors of Buick’s possible demise were circulating.
Unfortunately, as Max P. states, most Lucernes sold were base, chrome-less CX models with cloth bench seats, and purchased by the same elderly buyers trading in their LeSabres. The early CXS V8 models were by far the most appealing. I never really cared for the mid-cycle “Super” front fascias. If it’s any solace, the Lucerne did contribute in a very small way to keeping Buick afloat for a few years before more competitive products arrived.
On a more personal note, I always thought that the Lucerne (probably a mid-level CXL V6) as the next car my grandfather would’ve bought had he still been living at this point.
I had a 3800 powered one as a dealer loaner once. It was one of the higher level trims so it had heated seats, leather, etc. One of the few cars that encouraged me to drive sedately – trying to push it (on ramps and such) was like trying to salsa dance with my 80 year old, double hip surgery grandmother.
A few months prior I had driven a 2004 Crown Victoria with 100,000 plus miles on it, the CV was 10 times more fun to bomb around in from a driving dynamics standpoint.
I’ll take a black on black Super please.
Even if it is laughable to some… pretty nice ride with more character and attitude than most other full sizers made then.
I always liked the Lucerne, and briefly thought about buying one, but the styling wasn’t complete – for a Buick. A look at the back end killed it for me – no chrome trim around the tail lights, too plain – details like that should inherent to a Buick.
Unfortunately, you could tell the car was done on a seriously small budget – they should have merely updated the LeSabre until the new Lacrosse was ready.
As an aside, Buick would have been better served by keeping the legacy names, but the current Lacrosse is one fine ride!
I actually think you can blame a lot of cars for being anonymous-looking, yet the Lucerne looks like it was purposely styled to be bland. And yet, they had to realize that it needed “something” as they stuck those Buick trademark exhaust ports on the fenders.
I’ve never owned or even driven a Buick but did admire several Regal coupes my uncle owned in the 70s-80s. The only reason why I’d buy one of these Lucernes….or most “modern” Buicks, is because they are cheap to buy and reasonably reliable. To me, their size and blandness is a big minus.
Never could get past the name [Lucerne ? That’s a name for a cow not a “near luxury” car] or the Toyota Corolla tail lights.
The interior shot provided by Max P could just as easily been from a base Malibu.
And on a car this large, could we skip the stupid console ?
Lucerne is in fact an excellent name! ))
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucerne
Although I would rather have an Opel Ascona…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ascona
I am just performing my patriotic duty here…
What about Mercury Montreux? Would You buy one?
Cadillac had a Berlin model back around WWI.
Lucerne is one of Safeway’s store brands.
As the writer suggests, there seemed to be a reluctance by American makes to keep up with foreign engine & transmission development. Have they been skinflints or just clueless? While the Japanese introduced all-aluminum DOHC V6s years before, & now with VVT, Detroit continued into the ’00s with pushrod iron units. Now if the latter proved more reliable as a tradeoff, well & good, but that isn’t the case.
Neil,
The VVT has been a fixture on American engines for quite a while now, even the purshrod engines.
I’m sure I’ll get shot down for saying this, but for the average consumer the old pushrod engines made sense. There wasn’t really enough of an advantage in the DOHC designs other than the bragging rights. Heck, even now there are pushrod engines that are making headlines since it isn’t trendy to call them antique anymore (LT1 Corvette anyone?)
Consumers may be ignorant, but they’re not stupid, & can read EPA numbers & Consumer Reports. Every effort invested by carmakers in engine weight & power curve will make itself evident here. Honda mainstreamed VTEC by the early ’90s, & Toyota had the VVTi 1MZ-FE about 8 yrs before Buick offered the High Value LZ9, still w/ cast-iron block.
The difference certainly impressed me when I rented a 2006 Aerostar, compared with my VVT-equipped 2004 Sienna.
2006 *Freestar*?
Sorry, I mean the Windstar. Too many stars; Lockheed already exhausted this model name (Lodestar, Starfighter, Starliner, TriStar).
The Essex V6 had less rated HP than the smaller Toyota 3MZ-FE, though the latter needs a lot of throttle to tap it.
Neil, you meant “Freestar”. ’03 was the last year for the Windstar. Of course the Freestar was nothing than a warmed over Windstar combining new problems with old annoyances.
If I actually cared about this product line, I’d be more embarrassed over my confusion. Ford finally narrowed the engine gap with the Cyclone/Duratec V6. Maybe they had no choice with EPA mandates.
Back to topic, I will say the Lucerne’s styling isn’t bad, esp. compared with current demented monstrosities.
That’s like saying nobody really needs AWD or 300hp. You’re right, but…
One of the things that always struck me odd about GM in the 90s was how they kept trying to brand their more modern engine lines. All it really did was put a spotlight on how late to the party they were with DOHC, VVT, etc.
I wondered for a long time whether they were clueless or self-conscious about their technological backwardness. I guess the answer was the “car you knew America could build” campaign for the Malibu. And the saddest part is that the technical talent has existed at GM the whole time. The engineers are let down over and over again by the product planners, marketers and accountants.
Fair enough.
Now lets open this up outside of GM and see what Ford and Chrysler had to offer that was really above and beyond what GM was offering for tech in the 90’s.
Is it a GM thing or a US automotive industry thing?
I think GM was alone in their active devotion to obsolete engine architectures.
Ford made good use of their overseas operations to share engines, if not cars, and had OHC four-cylinder and V6s in their USDM vehicles years to decades before GM. They may have been among the last to have an OHC V8, but they proliferated it throughout their cars and trucks without any embarrassing “look, we have four cams!!” marketing campaigns.
Chrysler gets a pass in this particular debate because their financial issues usually meant they were buying engines from others, and got what they got. Though when they had the chance in the early 90s, they did develop families of modern 4 and 6-cylinder motors.
Stacy
I fail to see where Ford was really ahead of GM in the OHC race.
If you really do an apples to apples comparison, I can’t think off the top of my head where there wasn’t something available from both at the same time in either so called obsolete or futuristic technology offered.
I’m saying Ford avoided the extremes of either GM’s brand new ten year old cars, or Chrysler’s grab bag of rebadged cars from three continents, and that this was a direct result of Ford being successful enough to afford to develop products, but not so big with so much cash in the bank that their C-level could afford to ignore the real world for 30 years.
That said, I do think Ford had a sort of split personality in the 80s and 90s, where their cars were either traditional American boats or European imports with no concessions to the USDM, with nothing really in between. Which fits with your comment above.
I think Ford may have done a good job fooling you.
For example, the first Gen Fusion is a Mazda platform, the 500 and later Taurus are a Volvo platform (as is the suv like sisters). They were really just putting out the same 10 year old new cars as everyone else, they just didn’t really design theirs from the ground up.
I doubt they were clueless. First and foremost, GM has been about marketing, and they really excelled at it, selling many vehicles based on that, alone.
Unfortunately, they got addicted to it and, sooner or later, the American consumer was going to get wise to the trick of GM’s advertisements and salesmen touting engineering that was way late to the game in comparison to their competitors (mainly the Asians).
Cutting-edge engineering and design is very expensive and, at a point decades ago, GM simply figured they could get away with ‘just good enough’ to be at (or slightly beneath) the competition, and let marketing and their vast dealer network make up for it.
Toyota does that, too, but they realize that there’s a cycle to it. You roll out a slew of great new features and cutting-edge tech, then coast until sales start to dip, at which point you rinse and repeat. GM tried to skip the rinse and repeat.
For big companies like GM, Toyota, or Ford, it’s also important to remember that the investment involved in launching any non-evolutionary new technology is colossal. The development and certification costs are only the tip of the iceberg: There’s potentially billions of dollars worth of tooling involved and if something isn’t compatible with your existing transfer equipment and such, you may have to practically remodel your production lines. That’s one of the reasons these companies sometimes cling to derivatives of particular engine families for decades at a time.
You’re not wrong, not only do most car shoppers not know the difference between DOHC, OHC and OHV or how many gears their transmission has, nor do they care in most cases. Fuel economy? In most cases these 3800 4 speed automatic Conestoga wagons pulled MPG numbers similar to smaller 4 cylinder cars.
Though of course, every issue of Can & Drivel had to point out how old the 3800 was with delight and of course poo-poo the 4 speed. Guess what, the wheel dates back to 4000 BC, but we still use that old technology, why? Because it works. So what?
Wasn’t there a survey that showed most BMW 3 series owners didn’t know if their cars were FWD or RWD?
How is the 4 cylinder in the Camry? Doesn’t the current Corolla still offer a 4 speed automatic? But they don’t yell that from the top of the mountains, meanwhile Chevrolet could introduce the new 2130 Cruze and there would still be a mention of the Vega somewhere in the article.
Like Chevy will still be calling it a Cruze in 116 years lol
True, they probably would have gone through 125 names by then…..
Introducing the 2130 Chevy Zzzzzzzzzyrghhph!
I’m sure there will still be a “classic” or “limited” Cruze model still kicking around for fleet sales.
LOL, Carmine! That’s pretty good.
Regarding the lack of speeds on the transmission: Keep in mind that they buyer demographic for the Lucerne (and the next younger group, for that matter) couldn’t care less how many speeds the transmission had. All they cared about was putting it into “D”, pushing down on the accelerator, and not noticing anything as the car accelerated forward.
Only internet nit-pickers bother to count the number of gears in an automatic. Or use the auto-manual option on the lever. The majority of the “cars as appliance” crowd couldn’t care less. So that became justification for the bean counters.
Also, given the good low end torque characteristics of the 3.8, it gets by with 4 gears pretty well.
At this point, dual overhead cams — and variable valve timing — end up having as much to do with emissions compliance as anything else. Separating the intake and exhaust cams and making one or both variable gives you substantially more control over how much overlap you have at low speeds so you don’t have to kill mid- and high-RPM performance to keep emissions low at idle and off-idle speeds.
Obviously, some pushrod and OHC layouts breathe better than others, but traditionally, the power advantage of dual overhead cams over a decent cross-flow pushrod layout was something in the realm of 10 percent, which is nice but not that big a deal if you’re not racing, particularly since there’s not a comparable increase in torque.
Please understand, I’m not a hair-splitting gearhead, but my point is this: The Japanese evidently thought that the technical advantages you list, however minor, were worth pursuing, in addition to the indisputable weight advantage of all-aluminum, while Americans thought these not worth the bother except maybe in premium models (e.g. Northstar). “It’s good enough, why change it?”
So this tells me something about the value system of the people who make these decisions that may explain the American loss of dominance in this market segment. And it impresses me, as a potential buyer, that a company willing to go to that much trouble might be better worth dealing with.
I don’t know, it never hurt in the truck market. Ram’s Hemi and GM’s LS powerplants have always been more highly regarded than Ford’s old modular SOHCs.
I certainly understand that feeling, and of course it hasn’t been helped by the number of times Detroit has sort of punted on anything other than its highest-profit segments, offering products that seem more like token placeholders than serious efforts.
It should be said, though, that the reason the Japanese automakers took the lead in powertrain technology for a long time was not any great outpouring of technological beneficence, but rather an offshoot of the unique dictates of the Japanese market. Like some European countries, Japan taxes cars based on size and particularly engine displacement, which brought a strong interest in increasing specific output (power per liter). Unlike Europe, Japan also introduced stiff American-style emissions standards in the mid-70s.
So, Japanese automakers had to look for ways to produce adequate power from small-displacement engines while still meeting emissions and fuel economy requirements, which pushed the adoption of electronic fuel injection and catalytic converters. The Japanese standards were not identical to U.S. or Australian standards, but were similar enough that a Japanese engine could be made to pass U.S. or Australian standards without much difficulty. That also gave the Japanese an edge over European manufacturers, accustomed to more lenient ECE standards; a lot of German manufacturers didn’t even bother with catalyzed versions of their hottest engines until it became clear that they would shortly need them at home.
Detroit has always been shaped by the fact that the U.S. market doesn’t incentivize smaller engines. Other than a few states that still use the old RAC taxable horsepower formula for license fees (which is based on cylinder bore, not displacement), there’s no particularly compelling reason not to get a 3-liter engine over a 2- or 2.5-liter other than fuel economy, which at U.S. gas prices isn’t necessarily a big concern.
So, Detroit’s attitude for a long time was “when in doubt, bore it out”: Keep things as simple as emissions standards would allow, increase displacement for more torque, and use taller gearing to keep the revs down and improve fuel economy. That attitude was probably reinforced by the fact that a lot of Detroit’s early forays into more sophisticated engine technology ended up in the expensive boondoggle category.
There is something to be said for a bigger, unstressed engine over a smaller, highly tuned one, especially for normal driving with automatic transmission. Had Japan had different regulatory requirements, the Japanese might well have gone that way as well; in fact, they did to some extent when the tax rules were revised in 1989, even separate from the bigger engines developed specifically for U.S. consumption.
I agree with the comments regarding this car coming off as a half baked successor combining the old Park Avenue and LeSabres.
I do think, however, that the Buicks GM is making now are the best looking cars on the market today, in my view much classier looking than the pricier Cadillacs. I know several people in my age group (early 30s) who are driving fairly new ones. Still waiting for a big sedan but I like the Lacrosse better than the XTS.
Agree.
Cadillac’s curious use of right angles and curves in their exterior styling continues to leave me Cold & Confused.
Buicks look MUCH better to my eyes.
This is well timed. For the last week, I have been driving this car’s little brother, my mother’s 06 Lacrosse. The Lacrosse came out a year before the Lucerne, so likely is a product of the same mindset.
As much as I like the anvil-like powertrain, the car does nothing for me. I remember thinking at the time that the interior was a huge upgrade from what GM had been putting out, it is still quite spartan for what should have been a premium product.
Max P is right – the Lucerne (and Lacrosse) was a capable workhorse of a car, and probably what Buick should have built 7 years earlier. And it is certainly not a bad car. It was not, however, “performing at grade level” as someone’s old report card might have said.
I have to question what “performing at grade level” really means?
What did this compete with that was really all that exciting at the time? The Sable, Grand Marquis, Avalon, Chrysler 300 and that’s about it. Except for the performance of the 300C these Buicks were just as exciting (or dull) as what was around at the time. Granted they let it stick around a little longer than it should have, but most full size rides tend to do that.
I think the largest mistake Buick made with the Lucerne is that it was used to replace the LeSabre and the Park Ave. That’s a pretty large price and content ground to cover for one car. The LeSabre was always a good seller in its segment because it was a decent value. The Park Ave was about what you’d expect for sales of the top Buick for sales and Value. Having the Lucerne fill i that larger gap really made it compromise too much on the low and high end of things.
I always thought that the ways the magazines looked at these was interesting…
http://www.caranddriver.com/features/rides-for-the-retirement-set-buick-lucerne-page-3
I agree. I remember that article, and still think it is an odd kind of fluff piece of C&D. Its more like a AOL or Yahoo article that pops up every other week than something that belongs in a car enthusiast magazine.
There’s performing at class level, but sometimes it can be just as bad (business-wise) to fail to exceed the standards of a class that is in decline. The market for big bread-and-butter sedans is shrinking and its future is not bright. The U.S. is one of the few markets where there’s still respectable demand for cars like this; elsewhere, large “non-premium” or semi-premium sedans have gotten squeezed out. That decline doesn’t make it easy to justify putting a lot of money into this class, which tends to multiply the problem — there’s nothing to attract or keep buyers who are tempted by a lot of other choices that are trendier, snobbier, or more interesting.
The car that comes to my mind was the Acura TL. Also the Avalon. Both came across as more of a premium product than the Lucerne. But you are right, there was not a lot of shining competition in this car’s segment. Which should have made it easier for Buick to break out of the pack. The Chrysler 300 seemed to set the curve in this segment, but even it had Chrysler’s quality rep to fight as well as a Little Tykes-grade interior.
You also make a good point that the Lucerne had too big of a category to try and fill all by itself. LeSabre and Park Avenue had each done a respectable job of being what it was in a given price range. Lucerne tried to do both, and did neither very successfully. In my area, the highly equipped 4 holers were rare, so it seems that Buick pretty much slit its own throat in the Park Avenue price class.
Good point about trying to cover too much price/market share with one car. Probably the Lucerne’s fatal flaw.
On the other hand, I remember looking at Buick’s line-up in the early-2000s and thinking there was WAY too much overlap between the Century, Regal, LeSabre, and Park Avenue. They were all roughly the same size (the midsize cars were large and the full-size cars were on the smaller end), had largely identical styling, and (mostly) shared engines. The Park Avenue Ultra was the only one I could really pick out in traffic. Adding in all of GM’s equivalent cars from other divisions, it seemed like they were trying to cut a pie into 38 slices. Especially when you consider the full-size sedan market has taken a nose dive across the board since the 80s and 90s.
Consolidation was a necessary, if awkward step. I think the 2006-2011 Lucerne and 2005-2010 Lacrosse were a good stop gap between over-saturated “old” GM and the pretty solid line-up they have now. They are good values as used cars, but I never would’ve bought one new.
I liked ’em when they came out, still do – the CSX. As the owner of a car with a (so far reliable) Northstar V8 in it (’05 Bonneville GXP) I’d take one with a 3800 please. I enjoy the hell out of the V8 in my Pontiac but fear ever having to have
seriousany work done on the motor – too much motor in too small a space. I also miss the mileage figures my 3800-powered ’99 Bonneville used to deliver on the highway.Anyways I liked these when they came out although I was never all than much of a Buick fan, despite owning a late eighties Regal GS, since the demise of the GN. (I’d gleefully take a ’68 or ’69 Skylark or ’72 Riviera.) I liked that the the Lucerne models had an actual deck lid as opposed to a letter-slot for trunk access.
I did like the Lacrosse a bit better when it came out as I’ve always found the late nineties Riviera very attractive and to me the Lacrosse bore some resemblance to the older Riviera.
But even a “sporty” Buick is still a Buick. I miss Pontiac.
I really like the calm, soft, almost line-less dashboard. Overstyled interiors are my biggest gripe with new cars.
I want my next car to look like this Buick inside. There, I said it. I guess I am getting on in years…
Agree.
SO many new cars have confusing, multi colored, bi and tri level dashboards that resemble more a video game than an automotive information center.
I prefer a “Needles and Numbers” dashboard more than a Pac-Man wanna-beeeez one.
Never drove one – but I have always thought they looked nice – especially in CXS trim. One of the few GM cars I was considering when I was looking for good used car a few months ago – although I never found a CXS.
I once had a Lucerne as a rental for a drive from Houston to Dallas. A perfectly adequate car for a long highway haul, but frankly I would have preferred a Panther for better visibility.
However, I did recently drive a DTS “Platinum” which was equipped with magnetic ride control. That was a real eye-opener. MRC really does manage to eliminate jiggles and bumps while keeping the car flat through corners. The steering was sharper than I expected, too… not like an E90 BMW, but still quite precise. It wasn’t a sport sedan, but it has a lot to offer: very good handling combined with a comfortable ride, decent cornering, lots of space, a flexible powerband thanks to the Northstar (even if it isn’t a rocket ship), supremely comfortable interior (though a bit chintzy in parts…. all for a very low price as a used car.
I’ve long been a fan of Cadillacs, and style counts for a lot for me… but for those with a more practical bent, I can certainly see why it wasn’t a compelling choice as a new car. Sad to say, an Avalon was almost as good as a DTS at a much lower price.
After reading this article (and the reader’s comments) I like my last generation, V8 powered, rear wheel drive, body-on-frame Lincoln Town Car even more.
Yeah, plus Principal Dan’s account of his wheel time with a Vic and Lucerne confirms my suspicion that a FWD large(ish) sedan with a 62% front weight distribution wouldn’t be my cup of tea.
P.S. What is that Ford colour, Norsea Blue?
Signed,
Fellow Blue Car Aficionado
Yes, I believe that is Ford’s name for that particular shade of blue on my TC.
The combo of the blue exterior and the crème/light brown/buff/whatever-da-hale-ya-wanna-call-it interior makes me smile every time I walk up to it.
The. 4.6 V8 and factory dual exhaust makes for a delightful, low pitched, muted rumble as I go around a corner and Goose the Gas pedal, feeling the rear wheel drive powertrain grab and power out of the curve. When the weather is cooperative I drive with the rear windows open to better hear the burbling.
(Yes, even 59 year old former hot rodders can still enjoy their current car’s power and throttle response….discretely…befitting their age and their car’s “image”.)
🙂
I similarly enjoy the medium amethyst frost and off-white (whatever you call it) leather interior. I wish they still made colours like that.
I concur on the exhaust note. The modular is quiet, so quiet in fact that when the pipe broke off just ahead of the muffler, it wasn’t even that bad, especially at highway speeds where the vibration was more noticeable, but the decibel levels were barely different.
Yes on the Panther platform. Before I “settled” on the CXL -Black, added a hand painted pinstripe by Bob Taylor (no chrome exh tip); I wanted the Merc Marauder and hoping for the Super Charger on it! I have been driving the Buick Reatta (I have 4). This Lucerne a new car is nice, quiet but not an ’02 Park Ave Ultra ,Black with Venti ports and the Anniversary grill… but it don’t corner (read drive) like a Reatta! or the Grand Mark. I like my Buicks by Rep.
That looks like the same, or very similar to, color of my Mom’s 2011 Grand Marquis. If it’s not the same color it’s Mercury’s version of the shade. Very good look, in my eyes.
The SOHC mod motors are indeed quiet–almost too quiet without duals. On my single-exhaust Crown Vic, as well as on that Marquis, the characterstic transmission whine of the 4R70W is louder than the engine note at low speeds–and the trans isn’t all that loud!
We considered one for a time as a family vehicle, but the low, curving roof impairs the ingress in the backseat which is an important factor when you have a baby.
Plus like with any traditional sedan you have to bend in half to get in the back seat, especially if you’re doing it from the curb.
We’ll probably go in a totally different direction and get a Flex. I do like the Lucerne’s optional bench seat and column shift, as God and Lee Iacocca intended.
I have gotten to be a passenger in a Flex and drive a 2009 Taurus that the Flex chassis was derived from. Great rides, smooth and quiet, handled well. The thing that always got me was that the 2009 Taurus has epic depreciation while the Flex held value well. Very odd to me when Flex sales #s have never set the world on fire.
I think the depreciation question essentially boils down to the Taurus being a “large” car, with all the attendant downsides from a market point of view, and the Flex is an SUV that, while has not sold like the Explorer, those who like it, like it a lot.
The Flex has polarizing looks and doesn’t seem to appeal to the fairer sex. Luckily my spouse is an exception.
That’s not necessarily surprising. If you’re looking for something utilitarian that you actually intend to use, a second-hand one makes more sense — if you’re hauling a lot of junk around, do you really want to carry it in a brand-new vehicle where you’re going to hate yourself every time you scrape the paint on the bumper or leave a mark on the carpet?
It’s not uncommon for utilitarian vehicles to find a solid niche as used cars if they’re basically sound and reasonably durable. The people who buy them have different priorities than people who have the scratch to buy one new, so the lapses that may have relegated it to second- or third-tier status among new models aren’t necessarily a big deal anymore.
I grew up with Buicks and always liked them, because my father was a Buick man. But now I own a 2009 Taurus, because of (a) the epic depreciation – I paid $11K for a 77K mile example in May 2011, and (b) it’s a better full-size sedan than anything Buick has put out in years.
I don’t know why so few people wanted this car, other than the slightly odd styling. But when I drive it I have to look at the inside and out the windows, Behind the wheel it’s everything I could ask for.
2008 Taurus owner here, came to say all of this. Personally I find it a rather handsome beast – less anonymous than the Five Hundred it (briefly) succeeded, in any case.
I bet it reflects the difference in fleet/private sales, also the more ‘useful’ a vehicle the better it holds its value. Eg a house painter could use an old Flex to haul his gear, but would have a much harder time with a Taurus.
You could go the ghetto route and buy an off-duty Taurus police car, column shift, open front seat, tall roof and all. Just so long as you don’t mind a vinyl backseat and the slight stench of prostitute.
I’m quite excited for when the current column-shift, rear-drive, V8, steel wheel Caprice PPVs get old enough to buy at auction. Too bad there aren’t many departments actually buying them.
I thought these were fairly sharp looking cars when they came out, and looked at a couple since they depreciated so much. I certainly would’ve brought Buicks average age down! lol
I considered one.. Until I sat in it.. Holy crap what a horrible interior. Even the Super, with its leather stitched dash was an abomination to the phrase “luxury car”. So much cheap plastic, and identical interior parts to lesser GM products. Not to mention that stupid teal backlighting they insisted on using in all their cars that just looks horrible.
Buick has always been my favorite GM brand, but pretty much all their lineup in the 90s and early-mid 00s was a complete joke. Though I just drove a new Regal GS and Lacrosse a couple weeks ago and I was VERY impressed. I’d consider either of them as true competitors to any European car.
The Regal is a European car – a rebadged Opel Insignia.
My neighbor across the street got one of these in 2008 to replace her 80’s Buick Century or whatever that car they made that barely changed for years. She was in her 80’s when she got it and now she’s at least 90. Only stopped driving it in the last year. Who knows why she got rid of the 80’s car as it looked like it just left the showroom floor. The Lucerne looks nice enough but doesn’t really do much for me.
What Junkyard Dog said about computers on wheels is something I can relate to because the climate control in my 2002 Chrysler Concorde Lxi is making me crazy. Sometimes there is a lot to be said for having your blend door controlled by a simple cable and not having the system as part of the body control computer. That being said, I think my LHS based Concorde has more style and stands out more than the Lucerne but I really hate working on it. Today, we’re taking my stepdaughter to her admissions interview for a college she’s applying for. We’re going in my ’68 Plymouth Fury VIP because not only is it sweeter to drive, it puts out magnificent heat on this cold day.
on the outside at least, I prefer the look of the LeSabre and Park Ave over the Lucerne. Aside from the wheels, I prefer the black one (Park Ave?) versus the LeSabre above it. They have a coke-bottle side profile, a good looking and less generic shape overall, and they don’t have huge headlights, as Calibrick mentioned above.
The later Lucerne, with the restyled grille pushed out to the front edge of the bumper, is not an improvement IMO. It’s starting to look like the Acura “beak”, which is not a compliment.
OK Curbsiders, you got me. I’ve been lurking here for the last couple of years promising myself that I’d become part of the family. Here I am.
Like so many here, I appreciate the attributes of large American automobiles. Even though I’m not in the traditional age demographic for these cars (my screen name is a clue), I continue to endure the jokes and snipes from those that don’t understand the pleasure these cars provide in daily driving.
I just traded a 2008 Lucerne CXL V6 in July. Purchased in ’12 with 20K on the clock. It was a former program car leased to an elderly woman in New Jersey. When the lease was up, it found its way to me in Massachusetts. It was finished in the same sharp Dark Mocha Bronze that the newly-released for ’08 Enclave was seen frequently in. It also had every option including a moonroof. It stickered at over 36K, yet I paid less than half of that.
When it was time to trade in the ’01 Park Avenue, I was naturally looking at another Buick. The Park had given me 190K of solid service with almost all the original parts. And while I knew the Lucerne was dated and less car than the Park, I was looking to duplicate its comfort and reliability. But it was not to be.
The Lucerne is a beautiful car constructed of substandard materials. Within the first year, the driver’s door handle ripped off in my hand. Then the driver’s seat side panel cracked and ripped my pants. The headliner was covered in weird lumps. The roof would make a huge racket as it buckled under the air dryer at the car wash, and the rest of the sheetmetal was just as delicate. The driver’s door panel pulled out of its mounts, and the interior handle failed. the driver’s door latch failed, turning on all the interior lights day and night.
Mechanically, the car lacked as well. By 50K, the front end was bottoming out and the tie rods were failing as was the intermediate steering shaft (twice). The check engine light indicated an EGR problem that I ignored. The trunk started to leak. The TPMS system needed new batteries. I was afraid to replace the tires with anything but expensive Michelins because of the widespread balance problems in the G platform cars. Fuel economy was 3 mpg less than the Park. And the Series III 3800 burned 1 quart of oil every 3K. The transmission developed the famous slam-shift issue that required replacement of the valve body. I decided that it was time to dump it when I noticed that familiar humming the front hub bearings make when they start to fail. Been through that with the Park.
I rented a 2014 Buick LaCrosse on vacation last summer. Hertz gave me a choice of some other models. but I went with the Buick as I was curious. I slammed my head upon entering, lowered myself into the narrow seat, and immediately noticed the dangerously limited visibility. The interior had the same atmosphere as the Lucerne: attractive in an ersatz way, with switchgear feeling lighter and cheaper than its appearance would suggest. It performed competently, but not like the flagship of GM new Lexus fighter. Its Epsilon front wheel drive mannerisms just can’t be overcome.
The Buick Lucerne was a disappointing end to a decades long tradition of big Buick sedans, and the Lacrosse is not an acceptable replacement.
I now drive a ’14 Chrysler 300 3.6, and besides the sometime strange behavior of the 845RE, I love it. I often shake my head and think what this car would be like as the new Electra. It worked for Chrysler.
I agree about the 2010 on up LaCrosse. It is disappointing in so many ways starting with it’s narrower Epsilon body and lower height. The gun slit windows make for terrible visibility along with the massive A-pilars and it takes some time getting used to the hemmed in feeling. The trunk size would be embarrassed by many compact cars today let alone the previous Park Ave or LeSabre and the massive center console with little storage space serves no purpose other than reducing front seat space in an already narrow car. Buick didn’t even bother putting overhead sun glasses holders in these or cup holders in the doors.
The best part was the smooth and quiet 3.6 tied to the 6 speed automatic and the rear seat legroom which was a China influence. Even still the fact that this car weights several hundred LBS more than the old and larger Park Ave means that even with 288 HP the 3.6 was hardly a rocket ship.
For the 2014 model year the Lacrosse thankfully got some badly needed upgrades with slight improvements on front visibility, cup holders in the doors, a larger and far more useful center storage unit and overall nicer interior. Sadly the lack of front seat space, narrow body, tiny trunk and poor rear visibility remain. Looking forward to a redesigned and hopefully better LaCrosse.
Why does anyone need or even want a “larger and more useful center storage unit”? All that ends up in these things is random crap anyway.
The bench seat Lucerne (and DTS) had it down right. There was plenty of storage for that crap in the arm rest and the little trap door under the middle seat with hidden cup holders. Looked much more classy and less plebian.
WHAT is goin’ on with current 4 door sedan styling? Even “Family cars” have windows/greenhouses that appear to be little more than mail box slots.
A low, folded back, racy roofline is expected in a “sporty” car; but NOT in a 4 or 5 person people hauler!
Four years ago I was at loggerheads between a new 2011 Camry or the (at the time) newly restyled Hyundai Sonata for my daily driver/people hauler. The lower, squashed down roof line & limited window area of the Sonata made my decision easier. With me in the driver’s seat and two people in the back seat I couldn’t see behind me or to either side of the rear.
4 door sedans should have visibility and safety in traffic at the top of their “bucket list”, not racy good looks.
I agree. The visibility in the 300 is lacking, but believe it or not is better than in the Lucerne. The greenhouse is low, but it’s upright, and that improves all around visibility. And the Lucerne’s outside mirrors were mounted high relative to the driver’s sight line: it required me to adjust the glass farther down than you’d expect.
I always felt I was submerged in the Lucerne. It was no help the interior door panels were unusually tall. I’d have to bring the seat higher to eliminate the problem, causing my head to brush against the headliner. I’m 6 feet tall exactly. (In fairness to the Buick, it did have an internally-sliding moonroof that reduced headroom). Seating position and headroom is delightful in the 300.
The longer I live with the 300, the more I hate that Lucerne in so many ways.
I drive an older 300 for work sometimes and I didn’t think the visibility was that bad. Not as good as the 05 Deville I also sometimes drive, but good for cars of the “newer” type. Only thing I don’t like is the rake of the windshield but its a minor annoyance that I got used to.
I plan on buying a newer 300 for my next sedan. I like the near-luxury of the Chrysler and its console is the least offensive of the big American sedans sold today.
Welcome! And thanks for your insights. Your experience validates why GM kept sliding inexorably to its bankruptcy. Death by a million cuts.
Thanks Paul! Been following you and the rest of the gang for some time now. This is a great place and I’m delighted to be here!
Another Bob Lutz era car with the done to death Euro bland styling update. Buick would have been better off if they kept the old LeSabre and cleaned up it’s styling a little, updated the interior to be more like the Lucerne and gave it the Series III 3800 update. Many shortcuts were made on this car. Even the 3800 was affected. Plans were made in the early 2000’s to upgrade this engine with aluminum heads VVT and 240 or more HP to bring it up to mid 2000 standards and carry it well into the new millennium. At the last minute the plug was pulled on 3800 development and instead we got the Series III block and composite steel intake manifold but not power/mileage improvements to speak of. The beefed up block was intended to reduce NVH and of course the metal intake manifold cured the coolant leaking issues. Also drive by wire replaced the direct cable linkage for improved control to the BCM and Transaxle.
Sadly what the 3800 gained in smoothness and quietness it lost in MPG and performance, especially in the heavier 2006-2008 Lucernce body. 0-60 times dropped by nearly a full second to 8.8 seconds or so vs 7.8 on my 2000 LeSabre with the 3800 series II. The 2.86 gearing didn’t help nor did the old 4T65 transaxle with it’s huge chasm between first and second gear. Still the smooth quiet and still torque rich 3800 made for a long lasting durable companion over the long haul.
Help came along in 2009 with the newer upgraded 3900 with VVT but in detuned 227 HP trim tied to a 2.93 axle and the same 4T65 transaxle. 0-60 times dropped back down under the 8 second range which was similar to a Chrysler 300 with the 3.5 and 4 speed auto bit much slower than a Toyoya Avalon or the upgraded Kia Amanti with it’s zesty 3.8
I am an owner of a 2006 CX bought used. After 20 years of used econoboxes, I felt I deserved a change but had a budget of $12k. I could afford the low end CX. A few observations, some already made.
The good:
– silent relaxing ride. Wonderful on trips.
– 3.8L series III is a good long term engine.
– 4T65E trans is quiet. As said before 1st to 2nd is too far apart.
– comfortable front seats but a bit narrow.
– family and riders always remark on spacious rear seat room.
– plenty of trunk
– minimal repairs. Usual for Lucerne – motor mounts, PS pressure hose, etc.
The bad:
– poor mileage. Check.
– cheap materials on interior. Check.
– steering wheel is 1″ off center. How does this happen??
– huge A pillars obstruct vision
– braking distance too long
Every vehicle is a compromise but I am very happy with this at 89K now.
I rented a Lucerne (year & level?) for a week. Boring exterior styling, especially the rear. The interior was ok, but it was very difficult to see out of the windows even with the seat fully lowered.
It had a very quiet ride, but not soft at all.
I am currently driving an ’05 Park Avenue and truly love it. I bought it last Wednesday w/ 103K miles on the odo and have had no problems w/ it whatsoever. It has a soft and quiet ride and every option I could possibly want. I don’t understand the LeSabre/ Park Avenue hate here.
Pretty much my feelings on the subject. I’ve always found the styling to be very boring–inoffensive, sure, and even attractive in a very generic sort of way, but boring. Looks more Japanese than Euro, but in any case it doesn’t have much if any Buick sytling DNA other than the ventiports. As someone mentioned above, probably the most memorable thing about the Lucerne was the huge to-do the ads made about the heater washer fluid. (Which is, admittedly, a good idea as long as it can be done so that the windshield doesn’t crack.)
Also with you on the Park Avenue being the much better choice. A late-run ultra in black or midnight blue with the polished wheels is actually quite a good-looking ride, and I think I could be happy in one of those. Too bad they never got the Magnetic Ride Control…
At least Buick seems to be getting back on track. While I can appreciate the visibility concerns, the current Lacrosse is a good-looking car. And I would definitely consider a turbo Regal if I were in the market for a sedan (which I probably will not be for quite some time, as my next car will about 95% likely be a wagon.)
I’ve had several of these cars as rentals and they don’t do a thing for me. They are heavy and the interior is cheap, cheap, cheap. In addition, they are hard on fuel.
These are not durable cars. Like another poster states here, be ready to do a lot of replacing once 50,000 miles is reached.
Its odd you say that, these things have really good reliability ratings across the board, from new to used.
I’m normally on the same page with Canucknucklehead, but I disagree here. Not a big GM fan, but these are the way to go if you are. Partially because of the Series III 3800 and partially because most examples were driven on eggshells by the original owners. Of course it will have the typical brittle GM suspension and electronics as it ages, but no manufacturer is perfect. My dad’s 70,000-mile 5-year-old Camry could certainly use a new front end already (he probably won’t do anything about it though, because Camry owners don’t do anything besides change the oil… if they feel like it). Big Buicks have been the most durable GM sedans since at least the late-80s. Even Consumer Reports like them!
I’d certainly trust one of these over, say, a Cobalt or G6.
It looks like a big Opel, as in it fit in with the Astra and Aura of the same time frame. It might’ve made a good Omega for those few Europeans who might buy such a big cushy thing.
The styling of the Lucerne is not bland. Lets call it “inoffensive”.Buick knew who their target audience was, so they designed a car just for them.The ones I see being driven in and around Freehold NJ all seem to have drivers 65 years old-plus behind the wheel, and gold or tan seem to be the popular colors.Not a bad looking car, but like Camrys and Corollas, they just seem to fade into the background of nondescriptness.
I’m sorry but if you want unsurpassed ride comfort and a precise drivers experience go buy a Peugeot or Citroen from this era or even the previous decade, forget the GM cars.
Those of us in N. America don’t have those choices anymore, sadly.
Agreed, but we can’t get them in North America.
for good reason, for the most part they were crap.
I’m in agreement with 98% of what has been expressed in this thread. As JPC alluded, this car tried to cover a lot of bandwidth replacing both the LeSabre and the Park Avenue. Imagine if Mercedes tried to replace the E and S Classes with the U (for Universal) class. Munich taxi to CEO cruiser in one convenient package – I don’t think so.
Basically, this was Dullsville as far as exterior appearance. The name was terrible and instantly made me lactose intolerant. What were they thinking? Did they let the trademarks lapse on Electra and Invicta?
http://www.safeway.com/ShopStores/Brands/Lucerne.page
The Park Avenue it replaced was actually a pretty handsome car. If the quality had been a little better, and it wore the Lexus name, it probably would have sold very well. The LeSabre probably did okay as a matter of attrition. Olds 88 and Caprice were gone. The Bonneville had taken on a different character.
This car seemed to bring little more than mediocrity to the table. The “Super” idea was kind of appealing, but this was a poor base on which to build it, and sales of Super versions reflected that.
I agree with others that the LaCrosse brought some style back, but is far too small for a flagship. And, if one recalls that the LaCrosse is a linear successor to the A body FWD Century, its easy to understand its failings as a flagship. It’s a nice, but cramped, mid-size GM car with a starting MSRP of $33,635. It’s not much wonder that many Buick buyers throw in the extra $5,500 and get the Enclave.
I can see how many viewed the style as bland, inoffensive, and jellybean. The front and rear ends are the weak spots on this car, with the ’10 & ’11 more agressive in front with the new grille/bumper/fogs and more polished in back with the chrome-tipped straight exhaust. Otherwise, the rear end is bland (a coworker likened it to a large Mercury Milan), although I always liked the tail lights at night.
Just a few more remarks about my Lucerne experience. I forgot to mention the bad motor mount at 43K, the carpet falling off the sides of the useless, unlit console, the backup sensor that fell out of its socket, the erratic RainSense wipers, all the missing courtesy lights that GM removed, and the headlight bulb replacement procedure that required the front inner splash shield to be removed.
Buick got the Park Avenue so right that its hard to believe the Lucerne could have come from the same company. I knew I had made a mistake in trading in my ’01 Park within a week of buying the Lucerne. I initially had begun to shop for a Super, but my mechanic warned me that the N* issues had not been completely resolved: that would probably have been a bigger mistake.
I think it was very stupid for Buick to kill off the Park Avenue and Lesabre and replace it with the Lucerne in a misguided hope that they could retain the senior market while using the Lacrosse and the cross overs to attract younger buyers.
The Lesabre was the best selling full sized for years up until it was discontinued in 2005. While full of value it was not cheap. But very much loved by the Blue Hair set which is why the 2000-2005 Lesabre is everywhere. My one owner 2005 Buick Lesabre custom that I bought in 2011 came with paperwork that showed the original owner bought it for $32,823 and it was a Custom with cloth seats and upgraded wheels and radio. I can imagine that a fully loaded 2005 Lesabre Limited might run close to $38,000 or so. I looked at and drove several Lucernes(all with the V6) and all felt very subpar and too enclosed with the center console. I could not find a bench seated version which they made but were hard to find.
Was the last generation Lesabre the best one? To me it seems like the 00-05 Lesabre was a step back compared with the 92-99 version(especially the revised 97-99) But was it better then the Lucerne? In my mind yes. The Lucerne’s interior screamed Chevrolet rental car.
I now own a 1997 Lesabre and to me both my Lesabres felt/feel like a large car with a lot of room and seem to feel as substantial as the Panther cars
I rented a loaded CXS with sunroof on the way to the rollout press event for the Lincoln MKS back in summer 2008. The comparison was interesting, Standalone, the Buick was well put together, quick and felt good, but after the MKS drives, the differences in material, rigidity, handling and accelleration (Lincoln V6 as quick as the Buick V8) were striking, the Lucerne had better visibility and uh, that’s about it.
Not a bad car, but clearly not class leading at all, vintage old GM, sooooo close.
Don’t know if this is some new variant of the CC effect manifesting but just yesterday my father and I were comparing and contrasting the 1996 Buick Le Sabre Limited he owned (and drove into the ground) with his current and now palliative ride, a 2008 Lucerne CXL.
For reasons that are too boring to retail, I took delivery of both cars on his behalf. The Le Sabre was heavily optioned in addition to being drenching attractive to me and to all of my friends. It had leather power seats and ambient/theatre lighting and separate passenger climate controls and the list goes on. I remember asking myself after taking it out for an inaugural ride, how anyone could make a more agreeable and luxurious car. Plus it was fast and quiet and if my memory serves Dad got about 220K or more out of it.
The Lucerne contrast is cheaply appointed (though still has leader etc.) and is a really terrible drive. Whenever I’m visiting my parents and have occasion to drive the thing I struggle with its lousy turning radius—which makes parking in what should be easy situations a real bore—and rear visibility is a nightmare; this comes from someone who drives a CTS wagon!
Other final thought, I can’t recall seeing any base model Lucernes with the column shiftier and cloth and have only see a few V8s mostly down in Florida so I always assumed that the overwhelming majority of them sold were like my father’s CXL but judging from other readers’ responses I’m wrong in this assumption.
As a Buick fan, I never cared for this car. I love older Buicks best, like up to the 70’s, but I really think they made the FWD transition among the best of US brands. The first FWD Electra was the best of that platform and the 2nd Gen park ave and lesabre were particularly well done. The last Gen park ave was really the ultimate expression of a modern unapologetically American sedan optimized to its target audience. The Lucerne lost that focus, and for no good reason. It didn’t increase sales and the car lost its uniqueness. The current Buicks are a bit more appealing, but they are really designed most with Chinese buyers in mind.
The worst Lucerne is still a better looking car than the best STS.
Caddy’s curious continued styling usage of protractor right angles and awkward curves has always left me cold.
I like these, the bench seat interior model fits me like a glove. As someone who considers myself basically an anti-enthusiast, the Lucerne is high on my list of cars I really like. Sure, its not an old school RWD V8, but as a cushy GM FWD near luxury car its a fine ride. Much better than the new LaCrosse with that gawdawful center console. I wanted to like the LaCrosse as well, but if your car has one of those minifridge consoles, you get an automatic fail from me.
Plus, they never seem to stay in stock at the local Buick dealer. Seems every time they get one (in any trim level) its gone in a week or two.
Not long after the Buick Lucerne was introduced, Lexus introduced the ES350 with a 270 horsepower V6 and 6 speed automatic. It was definitely light years ahead of the Buick in the powertrain department. Also, the Lexus seems better built. My parents have an 07 ES 350. It is reliable and still hold together quite well after seven years.
It is a better car, but its also unabashedly luxury. Buick is more a “near luxury” marque. I would think that if someone was seriously looking at an ES350, they might have cross shopped it with a Cadillac but I don’t think a Buick. Maybe an Avalon and a Buick.
Meh on this new stuff…give me back my ’72 LeSabre sedan or a 2000-02 Park Ave Ultra (let me have the non-Ultra leather seats though, please!)
A person would have to nuts to buy any used GM with a DOHC Engine. Either a V6 or V8 – some of the later I4s are OK (Although not as good as any of the Japanese or Ford Zetec units).
It`s probably a good bet that they didn`t plug this Buick to the over 65 crowd with that ultra annoying disco music the current Buick TV ads feature. I wanna throw my shoe at the TV screen everytime I see-and hear that commercial.Almost as bad as Jan, the “Toyota Woman”.
Anyone has any info on GMX221?
Has anyone ever found a V8 model with the front bench? On the smaller LaCrosse, the Super trim and the front bench were mutually exclusive.
I tried to find one a few years ago. I wanted exactly that…6 passenger with V8 motor. IIRC you had to get a La Crosse w/LS4 if you want a 6 passenger V8. But I didn’t look very long or very hard.
Interesting how the most ordinary cars can generate the most extraordinary amount of comment.
My dad and I looked at these in 2011 as a replacement for his 95 cutlass supreme. The cutlass had been camry reliable; he just decided it was time for a new car. The lacrosse ar that time was still w body and felt cramped, old, and cheap. This felt better but the one we looked at was a trade in with ridiculously low mileage. The salesman claimed that the man bought it, took it home to his wife, she didn’t like the colour, and he traded it in. That seemed like a story that would make sense in 1951 but suspect in 2011. At any rate, the car wasn’t compelling and gm reliability concerns made him not purchase it. He bought a dodge charger which he absolutely loves.
It is a bland, inoffensive design, in no way striking, but neither is the avalon. The Avalon, however, has a MUCH more premium feel in upper level trims with lots of attractive?fake? Realistic. . Wood and the unequaled Toyota reputation. Perhaps if buick had given the car more compelling styling and a compelling hyundai style warranty, it would have been a hit.
In 2014, my grandfather bought a 2011 Lucerne CXL which was the last car he owned and remained with him until he passed last year. The back seat was better than my mom’s 2003 Regal (which he gave to us when he got the Lucerne, as our 2000 Ford Taurus was on its last legs). I always enjoyed riding in it.
When I immigrated to The United States,I used to work for a family as a personal care giver. I was opportune to drive the family 2008 Buick Lucerne CXL; the first time to drive luxury car, and that feeling changed everything. I owned 2009 Buick Lucerne CXL for the past 10 years, and it still look like brown new. And no major repair since I have it, with the exception of rota or brake pads. This car is a beauty. I have bought three(3) for friends over sea and they love it.
Yea, so I’m really late to the party!!
After owning a 93 Park Avenue ultra, a 95 base Park Avenue, we bought an 08 Lucerne CXL. It had the Northstar. We started having issues from the first month we owned it. We bought it CPO just to make sure! Luckily, Buick traded us out of it. (We believe it was the ignition switch)
The dealer who serviced it had an 09 CXS. I really liked the idea of the Magnaride, and with the deal we struck, it worked out to be an even trade.
As I recall, the last one was great for about two years. But then the starter interlock needed repair, moon roof motor was getting slow, etc. so away it went.
I loved the Park Avenue Ultra and the second Lucerne- but not the others. We went from that to a Silverado!!