Topic: Test Drive: 2011 Buick Regal CXL

[Dante]

Nay sayers are hung up on the powertrain, but for the same money, did you look at the features when comparing to the TSX for example?
The base TSX has much less content than the base Regal. Configure them similarly and few $K will pop up between the two.
Once you add leather and A/T to the TSX, you are over $35K where the Regal Turbo starts. At that point, TSX’s powertrain advantage disappears.

[Shnak]

Nay sayers are hung up on the powertrain, but for the same money, did you look at the features when comparing to the TSX for example?
The base TSX has much less content than the base Regal. Configure them similarly and few $K will pop up between the two.
Once you add leather and A/T to the TSX, you are over $35K where the Regal Turbo starts. At that point, TSX’s powertrain advantage disappears.

No features will ever make up for a lackluster powertrain in the sports-injected segment. IMO, of course.

[TopGun]

No features will ever make up for a lackluster powertrain in the sports-injected segment. IMO, of course.

So I would assume then that no features or value will ever make up for a lackluster suspension in the luxury segment?

"Plain and simple, it's the wrong suspension tuning for a car with this purpose.  Perhaps those who have never spent seat time in a compariably sized BMW, Lexus, or Benz may think this is how a luxury car rides, but they'd be sorely mistaken".

Brian Vance, MotorTrend, Long Term Test Verdict, 2009 Hyundai Genesis 4.6

[Dante]

Nay sayers are hung up on the powertrain, but for the same money, did you look at the features when comparing to the TSX for example?
The base TSX has much less content than the base Regal. Configure them similarly and few $K will pop up between the two.
Once you add leather and A/T to the TSX, you are over $35K where the Regal Turbo starts. At that point, TSX’s powertrain advantage disappears.

No features will ever make up for a lackluster powertrain in the sports-injected segment. IMO, of course.

Really? You say features, quality etc don't matter in the Premium Sedan segment?  

Please tell me how much sportier is a $35K Passat or TSX compared to a Regal Turbo?

[Shnak]

No features will ever make up for a lackluster powertrain in the sports-injected segment. IMO, of course.

So I would assume then that no features or value will ever make up for a lackluster suspension in the luxury segment?

"Plain and simple, it's the wrong suspension tuning for a car with this purpose.  Perhaps those who have never spent seat time in a compariably sized BMW, Lexus, or Benz may think this is how a luxury car rides, but they'd be sorely mistaken".

Brian Vance, MotorTrend, Long Term Test Verdict, 2009 Hyundai Genesis 4.6

Of course, only you would come in here and start up by bringing in Hyundai comparisons. 

To answer your question, the Genesis is also a LOT less money than those competitors mentionned... that can make up for some problems.

The Buick is priced almost the same and has an overmatched powertrain for all the weight it has to carry. I don't care if it had gold-plated everything... the powertrain just doesn't cut it.

[Shnak]

Nay sayers are hung up on the powertrain, but for the same money, did you look at the features when comparing to the TSX for example?
The base TSX has much less content than the base Regal. Configure them similarly and few $K will pop up between the two.
Once you add leather and A/T to the TSX, you are over $35K where the Regal Turbo starts. At that point, TSX’s powertrain advantage disappears.

No features will ever make up for a lackluster powertrain in the sports-injected segment. IMO, of course.

Really? You say features, quality etc don't matter in the Premium Sedan segment?  

Please tell me how much sportier is a $35K Passat or TSX compared to a Regal Turbo?

Would you buy a $30k Aveo with its 1.5L or 1.6L if it came with leather, dual-zone climate control, 24 speakers, premium heater and ventillated leather, etc, etc, etc, etc.? Of course not... why? Because it's a crappy engine for a vehicle sold as a premium sports sedan.

Features can't entirely make up for an underpowered powertrain in a overweight vehicle.

[Leviathan]

FFS.

[Dante]

Nay sayers are hung up on the powertrain, but for the same money, did you look at the features when comparing to the TSX for example?
The base TSX has much less content than the base Regal. Configure them similarly and few $K will pop up between the two.
Once you add leather and A/T to the TSX, you are over $35K where the Regal Turbo starts. At that point, TSX’s powertrain advantage disappears.

No features will ever make up for a lackluster powertrain in the sports-injected segment. IMO, of course.

Really? You say features, quality etc don't matter in the Premium Sedan segment?  

Please tell me how much sportier is a $35K Passat or TSX compared to a Regal Turbo?

Would you buy a $30k Aveo with its 1.5L or 1.6L if it came with leather, dual-zone climate control, 24 speakers, premium heater and ventillated leather, etc, etc, etc, etc.? Of course not... why? Because it's a crappy engine for a vehicle sold as a premium sports sedan.

Features can't entirely make up for an underpowered powertrain in a overweight vehicle.

I would consider a $35K Regal Turbo against a similarly equipped TSX or Passat, although it may not post the best 0-60 mph time still.

I hope you don't expect an answer to your gross exaggeration. I think my point was very reasonable. In the Premium Sedan class, the customers do expect a certain level of equipment and quality for the price and I believe even the base Regal delivers on those, not to mention the base Regal Turbo.

I’m also of the opinion that this car should’ve had a DI version of the 2.4L engine with around 200hp or have the 2.0T standard engine to better differentiate from mainstream.
For me the Regal becomes interesting past $35K where the Turbo starts.

[toolatecrew]

Nay sayers are hung up on the powertrain, but for the same money, did you look at the features when comparing to the TSX for example?
The base TSX has much less content than the base Regal. Configure them similarly and few $K will pop up between the two.
Once you add leather and A/T to the TSX, you are over $35K where the Regal Turbo starts. At that point, TSX’s powertrain advantage disappears.

No features will ever make up for a lackluster powertrain in the sports-injected segment. IMO, of course.

Really? You say features, quality etc don't matter in the Premium Sedan segment?  

Please tell me how much sportier is a $35K Passat or TSX compared to a Regal Turbo?

No you tell me how much sportier the Regal Turbo is ..you have driven one right? You've at least gone to the dealer to look at one right? Oh wait you CAN"T BUY ONE YET! No one has even tested a full production spec one yet.

You can't. We are not comparing the Regal Turbo to these cars. We are comparing the currently available Regal to cars that Buick deems its competitors.

[TopGun]

Of course, only you would come in here and start up by bringing in Hyundai comparisons. 

To answer your question, the Genesis is also a LOT less money than those competitors mentionned... that can make up for some problems.

The Buick is priced almost the same and has an overmatched powertrain for all the weight it has to carry. I don't care if it had gold-plated everything... the powertrain just doesn't cut it.

Yup...I'm the ONLY ONE that would bring up Hyundai comparisons...in a negative light that is.

The purpose of me bringing in the comparison is made clear in your comments.  The "domestics" are compared with different criteria.

OK...resume the non-stop comments about the powertrain now...

[Dante]

Nay sayers are hung up on the powertrain, but for the same money, did you look at the features when comparing to the TSX for example?
The base TSX has much less content than the base Regal. Configure them similarly and few $K will pop up between the two.
Once you add leather and A/T to the TSX, you are over $35K where the Regal Turbo starts. At that point, TSX’s powertrain advantage disappears.

No features will ever make up for a lackluster powertrain in the sports-injected segment. IMO, of course.

Really? You say features, quality etc don't matter in the Premium Sedan segment?  

Please tell me how much sportier is a $35K Passat or TSX compared to a Regal Turbo?

No you tell me how much sportier the Regal Turbo is ..you have driven one right? You've at least gone to the dealer to look at one right? Oh wait you CAN"T BUY ONE YET! No one has even tested a full production spec one yet.

You can't. We are not comparing the Regal Turbo to these cars. We are comparing the currently available Regal to cars that Buick deems its competitors.

Thanks for your concerns, but I already addressed them.

I did not drive one, but I read few Opel Insignia Euro reviews, just like this one we are all commenting on.

Yes, I did sit in the current car and I also took time to compare the features and prices with its intended competition.
My point is that if the Turbo version delivers on the driving experience, it will be a truly viable competitor for the TSX, Passat and maybe S60 (not sure if it will be offered with the 2.4 base engine).

[Jaeger]

I get the feeling that if this car were powered by three underfed hamsters running on a treadmill there would be those who harumph about the power being perfectly "adequate",  repeatedly point out that "it's not all about drag racing" and declare with righteous indignation that as long is it got to 60... y'know.... eventually.... that would be "good enough".  In their OPINION, of course.

This vehicle is being sold as a premium / luxury sports sedan.  Buick doesn't get to arbitrarily select which particular models it competes against - consumers do.  Try telling them they can only look at the TSX as competition and see how far that gets you. 

The motor isn't everything in a sports sedan, but it's far from an irrelevant factor.  A good motor and a capable chassis are pretty much the key ingredients.  This car has a capable chassis.  But in the engine department, it is pretty far from "adequate" in the sports sedan context - it is a bad joke.  Pretty much tops in weight and bottom in power tells you all you need to know.  Yep - let's not forget that it is kind of pointless to look at the power output without also considering how much blubber it has to haul around.  In this respect, the Regal is a twofold loser right out of the gate.  When

Sure, the Regal Turbo will be better - short of an actual rodent-based mill, it'd be hard to take a backwards step in the engine compartment, after all. But the increase in price will put it up against established competitors packing even more punch. Convincing the G37 intender that he should give up 100hp to get a Buick for about the same money should make for an amusing conversation.  And then the Sonata direct-injection turbo will be rolling in to provide, in all likelihood - significantly better power AND fuel economy at a significantly lower price.  OUCH.

Leading with the normally aspirated version of the Regal was just an impossibly stupid move.  Now that the "New Regal" has been firmly established as a porky gutless poseur trying to pretend to be a sports sedan, how much credibility will that leave for the "even more sport-injected?" Turbo?  It is beyond obvious that they should have led with their best effort, then dragged in the Grandpa version after the fact.  For a company trying to shake geriatric preconceptions,  putting forward a slow, boring vehicle as their standard-bearer in the "sport-injected performance sedan" segment pretty much smacks of same s#!t, different day.

Once again, GM shoots themselves in the foot.

Jaeger

PS - anyone who doesn't get why the Passat CC is a sportier ride than the Regal probably hasn't driven both.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

Wharrgarbl

Jaeger

I knew you couldn't resist.

Are you telling people what they should think again?

You find the motor inadequate. Perfectly ok. Many others think it's adequate. Also perfectly ok. You abusing them isn't likely going to change their opinion.

FWIW the Regal in August was only 45 units behind the TSX in sales. 0-60 isn't a priority for everyone.

[Shnak]

Wharrgarbl

Jaeger

I knew you couldn't resist.

Are you telling people what they should think again?

You find the motor inadequate. Perfectly ok. Many others think it's adequate. Also perfectly ok. You abusing them isn't likely going to change their opinion.

FWIW the Regal in August was only 45 units behind the TSX in sales. 0-60 isn't a priority for everyone.

Then again... consider the target of Buick's... old folks who have all the time in the world and couldn't care less how fast they get to their destination. Maybe Buick was smart in saving a few bucks by putting a bottom of the barrel engine... after all, they have to reimburse billions to various governments. Every little bit of money saved here and there helps, right?

[CatsEye68]

Good lord, I go away for a couple of days and come back to this.

You guys really need to get over this. Though I suppose we should be grateful that a certain poster has not yet posted 50 messages saying the same thing like he did in the last thread about this vehicle.

Is it a heavy car? Yes, it's a heavy car. It is made to be safe and solid and all the things that structure gives you. It is not made using pop-can thin sheetmetal like certain other brands that are so popular here. I don't want to mention any names. But I know that Honda and Hyundai/Kia are not using exotic alloy bodies and suspension components to make their cars lightweight.

Is this model the ne plus ultra of Regal models? No, it isn't. As others have pointed out, more is to come. But we hear "Waaaah!!! Waaaaah!!! Toyondai/Ford/VW would never have done it that way!!!" Perhaps if they were coming out of a bankruptcy/reorganization they would. We do not know. What we do know is that GM was smart enough to recognize they had a very good vehicle on sale in Europe that would make a useful addition to the Buick line, and therefore introduced it as quickly as they could. Perhaps they would have preferred if the entire line was ready before being introduced, in which case they could complain that Buick had nothing worthwhile on the market.

Why would anyone buy this instead of the Toyondai flavor of the month? Why would anyone buy an Acura Civic... er, CXS; or a Lexus Camry.. er ES350; or a Lincoln Fusion... er, MKZ? As we concluded in the last thread on this car, you can't buy a car because of the spec sheet, unless you're named Jaeger. There are all sorts of things you don't get on a spec sheet, like refinement, ride and handling quality, driving feel, etc etc.

BTW: having driven this car and sat in all 4 seating positions, the rear seat is not tight. It is surprisingly roomy. I find it far more comfortable than that of the Malibu. All 4 seating positions are very comfortable, in fact. As for things like the "ill-fitting blank panel in the headliner", show us a picture of that, please. The rest of the comments, like the one calling the black plastic on the center stack low rent, are merely the usual gratuitous cheap-shot quotes out of the Canadian Driver reviewer's style book, to be used only when testing a domestic car. The reviewer would seemingly have the reader believe everyone else uses CNC-milled billet aluminum for that.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

Wharrgarbl

Jaeger

I knew you couldn't resist.

Are you telling people what they should think again?

You find the motor inadequate. Perfectly ok. Many others think it's adequate. Also perfectly ok. You abusing them isn't likely going to change their opinion.

FWIW the Regal in August was only 45 units behind the TSX in sales. 0-60 isn't a priority for everyone.

Then again... consider the target of Buick's... old folks who have all the time in the world and couldn't care less how fast they get to their destination. Maybe Buick was smart in saving a few bucks by putting a bottom of the barrel engine... after all, they have to reimburse billions to various governments. Every little bit of money saved here and there helps, right?

The Legacy/Outback are slower still, as is the Volvo S40, so they must be driven by even older people correct?

IMHO 182hp out of 2.4 litres isn't exactly bottom shelf.

[Jaeger]

harumph, harumph, harumph....blah blah blah...grumble.... groan....

Then again... consider the target of Buick's... old folks who have all the time in the world and couldn't care less how fast they get to their destination. Maybe Buick was smart in saving a few bucks by putting a bottom of the barrel engine... after all, they have to reimburse billions to various governments. Every little bit of money saved here and there helps, right?

Good point.  Tomorrow's "legacy costs" today! 

Jaeger

[Dante]

Then again... consider the target of Buick's... old folks who have all the time in the world and couldn't care less how fast they get to their destination.

LOL.... are you saying that because it only posts 8-9 sec to 60 mph versus 7 sec, the car can't do way over any posted speed limit hence people are slower to arrive to their destination? 

[Leviathan]

Then again... consider the target of Buick's... old folks who have all the time in the world and couldn't care less how fast they get to their destination.

LOL.... are you saying that because it only posts 8-9 sec to 60 mph versus 7 sec, the car can't do way over any posted speed limit hence people are slower to arrive to their destination? 

Considering the draconian laws regarding excessive speeding that Ontario and BC now have his comments are even more entertaining 

[Shnak]

Wharrgarbl

Jaeger

I knew you couldn't resist.

Are you telling people what they should think again?

You find the motor inadequate. Perfectly ok. Many others think it's adequate. Also perfectly ok. You abusing them isn't likely going to change their opinion.

FWIW the Regal in August was only 45 units behind the TSX in sales. 0-60 isn't a priority for everyone.

Then again... consider the target of Buick's... old folks who have all the time in the world and couldn't care less how fast they get to their destination. Maybe Buick was smart in saving a few bucks by putting a bottom of the barrel engine... after all, they have to reimburse billions to various governments. Every little bit of money saved here and there helps, right?

The Legacy/Outback are slower still, as is the Volvo S40, so they must be driven by even older people correct?

IMHO 182hp out of 2.4 litres isn't exactly bottom shelf.

The Legacy/Outback/S40 aren't billed as sports sedan; The Regal is. Major difference.

The engine itself is fine... it's just not well suited for a vehicle billed as a sports sedan.