True, but people won't be paying $30,000-$35,000 for a Mondeo-based Fusion like they are paying for rebadged Insignia.

Wasn't Mercury always Ford's Buick?

 

A fully kitted Fusion Sport already runs $35,000, add the Titanium model that Fusion will almost certainly get when it merges with Mondeo and it will be pretty close.

Valid point, of course I'd argue that it was just as bad an idea historically as it is today but that's another debate, at any rate by "Ford's Buick" I meant "Ford's brand to import it's superior foreign market vehicles rather than bring it's core North American brand up to snuff."

 

For everyone proclaiming what a wonderful job GM is doing with Buick, keep one thing in mind. This car was not originally intended to be a Buick at all. This was the 2nd-gen Saturn Aura.

 

Not a bad car, now where's the GN(X) coupe?

 

GMI's not too happy:
http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/f...ppoints-97285/
And they're not alone.

Anyone else think a big reason the GS was neutered was because GM didn't want it stepping on Caddy's turf?

 

IMO that is by far the most likely reason. If they delivered this thing with the power and refinement the concept was intended to have it would have to be stepping all over the CTS V-6 model's toes. Of course, if GM had gone the logical route and made the 312hp 3.6L V-6 the base CTS engine with the LS1/L76 V8's available as the mid level engine options this would have been far less of a problem....in fact it wouldn't have been a problem at all.

As it stands, a proper Regal GS would have smoked every CTS model short of the V series. Of course they couldn't have that, so now you have a Regal GS that is priced like a Taurus SHO, has the room of a Mazda 6, but which can't even outrun a V-6 Camry and which doesn't come with all wheel drive. Best of luck to GM on finding buyers for this car, they'll need it.

 

That, and the "good enough, we'll let marketing sell them" philosophy which stills seems to permeate GM. If a GNX starts trammeling on Cadillac's toes, then the response must be for Cadillac to up it's game, not to dumb down the "offending" Buick.

Hopefully the hide bound and myopic elements still in GM management get an earful and the boot and they quickly bring out the car the GS can and ought to be. They're sitting on and stifling a potential winner here if they do the right thing and shed the ethos of myopic mediocrity that doomed them for so long.

 

I really like the new Buicks, especially this new GS. But having only 255HP is a huge mistake. ****, my jet ski has more power than that. Way to go GM, neuter another good vehicle with your flawed logic. You're still scrambling for an answer to Ford's Ecoboost technology, too bad you'll never achieve it.

 

Love it! Even more so with the manual option!

 

Guess GM didn't want a repeat of the 80's with the GN/Turbo Regals' "dirty little secret", only this time it has to do with the Cadillac and not the Chevrolet division throwing a hissy fit.

 

I agree for the most part except I'd rather see one of those boosted V6's rather than a traverse mounted FWD V-8. I just have something against seeing a sideways V8 and picturing changing the back plugs.

No kidding.

You had me all except for the last sentence. The LNF is the answer to the ecoboost, a direct injected turbocharged 4 cylinder that was in a production car before the ecoboost I might add. This was just a poor choice in a car that weighs 3700+ lbs to try to add a "sport" moniker to it.

They did it in the early 90's too. I hate that a bunch of "what if's" ah la 90 fiero concept, or "oops how'd that happen" ah la GNX's and cyclone/typhoons bite the dust to flagship models. **** bean counters.

 

I was actually referring to the CTS when I mentioned the V-8 with my argument being that, if they had the engine lineup in the CTS better sorted, they wouldn't need to neuter the CTS to keep internal competition down which is what I suspect happened here. Make the base CTS motor the 312hp 3.6L out of the Camaro, the mid level 'Sport' engine the LS3, and top that with the existing LSA powered CTS-V and I would argue that the CTS lineup as a whole would be world class in this respect. It would also have the beneficial side effect of making the distinction between the CTS and a 300hp Regal less problematic.

Not really. The LNF was a cool little engine that GM absolutely did not use to good effect IMO. But, fuel economy was never exactly stellar with the Cobalt SS only managing a rated 30mpg or so highway IIRC. That isn't bad, but given Ford's own claims they are looking for more than that in terms of fuel economy with the EB concept. I'm not sure there really is a comparison between the LNF and any Ecoboost mill, the concepts and end goal just aren't the same.

Sadly, I think the Regal's turbo four might be the unhappy result of what happens when you try and de-tune the primarily peformace oriented LNF for better fuel economy under the hood of a car it was never really meant to power. The 3.7L V-6 would have been a much better choice if they just had to use something off the shelf for a NA car, but then again that would have put us right back in the same CTS slapping situation.

 

Ah I gotcha. I agree too except instead of the LS3 use the L99 because of the CAFE junk. Gotta please the green side.

Using the cobalt SS's mpg rating is like trying to yardstick the ecoboost V-6 in the SHO which isnt "stellar" as well. As you said mpg wasn't the main focus of either. I look at it like this. SHO vs SE: 263 hp 28 mpg vs 365 hp 25 mpg. Roughly 30% more power for just a shade less mpg (probably due to weight of AWD getting less mpg). Cobalt 2.4 (what was available when the 2.0 turbo came out) vs SS cobalt: 173 hp 29 mpg vs 260 hp 30 mpg. Roughly 40% more power for more mpg (V6 power 4 cylinder economy). This and the fact that as I said the ecotec 2.0 turbo and Ecoboost are both direct injected, turbo charged engines. GM just doesn't have a family of them (yet, the LF3 is getting there) or snazzy family name for it (Ecotecboost anyone ), but the tech is there and in use, which was really my main point against the "you'll never achieve it". Again, they already have it and have been using it for a spell now, it was just aimed at a performance market instead. But as we see now they are using it in a non-performance aspect tarnishing a badge in the process.

I agree, a 4 cylinder, boosted or not does not need to be under the hood of a 3700+ lb car these days when hi-po V6's are sitting on a shelf right next to you. Especially if it's using the GS badge. I blame Ford though , I think this is a "see we can do it too" in reference to the ecoboost. Bet they advertise V6 power and 4 cylinder fuel economy when they sell it. What they won't say is we got a much hotter V6 that we cant give you cuz it'll **** off CTS owners when you pass them, so we gave you low end V6 power. Yep Ford's fault.

 

I wondered about that too, but then figured that the better way to solve this might be to just use the eAssist here. Or you could just do both the L99 and the LS3, a mainstream V-8 option and a sort of Sport model.

But you're not comparing apples to apples. The SHO gets exactly the same fuel economy as the n/a 3.5L awd models do. And that is what you left out, awd vs awd. The SHO and other Ford vehicles offering this setup make it clear that the EB V6 and the n/a V6 get more or less exactly the same gas mileage in similar applications.

And that is the difference, the LNF doesn't promise more power for similar economy, it promises more power for less economy. Car companies have been doing that for ages. No, GM does not have a counterpart for the EB setup right now, but it appears that they do want it to appear as though they do. Personally, I think they would be wiser to simply use the best possible option.

 

You must have missed the part where I said the Turbo 2.0 (LNF) gets better MPG than the 2.4. Either in the Cobalt SS, HHR SS etc, the 2.0 Direct injected Turbo gets more power and more economy in the same application vs it's N/A counterpart. It never promised anything. I don't think economy was even in the equation when they thought the process out. It promised power, it just delivered it with better fuel economy than it's N/A counterpart.

Reguardless we'll just have to agree to disagree for now. We see what EcoBoost in two different lights obviously.

 

I saw it, but again I don't think you are comparing apples to apples. The revised LAP 2.2L is a much more realistic comparison to the LNF given the similarity in both size and date of debut (LNF went into the Cobalt SS in 2008, LAP went into the Cobalt in 2009) The difference in fuel economy between those two engines is meaningful with the LAP 2.2L knocking down five more miles per gallon on the highway. You wont find any of Ford's n/a V-6 engines besting the EcoBoost by 5mpg (or in most cases at all) in the same application.