2006 Buick Lucerne Review

Specifications

Retro Reverie Reignites Distant Memories but Leaves Mixed Emotions

Full-size leather-clad luxury, elegant four-door styling, unique marque-specific design details, a sophisticated dual-overhead cam, 32-valve V8 engine; it appears like the new Lucerne CXS has all the right ingredients to make for a premium on-road experience, and for the most part it does.

I picked up my handsome Crimson Pearl example on Tuesday while on my way to the airport, chromed fender ports, classy multi-spoke 18-inch wheels and shiny black waterfall grille framed by gleaming, jewel-like headlamps that mirror trim, attractive tail-lamps; the entire package looking oh so stylish, and have to admit to enjoying the feeling of sitting on its expansive La-Z-Boy-like leather-clad chairs behind its rather large leather-wrapped steering wheel. The car, with its resonant V8 rumble and cushy American-luxury ride brought back memories of being a kid, when I learned to drive (and am lucky to still be alive) in my Moms 76 Chevy Malibu.

We always had a General Motors product in the driveway, right back to my Dads 56 Chevy Bel Air, my Moms 61 Pontiac Strato Chief wagon, a rather cool (not stock) fire-engine red 69 Catalina two-door hardtop, and then, after the Malibu, a Caprice Classic wagon, complete with the requisite faux wood exterior façade, a Buick Somerset coupe that my Mom had after I left the roost, and on my Dads side, a couple of Safari vans in a row and probably a number of others Ive since forgotten.

The early cars were always reliable, for the era of distributor caps, points and carburetors at least, and were fun to drive, especially if you got off on V8-rear-drive-induced oversteer - which I did and still do. Such antics would be impossible in the new Lucerne CXS, mind you, due to its front-wheel drive configuration, but that intoxicating V8 burble and even quicker adrenaline pumping acceleration is on tap, with surprisingly little torque steer.

GM is the master of limiting torque steer, thanks to Cadillacs engineers needing to exorcise such gremlins out of its front-drive sedans. Only the full-size DTS, which shares its underpinnings with the Lucerne, continues forward with front-wheel drive now, the rest of Cadillacs lineup powered by the rear or all wheels, but the work done for previous V8-powered FWD models, such as the recent Seville and DeVille, not to mention classics like the 69 Eldorado, which incidentally shared architecture with the Olds Toronado that preceded it by three years, plus additional models including the Buick Riviera of 1979, Cadillac Seville of 1980, and so on, means that the Detroit-based automaker has a leg up on most rivals when it comes to taming high-torque V8-powered, front-drive cars.

And the V8 in the Lucerne CXS is one sweet engine. Its not as high in output as Chryslers 5.7-liter HEMI, per se, but the silky-smooth 275-horsepower 4.6-liter mill makes a V6 eclipsing 295 lb-ft of torque. And other than that Chrysler 300C, and its Dodge Charger stable mate, plus, I suppose, GMs own Pontiac Grand Prix GXP, which ironically makes more muscle than Buicks more sophisticated powerplant thanks to 700 cubic centimeters greater displacement, and features a trick cylinder-deactivation feature to save fuel, although its overhead valve architecture makes it less impressive to the import crowd, no rivals offer V8 power in the entry-level luxury segment.

Of course, the Buick V8 isnt necessarily quicker off the line than competitors six-cylinder engines, so the benefits it offers have more to do with a smooth, relaxed composure during its sprint to highway speeds and, of course, that wonderfully throaty exhaust rumble that those of us raised on American iron love so dearly.

Most domestic fans wont care too much that the transmission fitted to the world-class V8 is somewhat rudimentary, at least in the fact that it only includes four forward gears and no manual mode. GM isnt quite in the same league as its rivals when it comes to low-priced automatics, ironic considering it was previously a leader in this field, other than the once state-of-the-art but now merely adequate five-speed, manual-mode unit used in its Cadillac rear-drive cars and crossover. Still, the four-speed unit shifts easily if not a bit on the crude side, especially when sliding into reverse where it hits with an awkward clunk. Its smoother as the cars speed climbs, however, and the engines ample torque makes the need for additional gears less of a problem than it would be for the base six-cylinder model.

Of course, I havent driven the base Lucerne, although Ive driven the LaCrosse with the 3.8-liter overhead valve V6, four-speed auto combo and it does fairly well. While the Lucerne is heavier, for those not interested in performance first and foremost, the $25,265 CX and its 197 horsepower and 227 lb-ft of torque, both maximized at the same 5,200 rpm, should be ample, and the price can hardly be beaten for a large car with the same features. Actually, I think that the Lucerne is most competitive at this price point. Certainly it sees full-size rivals priced lower, such as the more powerful, more radically styled $23,775 Chrysler 300, or the less distinctive although very competent $22,230 Ford Five Hundred (I would have included the Dodge Charger although I think its racier styling targets the Pontiac crowd more than Buicks traditionally more conservative buyer). Toyotas larger, more stylish and extremely well appointed Camry is also in this league, and with a V6 starts a bit lower at $23,040. The Avalon is sized more like the Lucerne, mind you, and is priced quite a bit higher at $26,775; although wonderfully equipped. Of course, Buick makes a model to compete with this, the V8-powered CXL and slightly sportier CXS Im sitting inside right now. Although, from my current point of view, yes, the view from the drivers seat, the cars interior is where GM has fallen short.

I have no qualms about the Lucernes exterior styling nor its panel gap fit and finish. The aforementioned coat of Crimson Pearl paint, a $495 option, is more or less flawless. Certainly its stylish trunk lid sounds a bit tinny upon closure (although it conveniently pops open on its own when the keyfob button is clicked - but GM, take the interior remote button out of glove box and put it somewhere that doesnt require the driver to stretch across the center console) and the cargo area isnt as nicely finished as the Avalon, Hyundai Azera or most others it is up against; a list that dauntingly includes Lexus superb new ES 350 due to the CXS models rather steep low- to mid-$30K range in price. The V8-powered Lucerne CXL, mind you, starts at a very approachable $29,265, putting it right in contention with its Japanese and Korean competitors, as well as Volkswagens superbly crafted Passat - large enough to be considered for this category, although among the most costly. Its just that the Lucernes cabin is a bit uninspired from a styling perspective, and the generous helping of oh-so obviously fake plastic woodgrain is a tad more retro-GM than I care to remember. Other not so welcoming features include the rear armrest that exposes a set of extremely cheap looking, moulded plastic cupholders when folded down, and the foot-actuated parking brake upon release snaps back letting off a twang loud enough to make a steel guitar player feel upstaged.

On the other hand, all of the switchgear is quite nice, especially the rubberized center stack knobs and buttons, but if youre moving up from any number of less expensive General Motors vehicles, such as the Saturn Vue I drove last week, its exactly the same interface and therefore hardly much of an upgrade. You could say that this bodes well for GMs lesser vehicles, and in many ways it does, but Toyota, for instance, totally changes the look of its new Camry when morphed into Lexus trim, and, while I like the faux light birds eye maple and green glass-like accents in the Toyota a bit more than the dark woods (authentic wood, by the way) and teardrop shape of the ES center stack, both are a far cry more stylish and upscale than that the dash and center stack design in the Lucerne. Will Buick customers mind? Probably not, as the Lucerne is better than the LeSabre and Park Avenue models it replaces, but it wont necessarily conquest potential buyers away from other brands too easily, or at least those who care about such things. Its roof liner, mind you, is made up of a Euro-style woven fabric that is more to my taste, and it flows down right over the A-pillars, unlike the Chrysler 300C. Very nice Buick.

Whats more, most of the above are not available with V8 power. This may be a moot point of course, as the new V6 engines in the respective Asian sedans, lone German and base North American cars are potent enough for most performance-oriented drivers, plus Fords Five Hundred should get the new 265-horsepower V6 for 2007. Actually, thanks to the integration of sophisticated five- and six-speed transmissions, the latter more common now than the former, Buicks flagship actually finds itself staring down the tailpipes of Toyotas new 268 horsepower Camry/Avalon duo, for instance. Buick hasnt made 0 to 60 mph times available, but we posted a fairly consistent 7.7 to 8.0 seconds to 60. The less powerful Camry does the same task in just under 7.0 seconds and the heavier Avalon at just over the 7.0 second mark, quite a bit quicker than the Lucerne CXS. Hyundai boasts its Azera takes the lead with a 6.6 second sprint to 60 mph, but our tests show that its right in line with the Avalon - in good company nevertheless. And while I dont normally go on at length about performance specs when reviewing luxury cars, I thought it important due to the Lucerne CXS models sporting pretensions. Just the same, at only a second or so behind its peers, its still not at all slow, and when taking off from a rolling start actually feels quite powerful.

Where it suffers most, however, is in fuel consumption. That rumbling exhaust note I like so much is an auditory reminder of the old Northstars single weakness, a penchant for gasoline - fortunately it doesnt call for premium. During my test I averaged about 14 mpg, a great deal thirstier than the 18 mpg average in the Azera and even better 20 mpg average with the Avalon. I dont know about you, but the cost of fuel is changing my driving habits. The additional stops to refuel also diminish the V8-powered Lucernes convenience quotient too.

Its possible that ride and handling will matter more to some Lucerne buyers, and to this end I have mixed feelings. Firstly, its ride is fabulous; compliant and comfortable, it takes care of badly cared for inner city streets without raising a fuss and tracks extremely well on the open highway, although gets a bit floaty at speeds Id rather not mention. I think I surprised an Audi A4 driver who attempted to accelerate away from me on the highway merge, though. I had no problems keeping up, and when we hit the highway even less of a challenge leaving him behind. In tight corners the Lucerne CXS, equipped with standard 18-inch alloy wheels and Bridgestone tires, incidentally, tends to understeer, but unless pushed extremely hard, it remains composed and relatively horizontal to the road surface. Just the same, a sport sedan its not. It is well-mannered, however, and deserves credit for at the very least breaking front-wheel traction in a predictable, progressive fashion.

It should be mentioned that the Lucerne doesnt achieve its good manners by accident, but rather its chassis architecture has been pulled from the very place Buick nabbed its top-line engine, Cadillac. This is the old DeVille chassis, now stretched and widened for the new DTS. Again, such is the reason Buick was able to fit in Magnetic Ride Control - the first time the technology, pioneered in Chevys Corvette and a variety of Cadillac models, has been made available in the Buick lineup. Also part of the package is StabiliTrak electronic stability control, improving the cars overall ability to remain within its lane when dealing with slippery roads and potentially avoid an accident. Traction control is also part of the standard package, whether equipped with a V6 or V8. So while the Lucerne might not be able to carve up the corners like a VW Passat or even the new Camry, quite agile by the way, it offers a wonderful ride and handling balance that should surely please Buick buyers, or most others looking to buy into the entry-level luxury segment.

Its lightweight steering should also be popular to those who normally buck up for a Buick, making in-town parallel parking easy and negotiating dense traffic effortless, although managing tight parking lots or making U-turns can be hampered due to the cars gargantuan 44-foot turning circle. The steering tightens up on the highway, which is good, but, like the chassis, probably not enough to appease sport-oriented drivers. Its a bit dead at center too, unfortunately expected from this brand, although its off-center response is rather abrupt due to more power assistance than I like.

Braking performance? I have nothing overly negative to report in this department, although the Lucernes ABS-enhanced four-wheel discs felt a bit spongy compared to the Avalons setup, and when called upon seemed to perform less adequately than others in this class; although I didnt have a tape measure out so I cant personally say if the CXS beats its competition or not. I checked around the net for some specific results and only one reputable publisher had anything to say, Edmunds.com, commenting that it wasnt happy with the results but not stating the actual stopping distances.

So while its braking capability might not make it best-in-class for avoiding potential accidents, nor its handling, for that matter, if you do happen to hit something the Lucerne should put up a pillowy barrier of potentially lifesaving airbags. It gets the usual two frontal bags, although the front passenger unit features GMs new dual-depth technology that restrains front-seat passengers in a greater variety of seating and crash situations than conventional dual-stage airbags (see the news for Feb 9, 2005, GM Introduces Worlds First Dual Depth Frontal Airbag). Additionally it has a full assortment of side-impact thorax airbags for all outer occupants, and roof-rail side-curtain airbags along each side of the cabin.

Standard features in mind I love its integrated XM satellite radio; Id choose satellite radio over MP3/WMA compatibility or an external iPod jack any day, although the CXS comes with MP3 playback plus speed-compensated audio control and nine Harmon Kardon speakers mated up to a 280-watt amp of the same lineage. A six-disc, in-dash CD changer is available, and was included in my tester. I found setting radio station presets non-intuitive, though, and working the myriad of steering wheel buttons a bit overwhelming, although Im sure a little time spent with the manual and all would be clear. Still, the sound quality never really impressed me, surprising as Ive enjoyed OEM H-K applications before. Its preset equalization parameters never seemed to fit each genre the way I thought they should, and even when switching around from classical, rock, jazz, or any number of additional settings, my various test CDs didnt sound as rich and deep as with other audio systems in this class. Alas, Ive been told Im a difficult guy to satisfy.

I suppose I felt the same way about the Lucerne CSX drivers seat. Sure its multi-adjustable via eight ways, with four-way lumbar support adjustment (and two-driver memory), but I still couldnt get comfortable. Its seatback must have been formed to accommodate someone elses frame, as it pushed out where I didnt like it to and sunk in where I needed support, and speaking of support it lacked a great deal where side bolsters should have been, so I always felt uncomfortably exposed, and when pushing the cars limits in the corners, had to use my arms to hold my butt and back in place so that I wouldnt flop around in my seat. I dont know how you drive, but I find I get much greater control out of a car when both arms are relaxed with hands resting on the steering wheel at the 9 and 3 oclock positions.

So while the Lucerne isnt exactly sporty, it should prove reliable. Buick has done well in J. D. Power and Associates annual initial quality (IQS) and dependability (VDS) studies, as has Cadillac, the latter brand which should effect the Lucerne CXSs results more-so than any recent Buick due to its DTS-derived chassis and drivetrain.

In the end I like the Lucerne CXS, but I wouldnt take it over the Avalon or Azera. I dont necessarily believe that the two Asian models will be any more reliable and its too early to tell which car will win when it comes to resale/residual values, plus I have to admit to liking the exterior styling of the Lucerne more than either the Toyota or Hyundai. With me, it comes down to the interior, which I find a bit uninviting and somewhat substandard, much better than any previous Buick, but not good enough to compete head-on in an entry-level luxury market segment that is starting to rival premium brands for interior materials quality, style, plus fit and finish. I have this same problem with the Chrysler 300C, by the way, although its wickedly sinful 340-horsepower V8, rear-drive layout and over-the-top styling almost make it possible to look over some of the harder plastics and its ultra-cheap shift-gate.

Some will care about such things, and others will not. So, if youre not as uptight as I am about interior details, dont have a body shaped like my five-foot, eight-inch 160-pound frame, and arent necessarily looking for a sport sedan, the Lucerne may suit you well. It certainly looks good, and that may be reason enough for decent sales numbers. For Buicks sake, I hope the latter comes true.