The new Avenir trim level adds a different grille and big wheels, but also a richer interior with upgraded leather, real matte wood, real aluminum trim, etc.
Flying into LaGuardia recently for a college tour with my older son, I had booked a Hertz rental. I used my accumulated points, so the four day rental was going to be basically free.
I am a Gold Member at Hertz, which means at most locations your name is on an LED board at the appointed pick up time, with your stall number shown. Go to your stall, the keys are in the car, and drive to the exit gate.
You get whatever is in your stall, which has given me some varied choices in the recent past: a ragged Tahoe, a sparkling new Expedition with 200 miles (though the old bodystyle), a searing neon blue RAV4, a Hyundai Sonata I really liked, a Grand Caravan that reminded me why minivans are so handy, and a surprisingly enjoyable Tiguan.
At many locations, they are transitioning away from bothering with the board and assigned stalls for Gold Members. Instead, you just go to the “Gold Canopy” area and take any car you see. Then, you are billed according to what you drive out. LaGuardia has gone to this system.
So, my wife, son and I were faced with a Sonic, a couple of Malibus, a pickup truck, several minivans, and some extra cost “premium” choices like a Cayenne and E-Class that would not be covered by my points.
I guess the upward curve over the rear wheels is supposed to evoke Buicks of the past, but I think the car would look better without them.
At the very end of the row, though, I recognized the nose of a LaCrosse. I knew from my app that it would be free with the points. Wouldn’t you rather have a Buick?
So, we hop in and go. First impressions? My wife, the Cayenne driver, remarked how nice the interior was. And it did give a great first impression. If you changed the badge on the wheel to Lexus or Cadillac, I don’t think anyone would know the difference. It gave off a quality vibe, with tasteful (though fake) wood trim, and switchgear that wasn’t obviously shared with lesser GM cars.
The leather seats were comfy and glove soft. My 6′ 3″ son thought the back seat was great.
I had to do some research online that night to figure out what we had. It was a 2018 Premium, which adds a raft of standard features like panoramic sunroof, heated seats front and rear, cooled front seats, massaging driver seat, nav (more on that later), and a heads up display I found very handy.
I took a wrong turn (or two) and had to detour through the Bronx, but I correctly made it back to fly home.
We set out for the 80 mile drive to the college visit. I found that while the car was easy to drive on I-95 (possibly the most stress-inducing highway in the U.S.) with the same nanny features as my ES350 (lane keep assist, blind spot monitoring, etc.), I couldn’t quite get comfortable behind the wheel.
Lots of fake wood, but real is optional. The center armrest was oddly firm, uncomfortable after an hour or so.
And that remained the case for the whole time we had the car. I’m 5′ 10″, pretty much an average size person with average limbs. But no matter what I did, the steering wheel felt too far away. I had the power telescope all the way out, and it still felt like a reach. If I moved the seat closer so the reach was comfortable, then I was short on leg room. Maybe more time with the car would have changed my perception, but it sure felt like there was something fundamentally wrong with triangulation of the wheel, the seat, and the pedals. I’ve never had that “reach” problem in any other car, in 32 years of driving.
This is a prior body LaCrosse, but it’s a good illustration. The HUD in my rental was nowhere near this high, the display appeared down at the cowl.
The heads up display was handy. Something that sounds silly, to me, but I liked it in practice. The display can be changed to show several features, including speed, RPM’s, and radio channel. The lane keep and blind spot indicators are repeated in the heads up display, which was probably the most practical use of the HUD. You can adjust the display up or down on the windshield, according to your height and preference of how much in your field of vision it should sit.
The car has auto stop/start, and it was very smooth. Completely imperceptible, really. Vastly better than our 2016 Cayenne, in which the engine stops and starts with an abrupt clunk (I push the button to override it the times I am driving).
This smoothness is largely owed to the mild hybrid system with a 2.5 liter 4 cylinder engine. Apparently, when you take your foot off the brake, the electric motor gets you rolling and then the gas engine kicks in. It all happens quickly, but it’s just enough to help make the transition. And, if you “creep” while waiting at the light, or because the person in front of you turns right on red, then the electric motor does the creeping. The Cayenne V6 cranks to life each time you take your foot off the brake (which cannot be good over years of use, another reason to disable it).
While around town this hybrid setup was smooth and quiet, cruising at 70 was another matter altogether. Horrible, in a word, for a $40,000 plus sedan with luxury aspirations. It was very “buzzy” when lugging in top gear. Very loud, to the point where my wife asked me what was wrong (“Why is it making that weird noise?”). And over our 160 miles of highway use, we only achieved 25 mpg. Hardly good enough to justify putting up with a powertrain that was so out of synch with the luxury vibe put out by the rest of the car.
A 3.6 liter V6 is optional, and standard in the platform mate, Cadillac XTS. If you are interested in a LaCrosse, I’d be sure to drive both engines. I suspect the V6 gives a vastly smoother and quieter performance with little tradeoff in economy. But for the proverbial little old lady never leaving town, the 2.5 liter would be fine.
The LaCrosse rental had the standard 18 inch wheels, which gave a nice ride, firmer than the ES350 but not uncomfortable. 19 inch wheels are optional and the platform mate XTS has 20 inch wheels available as well. I know they look “cool” and I do like the looks of the larger wheels too. My local dealer has a black XTS with the 20 inch polished aluminum wheels, and it is a stunner. But, the tradeoff in the ride quality is substantial, in my opinion. The all-new 2019 Lexus ES350 comes standard with the same 17 inch wheel and tire size that has been on the ES for a decade or more. Apparently, a lot of other buyers feel the same way.
Oddities? A few. There is no external trunk button/release mechanism. While most cars have done away with a trunk keyhole, there is usually a touch pad above the license plate to open the trunk. Not here; you have to use the fob, or open the driver door and push a switch down low near the map pocket.
The gearshift was confusing. Again, something you would get used to if you owned it. But if there is one thing in a car that shouldn’t be confusing, isn’t it the gearshift? You had to hold the button on the side to select anything. Then down for D, or up and to the left for R. The shifter always springs back to the orange dot, between D and N. It doesn’t stay in D, for example, when you are in drive. Nor does it stay in R when you are in reverse. Park? That’s the little black button at the top, with the faint, unmarked “P”, like they don’t want you to find it. My mother would never get the hang of this, I thought to myself.
While the car has pushbutton start and keyless locking (push a little button on the exterior door handle), there was no keyless unlocking/entry. Usually, you touch the inside of the handle and the door unlocks, like our Cayenne, the ES, and even 2007 Bertha (the S550). The LaCrosse would never unlock with a touch. Maybe it was something wrong, it seems odd to have keyless locking and keyless start, but no keyless unlock.
The button for the pushbutton start was not round, as seems to be the industry standard. It was a parallelogram, basically. An odd shape for no other apparent purpose, than to just be different. And it made it hard to hit right. Something that daily use would get you accustomed to, I guess. But why does it have to be different from every other start button, when the difference makes it work worse?
When refueling, I couldn’t fill it all the way. It took less than I expected and shut off. No effort at “topping off” would work. Sure enough, it was showing about 1/8 of a tank less than full. I didn’t really want to pay Hertz $9.00 a gallon for what was missing, but they didn’t charge me. The helpful check-in clerk said “Yeah, all the LaCrosses do that. Ya can’t fill ’em”.
When we set out for our drive, I wanted to put the destination in the nav system. I couldn’t figure out any way to enter the address, but the screen (sensing I was confused) asked me if I wanted to call OnStar, so I did. The helpful but curt operator told me I couldn’t use the nav without an active OnStar subscription. At all! There was no way to enter an address manually, is why I couldn’t figure it out. That sure seemed odd. The ES350 will let you enter an address manually, or with a subscription you can ask the Lexus assistant to call up the destination for you (I never have used this, I just enter it manually).
This photo shows the poor relation of the exhaust to the fake “outlets” in the bumper. A few extra dollars spent here might have been wise.
Did I like the LaCrosse enough to trade my ES350? No, but if I was in the market, I’d give a LaCrosse a close look for sure. With the V6, most likely. A 2018 Premium 4 cylinder like my rental stickers for $43,000.00 or so, but the dealer in a big city near me is showing dozens of 2017 Premiums, with the V6, for $10,000.00 off on their website. I’m assuming a serious buyer in the showroom could get a little more knocked off. A loaded LaCrosse for $33,000.00 or so is a whale of a deal, in my opinion.
From quickly reading the article:
My guess is that the rear “kick up” on the side of the car is to add some visual drama. Plus, now that factories can add a lot of (superflous) creases to doors and fenders, stylists (?) seem to feel compelled to add them to help a design look more expensive and/or sophisticated.
The less than ideal driving position is almost a mystery. My 09 Crown Victoria doesn’t have a telescopic steering column, but does have moveable pedals, I wonder if they might have been a help with the driving position?
It is unfortunate about the gear shift and the engine start button. Some manufacturers are so loathe to re-use another manufacturer’s good ideas.
Finally, in the last picture, those exhaust outlets look kind of stupid. My first thought was dual rear tow eyes.
Oh, and I forgot, $43K for a near luxury car…..powered by a 4 cylinder engine? How crazy is that? And with that engine they call it “Premium” ?
As much as it may displease you, 4 cylinder engines are the present and future of standard engines in modern cars, due to environmental regulations. Thankfully, most automakers are better at turbocharging and giving their 4 cylinders the necessary power and fuel economy to beat the old 6 cylinders. It sounds like Buick needs to work on theirs a little more.
That being said, the most powerful 4 cylinder with all the modern technologies can’t match the feel and sound of a naturally-aspirated V8. I was recently reminded of that while behind the wheel of my friend’s 2008 Audi A6 with its 4.2L V8.
It is my understanding that those regulations are being repealed by the current administration…….until they are restored by the nest one…..maybe.
It’s more complicated than that. And it’s in flux. As is everything else with this administration. Too complicated to give you a quick simple answer.
I understand your point completely (I hope). However, my point is that this is (as I understand it) the top of the heap as far as Buick sedans go. If a V6 is available, it would seem to make sense that you make it standard (and I guess it even may be if GM is like Ford). After all, BMW uses turbocharged 4 cylinder engines but I don’t think that they put them in their top models.
This is not a turbo engine.
This isn’t meant to sound snarky, but the second half of Brendan’s comment in response to my comment about the engine being a 4 cylinder brings up the subject of turbocharged engines. Though in honesty, I had (temporarily) forgotten it had a hybrid powertrain.
Thankfully, most automakers are better at turbocharging and giving their 4 cylinders the necessary power and fuel economy to beat the old 6 cylinders. It sounds like Buick needs to work on theirs a little more.
This is not a turbocharged engine. Which explains its performance shortcomings. The e-assist provides a bit of extra torque at lower speed acceleration, but the weakness the author found at highway speeds is the result of a genuine lack of power.
Having a NA 2.5 four in a car in this class is pretty pathetic. A proper 2.0 turbo would make a big difference: much more torque, power, and smoother running. I am convinced (as you are) that a well-designed turbo four can work just as well (or better) than most NA sixes.
“…most automakers are better at turbocharging” Buick 2018.
“The GNX leads the way in turbo performance and shows that a true muscle car can still be built to comply with modern emissions standards” Buick 1987.
GM’s 21st Century “Parade of Progress” on Full Display.
Oh, and I forgot, $43K for a near luxury car…..powered by a 4 cylinder engine? How crazy is that? And with that engine they call it “Premium” ?
The four-cylinder motors have become more and more refined in the last decade. So much that Mercedes-Benz offered its 2.1-litre four-cylinder diesel motor in its gargantuan W221 S-Class for two years. The performance was surprisingly good with very low fuel consumption.
I drove a hired BMW 525d Touring xDrive through northeastern Germany and was really awestruck at burly 2-litre diesel motor. I had to look up to see whether it was four or six cylinders because it was so smooth and so quiet.
Thus fuelling the perception that the Germans lead in engine technology, if you can afford the long-term maintenance.
The ’15 MINI Cooper we had was absolutely stunning in that respect. So much performance AND economy from a 1.5 litre triple with a tiny turbo – my son who works on locomotives snorted in disbelief when he saw it, but couldn’t deny that it sure worked. All the performance we even needed and then some!
A nice looker with a decent interior. But I’m sure they designed the column to keep that wheel as far away from you as they could, as it is a carbuncle. Most unpleasant looking thing.
As for that gearstick, someone said here just recently that it was time for regulation of this nonsense. Prindle was all-but regulated, it works, and mass adoption makes it safe. This current variability is just asinine. It is surely just bored designers pleasing bored marketers, at the potential cost of life. Particularly for two or three car households. I speak as a supposed car-nut who has quite recently started the manual in gear on a quickie swap. Embarassing, but easier than you might think. Let alone trying to work out which way, literally, is up in something like this.
Mercedes-Benz came up with the oversized gear selector knob in the late 1960s. The shape and size were intentional as not to enter the eye socket and gore through to the brain during the collision.
Now that’s being thorough. And thinking outside the box. Engineers come first and set the parameters, then stylists come in and tidy up what’s left to them. Kinda like Chrysler of the ’40s and early ’50s.
Agreed! Imagine me being given this shift stick nightmare following a long flight. Getting in and out of gears is ridiculous!!! I drive a 92 Mazda Miata stickshift only and had an automatic in the past. No problem but this shift box was a nightmare as I tried to park in the dark to pick up my hotel keys for the night. I can’t imagine these would sell well for any price due to this shifting issue. Not a good engineering design and obviously not tested by nonprofessional drivers. Keyless was the least of my problems.
I suppose it’s fine, but you might as well have picked any car. Another four banger hybrid with leather and fancy LEDs. Yawn. My friend had a 1990 Buick Lesabre estate wagon. THAT was a Buick. Big, bench seats, solid controls with a three speed automatic and a V8. You know, what a Buick should be. Not fancy tech but well built, old styled, and comfortable.
I didn’t know they offered a hybrid version of LaCrosse in the US, as I thought it’s Chinese only. And when I google the pictures, the first two are Chinese specifications also.
From what I’ve read, the only way to get start-stop to work where it’s unnoticeable is with some sort of hybrid system, even a mild one (as with the LaCrosse). Simply put, start-stop does not work properly with any otherwise normal ICE drivetrain.
While GM has done much better, their vehicles (like this LaCrosse) still fall in the Maxwell Smart category of “missed it by that much”. I just can’t figure out how, after all these years, Toyota and Honda remain so good at hitting the mark while GM is always just a tad off, no matter how hard they try. I don’t think GM is ever going to get out of the cost-cutting mode. Toyota and Honda will spend the extra $.02 to get everything just right, while GM will ‘still’ look for a way to cut a corner, even if it’s by the tiniest bit. I just don’t get it.
Great review of a car that often doesn’t get much attention. Just some thoughts/questions while reading:
– Head-up display: Could you see it clearly if you were wearing polarized sunglasses? I’ve never been able to, making for a hazy projection that is pure dizzying. I keep it permanently turned off in the 5 Series because of that.
– The gearshift operation is very similar to what is in modern BMWs. It was weird the first time I ever used it, but like anything else, it becomes muscle memory.
– When refueling, did you ever try sliding the pump nozzle out a little. First generation MINIs do the same thing with certain pumps because the of the shape of the gas tank and angle at which the nozzle slides in. Inserting it just enough to open the flap will fill it all the way, at least on R50/53 series MINIs.
All things aside, I think Buick did a fine job with this LaCrosse. It’s not the type of car that invokes any degree of excitement for me personally, but for its intended demographic, I’m sure it’s just fine.
I tried everything with that nozzle! Yeah, it was odd. Our 2014 Jeep has the “capless” fill port as well, and you do have to slide it out a bit to get it to fill without cutting off. I even tried just hanging the nozzle up, sliding my card and starting over (thinking about the $9 per gallon Hertz was going to ding me). It still wouldn’t take any more.
The LaCrosse also sits on the same platform as the “it’s days are numbered” Impala. You’ve provided some nice contrast to the 2018 Impala I have at work.
You would definitely want the 3.6; it’s a wonderfully smooth and powerful engine that is delightfully quiet at any speed. What you describe with the 2.5 would get old real quick.
The method of trunk opening is indeed annoying as you state. On the Impala, the doors unlock by pressing the door handle button used to lock it; perhaps Buick differs. And the gearshift on this Buick could almost be a deal killer – the old standard of PRNDSL (or some variation) placed on either the console or the column (a much better use of real estate) is far better and still being built on the Impala. Difference for the sake of being different isn’t always a positive and I’m also grumpy about such things.
A loaded LaCrosse with a V6 for $33k would be quite the temptation.
Do you think you would have had a similarly positive impression with the available Sonic?
“The LaCrosse also sits on the same platform as the “it’s days are numbered” Impala. You’ve provided some nice contrast to the 2018 Impala I have at work.”
Sort of. The Epsilon II platform has underpinned GM’s midsize and full-size FWD sedans for quite a while. The long-wheelbase version of Epsilon II was called Super Epsilon, and that’s what’s used by the Impala and XTS.
The new mid-fullsize FWD platform is called C1XX. Apparently, it’s derived from Epsilon II. The long-wheelbase sedan derivative of that is known as P2XX, which is what the new ’17+ LaCrosse uses. Among other things, the LaCrosse’s wheelbase is a full three inches longer than the Impala and XTS’s (114.4 inches vs 111.7), but I don’t know whether that’s inherent to the platform, or something GM just went ahead and did.
B, C and D GM chassis names were so much easier to keep up with!
Thanks for this information, it’s very helpful. Can you share insight into the platforms that underpin the GM CUVs as well, and how they relate to the car platforms?
I’ll try. The crossovers pretty much use the same architectures as the sedans, with some minor revisions.
Gamma II is one of the older platforms, at this point. It underpins all of GM’s subcompact FWD cars, including the previous and current Chevrolet Spark and current Chevrolet Sonic, as well as the Chevrolet Trax and Buick Encore.
Stepping up to compact-FWD, D2XX replaced both Delta II and Theta. Apparently, the US-market version of D2XX is named D2UX. The US-market cars that use it are the Chevrolet Cruze and Chevrolet Volt, but as far as crossovers, it underpins the Chevrolet Equinox, GMC Terrain, and Buick Envision.
**Note that the also-compact Buick Cascada is a generation behind, and so still uses the old Delta II platform, rather than D2XX.
Meanwhile, E2XX is a derivative of Epsilon II, replacing it, Theta Premium, and Lambda. It’s in all of the latest mid and full-size FWD cars, like the Chevrolet Malibu, Buick Regal Sportback, and Buick Regal TourX. P2XX is a long-wheelbase variant intended for full-size cars, which currently includes just the Buick LaCrosse. The crossover version is called C1XX. In its shorter-wheelbase form, it supports the GMC Acadia, Cadillac XT5, and the upcoming Chevrolet Blazer. Weirdly, though the new XT4 is compact in length, it also uses the C1XX architecture, giving it a wider stance than most similarly-sized crossovers. The longer-wheelbase version of C1XX supports the full-size Buick Enclave and Chevrolet Traverse CUVs. Based on the proportions, LWB C1XX will also be the basis for the upcoming CT6 three-row crossover.
**Note that the Impala and XTS are on the old LWB Epsilon II platform (Super Epsilon). Also, note that in my earlier comment, I said C1XX was the longer-wheelbase variant of E2XX sedans. That’s actually P2XX. C1XX is for crossovers.
Weirdly, GM has not gone to a fully-modular single-use platform, like Volkswagen, Toyota, Volvo, Mercedes-Benz et al. If it had, the compact and midsize platforms, at least, would be the same. Volkswagen’s MQB, for example, underpins everything from the Golf to the Atlas, pretty much all of their recent transverse-engined wares.
Also, GM has no RWD-based crossovers at the moment. To my knowledge, the only one they ever had was the first-gen SRX (2004-2009). This is important because the next Ford Explorer and Lincoln Aviator will be RWD-based, by all accounts. But there’s no visible reason GM couldn’t use the Alpha (Cadillac ATS, CTS, Chevrolet Camaro) or Omega (Cadillac CT6) platforms on a RWD-based crossover.
Kyree, this is awesome information, thank you!
You make a great point on the RWD-based crossovers being a strange omission from GM’s portfolio. Based on the previews, the new “mid-sized” RWD-based Aviator looks to be nicely done and has the potential to do well in the luxury segment vs. RWD-platform based competitors like the BMW X5. Frankly, I feel that Cadillac should already be there, given that they have had good RWD car architecture for years now which could have/should have been adapted for CUV use (as key German competitors have done). This has struck me as such a huge miss for the Cadillac brand, as they chased BMW sport sedans in a shrinking segment while their target customers were happily snapping up BMW SUVs (and SUVs from MB, and Land Rover, and Porsche) in a booming segment.
This all strikes me as an example of the problems that still afflict GM: they have a very complicated series of platforms underpinning an array of products (which mostly come across as similar, Camaro/ATS excepted) rather than the more modern modular platform approach (with highly differentiated products sharing common/hidden architecture). And then they still have a big gap at the premium end of the market with appropriately competitive world class CUVs.
You’re welcome, and completely agreed. I was hoping the XT6 would be RWD-based.
Meanwhile, the Aviator looks like an American Range Rover (with a bit of Saab thrown in at the rear). Lincoln will sell every one they can build.
But the XT6 will probably do well, too.
GM hasn’t used the Alpha platform for a crossover or SUV because it isn’t adaptable for that purpose.
From what I’ve read on GM and Ford sites, a platform must be designed, from the beginning, to accommodate both passenger cars and crossovers/SUVs, if that is the goal.
Work on the Alpha platform started prior to the bankruptcy/bailout of GM. It was originally supposed to be a Pontiac. Post-bankruptcy, it was resurrected as a Cadillac. It was not meant to be used for anything but conventional passenger cars.
Sales of vehicles based on that platform have not met expectations, even with the late addition of the current Camaro. But it can’t support a crossover or SUV because it wasn’t designed for one. A huge blunder, in retrospect.
That sounds right. But they had ample time to design Omega, which is currently used by just the CT6, for crossover duty. Unless it’s strongly related to Alpha. Hard to tell.
The Alpha and Omega platforms fully display GM’s “BMW Envy.”
GM, however, stayed focused on BMW’s passenger cars, not its crossovers.
Another blunder.
Hmmmm, that “non-adaptable” argument coming from GM on the Alpha platform strikes me as specious. What about BMW’s first generation E53 X5 (circa 1999), which was derived from the E39 5 Series (circa 1995)? Or the X83 X3 (circa 2003) derived from the E46 3 Series (circa 1998)? I’m not sure that in the very early 1990s when work would have been underway on the E39, for example, that BMW would have predicted the need to make it work for both a car and and a crossover. I think that BMW’s acquisition of Land Rover in 2004, plus the huge growth of U.S. SUV sales during this period, led BMW to modify the existing car-based E39 platform to work for light SUV duty (coupled with some Land Rover parts) based on smart insight into how the U.S. car market was evolving toward crossovers. So I don’t fully buy the excuse that a platform has to be envisioned for both car and CUV applications from the start in order to be feasible. I think that’s more a case of GM and Ford making excuses for their strategy misses.
I’m going by what posters on two other sites – Blueovalnews.com and GMInsidenews.com – have said. These are posters who are knowledgeable about the industry.
If the Alpha platform were easily adaptable to crossovers – particularly larger crossovers – one would think that GM would have made this move before now. The swing to crossovers has been happening for a long time, and the ATS landed with a thud.
I know that GM has been slow to react to market trends, but I would think that even GM would have moved by now if it were easy to build a larger crossover on the current Alpha platform.
On the new Lacrosse you push bottom part of the buick logo on the trunk to pop it open, And to unlock the doors It’s the same as the impala, you the push the button the button on the door handle to unlock, and lock them. It’s not like other manufacturers who put touch sensors on the handle’s.
The fact that it was a rental says it all.
Nice review, Importamation.
1. I think the sweep-spears on the rear fenders works well. Interestingly, the Impala also has them, albeit sharper. I think it’s the only Chevrolet that has the sweep-spears at the rear, too. Other Chevrolets with that motif (Cruze, ’19 Silverado) place it across the front fenders.
2. I’m glad you liked the start/stop, because you can’t turn it off on the newer GM cars. It’s kind of jittery in my Cruze, but non-hybrid four-cylinder engines are sort of rough to begin with. I also agree that the 2.5-liter mild-hybrid system is not worth the trouble. Go for the 3.6 if you’re buying.
3. As far as OnStar, what you had was OnStar Turn-by-Turn. It just gives you directions (“turn left on Baker St.”) with graphics-based prompts, and requires you to call OnStar and have them beam the destination to the car. It’s not the full map-based system that allows manual user input and shows you where you are. But you could have plugged in your smartphone and used Apple CarPlay or Android Auto.
I do have the full nav system in my Cruze. It’s this same basic infotainment, with a Chevrolet UI. In addition to being able to enter the destination on the screen, you can still call OnStar if you have a subscription and let them send it—handy if you need to enter a location while driving—or use the OnStar app and send it to your car, in which case it will download the location and prompt you to begin navigation as soon as it starts up. A lot of other manufacturers do the latter, as well.
4. The gear lever seems to just be an implementation of the monostatic joystick gear selector first used by BMW circa 2007 (I believe it debuted with the then-new E70 X5, and had spread to the rest of the cars by 2014 or so). So people shouldn’t be too bewildered by it in this day and age. That said, GM could have made the park button light up. GM is also using this gear selector on other Buick and Cadillac vehicles (Enclave, XT4, XT5, CT6).
The gearshift would grow on me I’m sure. But it’s completely different from the ZF-designed monostick in our 2014 Jeep Grand Cherokee (which itself has gone back to a conventional shifter for 2017-on). The Buick just seemed unintuitive to a rental driver like me. But as someone else noted, if you owned it you would quickly get used to it.
We did try to pair my wife’s iPhone, but it asked for permission to download her contacts, and there was no apparent way to prevent that. We didn’t want to do that in a rental so she exited the pairing process.
We just used the phone to navigate us, sitting upright in the cupholder.
I noticed they switched. I think they also switched the joystick static controller in the 300 to the rotary static one around that time.
Hi Kyree,
to note, yes… my 300S has the dial shifter. they changed it from the monostick with the pretty extensive 2015 300 update.
I like the sweep sides, adds character.
Seems like a Catch-22 with car styling these days.
Either cars are “too plain and look alike”, or if try something different, then it’s “too much”.
On too many vehicles, they seem to begin and end without any rhyme or reason.
On the quarter panel of this Buick, there are two character lines that don’t relate to each other, or the flow of the belt line. The result is that everything looks disjointed, at best.
The sides seem to be the biggest areas besides the grille designers are limited to when adding character to the body, everything else is dictated one way or another by aero and packaging, which is why going too little seems bland and too much with either seems ridiculous IMO.
Anyone else think side sweeps look identical to the 72-76 Torino?
An interesting review. I am on record here as being a hater of the original Lacrosse, but I like the looks of these newer ones and have been wondering how much better I would like them.
The driving position thing is very interesting. For some reason the GM cars of my life have not suited me in this way, even though I am of average height and build, and am able to buy a suit off the rack and usually wear it without any alterations.
The powertrain on this car would really grate on me. This is the 2010s version of the CAFE cars we had to live with in the 1980s. Then the problem was low power, unpleasant transmissions and too-tall gearing. Now the trend is wonky complex engines and transmissions with way more gears than really necessary. I read this then got into my Sedona with its lovely, fat, powerful V6 and 6 speed auto that provides no drama, just pleasant torque that doesn’t draw the least amount of attention to itself.
Final thought – although I think the big mechanical lever is an anachronism for shifting gears on a modern automatic, this setup would baffle me. Pushbuttons, a dial, a little fingertip slide lever, there are lots of ways that could be simple and intuitive for shifting gears. Levers of this design take something simple and make it hard.
Yeah, I just drove a very similar route this morning in my ES350….75 miles or so on the interstate. V6, 6 speed auto, no start-stop feature, no hybrid anything, and I got 35 mpg with the cruise set on 68 in a 65 zone. Significantly smoother, quieter, and more efficient than the the LaCrosse (though there was one adult on board as opposed to three).
I did some testing of the car’s MPG readout by keeping up with it on paper for several tanks. Then I lost the paper before I could write it up, I’ll have to try again. But my paper math showed the car was optimistic by about half of a mile per gallon, pretty close.
My 2017 Mustang GT routinely gets 26-27 mpg in freeway or highway driving. 24 mpg out of that powertrain’s indeed poor.
I feel the same way about levers. With no cabling or linkage between the lever and the transmission, there is zero point to having anything resembling one anymore. And really, the dainty levers like this don’t exactly make the operation feel or look particularly sporty either, which was the traditional appeal of a console shift automatic.
Great review. A couple of thoughts though:
1. No matter how manufacturers insist a 4 cyl is our future in luxury cars, I’m not buying it. Looking at the sales numbers, the general public isn’t either.
2. The Cadillac XT5, with the same shift lever, has a six minute video on how to use it. Let’s think about that for a moment. GM isn’t the only offender- in my six year stint with Hertz, Mercedes shifters were the worst. You learned to never let your foot off of the brake pedal until the transmission decided what gear to be in.
3. “Smart keys.” To date, a tech solution looking for a problem. In the old days, if you lost the keys, you called a lock smith. Now you call a tow truck. And if you lost the FOB to that Buick, getting the luggage out of the back is going to be a challenge. Added to this, the likelihood of losing the fob seems to be much higher when you don’t need the physical key to start the car.
4. Stop/Start. It used to be, when the starter failed you’d be in your own driveway, a parking lot, or somewhere out of the way. Now, with stop start, we’ll have the ability to discover the starter has failed in rush hour traffic, on the Interstate. Likely in the rain or snow, because that’s how these things work. Yep- another solution in search of a problem.
Agree with most, but future is now and a “lux car” to some is a CUV or SUV.
Also, if GM kept actual key systems, even though reliable, Auto Writers and snobs would go on and on about how “outdated” they are and say “this is typical, GM, etc”, ;P
I’m pretty sure most all cars still have real locks on at least one door for emergency use, they usually just put a cover over it you have to pop off. The physical key is then in the fob. If the fob battery is dead I think most still allow you to start by holding the fob up to the start button, at least that’s how our Chrysler is.
Ignition keys have been security chipped for some time now, and for good reason, so I don’t really see a fob and key being all that different as far as having to get a tow if you lose them. And you won’t need to call a locksmith if you lock your keys in the car, because that won’t be possible with a keyless system.
I used to think keyless start was gimmicky but after getting used to it it’s actually pretty nice.
Correct. That particular door handle design is used on my Cruze, as well as the Envision, Enclave, Regal TourX and Regal Sportback. You pop the cover off of the fixed portion of the driver’s door handle, and there’s your key hole. My Golf was the same.
As far as starting the car when the fob dies, yes, that’s one way of doing it. Some cars also have a labeled sensor on the steering column, where the ignition switch would otherwise be (see Volkswagen, BMW). You place the key there to start the car if the battery dies. Other cars have slots for you to stick the key in (Hyundai, Kia, some Ford/Lincoln products). Some have a hidden ignition switch. And yet others just tell you to set the key in or against a particular part of the interior. For the Cruze, I have to set the key in the cupholder.
It would be nice if they standardized where to hold the dead key. Mine isn’t labeled, I had to read the manual to figure it out.
This is all awesome information; thank you. My car has yelled at me about “low key fob battery,” and I was paranoid about getting stuck someplace with a dead key. Very good to know there’s a backup plan.
It’s really nice to just jump in your car and it’s unlocked the second you touch the handle and then you just have to punch the button to start. And the locking by touching the top of the handle where these little grooves are (on Subaru’s you don’t have to push a little button) is great too. The fob thing just stays in your pocket and is less likely to be lost than keys you pull out for the car and other uses. I’m sure something will stop working someday and cost $500.
Aside from the funky joystick gear lever, I don’t quite comprehend the high center console; the new Accord has a similarly high center console setup. The center console acts like a barrier between the driver and passenger and makes the interior appear more cramped instead of imparting a sense of space.
This article’s car is another reason to remind me why I hang onto my paid for, quiet, comfortable, roomy inside, reliable & peppy performing last generation Lincoln Town Car.
If they still sold the facelifted 1995 Town Car, I would be driving one right now I think……
Couldn’t agree more on the lingering confusion around differing shifters and the loss of standardization. Our family fleet includes 2 big offenders: 1) 2013 BMW 535 Xdrive which we are used to, but don’t love and don’t feel is appropriately intuitive and 2) 2014 Jeep Grand Cherokee with the truly terrible “toggle” shifter that is very easy to leave in the wrong gear (this is the one blamed for deaths, including Star Trek actor Anton Yelchin).
Now transmission pushbuttons and dials and toggles and flippers are everywhere and all different, just as the digital center stacks are also all different, often non-intuitive and in many cases require more steps to use than traditional controls. Not sure this is progress, though if the goal is to make us all yearn for self-driving cars, then I suppose we are on the right path….
I posted below before reading this, but yeah I agree. I’m finding a lot of stuff about new cars to be annoying as hell these days, and I don’t think it’s all age related. There’s a lot of fundamentally bad design.
It is definitely bad design. My kids (18 and 15 with driver’s permit), who are adept at mastering every device and screen on the planet in seconds, hate the gear shifts and center stacks in our cars. The biggest barb came in the form of praise for the old Impala driver’s ed car (the one that they both were trained on), which they both said was very easy to use and understand, even if they hated the car itself.
Though older than I want to be, I am no Luddite either. I just fail to see how these designs are improvements over what we had in the recent past. Our previous BMWs and Jeeps offered controls that were easier to use and less distracting.
The Impala in which GM was either so lazy or so cheap, it couldn’t even be bothered to label the gear selector?
Still, if they didn’t label it and people managed not to die or leave the car in gear, that should be a good indicator of “don’t mess with a good thing.”
The nerd in me actually likes these complicated gear selectors, but most people don’t, and I absolutely understand why.
I owned a 2003 Buick Regal LS with a console shift for which there were shift indicators in both the dash and console – but only the dash indicator was lighted.
I suspect that all this automatic transmission selector tinkering is a direct outgrowth of today’s universal prevalence of drive-by-wire systems. IOW, drive-by-wire has allowed engineers to screw with the age-old, standard PRNDL column/console selector, simply because they can.
It doesn’t exactly seem like progress.
Have you gotten the software recall performed on the Jeep shifter? When you open the driver door, it goes into “P” (electronically, of course) after the recall update. Much, much safer. I got out more than once thinking it was in “P” and it wasn’t. Our neighbor was run over by his 2015 JGC he thought was running in “P”, but it was in “R”. He recovered, thank goodness, but the original design should have never seen the light of day.
Yes, we did get the recall work done, which is a good thing. Prior to that I had more than a few instances where I’d thought it was in park and it was still in gear. Thankfully, in my case no one was hurt (or worse), but it’s easy to see how someone could be.
Let me guess: Vassar?
Yale! Had a great time, and he’s committed now.
Congratulations and best of luck; that’s quite the achievement. Exciting times.
I’m surprised at the hate for stop-start, though to be fair my only experience with it was our Prius, where it was usually seamless except a few times when cold. I can imagine it being more obtrusive on a non-hybrid. However, the benefits for fuel savings and reducing emissions in heavy stop and go traffic seem huge. I am amazed and disappointed by how many people let their engines idle for minutes in parking lots and construction flagger zones. Re: the trunk lock. Sounds very convenient compared to my 2016 Tacoma with smart key and push button start, yet a separate (different) key for the tailgate. And mine is a fully loaded near-$40K version. One of my first mods was an aftermarket solenoid that I wired into the cab door locks so it locks with the remote.
FWIW there’s a wide gap in my experience between implementations. The Mini was extremely obtrusive on start stop, the whole car would shake. I’m guessing that’s because of the inherent imbalance of a 3-cylinder. However, it was easily shut off with a console switch. In my Buick, the implementation is much better. The only time it’s even noticeable is when in bad Chicago stop and go traffic where sometimes it will shut on and off a few times in the span of minutes. (It’s usually smart enough not to do so, but not always.) also, the Mini would always shut off and kill your A/C- the Buick implementation doesn’t.
The inability to turn off the stop start is definitely my highest annoyance with the new car, but it wasn’t enough to get me to walk off the lot. 99% of the time it’s just a tiny extra noise after I pull away from a light.
“I-95 (possibly the most stress-inducing highway in the U.S.)”
Know it well and travel it regularly down south but after my most recent trip to L.A., two weeks ago, I’d put that moniker on the 405.
…or the 405/167 area in King County WA. Seven miles in one hour at 10am on a Wednesday.
That is indeed enough to make you pull your hair out, but I find 95 to be stressful due to congestion combined with speed. Too many cars and crazy fast, even when bumper to bumper….
I returned to NYC without using 95, using among other things CT-15, the Hutchinson River Parkway. It was both beautiful and relaxed (at least mid-day on a Wednesday).
Agreed. South of DC it’s either crazy-fast with sociopathic weaving between lanes, or dead stop. There’s definitely a reason why the Auto Train is popular.
I always use the various parkways in the NYC area. Lower speed limit and more curvy but no semis, nice bridges, lots of trees etc.
I don’t understand why every car manufacturer seems to be intent on reinventing the gear shift. Terrible, most all of them. If they simply must do something different, I’d rather have buttons. Assuming they are smart enough to make buttons function intuitively, which isn’t a given these days.
Yeah, on most trips it only gets used three times. Once to back out of the driveway, and once to put it in drive, and once at your final destination it gets put in park. Just put the damn thing on the column where it belongs.
Yes! I love column shifters. An F-150 with flip up center console/seat and column shift is my idea of practical interior design for family vehicles. I find most console shifters pretentious, though they have their place.
Be careful what you wish for. Mercedes-Benz, Rolls-Royce and Tesla have monostatic/electronic column shifters.
BMW actually started it with the then-new 2002 “E65” 7 Series and the 2003 Phantom. Mercedes-Benz used it for the first time in the new-for-2006 M-Class, and it gradually spread to every one of their cars that wasn’t particularly sporty, and some that were. And Tesla sources the gear selectors for the Model S and X from Mercedes-Benz, so that’s how they got it.
To be clear, I love traditional column shifters. Electronic is fine, so long as it functions the same way.
Like I said though there’s still a place for console shifters, and sports sedans would be included there. Pickups, CUVs, and minivans…no.
Nice review and considering the very limited time of use you touched on an amazing number of details.
This one rang a bell with me: ” it sure felt like there was something fundamentally wrong with triangulation of the wheel, the seat, and the pedals.” That’s because I had the very same experience in my ’05 Pontiac Vibe. In this triangle the seat height can make a huge difference. I achieved major improvement by adding a 10mm spacer under the front mounting point. Of course that’s a no-no regarding the restraint system because all seat attachments act as seat belt anchors.
It looks like some of GM still hasn’t learned ergonomics and UX design. Your experiences remind of trying to figure the central locking on the 1999 models, plus the way the seatbelts used to constantly grab my cell phone.
Other car companies seem to grasp this since my last two modern cars were Mazdas where the basics of locks and gearshifts were immediately obvious. There may be a glimmer of hope since the 2018 GMC pickup I got from U-Haul a few weeks ago had a reasonable driving position and logical locks, adjustments and radio controls. The gearshift was a good old fashioned column shift with a tow/haul button and was equally straightforward.
It doesn’t look as though GM is swaying from the traditional column shifter on the new ’19 Silverado and Sierra, so we are all in luck. Meanwhile, RAM started using the rotary dial shifter in the 1500 as early as 2013, and it’s only a matter of time before Ford uses the rotary unit that’s in the ’17+ Fusion and ’18 Expedition in the F-150 as well.
That is one big tough-looking shifter. Makes those of the fifties and sixties look like a piece of bent wire!
Wow, that’s a pretty severe, blocky interior. Could work though as long as the materials aren’t Tupperware grade.
From what I’ve read, they’re competitive with the Ram 1500 and F-150.
Actually reminds me style wise of the Super Duty trucks, which have pretty nice grades of trim IIRC.
One other quibble. I wish GM would switch out that damned “bong” warning chime. It–along with the turn-signal “tick-tock”–is generated through the audio system, so there’s no reason they couldn’t come up with something more pleasant and modern.
Dealers here in Denver are selling low mileage 2017 Lacrosse Essence trim level for $22,000. I thought about trading in my Camry for one, but didn’t like the gas mileage. Nice car–I didn’t notice any weird noise at speed on the freeway, but it did have quite a bit of tire noise. The Continentals had about 9,000 miles on them.
The Essence has quite a bit less equipment, but still has most of the good stuff you want. And I think the V6 was standard in 2017. Don’t quote me on that, but you may have been driving a V6. $22K sounds pretty good but you could get a similar used Avalon for not much more and probably be a lot happier with it.
I have never had a set of Continentals I liked, they wear too fast and they always get loud as they wear.
There is a good reason why Buick has a four available, and that’s Toyota’s Avalon Hybrid. Car and Driver has a test of one; an observed 38 MPG @ 75 MPH on the highway (a V6 managed 31 MPG). It’s not particularly slow at 7.8 seconds 0-60. For reference, that’s only 1 MPG and .4 seconds shy of what the Avalon Hybrid achieves.
As far as styling, the exterior neither offends or excites me; the interior is another story. I find it very hard to swallow what “Buick” came up with here. It is tasteful, but I can’t help but notice it is a 90% copy of the Hyundai Genesis dashboard that debuted in 2008:
It looks well laid out and functional. I would like a lower cowl height (I always want a lower cowl!), but I guess you’ve got to put all that safety gear and electronics somewhere.
Really, what could or would you change, to look more modern? Where is dashboard design heading?
I never said a word about ergonomics or aesthetics. My issue here is Buick chose to mimic a nearly decade old design that has already came and gone. There was a time when Korean cars were old hat knock-offs. For it to come full circle now in a $40,000+ vehicle circa 2017 isn’t my idea of “yeah, we put our best effort into this car, and we will become the standard in which others should be judged”. That particular layout may work exceptionally well, but you sure as hell didn’t figure that out on your own.
As long as any maker doesn’t use that horrible silver pained plastic I’m happy. I married into a Solara convertible in which the whole console was done up in that and it was awful.
The same could be said for Hyundai in 2008, they didn’t come up with that basic dash design either. Like so many areas in modern cars, there aren’t a lot of ways left to skin a cat, not when there are certain ergonomic expectations automakers are afraid to deviate from, and with the exception of faux tablets on top of the dash nobody else has really changed much since 08 either. I sat in probably 75% of the cars at the Denver auto show last month, and they all blended pretty much together unless they had a more daring color choice to stand out.
I drove the Buick as part of my quest to find a car with a bit less road noise. It’s advertised with “active noise reduction”, but doesn’t seem to do anything for road/tire noise. Either my hearing is degenerating (possible), or cars seem noisier than they were 10-20 years ago. Perhaps the trend towards larger wheels, less sound insulation (weight savings), harder tires for better mileage, and our deteriorating roads is to blame. What do you guys think?
I found the same problem with the last three cars we’ve had. There’s more road noise, sometimes to the point where I can’t hear a conversation that other people can.
My audiologist told me that as men age, they typically lose their hearing in the higher frequencies first – eg. women’s voices. So that is part of my problem, not hearing my wife and daughter over the lower-frequency road rumble. But with lower profile tyres there is definitely more road noise, and I think a stiffer modern structure tend to transmit that noise further. Do they still use sound insulation?
Yes. In their advertising, Buick says they use a much lighter insulation as part of their “quiet tuning” technology. I’m sure the luxury cars really pile it in. If only I could afford a S-class 🙂
I wasn’t sure how far active noise cancellation technology had spread, whether it had supplanted the traditional measures.
I think it is larger wheels and less insulation. Changing tires on the Buick might help. I had Continentals too on my rental. I think Goodyear Assurance ComforTred Touring’s would be softer and quieter from the reviews I have read, if that’s your bag. I might try those on the ES when I need tires.
I also have Pirelli P7 Cinturato all season touring tires on our S550 and they are super silent and ride great. You have to watch it with Pirelli names, there are several tires called P7’s but this is a luxury touring tire just for North America.
Finally, yes, you can add insulation. I added about 100 pounds of Dynamat materials to the ES and the difference was night and day. I removed all four door panels to replace the speakers anyway, so I covered the backside of the exterior door skin (as far as I could reach) as well as the entire inner door skeleton with their self-adhesive asphalt insulation. It’s about 1/8 of an inch thick, so the door trim panel popped back on fine.
I removed the trunk carpet and rear quarter panel carpet/trim and covered that metal as well (including the spare tire well).
I removed the rear seat and peeled back the carpet up to the front seats, and applied their self adhesive 1/2 inch thick foam on the metal pan.
I removed the plastic front wheel well liners and applied the asphalt insulation, as well as the foam, to the firewall/bulkhead aft of the wheels.
I removed the thin, practically useless hood insulation pad, applied the asphalt to the underside of the hood, applied a layer of their 1/4 inch foam insulation, and replaced the pad so the insulation is hidden. Another bonus besides silencing what little engine noise there was: the hood now closes with a heavy, satisfying thunk.
I wouldn’t expect many people to do this. But, it was pretty easy, no more than $250 of materials, and it’s now as quiet as any S-Class I have owned or LS I have ridden in.
Active noise cancellation sounds cool, but it’s just masking a problem.
Nice review! Unbiased and to the point.
I had a much longer treatise written up comparing the LaCrosse to our new Buick (the 2018 Encore), but it got eaten by an “invalid captcha hash” so I’ll leave the most salient point- I find the interior quality of the new GMs to be quite good. In fact, the major deciding factor between the Encore and the Hyundai we almost bought (seriously, if it wasn’t for my wife wanting to get a second opinion I was ready to sit down and start negotiations) was the markedly nicer interior on the Buick compared to the Hyundai. Both had very similar feature sets, but the Buick was simply just a more pleasant place to spend time. Think about that: GM INTERIOR QUALITY ACTUALLY SOLD A VEHICLE. 🙂
Great article! We’re due to pick up a rental in Seattle in 2 weeks time, I wonder if I can upgrade to a Buick
First as a foreigner it is nice to see the great US Buick name still going – as so many nameplates have fallen by the wayside both in the US and UK (here remember Rover and our Vauxhall is in danger after the sale by GM to PSA). It’s the amount of electronics on new cars that gets me – very nice but who will fix it in a few years? Not me or anybody maybe. I like a key to open and start – not much to go wrong if you oil the locks. Satnavs are nice but try a paper map sometime – lovely to use and often for sale in your local charity shop.
Two points. The first is that I don’t understand the weird gearshift fetish, although I guess it can automatically stop in gear shut offs and apply Park of a door is open (although apparently Chrysler’s design didn’t?), but I never saw anything wrong with the old MB slalom gate. The column mounted unit in my Metris makes some sense… but it’s a van with no center console.
The second is I really don’t like the idea of blind spot indicators anywhere but the mirror; I don’t particularly trust the tech (it has failed to notice something once or twice) and therefore having to look at the mirror provides a requirement to visually check. With or without it the responsible driver should do I mirror and shoulder check when changing lanes.