Added: 4 years ago
From: atomicshark
Views: 23,637
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:
see all

All Comments (185)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • Smoooooooth acceleration....

  • that blip on the end of the needle is sick

  • The Lucerne is a Nice Car overall...almost everything about it is on key....except for that 4 Speed Auto,it really is behind the times.

  • Tall ratios much?

    

  • GM fails

    AGAIN

  • 9 sec..lol

  • I don't know why so many people have come to bash on this car. Its just a Buick, its not a Corvette. Its just a simple A - B car.

  • I hope people realize that the turning circle on this is .5 feet worse than the Hummer H2

  • It's too bad GM can't advance to make this have a 5 or 6 speed. A four speed automatic that has a first gear that goes to almost 55 is slow and pointless.

  • @m25746793 i agree i mean look at the 97-03 malibu first gear was held to 45 before it shifted and also a 4 speed at least shift at 40 i mean

  • i'm guessing thats not the Northstar V8.

  • @sreilly No its GM's old 3.8  makes only about 200HP.

  • Comment removed

  • @watso64 Oh ok. Well I'll try and post a 0-60 video of my '06. But mine has the 4.6L Northstar V8. It does 0-60 in about 6.5 second which isn't bad for such a heavy car. But a lot of people on here don't seem to realize, the Lucerne is a cruising car, not a race car. If you want to drive fast, then go buy a fast car! It's simple! I didn't buy my Buick to drag new Camaros, Mustangs and new Challengers down the interstate. I like riding in style, and I like the Lucerne. Pure and simple.

  • @sreilly More like 7 seconds bitch

  • man this is pretty slow

  • It's funny watching loosers go back and forth about their chevrolets, fords, nissans, toyotas, etc. Get a life (and a job) and buy a real (European) automobile you idiots!

  • @jagman31 rofl european is shit

  • 19MPG and underpowered? loss-loss to me.

  • He must always do this cuz I love his Average fuel economy meter sitting at 19 mpg. I have a similar car with a 3800 V6 and I get mid 30's on the highway (I have a few mods) :-P (my meter reads 25.1 average currently)

  • Ew sounds like shit hitting the fan hahaha

  • I'm a big fan of GM and Buick and I think the Lucernes are gorgeous cars, but their heavy weight and tall gearing hurt the acceleration of the 3800 engine. 3800's have great torque, however, and the older 3800's of the day (early 90's) put out a lot more torque relative to their horsepower than the newer ones. My old '91 Bonneville with the Series l 3800 could still dust the tires on takeoff, and that was at 225k miles! However, as mentioned, the Northstar V8 is noticeably quicker.

  • Speaking of the Northstar, I drive an '01 Cadillac Seville with the 275 hp variant and I have attained a best 0-60 time of 6.6 seconds (although, that's all I've been able to hit so far).

  • the nissan altima 4 cyl is faster than this!

  • This car weighs almost 4,000 pounds. First gear is lazy,but in second it starts to take off. These cars are really nice on the highway.

  • yea but if ur gonna pay the price of one, a four cylinder shouldnt beat it . now, come on

  • no shit considering the 3.8l makes less than 200hp and has options altimas have never heard of. Now put it against a Lucerne with a northstar and you will have a different story

  • its not much faster ..

    0-60 for 4.6 lucerne = 7.5 sec

    3.5 altima = 6 sec

    americans are so lazy to upgrade their technology

  • You are comparing a cantaloup to a watermelon. Lucerne's are large, comfortable and roomy. Altima's are smaller and sportier. These cars are in different leagues.

  • but still, considering the price of a fully equiped lucerne is about $40,000 , it should have a more powerful engine and updated transmission!

  • @shawtiee1085 0-60 for the SS Cobalt 4 cylinder - 5.5 secs.

  • @shawtiee1085 BTW the 3.5 Altima is a 6 cylinder not a 4 i'm pretty sure. Unless u meant the 2.5 Altima, which u are off on ur numbers then cuz I smoked one with my car that has a 3.8L V6 like this one, or this one might be the newer buicks with the 3.9L, but still.

  • @DystruktoBoi1 Oh wow you beat a 4 cylinder Altima with your 3.8L V6 big deal bitch

  • @mustangmikeca well 3 things, 1 thats an old comment, 2 no I didnt beat or claim to beat an Altima, cuz I never raced one I was just talking to someone about an Altima, 3 the car I beat was an SS cobalt (supercharged NOT the turboed version made 2008 and later). if u dont read the whole conversation dont jump in with ur ignorant trolling.

  • @mustangmikeca Ah ok I see what u were talking abt, I had multiple comments on this video, yea duh I beat a 4 cylinder Altima, I wasnt bragging that guy was trying to tell me the Altimas make more power then my V6 with a 2.5L I4, I was just telling him to check his numbers because a I4 Altima would never beat a 3.8L V6, that was my point and I wasnt bragging, did u read the whole convo?

  • @DystruktoBoi1 You won't beat a 2007 and up model 0-60 low 7's to mid 7 1/4 15.7-16.0sec topspeed 125mph. A hybrid 2.5 will kill any 3.8 N/A sorry your I don't believe you beat a 2.5 btw my family has owned a 2003 2.5 and 2008 2.5 I don't think you beat one. Now if you have a s/c I under stand but N/a you would need mods. It's a video of a 2.5 altima beat a 3.8 series engine with mods.

  • @jsnevels2 Yea ur talking out of ur ass buddy, 2008 Altima 0-60 with the 2.5L I4 in 8.6 seconds. The 3.5L does it in 6 flat which is faster then my car but u expect me to believe a 2.5 I4 35 less horsepower and like 50 lbs less torque to beat a V6? Nah I dont think so. Im not sure the year but the guy who raced me was in a new model (06 and up) and we were on the highway not side by side at a light, either way ur numbers are way off, maybe ur talking about a Maxima or something.

  • @DystruktoBoi1 a 2008 does'nt do 8.6 dumbass thats a 2002-2006. Numbers prove that a 2007 2.5 up does 7-7.5 dumbass. 06 up WTF different models dumbass. You must have raced the one with a 4sp auto not a cvt. 2004-2007 maxima does 6.4-6.8 so im not talking asbout a maxima. Don't make yourself look any dumber than you really are. Either prove it or shutup. CARANDDRIVER SAYS a 2008 ALTIMA 2.5 does 7 sec. A 2003-2006 does 8.6 with an auto.

  • @jsnevels2 Consumerguide(dot)com tested the inline four cylinder Altima 2.5S w/ CVT to go from 0-60 mph in 8.6 sec; the 6-cylinder 3.5 SE model w/ CVT performed 0-60 mph in 6.0 sec according to the Long Term Road Test by Car and Driver.

    That is talking about the 2007 - present model.

    Altima 2.5 numbers: 175 hp 180 lbs torque

    weight: 3191

    Bonneville numbers:

    205HP 230Lbs torque

    weight: 3,656

    the numbers ur getting are from the manufacturers estimates on the buyers guide.

  • @DystruktoBoi1 Actually no i know what im talking about. Look at videos of altima doing 7 sec to 60mph. Btw I have a 2008 altima and it get 7 sec. Btw that time was estimated because the did'nt fully test the car. So if you try to so called correct somebody look at caranddriver or drive it for yourself.

  • @DystruktoBoi1 Oh you didn't look at caranddriver for the i-4 that's something but you did for the V6. Get real...

  • @jsnevels2 next time u insult someone maybe u should look up all of what ur talking abt before talking shit u dumb cunt.

  • @DystruktoBoi1 I did and plus my family has had three altima idiot so I know what im talking about. How about you get your dumbass a real v8 and stop racing 4 cylinders you dumb prick.. A v8 doind 7.5 to 60 LMAO!!! A sonata,camry and Altima can do that... Slow ass v8

  • @jsnevels2 Hmmm at this point I'm not sure if ur trolling or retarded because of 2 facts: Bonneville V8 goes 0-60 in 6.5 secs, and 2. not only do I not have a V8 I also also dont remember mentioning or even talking about a V8 my car has a V6 3.8L and ur Altima I4 will never to a 6 second 0-60, just face it. And at this point I have a racing chip, CAI, TBS and Perrelli Pzero tires so I'm not stock anymore anyway.

  • @DystruktoBoi1 Still slow for a v8. A 3.5 altima can do 6.3 stock with an auto. Btw it doesnt take an i-4 that already does 0-60 7sec to do 6sec bolts on will get you to 6.5 sec. Oh A 2007- Sentra se-r spec-v can do 6.4sec to 60 with 200hp and weighs over 3,000pounds. So you still want to say your v8 is faster bring it.

  • @jsnevels2 Ok dude ur obviously a troll at this point, we're not even talking about the same cars anymore and I dont have a fucking V8, y do u keep thinking I do? If I wanted a V8 sports car I'd get a Camaro, not a Bonneville, duh. Stop trolling and find someone else to argue cars over, I really dont care what Sentra can do, an SS cobalt can do 0-60 in 5.5, but it has nothing to do with anything u or I were saying before, so im just gonna go with u being crazy at this point.

  • @DystruktoBoi1 N/A vs s/c or t/c. But im done. What car do you own?

  • @jsnevels2 well the S/C SS cobalt is actually pretty slow, I beat one. anyway, I own a 2003 Bonneville SLE with a 3.8L V6, right now it has a racing chip, CAI and TBS and I put 17 inch Perrelli PZero tires on it, and just recently my back shocks broke so I have aftermarket shocks on it, but they aren't like racing grade or anything, they are stiffer though. What do u drive?

  • @DystruktoBoi1 Never thought of the s/c but t/c is fast. Right now an Altima but it's not my car just for going from a to b since my dad and mom bought new cars.

  • @jsnevels2 Yea they only made the S/Cs like 1 or 2 years they were kinda bad actually, (8 secs to 60), I own my car, its actually my first car, all leather, sunroof, custom lighting and speakers, heated seats, for a first car it was expensive but it was worth it.

  • @DystruktoBoi1 Can't do that with the altima. But the altima I have has leather,sunroof,spoiler,bose,e­tc

  • @DystruktoBoi1 That's an 2.4 ss you are talking about cause s/c ss runs 0-60 like 6sec. A 2.4 is 8sec. They look just like other ss's but they don't have the same engine.

  • @jsnevels2 Cant do what in the Altima? U can switch out speakers and stuff in all the cars u just gotta be willing to take it apart urself and try it. Ur right abt the S/C Cobalt, I don't kno how I managed to beat one then, he must have sucked at shifting or something. Altho it seemed like he was trying he squealed tires in 1st, 2nd and a little in 3rd gear.

  • @DystruktoBoi1 Add all that stuff to it cause it is still my moms car so I will wait till I get my own car. Now it's alot of ss cobalt owners that can't worth shit. Well he is a good driver something else is wrong with his technique or your car is just faster.

  • @jsnevels2 Well I hope they give it to u so u can start working on it. Idk I like my car, but I dont think I went 0-60 in 6 seconds, we raced off a red light not the highway. Maybe he had an N/A SS and I didnt know it.

  • @DystruktoBoi1 Did he keep up real good from a start?

  • @jsnevels2 He kept it up but slowly fell behind, we raced to about 50 mph (cuz it was a short road to the next red light) and by the time I got to 50 his front bumper was a few feet behind my rear bumper. He shifted twice maybe 3 times, and my first gear goes all the way to 50 so that might have had a part to play in it.

  • It looks like 55 mph in to second. This is the only problem I have with buick trannys, the gears are TOO TALL.

  • it's nuts somtimes but the poweband is there. I can get close to 80+ before leaving 2nd to go into 3rd in my supercharged Riviera.

  • 91 honda seems faster, but in fact it is slow. I use to have a 95 lesabre. All the car had was a K&N cone air filter. In 04 I bet a 04 honda civic si. Don't get me wrong it was a good race. I took my foot off the gas at around 65-70ish. At this time he could get a view off my rear liscense plate. The 04 si looked like a door stopper and weight a good 1,000 pounds less than my buick. From 1st-2nd my tranny shifted at between 45-50. This one buick shift to 2nd between 50-55.

  • Slow as fuck, my 91 honda is faster and that isn't saying very much...

  • 1st gear is way too tall.

  • Totally agree. To make matters worse, it's only a 4-spd auto versus the 5- and 6-spd units available in smaller, cheaper cars.

  • The next gen. buicks will probably be more "import" looking.. If they want to compete they better step their game up.

  • Have you seen the 2010 Lacrosse yet? Looks nothing like a Buick. Great looking car, but totally looks like an Acura or something. Rather disappointing in a way. So goodbye to column shifters and split-bench seats. Everyone's trying to be European now. What a boring world of cars we're moving into.

  • Lol. I love Acura's.

    I drive an Accord. I like most GMC & Ford though.

  • this is slow i have a bonnie and mine is like 7 sec and same motor as this one

  • hey "mitsubishirocks". mitsubishi is doing so well in the US marketplace. LOL.

  • lol so much better than GM

  • It would be great to know what engine this is?

    I'll assume the Series III 3800? It's got that 5700 shift, so that would make sense I suppose.

  • Yes, all Lucerne V6's are Series III 3800s.

  • That is until the 2009 model year. Now all V6 models use Chevrolet's 3.9 Litre.

  • I don't know where my head was at, I know very well that they're all S3 3800s. Doh.

    Guess I was thinking it might be an 09, but I still should have known from many obvious things staring me in the face.

    Thanks for even responding to my idiocy! Heh.

  • I know I've scene plenty of Lucerne's with the 4.6 Northstar V8's.

  • Which sucks just as much. :\

  • Not a bad run for the V6. For an entry lux vehicle the Lucernce is tops on my list, especially now as the base engine is the 3.9L V6 and not the coarse sounding over head cam 3.6L standard on their rear drive platforms. As for bailouts, it's totally unnecessary. If the auto makers were managed properly and given appropriate salaries to all their workers the industry would be just fine. American workers get over $20/hr for basic no brainer line work, waaaay overpaid to put part A onto part B.

  • The DOHC 3.6 is a LOT more powerful than the 3.8 and the 3.9, which would make it a better engine choice for the Lucerne. Also, the 3.6 is more fuel efficient and technologically competitive with competitors, such as the Toyota Avalon.

  • The 3.6 DI is the only real competitive engine GM has. The port injected 3.6 isn't much in the forms of competition, as GMs vehicles weigh more than their competitors in nearly all respective classes. It's a shame really. At least the 306hp DI 3.6L is the base engine in the new Camaro!

  • Yeah, originally the Camaro was supposed to get the 3.5 OHV, but it got the 3.6 instead, which gives it quite an advantage over the 4.0 mustang V6.

  • First stupid, now shitty. Man, you are real angry about a car that you don't care about. I bet the Lucerne can beat your Mustang at scrabble.

  • yeah man , those gay asses don't know squat about cool cars

  • @atomicshark Scrabble, what the fuck are you talking about

  • @mustangmikeca And what do you drive that's so special? Nothing better than A Lucerne, So shut the fuck up about it.

  • Comment removed

  • No, really, it's smart. It aced the SAT with a 2400.

  • It's a stupid old person car

  • It's actually quite smart.

  • go blow another tranny or head gasket in ur ford

  • The best V6 GM has to offer is the new 3.6 liter direct injection engine in the Cadillac CTS. It makes 304hp, and the 3800 only makes 197hp.

  • used to be the 4200 i6. xD

  • I'm 6'5" and drive an Accord, but am not a Japanese "Fanboy." I helped my folks buy a new 2008 Taurus this year; VERY nice car. The only beef I have with the 3800 is the incredibly tall gear ratios that are in the 4-speed attached to it. 54 MPH in 1st gear? Really?

    This car would be much quicker with a 5 or 6 speed, and for $30k, I think GM owes it to Lucerne fans to do it. Its a great looking car.

  • I must agree with you though, it would be really cool to have a 5spd next to a 3800.

  • Comment removed

  • your the dumb shit, that is a CAR with a v-6 not an suv, fuck off and do your homework...

  • dude i sure hope it would beat that thing. you have a 2800lb car vs. an suv that weighs about 5500.

    you dumb shit

  • fuck honda, buy a real car

  • Sorry the 3800 is a superior motor to any inline motor. Especially five cylinders, it takes the swedes or the japanese to come up with odd cylinder cars, everyone else just stayed with what works.

  • I have the 3.8 Liter Series II in my Regal GS and in stock form the car has 200 hp, why the 3 horsepower drop for the series III?  And anybody who says the 3.8 is a bad engine doesn't know shit, it's been perfected for the last 30 years and is one of the most reliable, tough engines on the planet!

  • it's bad as in technology, its a 2 valve per cylinder pushrod V6.

  • If you look at the valve lift that they're running it's insane. .7Ratio Rocker arms. Stock. That's a lot of lift Regardless of what cams you use. What 5 and 4 Valves per cylinder get in surface area, This engine makes up for in sheer Lift. Appreciate it. OHV was invented to get the benefits of DOHC but fit under a low hood.

  • Many DOHC engines have variable lift. Also DOHC engines fit under low hoods. Last but not least, You don't want a lot of lift all the time, because it takes away from low end torque.

  • Look at the torque curve for a 3.8. It's pretty damn flat.

  • It doesn't peak until 3800rpm.

  • That seemed very laid back

  • can u make a 0-80 video please? thanks

  • Interesting that the optional V8 engine for the Lucerne is no faster than the competition that has V6 engines.

    197hp out of 3.8L isn't great, with low EPA estimates, to boot (2-4 MPG lower than the more powerful competition). If you can pull over EPA estimates in a Lucerne, you can in the competition, as well.

    Hopefully the 3.9L from the Impala will make it at least a little more competitive for 2009.

  • they should keep this as a base engine, and use the gm family used 3.6 v6 from the caddi

  • i dont like the ride in the cxs as much as the cxl rides. also the v8 delivers power roughly compared to my v6 that you dont even hardly hear the engine revving

  • i made my decision and i am buying the v6 cxl fully loaded. i test drove it today and it has more than enough power and getting excellent fuel economy for a luxury full size car. i am getting a pearl white with cocoa/cashmere inside. sticker was 34,585 and i am paying 28,500. i am picking up in 2 days because of delivery and buffing

  • what u mean? when u floor a car from a light, it shifts at about 6000 rpm not 2500

  • You know what the tragedy is, I have one of these and when I try the 0-60 its just sounds like there i SSSSOOOOO much more to the motor but it is so reigned in for durability sake. Those 3.8's could very easily get away with 290hp and last 250K miles but oh well!

  • do you think ur lucerne v6 has adequate power when merging or passing? i want to get one but i dont know if i should get the V6 or V8

  • the V6 has no power! I had a rental lucerne V6 and it was pathetic. merging onto the highway was a road hazard! get the V8

  • the video seems like it has decent power

  • sorry buddy, but a 9 second 0-60 is too slow for my taste, not to mention the V6 does not handle as well as the V8. The V6 engine is not balanced in the engine bay.

  • i bought one and love it. this person must of had a rolling start cuz my car goes to 60 in 8 sec. not much difference but its a luxury car and ur not racing so its good. my handles fine but has a wide turning circle. the engine is soo quiet that u can floor it on the highway and u will not know but from a pull. very fuel efficent also!

  • Quite frankly, that northstar is fantastic! and never mind what the say the fuel economy is on it, they easily get 27-29 mpg doing 80 on the motorway.

  • the 3.8 is a piece of crap, its a pushrod 12 valve that debuted in 1967 and was redesigned in 1975!

  • It's only one of the most reliable engines ever produced.

  • Actually they've redesigned them a lot more recently than that. The GM 3800 series is a tried and true engine, favored among GM enthusiasts. My LeSabre uses a Series II which was dropped after GM discontinued the LeSabre and Park Avenue in 05, introducing the Series III in 2006 which the Lucerne CX and CXL V6 uses. They just keep getting better, its a kick ass engine.

  • they're slow

  • Faster than any other American six cylinder from it's time. All Chrysler had was the 3.5 which wasn't all that and Ford has that shitty 3.0 Duratec or even worse the Vulcan - both of which are unreliable and very slow.

  • yea this is a fuel efficient, reliable engine. for 2009, they are replacing it with the 3.9 v6 from the impala ltz

  • thank god!

  • The 3.5 makes 235-250hp, the 3.0 makes 200-221hp, which is more than the outdated 3.8

  • Right, and all are more than your slow 2.3 five cylinder. Pushrod is a great technology you moron. You don't know anything about motors, stick to your pokey five cylinder. The 3.8 is far more reliable than your slow five cylinder!

  • There are a few things you ought to know, the 2.3 liter DOHC 4 valve per cylinder variable valve timing, turbocharged engine lasts for more than 300,000 miles (believe me I know), depending on the year it was made, this engine produces anywhere from 222hp to 261hp. By the way, pushrod enines are usually 2 valves per cylinder, the rarely have variable valve timing, they are more difficult to make, and it is an old design. Get your facts straight before you fuck with me, asshole.

  • Doesn't matter how much power it makes, I've been in one that makes 240 hp and it was not fast. At best it was as fast as my car. Kid, you don't know anything about the 3800 and obviously haven't owned or driven one. It's much better than that shitty five cylinder you worship.

  • AAARRRGGGHHH newbies. Pushrod motors NEVER have variable valve timing. And I like 2.3 DOHC motors. they're strong and reliable. I'm not a fan of turbos, but that's opinion for you. I also like 3.8 motors. they are world class and GM had no reason to quit using them other than that they wanted to put out a "new" motor so they could be "competitive."

  • Actually, the Chevy 3.5, 3.9, and 6.0 OHV engines all have variable valve timing.

  • Hey volvo23t, why do you knock the supercharged 3800 so much? The Volvo T5 can make some power, but so can GM's L67. My SC 3800 V-6 made 300HP/370TQ on the dyno, and powers my 2-ton Riviera to a 13.9 sec 1/4 mile. The car is basically stock accept for engine, suspension, & stereo mods. There are 3800 guys pushing 450WHP+ (to the front wheels) and running 8s in the 1/4 using this engine. How fast are the are the top street-driven I-5 Volvos?

  • The stock top speed of the T5 Volvos is 162mph on 1995 to 2000 models. On the 2001 and newer T5s it is limited to 150mph. Some guys get 600WHP+ out of the T5 engine.

  • Okay, that's great. I've personally seen a Pontiac Grand Prix with turbo 3800 V-6 putting 800+ to the wheels. Runs low 9s. There's another guy with a twin turbo 3800 Riviera who runs low 8s. In 2000, a 3800-powered Pontiac Bonneville was modified to make 600HP, and ran a top speed of 204 MPH on the salt flats.

  • cool. I'm sure people get more out of the T5s but never heard about anything over 600hp.

  • I once saw a supra put down 2000 to the wheels.

  • My horse puts 1HP straight to the ground... There's no real limit to power. Top fuels run 8000hp I've seen 3800V6's put 1500. The maker of the car doesn't mean shit. All that matters is Boost and Billet.

  • A top FUEL Drag racer makes 8K HP and, any engine will eventually blow. Power output is not what breaks an engine.

  • Well go tell me something I DONT know. These arent top fuel drag racers, they're cars. Make some sort of a point or shutup.

  • Japanese cars suck!

  • Most of them, but not all...

  • GM sucks dick no wonder they're going bankrupt, Ford doesn't need bailouts

  • All the automakers will need bailouts eventually if the market continues its downward spiral. GM and Chrysler just happened to be in worse shape. Even Toyota is requesting $2 billion from Japan.

  • the 3800 makes 205 in non S/C form, 240 in Series II S/C and 260 in Series III S/C

  • It used to make 205hp in normally aspirated form, but it was dropped down to 197hp for the Lucerne and 200hp for the Lacrosse.

  • @volvo23t Well I'm glad I got the 03 Bonneville, that thing makes 205 HP from its 3.8, the 3.8 in that is also the one used in the 90's V6 Camaros.

  • Because they're in a Four door car with heated seats, GPS, and so much sound deadening material you can shoot someone and nobody will hear the shot.

  • so they put a bigger engine now

  • Well then, could you tell me what makes the series III beter than the series II, or, is just a bunch of marketing hype for GM enthusiasts.

  • The Series III motors include many changes. The upper intake manifold is now aluminum on the naturally aspirated models. Intake ports are mildly improved, 1.83" intake valves and 1.52" exhaust valves were introduced in 2003 engines, just before switching to Series III. Electronic throttle control is added to all versions, as is return-less fuel injection. Stronger powdered metal sinter forged connecting rods are used instead of the cast iron style from Series II engines.

  • volvos suck

  • have probably never driven one.

  • well the LD8 and the L37 engines are different one has better low end LD8=275 while the other has better high end L37= 300 its just different cams

  • how is the acceleration going uphill? i am interested to get an 08 cxl.what model do u have?

  • Acceleration uphill is decent. This is the CX model with the same 3.8L engine that is in the CXL.

  • do u have the 6 passenger bench seat model with the column shifter?

  • 5 passenger with console shifter.

  • There is some truth to that. The Northstar was abale to generate 300HP back in the late 90's so I have no idea why GM restricts them to 275-292 in the Buciks.

  • because gm wants cadillac to have the more prestigious 320hp northstar.

  • They don't want Buick to be in the same league as Cadillac.

  • Don't forget, 292 HP from the super model

  • The Super isn't any faster, it has 17 more horsepower but 12 fewer lbs. of torque, it also has shorter gears and that hurts your fuel economy.

  • ??? No, if it has shorter gears I assume you mean it also has more gears (it must). More gears greatly increases mileage, as evidenced by the use of more gears for better mileage. It also greatly increases the avalibility of max power, which as shown here greatly increases acceleration.

  • No, still uses a four speed automatic in the Super.

  • That is a 4 speed automatic, it has been around for years.

  • no. It's still the 4 speed. More gears are used to keep RPMs in the right range.

  • cool.I actully sells chevys buick and pontiacs I got to drive a lucerne yeah its an awesome car

  • Post more videos of the Lucerne like this, they are rare and I really enjoyed this one!

  • Is that the V8?I am lookin at maybe buying one.How do they drive?Good mpg?

  • That is the base V6. It is a great car and it gets mileage in the low 20's depending on traffic.

    The V8 is a lot faster and it will probably get the same mpg as my GTO, which is around 18.

Loading...
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list