Lacrosse 3.6 0-60?

[LLCoolJson]

Hi, Does anybody know the real 0-60 time?... I've seen 6.7sec to 7.5sec... seems like a pretty big difference, anybody have any real numbers...thanks

 

[Thehatguy]

Motor Trend got 7.4 out of a 2010 with the 3.6.

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/112_0909_2010_buick_lacrosse_cxs_test/specs.html

Probably a good figure to rely on. Not a barn-burner by any means.

280hp only goes so far in a heavy car.

John

 

[Mad*Max]

Motor Trend got 7.4 out of a 2010 with the 3.6.

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/112_0909_2010_buick_lacrosse_cxs_test/specs.html

Probably a good figure to rely on. Not a barn-burner by any means.

280hp only goes so far in a heavy car.

John

Not trying to refute their findings but it feels even slower to me...

 

[Godzson]

Not trying to refute their findings but it feels even slower to me...

most days it does feel slower. Ever so often after a fresh tank of gas, it finds some life and blows my socks off a bit

 

[buick26]

i bet you could get better times with different tires other than stock. I have the Goodyears and they seem to slip quite easily, but overall are ok. there is also a lot of torque steer. supercharger anybody?

 

[H_Charles]

There's really no such thing as the "real" 0-60 times. Testers use different methodoligies (Car and Driver times are always much quicker than other testers for most makes), and more importantly all engines aren't created equal.

While weight is the same, true engine HP will actually vary from car to car.

That said, I scoured the Internet for numbers as well to get an idea before I test drove, and I do feel that the spread from various sources is much more dramatic than you typically see. As you said, there's a huge real world difference between 6.7 and 7.5.

Having now driven a CXS for a month, my guess would be that mid 7s is about correct for my car. Perhaps low 7s on nice cool, non-humid morning. I'd be hardpressed to say any 3.6 LaCrosse is touching 6.7 though in stock form. Just don't see it.

From a practical standpoint, I think the off-the-line performance, if you can keep traction, is pretty solid. It's the 40-60 time that seems slow to me. I think high performance summer tires might help keep traction some, but with FWD, you are fighting a losing battle in this regard. Frankly I don't know why GM insists on dumping so much money into improving their cars, and then still use FWD platforms.

The tranny and weight are the big issues. Shifts just aren't very quick and the LaCrosse needs to shed about 400 pounds. I expect a "Super" version (hopefully in AWD) to hit the streets in a year or so, and that would be a real game-changer.

 

[shoman90]

There's really no such thing as the "real" 0-60 times. Testers use different methodoligies (Car and Driver times are always much quicker than other testers for most makes), and more importantly all engines aren't created equal.

While weight is the same, true engine HP will actually vary from car to car.

That said, I scoured the Internet for numbers as well to get an idea before I test drove, and I do feel that the spread from various sources is much more dramatic than you typically see. As you said, there's a huge real world difference between 6.7 and 7.5.

Having now driven a CXS for a month, my guess would be that mid 7s is about correct for my car. Perhaps low 7s on nice cool, non-humid morning. I'd be hardpressed to say any 3.6 LaCrosse is touching 6.7 though in stock form. Just don't see it.

From a practical standpoint, I think the off-the-line performance, if you can keep traction, is pretty solid. It's the 40-60 time that seems slow to me. I think high performance summer tires might help keep traction some, but with FWD, you are fighting a losing battle in this regard. Frankly I don't know why GM insists on dumping so much money into improving their cars, and then still use FWD platforms.

The tranny and weight are the big issues. Shifts just aren't very quick and the LaCrosse needs to shed about 400 pounds. I expect a "Super" version (hopefully in AWD) to hit the streets in a year or so, and that would be a real game-changer.

I agree with all of this and would add a little

Somewhere along the line, I actually found a 6.5 to 60. TQ steer and slippage off the line are big issues with this platform, more than other similarly powered cars we've had. I would be curious to know the 2011 AWD numbers 0-60. ...even though adding the Haldex coupler weight

The tranny is VERY sluggish on the upshift before hitting 60. I wouldn't be surprised if that is the main reason it takes 7.5 in some tests to get there. I think this could easily have been programmed differently for those with Sport Mode

As for what 280HP can do in a heavy car....our 2006 3.6 280HP Passat 4-Motion (Haldex coupling) weighed a tad less at 3960, but went to 60 by some tests in the low 6s and pulled a low mid 14 1/4. I also ran it from 0 to about 132 in a little over a mile....steady as a rock at that speed. From a SOTP feel, it was a fair bit faster. I believe the Buick engine has more to give than even the 312 HP version in the new Camaro.....and I wish they had put the higher powered version in the CXS...along with AWD.

FWD platforms are inherently a little more fuel efficient...that's why they were forced by the Japanese and Europeans in the late 70s to spend big money to do it. Import restrictions gave the Big 3 some breathing room to catch up. They sure didn't want to turn the engine sideways. I think AWD is the way to go. Adding a Haldex coupler or something like it is not that expensive to add on. I also think FWD is a much better system for snow/ice... albeit the advantage is lessened by sophisticated SC/TC in most cars today.

I think RWD will remain mostly in the realm of true high performance vehicles.

 

[Cman50]

I'm really impressed with my 60-85mph times. Once this bigboy gets rollin, you can find yourself topping 90mph quickly..

 

[H_Charles]

I believe the Buick engine has more to give than even the 312 HP version in the new Camaro.....and I wish they had put the higher powered version in the CXS...along with AWD.

FWD platforms are inherently a little more fuel efficient...that's why they were forced by the Japanese and Europeans in the late 70s to spend big money to do it. Import restrictions gave the Big 3 some breathing room to catch up. They sure didn't want to turn the engine sideways. I think AWD is the way to go. Adding a Haldex coupler or something like it is not that expensive to add on. I also think FWD is a much better system for snow/ice... albeit the advantage is lessened by sophisticated SC/TC in most cars today.

I think RWD will remain mostly in the realm of true high performance vehicles.

My guess is Buick doesn't want to step on the toes of the Caddy CTS. To me that platform makes more sense, particularly with Pontiac out of the mix and Buick with more breathing room. However, if the LaCrosse put out Camaro power, cannibalized CTS sales would soon follow. The LaCrosse already rides better than a CTS as it is.

I agree with AWD as the way to go for GM. FWD is better for snow and cheaper, but FWD has a really bad image problem too. I don't think RWD is reserved just for high performance cars, as Lexus GS and LS models, Mercedes E350s are certainly more luxury than sport, and all are RWD based. There's just so many performance problems that go away with RWD, and I think the higher-end marketplace that cares at all about driving experience associates FWD with cheapness, right or wrong. The market leaders all go AWD or RWD for anything but entry level models like the Audi A4 or Acura TSX.
I look at all the development costs GM put into trying to eliminate torque steer on the LaCrosse, when really RWD or AWD eliminates the issue altogether.

If GM must start with FWD, then going the Acura/Audi route of an advanced AWD system is really the way to go, as you say. I don't know how advanced GM is here -- the Acura Super Handling AWD in my wife's MDX is absolutely fantastic and a technological marvel.

The other issue is just more weight. I know the systems have gotten lighter, but we are starting with a porky car to begin with. The 0-60 times for the AWD 3.0 LaCrosse that I saw were very poor, and my guess is you'd be over 8 seconds with that system in a 3.6. Very slow by today's standards.


Hopefully GM is gravitating toward AWD at least, and we'll know if we see a LaCrosse Super. There's just no way to channel that kind of HP to the front wheels.

 

[Godzson]

With the sluggish transmission, im really starting to consider getting her tuned. If for nothing else to fix the shift response. I would love to see the overal gains from a tune. Someone needs to do this!

 

[shoman90]

My guess is Buick doesn't want to step on the toes of the Caddy CTS. To me that platform makes more sense, particularly with Pontiac out of the mix and Buick with more breathing room. However, if the LaCrosse put out Camaro power, cannibalized CTS sales would soon follow. The LaCrosse already rides better than a CTS as it is.

I agree with AWD as the way to go for GM. FWD is better for snow and cheaper, but FWD has a really bad image problem too. I don't think RWD is reserved just for high performance cars, as Lexus GS and LS models, Mercedes E350s are certainly more luxury than sport, and all are RWD based. There's just so many performance problems that go away with RWD, and I think the higher-end marketplace that cares at all about driving experience associates FWD with cheapness, right or wrong. The market leaders all go AWD or RWD for anything but entry level models like the Audi A4 or Acura TSX.
I look at all the development costs GM put into trying to eliminate torque steer on the LaCrosse, when really RWD or AWD eliminates the issue altogether.

If GM must start with FWD, then going the Acura/Audi route of an advanced AWD system is really the way to go, as you say. I don't know how advanced GM is here -- the Acura Super Handling AWD in my wife's MDX is absolutely fantastic and a technological marvel.

The other issue is just more weight. I know the systems have gotten lighter, but we are starting with a porky car to begin with. The 0-60 times for the AWD 3.0 LaCrosse that I saw were very poor, and my guess is you'd be over 8 seconds with that system in a 3.6. Very slow by today's standards.


Hopefully GM is gravitating toward AWD at least, and we'll know if we see a LaCrosse Super. There's just no way to channel that kind of HP to the front wheels.

All good points! You're right about the RWD.

I didn't realize the MDX came with SH-AWD now. I know the MDX used to have the same AWD as our Honda Ridgleine....VTM-4. It was first put in the mid 200s Acura RL. I think the TL also has it now. The SH-AWD set up is a very competent system...kinda like using race technology to move up to 100% of power to an outside front wheel when necessary to prevent understeer ...or help bring the back end around.

The only other 4WD drive system to incorporate this kind of complete transfer to any wheel is the JEEP Quadra Drive II. I don't believe there is better 4WD set up there...but that's apples and oranges from AWD

I believe Audi still uses the Torsen set up, but haven't read up lately. Some say the Haldex coupler is better because with the newer CAN bus systems, it can process information considerably faster. The VW 4-Motion originally used the Torsen set up, but switched to the Haldex coupler in 2006 I think. The new Taurus SHO also harnesses 365 ponies with a Haldex coupler