My CXS vs CXL driving review.

[MikeERideWNC]

I drove the CXL and compared it back to back to back to back to back to back with the CTS.

I knew if I were going to buy that I was buying the CXS, though.
The dealership only had CXL's on the lot with the CTS's.

I rent the CTS often and pretty much knew I could not drive one for long periods of time.
The seating and the console don't fit me well. My knee lands on the console and it hurts.
Don't ask... Old war wound. Stupid quadracept!

I love the CXS and I think I made the right choise for my needs.

 

[agilson]

That's really interesting, since the 2010 CXL would have the much-maligned 3.0 V-6, while the CXS has the 3.6. I would not have thought there would be any chance the CXL would be quicker. Wonder if it's a gearing or weight difference?

Just got back from a 500 mile road trip in the CXS, and I was part right -- the exhaust note on the CXL is nicer. The CXS feels like it has far more pull than the CXL from 40-60+ mph.

- Al

 

[3hb]

3.0.....0-60 8.4/16.4 1/4....give or take a little
3.6VVT....0-60 range from 6.4 to 7.5 and 15.1 to 15.6 1/4

3.6L 280 HP vs 255 HP 3.0L I would suspect the difference to be more like 0.7 seconds, the 8.4 is perhaps more likely for the 3.0L AWD.

There is quite a lot of variability with the 3.6L testing numbers, with the 3.0L 2010 being phased out their was limited data on the web for a proper comparison. With only 25HP diff, the 3.0L front wheel drive 2010 model would more likely be about 0.7 difference. Here is some add'l info that would suggest the numbers are much closer, however their does seem to be a much bigger difference with the AWD version.

Or this article stated:
The Drive
As soon as we pressed the throttle, this Buick impressed. The engine smoothly hummed as it revved. Unaware of which V6 was in our test car, based on the reasonably strong acceleration, we assumed it was the 3.6-liter. Not so. The 3.0-liter was under the hood and proved an excellent powertrain for this car. The engine note has almost no harshness—this is a Buick, after all. But you can hear just a hint of growl that makes exercising this engine rewarding. Moving the shifter to the left engages manual transmission control. In this case, it really is manual—the engine will bounce off the 7000-rpm rev limiter and the transmission doesn't automatically downshift when you stomp on the gas. While we didn't speed-test the car, the estimated 7.8-second sprint to 60 mph seems quite reasonable.

Read more: 2010 Buick LaCrosse Test Drive: Can New 30-MPG Buick Sedan Revive the Brand? - Popular Mechanics
http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/reviews/drives/4325072

2010 BUICK LACROSSE CXL

Information on BUICK LACROSSE CXL, version for North America USA with 4-door sedan body type, FWD (front-wheel drive) and aut 6-speed gearbox. Quick specs: engine displacement: 3791 cm3 / 231.4 cui; power: 190 kW / 255 hp / 258 PS / 6900 ; torque: 294 Nm / 217 lb-ft / 5100 . Dimensions: length 5003 mm / 197 in, wheelbase 2837 mm / 111.7 in , standard tire size P 245/45 R 18, official base curb weight 1822 kg / 4017 lbs . How fast is it ? Performance: top speed 230 km/h (143 mph) (theor.); accelerations 0- 60 mph 7.4 s (sim.); 0- 100 km/h 7.7 s (sim.); 0- 1/4 mile 15.7 s (sim.); Fuel consumption: official: 17/27 mpg (U.S.), 13.8/8.7 l/100km, 20.4/32.4 mpg (imp.), 7.2/11.5 km/l EPA ratings, a-c pred. average combined: 13.3 l/100km / 21.2 mpg (imp.) / 17.7 mpg (U.S.) / 7.5 km/l


2010 BUICK LACROSSE CXL AWD

Information on BUICK LACROSSE CXL AWD, version for North America USA with 4-door sedan body type, 4x4 full-time (all-wheel drive permanent, with center electronic limited slip differential eLSD) and aut 6-speed gearbox. Quick specs: engine displacement: 3791 cm3 / 231.4 cui; power: 188 kW / 252 hp / 256 PS / 6900 ; torque: 292 Nm / 215 lb-ft / 5100 . Dimensions: length 5003 mm / 197 in, wheelbase 2837 mm / 111.7 in , standard tire size P 245/45 R 18, official base curb weight 1904 kg / 4197 lbs . How fast is it ? Performance: top speed 228 km/h (142 mph) (theor.); accelerations 0- 60 mph 8.3 s (sim.); 0- 100 km/h 8.7 s (sim.); 0- 1/4 mile 16.4 s (sim.); Fuel consumption: official: 16/26 mpg (U.S.), 14.7/9 l/100km, 19.2/31.2 mpg (imp.), 6.8/11.1 km/l EPA ratings, a-c pred. average combined: 14.4 l/100km / 19.6 mpg (imp.) / 16.3 mpg (U.S.) / 7 km/l

Information on BUICK LACROSSE CXS, version for North America USA with 4-door sedan body type, FWD (front-wheel drive) and aut 6-speed gearbox. Quick specs: engine displacement: 3564 cm3 / 217.4 cui; power: 209 kW / 280 hp / 284 PS / 6300 ; torque: 351 Nm / 259 lb-ft / 4800 . Dimensions: length 5003 mm / 197 in, wheelbase 2837 mm / 111.7 in , standard tire size P 245/45 R 18, official base curb weight 1844 kg / 4065 lbs . How fast is it ? Performance: top speed 250 km/h (155 mph) (theor.); accelerations 0- 60 mph 6.7 s (sim.); 0- 100 km/h 7 s (sim.); 0- 1/4 mile 15.2 s (sim.); Fuel consumption: official: 17/27 mpg (U.S.), 13.8/8.7 l/100km, 20.4/32.4 mpg (imp.), 7.2/11.5 km/l EPA ratings, a-c pred. average combined: 13.3 l/100km / 21.2 mpg (imp.) / 17.7 mpg (U.S.) / 7.5 km/l .

 

[jackkkfros]

That's really interesting, since the 2010 CXL would have the much-maligned 3.0 V-6, while the CXS has the 3.6. I would not have thought there would be any chance the CXL would be quicker. Wonder if it's a gearing or weight difference?

I switch my gears in my cxs to M sport mode and shift gears and to be honest that motherfuka move like an RT

 

[Emoney]

That's really interesting, since the 2010 CXL would have the much-maligned 3.0 V-6, while the CXS has the 3.6. I would not have thought there would be any chance the CXL would be quicker. Wonder if it's a gearing or weight difference?

Its the rpm rate to jus cuz a engine is biger dont mean its faster its had to do with the rpm rate look on the dash some got x500 rpm some x1000