Derick Freese wrote: In reply to Snowdoggie: Hey, remember the 80's? They all looked like boxes back then.
Oh Really???
Derick Freese wrote: In reply to Snowdoggie: Hey, remember the 80's? They all looked like boxes back then.
Oh Really???
93EXCivic wrote:4cylndrfury wrote: so apples to oranges then?How? The Audi A4 and BMW 3-series both have turbocharged 4-cylinders and are luxury cars in the same class. That is Apples to Apples.
at the same pricepoint?
Why are we comparing this Buick to a WRX? or an STI? Although this Buick is a good performer, it isn't a hard-edged trackday car.
Spend 5 minutes inside both cars and you'll see where the extra $$ is spent. The Buick's interior is in a completely different league than the Subie's. I can't imagine most folks cross-shopping these two.
I also don't see an A4 or 3-series coming in at this price point.
I see the Regal going up against cars like these:
VW CC
Kia Optima
Hyundai Sonata
Mercury Fusion thing.....whatever their weird nomenclature is
Acura TSX
Lexus is250
Compared to these cars the new Buick is pretty competitive. It may not be everyone's cup of tea, but it's a damn good car. Not a good car "for GM", but a really good car for anyone.
They will probably drop the manual trans option after a year or so though, because no one will buy them. 
4cylndrfury wrote:93EXCivic wrote:at the same pricepoint?4cylndrfury wrote: so apples to oranges then?How? The Audi A4 and BMW 3-series both have turbocharged 4-cylinders and are luxury cars in the same class. That is Apples to Apples.
A4 with 6-speed manual starts at $33K. BMW 328i with 6 speed starts at $35k.
93EXCivic wrote:4cylndrfury wrote:A4 with 6-speed manual starts at $33K. BMW 328i with 6 speed starts at $35k.93EXCivic wrote:at the same pricepoint?4cylndrfury wrote: so apples to oranges then?How? The Audi A4 and BMW 3-series both have turbocharged 4-cylinders and are luxury cars in the same class. That is Apples to Apples.
turbos on both at those prices?
4cylndrfury wrote:93EXCivic wrote:turbos on both at those prices?4cylndrfury wrote:A4 with 6-speed manual starts at $33K. BMW 328i with 6 speed starts at $35k.93EXCivic wrote:at the same pricepoint?4cylndrfury wrote: so apples to oranges then?How? The Audi A4 and BMW 3-series both have turbocharged 4-cylinders and are luxury cars in the same class. That is Apples to Apples.
Only offered as turbos. At that price point.
93EXCivic wrote:4cylndrfury wrote:Only offered as turbos.93EXCivic wrote:turbos on both at those prices?4cylndrfury wrote:A4 with 6-speed manual starts at $33K. BMW 328i with 6 speed starts at $35k.93EXCivic wrote:at the same pricepoint?4cylndrfury wrote: so apples to oranges then?How? The Audi A4 and BMW 3-series both have turbocharged 4-cylinders and are luxury cars in the same class. That is Apples to Apples.
that could be a game changer...cept I dont care much for the maintenance cost of those 2 lines much, nor their looks. But I will give you those are convincing, apples to apples arguments...
4cylndrfury wrote:93EXCivic wrote:that could be a game changer...cept I dont care much for the maintenance cost of those 2 lines much, nor their looks. But I will give you those are convincing, apples to apples arguments...4cylndrfury wrote:Only offered as turbos.93EXCivic wrote:turbos on both at those prices?4cylndrfury wrote:A4 with 6-speed manual starts at $33K. BMW 328i with 6 speed starts at $35k.93EXCivic wrote:at the same pricepoint?4cylndrfury wrote: so apples to oranges then?How? The Audi A4 and BMW 3-series both have turbocharged 4-cylinders and are luxury cars in the same class. That is Apples to Apples.
both of those are down on power compared to Buick buy 30-60hp and they all weigh in around 3500. The Audi HP/TQ is 211/258 and the BMW is 245/258 to the Buick's 275/295. Having owned all three makes I'd say an extended warranty on the BMW and Audi would be a very wise move.
I think a lot of people are hating on the Buick simply because it's a Buick.
vwcorvette wrote:Derick Freese wrote: In reply to Snowdoggie: Hey, remember the 80's? They all looked like boxes back then.
Other than a couple of cars each era, cars of each era ALWAYS shared styling cues, which is how you can tell at a glance what era the cars are from. '10s, '20s, '30s, '40s, '50s, '60s, you can tell AT A GLANCE what era the cars are from because, they shared styling cues and to the non-initiated, ALL LOOK ALIKE. 
Tired of hearing this from non-car people who say they all look alike, and REALLY tired of hearing it from car guys who should know better. If you're not familair with the era of the cars in question you may know WHICH era, but not which MAKE. I can tell teh difference between any new car at a glance, and don't confuse one brand for another.
But if you werent' familiar with them, you could be forgiven for thinking these two cars come from the same manufacturer:
Cars have always looked alike in their eras.
Cotton wrote:4cylndrfury wrote:both of those are down on power compared to Buick buy 30-60hp and they all weigh in around 3500. The Audi HP/TQ is 211/258 and the BMW is 245/258 to the Buick's 275/295. Having owned all three makes I'd say an extended warranty on the BMW and Audi would be a very wise move. I think a lot of people are hating on the Buick simply because it's a Buick.93EXCivic wrote:that could be a game changer...cept I dont care much for the maintenance cost of those 2 lines much, nor their looks. But I will give you those are convincing, apples to apples arguments...4cylndrfury wrote:Only offered as turbos.93EXCivic wrote:turbos on both at those prices?4cylndrfury wrote:A4 with 6-speed manual starts at $33K. BMW 328i with 6 speed starts at $35k.93EXCivic wrote:at the same pricepoint?4cylndrfury wrote: so apples to oranges then?How? The Audi A4 and BMW 3-series both have turbocharged 4-cylinders and are luxury cars in the same class. That is Apples to Apples.
IF (and that would be a huge if) I was shopping for a car in that price range that was a 4 door luxury sedan, I would be hard pressed not to choose the Buick (against the BMW). Which is saying a lot for Buick because when is last time there could be a serious discussion among car enthusiast pointing out Buick as a possible choice for anything. I was simply pointing out that there were other similarly equipped vehicles.
I should also point out that the 6 speed BMW is rated at 23/34 vs. the Buick's 19/27. Pretty significant. The 1 lb/hp difference isn't as large.
vwcorvette wrote:Derick Freese wrote: In reply to Snowdoggie: Hey, remember the 80's? They all looked like boxes back then.
the Taurus was Ford's response to everything looking all boxy- i think it was their first big fwd platform and it was styled to look "futuristic" to make it stand out from all the boring boxes that were out there at the time.. it was so futuristic looking that they paid good money to have Robocop drive one in a not-to-distant-future Detroit..
a few seconds on google would show you that there were a very few new cars put out on the roads in the early to mid 80's that weren't boxy.. then as all the cars from the early 80's started to get restyled and replaced by the next generation, they got a little rounder and more aerodynamic and even sometimes changed the names they put on them.. since i'm a Chevy guy, i'll use them as an example.. the Chevy Celebrity became the Lumina when they restyled that car and put it on a new chassis in the 90 model year. the Camaro got rounded off a lot when they got rid of the gen 3 and went to the gen 4 in 93. the Caprice got rounded off in 91, but still kept the same chassis that it had since 77.
the actual years that they made the changes in styling varies for each different manufacturer, but they are always transitioning to the next styling trend even as the all new models are coming to market, and it generally takes a few years for a company to come out with something that's styled like the competition because it takes a lot of time and manpower to reengineer and restyle an entire car line.
novaderrik wrote:vwcorvette wrote:the Taurus was Ford's response to everything looking all boxy- i think it was their first big fwd platform and it was styled to look "futuristic" to make it stand out from all the boring boxes that were out there at the time.. it was so futuristic looking that they paid good money to have Robocop drive one in a not-to-distant-future Detroit.. a few seconds on google would show you that there were a very few new cars put out on the roads in the early to mid 80's that weren't boxy.. then as all the cars from the early 80's started to get restyled and replaced by the next generation, they got a little rounder and more aerodynamic and even sometimes changed the names they put on them.. since i'm a Chevy guy, i'll use them as an example.. the Chevy Celebrity became the Lumina when they restyled that car and put it on a new chassis in the 90 model year. the Camaro got rounded off a lot when they got rid of the gen 3 and went to the gen 4 in 93. the Caprice got rounded off in 91, but still kept the same chassis that it had since 77. the actual years that they made the changes in styling varies for each different manufacturer, but they are always transitioning to the next styling trend even as the all new models are coming to market, and it generally takes a few years for a company to come out with something that's styled like the competition because it takes a lot of time and manpower to reengineer and restyle an entire car line.Derick Freese wrote: In reply to Snowdoggie: Hey, remember the 80's? They all looked like boxes back then.
Um, yeah, I get it. I was not saying Eighties cars were all rounded either. Just responding to the all are boxy statement with a few well chosen examples.
I know all about design trends and styling changes. My senior college project was a study of American automobile styling through the years. Influences, themes, and trends were all covered.
Many a cycle design goes through. When the stylists get a handle on the materials some interesting shapes and designs come out. Then the theme is created and others follow suit. Then new design challenges resulting from new materials or production methods are created that stylists must learn through. And the cycle repeats.
10 years in counting to someone posting one of those stupid "Learn me" threads... "Learn me: 2012 Buick Regal GS"
Just saw the Cadillac ATS up close at Barrett Jackson West Palm. Position of the RWD axle center line under the C pillar is exactly BMW. Styling is toned down just enough from the CTS, and there's that stick trans again. I'm in love.....
When no one was looking, I started to rub up against it. I dig the Buick also, but the ATS looks to be a winner.
now we're talkin
plance1 wrote: 10 years in counting to someone posting one of those stupid "Learn me" threads... "Learn me: 2012 Buick Regal GS"
ha... I'm not waiting 10 years.
Not cheap yet, but in the real world you can find sub $30K with almost no miles. Here's a 6,600 mile example for $28K: http://www.autotrader.com/cars-for-sale/vehicledetails.xhtml?zip=48911&endYear=2013&keywords=GS&modelCode1=REG&sortBy=derivedpriceASC&startYear=2010&makeCode1=BUICK&listingType=used&keywordsfyc=GS&transmissionCode=MAN&searchRadius=0&pricesOnly=true&listingId=328372537&Log=0
This is very high on my list as a next car in another year or two. Hopefully they will be closer to the $20K mark at that time.
I think some people miss the point of this car when saying things like "why not buy an STI/etc.". The other knock I've seen in reviews is the "only 270HP for 3700 pounds".
As has been noted in this thread, any well equipped mid size sedan now weighs that much. It's not the '90's any more. Secondly, people seem to forget that the AVERAGE new car purchase is $30,000. Average. So your average 2.5 kid American buying their CamCord or crossover is spending $30K. By that notion, this car is not expensive.
Secondly, I like that this is a GM EcoTec 2.0. I don't need absolute hard edged performance from a daily driver, and I love that when restrained out on the highway, this car will knock down in the 30mpg range. Any other time, I have a car that I actually will enjoy driving... great brakes, good handling, stick shift, turbo, plush trimmings. 4 doors for the family. Luxurious enough to enjoy on a long haul.
No high $$ maintenance needs relative to much of it's foreign competition... It's also a few simple and often done mods away from more power if you wanted it. Fwd is plenty handy up here where it snows (not that I haven't driven rwd year round).
I wouldn't buy this to be a track car, that's what the race car is for. This however would make a great DD the rest of the time in the real world when one is not driving 10/10ths.
i don't care how irrelevant the comparison is, it's not faster than the Regal GS of 15 years ago, and it's not faster than the one ten years before that.
ditchdigger wrote: I said it the first time I saw the car and it still rings true.Fangs? Really? This twilight crap has got to stop!
I am the walrus.
In reply to failboat:
goo goo g'joob.
blatant GM hate is blatant.
In reply to bravenrace:
Acura fans should not comment on other cars looks lol 
Sees side view "Ya know, that's a pretty good looking seda...(scrolls down and sees front bumper)...HOOOOLEEE E36 M3 that's ugly!"
belteshazzar wrote: i don't care how irrelevant the comparison is, it's not faster than the Regal GS of 15 years ago, and it's not faster than the one ten years before that.
define faster. It does virtually everything else better. better handling. better braking. better fuel economy. better comfort. better fit/finish. etc.
You'll need to log in to post.
