2010 Buick LaCrosse 2.4 Liter 4 cylinder engine

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CROWNVIC4LIFE

Joined
Apr 13, 2009
Messages
3,734
Location
Miami-Dade County
Noticed in the latest C.R. that the LaCrosse is offering a 2.4 engine option...I think that one of the dumbest things G.M. can do...Why would they take a overall nice car and offer a 2.4 option to it...That makes no sense to me at all.

That is just as bad as Chrysler offering a 2.7 in the Charger and 300...I think the 2.4 is worse.

The LaCrosse offers a 3.6 option that has 280 HP...That shoud be the only engine in that car IMHO...They do have the 3.0 V6 as the standard engine that has 255 HP which is prabably adequate for it but the 3.6 would be the way to go.

IMHO I think the LaCrosse should have just used the 4.6 as the only engine...It seemed to work well on their earlier models when the Buick people had that option to get a 4.6
 
Offering efficient engine choices which 2.4L is where GM needs to head. Majority of new cars sold are 4 cylinder (Camry/Accord/Fusion/Altima) where a larger engine is offered.
 
Low price plus better fuel efficiency. Gets more buyers into the showroom and more sales so Government Motors can go back to General Motors.

Rant: It's a shame that the other parts of the world get the better cars before the home market does.
 
The 2.4 seems adequate for the Aura and the Malibu but it may leave a LaCrosse feeling underpowered due to weight.
 
I agree, Buick is technically considered as a "near-luxury" car and there is nothing luxury about an underpowered 4 cylinder in a midsize that weighs as much as a fullsize. +1 on same mistake as Charger and 300 with the 2.7
 
Originally Posted By: CROWNVIC4LIFE
Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
What does the LaCrosse weigh?


4160...That seems way to heavy to me for a 2.4 engine!


OMG....if thats the real weight, then it is a huge mistake. I'll be shocked if any dealers even stock this. I would never consider that as an option. A buyer of this combo would almost surely be unhappy with the overall performance. Maybe it's meant as a fleet vehicle, destined for the rental yards????

I've had some way underpowered Windstars, not a fun ride. I cant even imagine that the EPA numbers would be any good on this combo. This thing would get terrible real world mileage.
 
Last edited:
I would agree that at 4000+ lbs the 4cyl is probably not a great fit.

It sounds good. Many current Buick drivers don't desire power, and the smoothness of a modern I4, especially with a 6 speed auto is probably good enough. And to be honest, it's probably at a power to weight ratio of a v6 Buick from as recent as 10 years ago.

But, there will always be people who haven't even driven one, and go around complaining about how ridiculous the whole idea is. So why even bother.
 
With a six speed....you may be right, it may pull it off. With the four speed they use now with the 2.2 and 2.4, no way.

It works out to about 24.5 lbs/HP...I think the 2.4 is right around 170 HP. A Hummer H3 with the 3.7 is around 20.5 lbs/HP. A Windstar with the 3.8 is 20 lbs/HP. I don't know, it's doable, but what a dog....I do know I wouldnt buy one fitted with the 2.4.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
With a six speed....you may be right, it may pull it off.

A FAST-shifting six-speed could make it reasonably quick, but it would be redlining on every highway ramp. Buicks are supposed to be quiet.

Then again, maybe this engine is the option for the senile folks who can't drive more than half the speed limit anyway...
 
Perhaps there is a good reason to this? Rental fleets?

Does seem a bit underpowered, then again, my 240D and 300D diesels weigh around 3515 lb, and therefore at 67 and 120 hp are at 52 lb/hp and 29 lb/hp. Frankly, these vehicles accelerate and operate well enough that I can operate safely and efficiently in the most densely populated area of the country, where there are more cars on the road per mile than anywhere else.

Just because a car doesn't do 0-60 in 6 seconds, does not mean there is an issue. Plus, the 2.4L engines out there are quite good.

A camry 2.4 is roughly 19-20 lb/hp, and that is a great engine for that sort of a car. The lacrosse is a bit outclassed with roughly the same powerplant.

How sure are we that 410lb is correct? According to Buick, it is roughly 3495 lb, and thus roughly the same P/W ratio as a camry or accord with that powerplant.

http://www.buick.com/vehicles/2009/lacrosse/features.do
 
Maybe it will be ok what are the gear ratios that is the main question...
Remember the quad 4 my friend had one he used to eat stock v8 mustangs for a snack and get good gas mileage as well..
 
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Perhaps there is a good reason to this? Rental fleets?

A camry 2.4 is roughly 19-20 lb/hp, and that is a great engine for that sort of a car. The lacrosse is a bit outclassed with roughly the same powerplant.

How sure are we that 410lb is correct? According to Buick, it is roughly 3495 lb, and thus roughly the same P/W ratio as a camry or accord with that powerplant.

http://www.buick.com/vehicles/2009/lacrosse/features.do


Wrong year, slick. We need to see 2010 specs. It is 3929-4045 pounds.

http://www.buick.com/lacrosse/2010/specs-features/?year=2010&brand=lacrosse
 
A diesel is in a different league when it comes to grunt. Despite their typical lower HP numbers they usually have enough Torque to get you going.

Torque gets you moving....HP keeps you moving or at least thats what my Grandpa always said...lol

I love the ecotec(I own one, in a 3,000 lb car) thats not the problem.....just not in a 4,200lb car. I agree if the number is more like 3,500, that makes a world of difference.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: crazyoildude
Maybe it will be ok what are the gear ratios that is the main question...
Remember the quad 4 my friend had one he used to eat stock v8 mustangs for a snack and get good gas mileage as well..


What was that Quad 4 mounted in, a Go Kart?
 
Originally Posted By: mrsilv04
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Perhaps there is a good reason to this? Rental fleets?

A camry 2.4 is roughly 19-20 lb/hp, and that is a great engine for that sort of a car. The lacrosse is a bit outclassed with roughly the same powerplant.

How sure are we that 410lb is correct? According to Buick, it is roughly 3495 lb, and thus roughly the same P/W ratio as a camry or accord with that powerplant.

http://www.buick.com/vehicles/2009/lacrosse/features.do


Wrong year, slick. We need to see 2010 specs. It is 3929-4045 pounds.

http://www.buick.com/lacrosse/2010/specs-features/?year=2010&brand=lacrosse


But that 3929lb curb weight is for the V6 model. I didn't see the weight of the 4cyl model. It's not inconceivable it could be 300-400 pounds less.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
But that 3929lb curb weight is for the V6 model. I didn't see the weight of the 4cyl model. It's not inconceivable it could be 300-400 pounds less.

That's almost the weight of a whole engine. I would be shocked beyond words if the 4-cyl weighed THAT much less than the V6.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

K
2005 Buick LaCrosse CXL, 3800 Series III, Pennzoil Platinum High Mileage 10w30, 4118 miles
Replies
10
Views
1K
71Chevyguy
dogememe
Explorer engine options
2 3
Replies
49
Views
5K
Warlord
K
2005 Buick LaCrosse CXL, 3800 Series III, Frankenblend, 3689 miles
Replies
9
Views
1K
KansasBuickFan
K
2005 Buick LaCrosse, 3800 Series III, STP Full Synthetic 5w-30, 3204 miles,
Replies
18
Views
2K
JGmazda
M
  • Question
RESTORE Engine Restorer for a 13 lacrosse w/VVT Ecotec engine
Replies
19
Views
7K
PimTac
Back
Top