A few months ago I was quite surprised when my father preferred the new Cadillac DTS to the sportier STS. I also found the big front-drive sedan's performance and interior fit and finish better than expected.

Since then I've been looking forward to driving the Buick Lucerne CXS. It's essentially the same car as the DTS, just with sleeker sheetmetal and a price lower by nearly $12,000 even after adjusting for the Cadillac's extra features (things like heated rear seats with power lumbar adjustments).

Problem was, I couldn't quite bring myself to request a test drive in a Buick on my own. I'm not even forty yet, much less well over sixty. Buick salespeople look at me funny. Heck, I have trouble getting my head around the idea of test driving a big Buick. (Yes, the brand's image has problems.)

So I waited until my father was once again in town. We drove the top-of-the-line CXS.

Styling

The Lucerne in the showroom was a CX, a base trim car complete with 16-inch alloys and a cloth bench seat. It screamed rental, not quality. If GM had a brain, it would not have let the CX out the door, as anyone who sees this car will write off the Lucerne as a serious contender, and perhaps even the whole brand.

People's image of a car is shaped by what they see on the road. And what they need to see is the CXS. Its 19-inch rims shod with 20-centimeter wider tires (245s rather than 225s) together with foglights in the front bumper transform the look of the car. The larger wheels completely fill the wheel wells and shrink the apparent size of the fenders. The foglights visually break up a chin only Jay Leno's mama could love. In CX trim the fenders, and especially the front fender, look overly long and ungainly despite the use of oversized headlamp assemblies. Not so with the CXS (though trimming an inch or two off the front overhang still would not hurt). Add in the garnet red paint of the car I drove and this was a very handsome sedan. It's much sleeker than the DTS, yet still elegant.

I especially like the sweep of the sail panel (C-pillar) and tapered rear fender when viewed from the rear quarter. The G35 sedan and new Passat have a very similar sail panel--both Buick and VW might have copied the Infiniti in this area--while the tail lights look much like those on the sporty Acura RSX hatchback.

What you won't see on the Lucerne are the round contours or kick-up over the rear fender that have identified Buick's concept cars and many of its recent production sedans--including the current midsize LaCrosse--in recent years. Instead, the Lucerne's bodysides are lean and clean. The Lucerne replaces the Park Avenue and LeSabre. It looks considerably more youthful than either, but perhaps at the cost of lacking a brand identity. Buick loyalists will likely wish for more Buick flavor.

And they might have a point. The risk now is not that the general public will be turned off by the stodgy Buick identity, but that they won't notice the car at all. Though attractive, the Lucerne's exterior is very subtle. I personally like subtle, but subtle designs often get lost in the crowd.

Perhaps to insure that this otherwise un-Buick exterior can still be identified as a Buick, the marque's traditional portholes--three with the V6, four with the V8--are included at the top rear corner of the front fenders. If anything they add needed detail to the ultra-clean bodysides.

The Lucerne CXS' interior is GM's best interpretation of a Jaguar cabin to date. Extended elipses of tasteful faux wood adorn the instrument panel and doors. Perforated leather graces half-oval insets in each outboard seat, the top section of the steering wheel rim, and the comfortably shaped shifter. Both the seats and the upholstered Jaguar-style door armrests are stitched with French seams. Especially in the "ebony" (charcoal with a touch of brown) of the CXS I drove it's a very warm, very attractive, tasteful interior.

All of the switches are cleanly styled in the Lexus idiom (no tasteless faux chrome nibs sticking up all over the place), and they feel like quality. The organization of these switches could hardly be more logical or easier to understand. With one possible exception: it took me a minute to find the temperature adjustments for the HVAC--their location and markings are a bit too subtle. Better too subtle than the opposite, though. Once you find these switches, you'll never have this problem a second time. The Germans could learn a lot about control design and organization from this interior.

As in the big Cadillac, all joints and gaps in the interior are even and very narrow. My father found a slightly uneven seam on one armrest--that's how hard it is to find fault here.

Still, I can find a few faults with the interior. The overall feel is of less luxury and lower-quality materials than in a Lexus ES 350. But it's hard to put a finger on the reason for this. The main culprits as far as I can tell: the center cap of the steering wheel and the front of the instrument panel would benefit from higher grade materials. I'd like to see leather or a good imitation of it on the former, and something like the material used atop the instrument panel--or at least a richer grain--on the latter. (My Lexus-driving father had much less of an issue with these.) The instrument panel's styling might also be a bit too spare, and the clear blue instrument graphics a bit too plain. Wider trim pieces flanking the center stack and console inserts, as used by Lexus, Acura, and Subaru (among others) would probably help.

As with the exterior, nothing about the interior of this car suggests it's for old people. "Too spare" and "too plain" aren't phrases I'd normally use to describe Buick interiors. Anyone who likes the interior of a Jaguar or Lexus would find much to like here.

Accommodations

The view from the driver's seat is typical of large American sedans. Relative to the instrument panel, you sit a bit lower than in the typical Japanese sedan, but significantly higher than in the typical German sedan. So the view forward is fairly open. I found I had to raise the seat a bit to properly align myself with the steering column.

The front seats are softer than in most imported sedans but are very comfortably shaped, so you don't need to fear the lack of proper support that once cursed the seats of domestic luxury sedans. Four-way lumbar, standard on the CXS, further aids getting optimal lower back support. Extended drives should not be a problem, at least not as far as the seats are concerned. Lateral support is minimal, but then even in CXS trim this is no canyon-carving sport sedan.

Like that in the DTS, the rear seat feels less roomy than I expect in a 203-inch-long sedan, perhaps because of the size of the front seats, but is still fairly roomy. Sitting behind my 5-9 self, my knees are about three inches from the front seatbacks. The spec sheet claims over 41 inches of rear legroom, which is more than you'll find in any Japanese sedan. The rear cushion is mounted a bit low, and feels a bit undersized, but the ability to stretch one's legs out helps mitigate these faults. Though not a great rear seat, it's certainly far from a bad one.

At seventeen cubic feet, the trunk is about average for a large sedan. While the Ford Five Hundred has a substantially larger trunk, those in the Chrysler 300 and Toyota Avalon are smaller. The hinges are the conventional intrusive type. Like the Toyota but unlike the other two, the rear seat does not fold. Instead, a small pass-through is provided.

Ultimately, the interior feels less roomy than those in the Five Hundred and 300, but also feels considerably more luxurious. The Avalon's interior, though about equally luxurious, has a more generic, almost sterile ambiance. Once all factors are considered, the Lucerne CXS might just have the nicest interior in the segment.

Features

I don't usually include a features section, but I was surprised to find that a few popular features are not available on the Lucerne. Xenon headlights and a telescoping wheel are not available at all, while a navigation system is a late introduction item. These features are pretty much expected these days in cars costing more than $30,000.

They are all available on the related Cadillac DTS. GM might be harming the Buick to protect sales of the more expensive Cadillac. But no one's going to spend the extra cash for the Caddy to get these features. Instead, they'll buy a non-GM vehicle.

On the Road

The CX and base CXL use GM's veteran 3.8-liter V6 in what is likely its last application. My wife used to drive a 1998 Oldsmobile Intrigue with this engine. It might only make 197 horsepower, but its torquey where it counts for most drivers and it certainly gets the job done.

A 275-horsepower 4.6-liter DOHC "Northstar" V8 is a $2,000 option on the CXL and standard on the CXS. With it accleration is brisk, yet not as strong as in an Avalon or Hemi-powered 300. My father found it hard to believe that the power rating is only three horses shy of the 4.3-liter in the big Lexus sedan.

The next-generation Lexus V8 will produce about 380 horsepower. Going forward, the Buick's V8 will be more competitive with the latest V6s, like the 268-horsepower 3.5-liter in the Toyota Avalon.

My father also thought the engine's moderately loud burble under hard acceleration sounded strained, where a Lexus V8 never sounds strained. I didn't think the engine sounded strained, but I did expect more sophisticated noises from a DOHC V8, and a lower volume of them. This engine is quieter in the DTS, likely by design.

When cruising the engine is virtually silent.

The thoroughly conventional automatic transmission likely deserves most of the blame for the lack of mind-boggling accleration. With only four economy-biased ratios, it doesn't shoot the engine into its powerband as readily as the five-speed automatics used by Chrysler and Toyota. A six-speed automatic should replace it in a year or two.

For a powerful front-wheel-drive sedan, the Lucerne behaves well under hard accleration. Though the front end gets a touch light and wander-prone, torque steer remains minimal--even when hitting the gas in turns. The wheel does not tug at your hands, but once turned while acclerating can resist returning to center. Driven aggressively, this could pose a problem. But the Lucerne is clearly much more a touring sedan than a sport sedan.

The brake pedal is moderately firm, and thus feels better than that in most GM cars. The car remains fairly level under hard braking, perhaps due to the magnetically controlled shocks. My father was surprised by the near absence of nose dive.

Handling, while certainly not stellar, is at least as good as that in direct competitors. The rear-wheel-drive Chrysler might have the advantage of a more balanced weight distribution, but the Buick changes directions more readily and feels nearly as balanced in hard turns. Lean in turns is moderate--despite the trick shocks some people will wish for a firmer setting. (This might be adjustable somewhere in the Driver Information Center, but I find no mention of this anywhere; I could not find this adjustment in the Cadillac STS, where it is definitely offered.) The Lucerne's front tires never scrubbed or rolled over onto their sidewalls, and the tail never threatened to step out (though the standard stability control did intervene a couple of times when I tried to force the car to misbehave). I noticed no wallowing or floating over dips and humps. The steering is a bit light and could provide more feedback, but both shortcomings are typical of the class. "Not sporty and a bit soft but very well bahaved" about sums up the handling.

Despite having a firmer suspension than other Lucerne trims, the CXS still rides very smoothly. But not necessarily quietly. Minor impacts are not felt, but they are heard--the Bridgestone Turanzas clomp and slap a bit over tar strips and other minor road imperfections. Different tires might be necessary for those seeking the most luxurious ride, but the need for a softer suspension escapes me.

On smooth roads the Lucerne is very quiet inside, with very little road or engine noise. At extra-legal speeds there is some wind noise around the A-pillars, but that's about it. Those seeking a quiet car will not be disappointed.

Buick Lucerne Price Comparisons and Pricing

I've already mentioned that the Lucernce CXS runs about $12,000 less than the DTS in Performance trim, even after adjusting for the latter's additional features.

The Chrysler 300C costs about the same. The Chrysler is quicker and more composed in very aggressive driving, while the Buick feels more upscale and luxurious.

You cannot get a directly comparable Avalon. The Avalon Touring is not available with many features, while the Avalon Limited lacks a sport suspension, and is thus more equivalent to the Lucerne CXL. Compare the Avalon Limited to the Lucerne CXL V8, and you'll find that the Buick is about $1,300 cheaper at MSRP and $700 cheaper at invoice.

A Lexus ES 330 is most comparable to the Lucerne CXS. The Lexus runs about $5,300 more at MSRP, and $2,400 more at invoice. For the V8 in the Buick, deduct about $2,000 from both figures. (Update: The 330 has been replaced by the more attractive ES 350.)

Prices change frequently, and differences will vary based on feature level. To quickly generate these and other comparisons with the specific features you want, visit my Web site, www.truedelta.com. (It's the only site that provides true "apples-to-apples" price comparisons.)

TrueDelta's page for the Lucerne:

http://www.truedelta.com/models/Lucerne.php

Last Words

While no sport sedan, the styling, performance, comfort, and quality of the Lucerne CXS generally impressed me. A few additional features would be good to have, and the CX trim either needs to be upgraded or dropped, but the basics are all here.

Most importantly, little if anything about this car suggests it's not a worthy competitor to a Toyota Avalon or Lexus ES 330. Not long ago a Buick was not even in the ballpark. The instruments, the seats, the column shifter, the tone of the turn signal chime--dozens of items, big and small, just seemed wrong to people with contemporary tastes. This is no longer the case. If anything, the imports are now the stodgier cars. People considering a touring sedan in this price range should give the Buick a look.

To learn more about my reliability research and sign up to participate in it, or to perform thorough, up-to-date new car price comparisons, visit www.truedelta.com. A link to this website and alphabetized links to my other vehicle reviews can be found on my profile page.

A Note on Buick Lucerne Reliability

I cannot practically cover reliability within the context of this review. However, many people are interested in such information, so I've started collecting my own data. Results, once they are available, will be posted to my site, www.truedelta.com, with updates every three months.

Unlike other sources, TrueDelta will clearly identify what difference it will make if you buy a Lucerne rather than another vehicle by providing "times in the shop" and "days in the shop" stats (among others). You will be able to specify the number of years, annual miles, and types of repairs to include in Buick Lucerne reliability comparisons.

Before I can report results, I need data on all cars--not just the Lucerne--from people like you. To encourage participation, those who help provide the data will receive free access to the site's reliability information. For non-participants, this access will cost $24.95.

For the details, and to sign up, visit www.truedelta.com.

A link to this website and alphabetized links to my other vehicle reviews can be found on my profile page.

If you're an Epinions member, and you want to receive an email alert from Epinions when I post a new review, click here.

Some of my reviews of related vehicles:Buick LaCrosse review
Cadillac DTS review
Chrysler 300 review
Ford Five Hundred review
http://www1.epinions.com/content_244290195076
Nissan Maxima review
Toyota Avalon review