Print 22 comment(s) - last by jharper12.. on Sep 4 at 9:44 AM

eAssist become standard equipment, 220hp turbo model available as a no-cost option

When it comes to extracting the most miles per gallon out of a vehicle, GM often turns to its eAssist solution for midsize sedans. While competing companies like Ford/Lincoln and Toyota/Lexus use full hybrid solutions to achieve lofty mpg ratings, GM's "mild hybrid" eAssist solution often lags well behind, especially in city mpg ratings.
In an effort to boost fuel efficiency of its models, GM announced earlier this year that it would make eAssist standard on the 2013 Buick Regal. This is a move the company already made with the 2012 Buick Lacrosse.
Now GM has revealed that the addition of eAssist as standard equipment means that the base price for the 2013 Regal jumps from $27,055 to $29,015. The base 2.4-liter four-cylinder engine in the 2012 model, which was good for 19/31 (city/highway), gives way to a standard eAssist model that is rated at 25/36 (city/highway).

For those that simply don't want a Regal with eAssist, Buick offers a 220hp turbocharged 2.0-liter model as a no-cost option. And for those that crave even more power, the 270hp Regal GS is also available. 
"With eAssist, Buick is redefining what a 'conventional powertrain' means to customers," said eAssist global chief engineer Stephen Poulos. "It changes the fuel economy – but not the experience – for the 97 percent of new car buyers who aren't buying hybrids."
"It takes advantage of the best parts of a hybrid, and eAssist is now standard equipment for Regal," Poulos added. "These new functions happen seamlessly, a requirement for Buick drivers who demand a refined driving experience. They'll really only notice a difference at the pump."
Manufacturers like Nissan have managed to employed advanced technology and continuously variable transmissions (CVTs) to help the 2013 Altima achieve 27/38 (city/highway) without the use of expensive batteries or electric motors. On the other side of the spectrum, the 2013 Lexus ES 300h is rated at 40/39 (city/highway).

Source: General Motors

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By Richard875yh5 on 8/30/2012 4:13:44 PM , Rating: 5
Speak for yourself, I like Buicks. They have a great product line like Cadillac.

RE: Buicks
By Flunk on 8/30/2012 4:23:50 PM , Rating: 1
That's not really the point. A car manufacturer dumping their low-end trimline to save money (normally because they're not selling) is hardly newsworthy.

I will say that the 220hp turbocharged engine sounds like a better buy to me. That sounds like a lot of fun with fairly low gas consumption.

RE: Buicks
By Moishe on 8/30/2012 5:04:38 PM , Rating: 2
Dumping the low end trim to gain the fleetwide fuel economy increase number as well.

They have to increase the fleetwide fuel economy... so they will drop every option that isn't helping. Damn the price increase, full speed ahead!

RE: Buicks
By Reclaimer77 on 8/30/12, Rating: -1
RE: Buicks
By GulWestfale on 8/30/2012 5:53:11 PM , Rating: 2
eAssist=elderly assist? it is a buick, after all.

RE: Buicks
By sigmatau on 8/30/2012 9:34:41 PM , Rating: 2
It raises prices a little now, not even 10%, but saves more than triple that during the ownership. You fail at math if you can't see that.

RE: Buicks
By Mr Perfect on 8/30/2012 9:52:22 PM , Rating: 2
Depends on how long you keep the car. $2000 buys a lot of gas.

RE: Buicks
By piroroadkill on 8/31/2012 5:07:34 AM , Rating: 2
Not in the UK it doesn't. With light use, you'd burn through $2000 in barely over a year.

RE: Buicks
By DFranch on 8/31/2012 12:29:47 PM , Rating: 3
@ $3.85 per gallon and 15,000 miles a pear, it is a wash in about 4.5 years. However, your resale value should be higher as it is a more expensive car, and you save almost 500 gallons of gas over it's lifetime.

RE: Buicks
By mindless1 on 9/2/2012 6:10:09 PM , Rating: 2
Another foolish assumption that ignores all relevant variable.

1) That's $2000 usually financed over the life of the vehicle, actually more than $2K.

2) That $2K could have been drawing interest as an investment instead.

3) The higher initial cost and higher complexity will, on average, increase failure rates and repair costs significantly.

4) The typical buyer of this car is someone middle aged who does not put on very many miles per year, may even be retired and average less than 30 miles a week so the idea of tripling a $2000 cost difference which I already discredited above, is deliberately contrived and false for most owners.

5) You fail quite badly at math by thinking ($2000 + x(n) + y + z) can be assumed less than (3 x n). If you don't consider all the significant variables there was no point attempting to resolve the equation.

RE: Buicks
By apinkel on 8/30/2012 8:14:58 PM , Rating: 2
I'd say dropping the 2.4l base model (which is all they are doing here) is an adjustment to be more competitive within the segment.

The TSX has better performance and MPG than the current base 2.4l Regal. Eassist brings a bit more performance and better MPG for less money.

GM needs the Regal to be taken seriously in the entry level performance market and, IMO, that 2.4l base model had no business in the lineup.

I do agree that the 2.0l turbo is the best performance for your dollar in this lineup.

RE: Buicks
By lazybum131 on 8/30/2012 10:27:22 PM , Rating: 2
And don't forget the Regal is no longer the entry level Buick now that the Verano is available.

I wonder how quickly GM can get eAssist mated to the new 2.5L engine, and if they can get that fitted as the standard engine across all Buicks. I'd say being able to boast that the entire lineup has economy car-like fuel economy with 200+HP would be nice marketing.

It's an interesting car...
By apinkel on 8/30/2012 5:09:04 PM , Rating: 2
I'm looking at the regal right now. I love the exterior and the interior (limited legroom in the backseat but that seems to be par for this class... regal, TSX, CC). I've heard good things about how it drives/handles.

I like the thought of e-assist since it means the car may be able to compete on mpg and performance with the i4 TSX but for less money.

I haven't driven one yet so we'll see if the info I've heard is just owners who are overly enthusiastic about their purchase decision or if the car is that good.

RE: It's an interesting car...
By fic2 on 8/30/2012 5:13:17 PM , Rating: 2
Any idea what the (I guess) optional eAssist price is for the current model? Just wondering if GM lowered the price, raised it or kept it the same. Generally I would think since it is now standard the $2k is lower than what the current option price is, but with businesses you never know.

RE: It's an interesting car...
By fic2 on 8/30/2012 5:25:44 PM , Rating: 2
I found it in another article - it was a $2k option so they are charging the same price.

RE: It's an interesting car...
By apinkel on 8/30/2012 7:57:56 PM , Rating: 2
That's correct.

typical shortsighted CAFE bull##!!
By rika13 on 9/3/2012 5:32:52 AM , Rating: 2
Once again, CAFE has kept the public from buying fuel efficient cars by making newer cars so expensive to meet fleet-wide requirements that people simply drive older, less efficient cars. This is why the auto industry needed bailed out, not just because of the UAW bleeding them dry on wages, but because the feds (mostly dems) keep jacking up the prices of cars with idiotic MPG and safety requirements that the car companies can not reasonably comply with while making cars that Americans actually want to purchase.

The best example of CAFE's failure is the SUV, since CAFE effectively killed station wagons with the MPG requirements, the auto makers simply made them as trucks, know they can not sell the absurdly small cars the Democrats want to Americans. The Smart ForTwo is their dream car, but it will not sell in America. We want ample room for a family, not crowded for two, enough cargo space for a shopping trip that consists of more than ice cream, and have a reasonable chance of not dying when it gets hit by something big, like a semi or a pickup truck.

Consider the following
By jharper12 on 9/4/2012 9:44:25 AM , Rating: 2
If you're going to use Nissan as a comparison, point out that the Nissan isn't an upscale trim car. It competes with the Chevy Malibu, not the Buick. If you're going to offer up the Lexus, maybe you should also point out the $38,850 MSRP. Assuming gas at $4.114 per gallon, the highest recorded national average, it would take 252,101.5 miles of driving to make up the $9,835 price difference between the Buick and the Lexus when comparing their combined mileage, 29 MPG vs. 40 MPG. Finally, as the article is focused around fuel economy and value, please consider using a fuel economy comparison that's easier to convert into real dollar amounts, gallons per 100 miles.

By Richard875yh5 on 8/30/2012 4:11:36 PM , Rating: 1
Speak for yourself, I like Buicks. They had a great product line like Cadillac has.

By faizyab on 8/31/12, Rating: 0
How is this news?
By SSDMaster on 8/30/12, Rating: -1
RE: How is this news?
By nocturne_81 on 8/30/12, Rating: 0
"A lot of people pay zero for the cellphone ... That's what it's worth." -- Apple Chief Operating Officer Timothy Cook

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki