With its 2011 Regal Turbo, Buick has either revived a storied name for a deserving new machine or is spitting on its own heritage. After all, the original Regal Turbos — those big, full-frame, rear-drive, two-door coupes produced between the 1978 and 1987 model years — have been sustaining Buick enthusiasm almost singlehandedly for more than 30 years. If it weren't for the Grand National, alpha dog of Regal Turbos, most enthusiasts would have forgotten about Buick a long time ago.
Of course, the 1987 Grand National and 2011 Regal Turbo sedan don't emerge from the same branch of Buick's family tree. The old GN is an anomaly: the only Buick of its turbocharged V6 kind, biased toward high performance and always intended as a specialized product with relatively low-volume sales.
In contrast, the new Regal Turbo is a mainstream, front-drive Buick, from the leading edge of its glimmering waterfall grille to the super shiny tri-shield emblem on its tail. It's the front-drive four-door sedan with which Buick intends to steal sales from cars like the Acura TSX and Lexus ES 350. Maybe even swipe up some Accord and Camry buyers.
All that doesn't mean this comparison is unfair. After all, when you can only have one piece of fruit it's reasonable to ask whether you prefer an apple or an orange.
High Eye Impact
The Grand National's sharp-edged sheet metal first appeared 30 years ago as the 1981 Regal. Back then it was merely a successful updating of the downsized Regal coupe introduced as a '78 model. It was just another GM midsize coupe that, under the skin, was pretty much identical to the Chevrolet Monte Carlo, Pontiac Grand Prix and Oldsmobile Cutlass. There were millions of them.
But today, long after most of its brother big coupes have been recycled into Korean rebar, there are few cars left on the road that look like the old Regal. And nothing at all is left in production like the fortified Regal known as the Grand National, which first went on sale as a 1984 model. When Rafael Basquez's '87 GN showed up for Inside Line's test, it arrived looking like something that somehow had survived its species' extinction event. A complete dinosaur.
You know, a dinosaur like the Velociraptor or T. rex. From its shovel nose to its rear deck spoiler, this is a car that speaks to the darkness and lust for power in our souls. The black Grand National carries the same sort of charismatic menace that inspires lonely women to write unsolicited marriage proposals to convicted mass murderers.
In contrast, the new 2011 Buick Regal CXL Turbo is, well, a pretty sedan. With gracefully arched lines that run from snout to rump, fenders that swell over 18-inch wheels and a dashing character line running down from the windshield and back to the rear bumper, the new Regal is antiseptically clean in the way that many new cars are today.
If the Grand National is arrogant and aggressive, the new Regal Turbo is tidy, sensible, handsome and elegant.
Not So Different After All
The old Grand National and new Regal are, however, deceptively close to each other in size. The wheelbases, for example are virtually identical; the old car's gap runs 108.1 inches while the new car puts 107.8 inches between the front and rear wheels. And while the new Regal looks slim, Buick lists its overall width at 73.1 inches. The old GN, broad-shouldered beast it appears to be, is listed at only 71.6 inches wide. And at 58.4 inches tall, the new car towers over the old one that stands at just 54.5 inches.
The curb weights are even close. The Grand National came in at a relatively svelte 3,509 pounds (57 percent of it on the front wheels) while the new Regal hit the scale at a not-svelte 3,765 pounds (58.8 percent on the front wheels).
However the old car, at 200.6 inches long overall, stretches out a full 10.4 inches longer than the new Regal. And virtually all of that extra length can be seen in the Grand National's front and rear overhangs.
Maybe this comparison isn't so applelike to orange-esque after all. OK, yeah, it still is.
Power to the Peoples
Back in the '70s Buick imagined a turbocharged future where all its V8s would vanish in favor of turbocharged V6s. Even station wagons, cabs and pillow-upholstered Electras would have blower sixes under their hoods. Didn't happen. Frankly, when the first turbo 3.8-liter V6s showed up for the 1978 model year — making all of 165 horsepower when equipped with a four-barrel carburetor — there was every reason to think Buick was delusional.
It's the plain old '87 that planted the Grand National's roots deep down into the soil of the Great Forest of Awesomeness.
Ultimately, though, it was the addition of sequential fuel injection for the 1984 model year that tamed the Buick turbo V6's manners and unleashed its beast. Sequential fuel injection (SFI) was advanced stuff back then, and Buick was proud enough of it to announce its presence on the GN's hood — that's the "SFI" part of the badge on the hood bulge. With far more precise fuel metering than a carburetor, the SFI system allowed Buick's engineers to precisely map the fuel delivery to the V6 to get the most from the big Garrett turbo heaving air into it.
Even with the SFI system, however, output only reached 200 hp. So Buick added an intercooler for 1986 that bumped the horsepower number to 235 and then 245 for 1987. Sure, the limited-production GNX with its larger turbo is even more powerful at 276 hp, but it's the plain old '87 that planted the Grand National's roots deep down into the soil of the Great Forest of Awesomeness.
Still, the 3.8-liter V6 under all the GN's turbo plumbing was a pretty primitive beast. With its iron block, iron heads, pushrods and two valves per cylinder it could, during 1987, only lump out 150 hp in naturally aspirated form.
Today's Turbocharged Regal
In contrast, the new Regal's Ecotec four is vastly more modern and capable. Both the head and block are aluminum, the dual overhead cams operate four valves per cylinder, and, even better than sequential fuel injection, it incorporates direct injection which sprays fuel straight into each combustion chamber. And of course it's intercooled.
At 220 hp, the new Regal Turbo's engine is making just about 110 hp for each of it 2 liters. The math on the Grand National says that it only gets about 64.5 hp per liter from its turbo V6.
The old Buick may have it on its younger brother for total power, but the new one is far more efficient. And that shows up in the fuel economy numbers. Using 2008 testing standards, the EPA rates the 1987 Regal Grand National with its four-speed automatic transmission at 15 mpg in the city and 23 mpg on the highway running on premium fuel. GM estimates the 2011 Regal CXL Turbo, with its six-speed automatic, will achieve 18 mpg on the EPA city cycle and 29 mpg on the highway (premium fuel recommended but not required).
Not the Good Old Days
As gorgeous and thrilling as Basquez's Grand National is from 30 feet away, up close it's still a late-'80s GM product. That means the big frameless side windows rattle in the tinny doors, there are big gaps between the body panels and not everything in the interior actually fits. This car was not built during GM's golden age for assembly quality.
Contrast that with the German-assembled Regal. The paint is lustrous, every piece fits tight and when the doors shut it sounds like a 30-pound dictionary hitting a solid oak table in the Library of Congress.
Maybe there's some nostalgia kicks to be had in the old Grand National's interior design. But when it comes to comfort, the new car blows it away. The new Regal's seats are much better shaped, the steering wheel has a nice substantial heft and all the instrumentation is easy to scan and read. The Grand National's seats were mushy back in 1987 and are no better now. And for a car this potent, that it has a speedometer that only reaches 85 mph is (still) so very silly.
Of course, the new Regal suffers from elephantitis of the A-pillars and the base of the windshield may as well be in another county. And for every button in the Grand National there are probably three in the new Regal. But that's the price we pay for having dozens of airbags and an acre-foot of entertainment technology aboard.
Still Wicked
It takes some technique to launch the Grand National. Hold down the brake, load up the torque converter, let the boost build and the car rips up something good. Back when this GN was new, most tests had it running the quarter-mile in the mid-to-high 13-second range, with 0-60 coming in a few ticks under 5.0 seconds. But those tests were often abusive: throttle braking until the car was screaming and the boost was maximized. After all, back then, if the car broke, Buick could always build another one.
Rafael Basquez's GN had over 49,000 miles on its odometer and almost 24 years of seasoning when Inside Line got hold of it. It waltzed to 60 mph in 5.8 seconds and ran the quarter in 14.3 seconds at 96.1 mph. We weren't going to thump on it any harder in deference to the fact that Basquez seemed like a nice guy who didn't deserve to be stranded for our amusement.
In contrast, there's really no way to launch the new Regal Turbo with any authority. No matter what we did, it sort of shambled off the line like a college student on the way to an 8 a.m. class. But the engine wakes up as it passes 4 grand on the tachometer and the result is OK acceleration — 8.4 seconds from zero to 60 mph with the traction control off and 16.2 seconds in the quarter-mile at 89.7 mph. Leaving the traction control on barely modified that performance, with the quarter-mile elapsed time dropping to 16.1 seconds but the 0-60 time and trap speed staying the same.
In everyday trawling, the new Regal is simply an easier car with which to live than the GN. Its part-throttle power delivery is seamless and the six cogs in its automatic transaxle mean good around-town responsiveness and low engine speeds during highway cruises. The Grand National's four-speed automatic is a slick-shifting piece even by today's standards, but it simply doesn't have the range or impeccable computerized logic of the new Regal's box.
Handling the Past
Basquez's GN rides on P235/60R15 front and P255/60R15 rear BFGoodrich Radial T/A tires mounted on the stock, stamped-steel wheels. Now these are fine tires to mount on a classic muscle machine being displayed on a lawn, but on pavement about the best that can be said about them is that they're more or less round.
They're also significantly larger than the P215/65R15 Goodyear Eagle GTs that came as standard equipment on the Grand National.
On the skid pad the Grand National felt woozy, with the tires flexing and rebounding. Corrections weren't easy either, since the recirculating-ball power steering is slow, numb and connected to a front end wearing 24-year-old bushings. Put into that context, the GN's 0.77g orbit is heroic.
The slalom wasn't a happy place for the GN either. Plagued by the same steering limitations that hobbled it on the skid pad, it could only muster a 59.2-mph average speed through the transitional handling challenge.
The P245/40R19 Goodyear Eagle RS-A all-season tires on the new Regal Turbo are not exactly exotic rubber, but they are more technologically advanced and their lower profile means far less sidewall flex. With good grip (if not a lot of steering feel) and only mild understeer, the new Regal casually knocked out a 0.84g skid pad performance with the stability control system turned off and 0.80g with it on. The slalom numbers — 65.8 mph with stability control off and 64.0 mph with it on — aren't world-beating, but solid.
Braking also came down in favor of the new Buick, with the Turbo Regal using its four ABS-equipped discs to stop in 121 feet from 60 mph. The Grand National needed 144 feet to get to a stop thank to its rear drums and lack of ABS.
It's Not Over Yet
There's no doubt in our minds that we would rather be seen driving the Grand National over the new Regal Turbo. The old car is still an audacious piece of work, a machine that revels in its own ego. It makes interesting noises, you can feel it building speed and there's nothing like the sensation of the turbo hitting. This car has long ago proven that it's unforgettable.
Yeah, the new Regal Turbo is a vastly better commuting companion. It's more comfortable and more efficient, but it also lacks character. There's no noticeable exhaust note, no thrills to be had and the Ecotec isn't the smoothest-running four on Earth.
Thankfully, Buick hasn't played all of its cards just yet. A Regal GS is on its way and it has a much better chance of reestablishing the passion that has so many of us enamored of the turbocharged Regals of yesteryear. Buick promises that the GS, with its 255-hp version of the turbocharged Ecotec, will scat to 60 mph in under 7 seconds and deliver a driving experience that's "powerful and spirited." Sounds good: Deliver ours in black. And make sure it has the swagger of its badass grandfather, the Grand National.
The manufacturer and owner provided Edmunds these vehicles for the purposes of evaluation.
Add A Comment »
kgouldsk says:
11:10 PM, 02/07/2012
I am amused at how gingerly you were treating the GN. You seem genuinely afraid of hurting it - I guess it depends on whether he's been caring for it, but it's a low mile car, essentially completely stock. These things are practically bullet proof as long as you don't overboost them. I have known fellow owners who have made 300+ 1/4 mile runs, putting out nearly twice the factory power, under the exact conditions you're avoiding. Load the boost up enough that you can launch with just a hair of wheelspin, ready to back it down a hair if it seems to be trying to bake off the tires. Mine has 110k miles on it, the last 30k have been with power gradually creeping from the stock 245 up to somewhere now just north of 400. The transmission finally couldn't take it anymore at about 100k miles, but given how high above spec it was run, little surprise - running stock you might expect to rebuild the transmission at 100k if it was driven hard. If you get a chance to drive it again, ask permission to let your hair down a bit. If you really want to have some fun, get an enthusiast to show you what can be done to one for $50, $500, $1k and $2k. It will amaze you.
There's a lot of attention on horsepower density here - the real thing making the GN fast is that torque. They're really quite a tractor.
They have a ton of flaws - body lean, a dashboard you can only reach with your fingertips leaning forward, crappy gauges, abysmal brake performance cold and fading to a death trap extent when hot, doors prone to becoming rattly, some of the worst factory paint ever off the line. And yet, I love mine so much I cannot sell it. It manages to quietly whistle its way to victory in drag races against noisy competitors, then carry me home quietly and comfortably getting reasonable mileage on the way. Before I got mucking with my torque converter, highway mileage was within spitting distance of 30 mpg (if you can keep your foot out of it, which I assure you an exercise in the utmost of willpower).
I'd love to see another GN, but GM better to it right. If they do to it what they did to the Impala SS, it will just show that GM still isn't getting it. But I'm seeing glimmers of hope, so I am crossing my fingers. Cadillac and Corvette have proven that they CAN do it if they put there minds to it. It needs to be a 6, a turbo, and if we can get a classy, well designed interior, wheels that live out at the corners, some suspension engineering from Cadillac, and modern engine management, we may have a runner. The original GN was a beast that could run in a straight line. How about something that inspires enough to be included in race simulators, but can actually run with the supercars other than in a straight line?
Pretty please!
kompressorluvr says:
01:48 PM, 01/27/2012
We just bought a CXL turbo and I think it's a great car for a driver. Sure a souped up GN will blow it away, I have 3 friends with 86 GN's From a little over stock to a 1250 hp 8. something 1/4 mile drag car, that's nice but I'm not driving any of those on a 1000 mile road trip, thank you very much. I have owned 60's Goats, Big Block Vette's and a couple of 500 horse T/A's, we were driving a STS Northstar prior to this Regal, and I'm very pleased as to how this slut runs, and it's a good looking rig to boot.
Test drove a CC, nice car, good looking car, good runner, Turbo, or VR6, a little smallish on the inside and the interior is a little antiquated, yet still VERY nice.
I am guilty of not wanting an Acura, a Korean car, a Toy, or a Chevy, so maybe I'm an idiot, but I am at least happy idiot, with a car that looks, fits and drives good for me, so rub your fuzzy dice hanging from your mirrors, and bash away.
mch86gn says:
04:59 PM, 02/17/2011
I love there 110 hp liter as compared to the 65 per liter on the GN. There basically telling everyone the obvious, technology has changed. And the 3.8l was developed in 60's, there were refinements to it by the time it made it into Grand National. Another thing 220hp in 2.0L vs 245 in 3.8L. only 25 hp difference, but when it comes to torque number, 258ft/lbs compared to 360ft/lbs. That's what makes the GN so much fun to drive. Add a slightly bigger turbo one that will work with the stock converter, injectors and methanol injection and about a $1500 upgrade to a GN and you get about 400hp and abpout 510ft\lbs of torque. Lets see that 2.0l put 500 plus ft/lbs of torque. I want to like the new regal, but it's over priced and over sold and comparing it to a car that is between 24 to 25 years is stupid what a bunch of douche bags. You couldn't give 100 of 2011 regals for my GN.
oneg360 says:
03:29 AM, 01/14/2011
WOW, Im so excited to find this article. The 1987 GN that appears in the article I recently purchased it now has a tick over 50k miles and is on it's way to be freshened up by one the best Buick Guys in the business Lou Czarnota of Lake Forest, CA whom I also purchased the car from late last year. Im looking forward to enjoying this beautiful car once its done and making sure to do it Justice.
roadburner says:
09:02 PM, 01/07/2011
"On a lot of forums using two usernames is an offense that will get you instantly banned. Not cool."
I think one of those usernames WAS banned over in the Edmunds forums...
bodyblue says:
04:23 PM, 01/07/2011
"So someone of questionable intelligence suggests that we are to believe the CXL tested last week i......"
This is the best way to demonstrate how desperate and immature 1487 really is......"questionable intelligence"....it is like talking to a 5 year old....if I do not bow to the "superior intellect" then I have "questionable intelligence". That is indeed a sick puppy.
agentorange says:
11:19 PM, 01/06/2011
overbrook (yeah, sure) said:
"So someone of questionable intelligence suggests that we are to believe the CXL tested last week is the only Regal in the press fleet with poor build quality even though no one could explain where they found this poor build quality."
So like 1487 you are also not prepared to believe what IL write here. They stated simply that the car had a bad fitting interior. If that was insufficient detail for you to believe what they wrote, then don't take my word for it that flames are hot and will burn your hand. It's true, even if I have not quoted the precise combustion temperature of a candle or Bunsen burner.
As for this turbo version, it is also a slug. IL ALWAYS quote the true 0-60 not the 1 ft rollout time like so many other mags do without telling you that is their procedure. It looks to me like GM decided that no Buick should spin its wheels thus killing any chance of a decent launch. A FWD car needs some allowable slip if only to compensate for weight transfer away from the driving wheels. I strongly suspect that GM have nannied this into oblivion. What would be more instructive would be the 30-50 and 50-70 times compared with the alleged competition. This is probably a better comparison as not many folks will ever submit their own car to the abuse of a full bore 0-60 launch.
kevm14 says:
06:46 PM, 01/06/2011
Also on the trans comments, some of the best shifting hydraulic transmissions in the world are GM 4-speed autos, and some of THOSE are fully hydraulic, like the 200-4R in this GN (except for the torque converter lockup solenoid). Not everything has improved dramatically in 20+ years. Some cars have amazingly terrible throttle response and brake feel, for example. But while powertrain improvements can be debatable in some cases, there sure are no debates about the improvement in characteristics that most people care about. But I'm just saying. Or is that sayin'
bimmerjay says:
12:41 PM, 01/06/2011
"Only for the pure fact that you are an ass and use two usernames. There. I said it."
On a lot of forums using two usernames is an offense that will get you instantly banned. Not cool.
kevm14 says:
07:19 AM, 01/06/2011
I'd like to see a mid 90s Impala SS compared to something, similar to this review. I'm a fan of the conventional GM iron. I would never buy an under-powered entry-level luxury car. But I also don't understand why the Regal isn't allowed to exist (according to many on this blog) while all of the other entrants in the segment ARE allowed to exist, even when they have the same poor performance to price ratio.