Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
The Rebirth of Buick.........
OK,OK, I'll take a kick at the cat:
With the success of the Enclave, and positive buzz over the 2010 Lacrosse, and an apparent mating of NA Buick with China's Buick (though not meaning Chinese built Buick's coming here) style wise, is this the rebirth of the US's second oldest remaining nameplate???
With the success of the Enclave, and positive buzz over the 2010 Lacrosse, and an apparent mating of NA Buick with China's Buick (though not meaning Chinese built Buick's coming here) style wise, is this the rebirth of the US's second oldest remaining nameplate???
Tagged:
0
Comments
The buzz is also that this "Chinese" styling is to be the future face of Buick here in America.
Lucerne replacement is still a couple years away.
The question is going forward, will the "new GM way of thinking" and these new vehicles coming out of that be able to pull Buick out of it's sales malaise???
To me, Buick's post war zenith was the '55 model year, when you could be proud to drive a Buick, and the Century, especially, was cool. Some subsequent model years were also good. For example, for '63, when the Riviera was introduced, and again in '67, '69, '78, and '85, Buick fulfilled its mission of delivering substantial, comfortable, upper mid-range to luxury cars, in my opinion. Although The '78 and '85 large body Buicks were down-sized, they were roomy, comfortable, premium cars. However, despite some promising ralleyes, Buick never regained the cache' it had in the '40s (the '49 Roadmaster was drop dead gorgeous) through mid-'50s. The brand may have come close to regaining its glory some years, but then fell back, in years '57 and '58, for example. Like other domestics, quality problems played a major role in Buick's decline in the '70s and '80s, and the brand never regained traction.
Let's hope the next generation LaCrosse demonstrates that the Enclave wasn't just an aberration.
I don't know for sure, but I imagine one of the objectives of the Buick Reatta was to pull younger people into the showroom, but it failed to do that. I think the Reatta was nicely styled, but its driving dynamics weren't sporty enough. It should have offered a supercharged version with a tight suspension and a 5-speed manual, a Reatta "Grand National" or "GNX." That may have helped, and may have saved the Reatta.
GM has too many brands. They can't afford to keep them all and support them properly.
http://www.autoblog.com/2008/09/19/spy-shotss-2010-buick-lacrosse-little-camo-pl- us-interior/
The Lucerne outsells the Avalon.
The current Lacrosse has been saddled with "looks like a 2nd gen Taurus"
The Aura's biggest hurdle is that there are only 500 dealerships in the country.
I doubt Traverse shoppers will be cross shopping the Enclave. 2 different price ranges. If the Enclave was too expensive, then the Acadia would drown out it's sales, which it doesn't
Taurus
2005 LaCrosse
Really. They're not THAT similar!
-The Enclave is selling well but it isn't that impressive to me as I think the market is shifting to smaller, lighter CUVs (Vue, Flex, CR-V, etc.). It is really quite "trucky" when you see it up close, the interior of the less than top line version is no nicer than that of a GMC Acadia IMO and the damn thing sits so high that the old folks who like Buicks will find it hard to get into.
-The Lucerne has a crappy name but it's the only thing in the lineup with anything like the luxury land yacht appeal of the Buicks of yore. The styling while gimmick- free and clean is a little anonymous to my eyes.
-The Lacrosse OTOH has little appeal even to the oldsters who gravitate to Buicks.
You don't see many even in places like Florida and Arizona.
Nope, Buick has a ways to go before it's reborn.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
I think the best thing Buick has going for it is this new Chinese styling. That Riviera they are going to produce for the Chinese market is the best-looking Buick in a long LONG time.
And anyone contemplating the long-term future of Buick MUST at least take into account the strong likelihood that if Buick continues to be sold in the U.S. it will be Chinese-designed and built. China is a much more popular market for Buick, and the cars will eventually be designed and sold where they sell best.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
BTW, Saturn had the same number of dealerships when it sold over 286k vehicles in 1994 with one vehicle. They sell fewer than that now with 5 vehicles.
Here are the numbers that matter for Buick. In the calendar year 2002, Buick sold over 432,000 vehicles. Calendar year 2007, they sold roughly 186,000 units. And through August 2008 (7 months), Buick has sold about 99,000 units, down 21% compared to last year. Basically, they have dropped over 50% in 5-6 years and still sliding. Everyone acknowledges that the new car market will remain tight through 2009 due to the economic crisis. I'm not sure where these sales are coming from.
Just to show how far Buick has fallen...in 1983, they actually outsold Ford!
Wow!!! I couldn't find numbers that far back.
The 1980-83 period was a bad time in general for the domestic auto industry, but GM weathered it pretty well. Chrysler was actually back on track by 1983, paying their gov't secured loans in full that year, way ahead of schedule. But they were also a leaner company, and learning to survive on smaller volume. Ford was actually a wreck around that timeframe, too, but their troubles weren't as well publicized as Chrysler's.
Anyway, in 1981 I think it was, Oldsmobile slipped past Ford and into the #2 position, and then Buick slipped into #3 for 1983. By 1984 though, Ford was on the rebound, as the economy improved, sales of the aero T-bird took off, and the Tempo proved a sales hit. I think they moved ahead of Buick for 1984, and then ahead of Olds for 1985, and a few years later they were outselling Chevy.
I don't know if Buick's sales decline is related to the cheapening of the interiors or if it is a result of Buick offering very few models in the last ten years. Before Olds was dumped, Buick only offered the midsize and full size cars, basically two platforms. Now they offer three platforms.
It seems the Allante was as close to an SL as a period SL was to a gullwing.
GM was arguably at its most clueless in the late 80s and early 90s. And that's saying something.
http://www.autoobserver.com/2008/09/gm-chooses-its-best-ever-cars-money-making-t- - rucks-noticeably-absent.html#more
Indeed, Saturn, Cadillac, Chevy, and Pontiac all make the list with at least one vehicle, heck even SAAB makes the list (with a vehicle that was designed WAAAAY before GM had ANYTHING to do with Saab), but Buick gets dis(mis)sed...
...the list does not represent top sellers or anything, as the Silverado also is not on it. I guess I don't see the case for Buick being anything more than a Chinese division of GM in future, and if GM has nothing good to say about them for the centennial, maybe they are thinking the same way?
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
What year was that?
Oh, and BTW, if Buick is "the US's second oldest remaining nameplate", what is the oldest? Is Ford older? Oldsmobile was the oldest until it was canned, right?
As for GM's top 10 list, I thought it odd, yes. I merely included it in the commentary because it may indicate something about how important GM considers Buick to be in its grand scheme.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I think Cadillac is the oldest US nameplate. It was founded in 1902. Ford Motor Company was founded in 1903, although Henry Ford did build cars before that. Buick was also founded in 1903, but I don't know which one was founded first. Ironically, Ford was founded with considerable investment from John and Horace Dodge. Maybe that's where the Acronym "F Over Rebuilt Dodge" comes from? :P
One other car that I think would be significant for GM is the 1939 Oldsmobile. First car to offer a fully automatic transmission. And believe it or not, it was a 4-speed!
Is the time ripe for a Buick (and Impala, and Avalon, and...) with a small 4-cylinder turbo under the hood, as Lutz has intimated?
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Well, could we see that on the 2010 Lacrosse or the next gen Impala???
You mean like Lexus or MB or BMW have???? Yeah, right.
What's missing? Respect. :P
Well, in other ways are what we are talking about here. I miss a moderately priced full-sized car replacing the leSabre. The Lucerne does but seems higher priced with the 3800 and the replacement V6. The Northstar isn't what I want. I think I'm looking for a Camry/Accord sized car with full front seat option and a 4-cylinder, 6-cylinder, or a turbo motor. The Lucerne just doesn't make it for a replacement for my older car or as a third car. There's something missing. And I think it is what leSabre was in the era in the 90s when it was the best selling full size sedan.
Evan a used Lucerne doesn't interest me.
A smaller car with a 4-cylinder turbo might suit. I want something that's got room, gets greater gas mileage than 31-33 like the two current leSabres, but still is living room comfortable after 6 hours on the road to Nashville, e.g. The Hondas and Camrys I've sat in don't impress me as feeling good after 6-7 hours on the road. The Accord seats were especially poor and the Camry seats impress me as feeling good at first but becoming irritating later.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Take a look at some of these comments:
http://www.autoblog.com/2008/09/19/spy-shotss-2010-buick-lacrosse-little-camo-pl- - us-interior/
If GM can mate Saturn and Opel, and Pontiac and Holden, then is Buick (Asia) and Buick (NA) a stretch??
Now, I'm not suggesting importing Chinese Buicks here, as I believe the NA sister models for ALL GM models should be built here, but the platform and engineering sharing should save money. Then, all you have to do is adjust for what engines are to be used where, as well as safety equipt.
Ok, but you're coming out of an ECHO, I'm lucky to reach that in my minivan once every 3 years on a good day cruising; ditto my AWD Outback. So 28 mph in a rental that I had some fun punching was ok by me.
BTW, did I mention I had an Echo in the trunk??? :P
Although the gas mileage of the LaCrosse falls short of what you're looking for, it's pretty decent for the size of the car. Also, GM is giving such good deals on Buicks these days that you could buy quite a bit of gas with the savings on the purchase. Did you overlook the LaCrosse, or did you consider and reject it?
We know that a new Lacrosse will be out in 12 months, and a new Lucerne is a couple years beyond, but I wonder what else is in store for them? A mid-size or compact CUV?? Something sporty??? A convertible???
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
But while it had a smooth ride, it handled like a tugboat. I'm not sure there's a car out there that would give the driver a more disconnected feel for the road. Steering was vague and the car felt like it was floating - not a good feeling when changing lanes at highway speeds. This really turned me off to Buick - I quite simply can't perceive it as anything but a sofa on wheels, and styling changes (inside and out) are not enough to make me want to go back.
So what's the answer? I hate to say it, but I think there is no answer. GM has not given any fresh product to Buick that is not duplicated elsewhere in the lineup. At this point, GM either needs to start from scratch or scrap the brand.
The tinfoil hat-wearing cynic in me thinks GM is intentionally killing off the brand, but doing so in a manner that will get dealers to give up their franchises willingly, rather than facing an expensive axe-job like Oldsmobile.
I didn't mention the new Taurus, which is very roomy, because it doesn't offer six passenger seating, while the Impala does.
By the way, I'm not in the car business, so I'm not trying to promote a particular brand.
Many of us have been banging on the concept for years that GM has too many divisions and has to spread development dollars and advertising across those brands, to the detriment of all. Others have argued that it would be too expensive ($1B) to shut down Buick or other divisions like Saturn or Pontiac. But the one thing its seems Ford has going for it is some really competitive smaller product in Europe, and they don't have such a large and bloated set of brands here in North America. They can stay much more focused than GM.
If GM has $21B in cash and is burning $8B a year (I believe I recently read numbers something like that), then even with their liquidity problems, spending the cost equivalent to 1/8 of a year in expenses ($1B) to shut down an entire division might be money well spent. GM for many years has seemed unwilling to make the bold and decisive moves it needs to survive. They should just admit they are way too big, downsize rapidly, and then work to build the very best product with what they have left. Sort of like the airlines - in previous recessions they tried to undercut each other and many of them went bankrupt--- but this time they're all actively downsizing to the size that will allow them to be profitable. And GM is way too big in North America to be profitable.
This probably isn't a concern for more average-height people, or if you never have back seat passengers, but I just find the back of the LaCrosse, and all W-bodies, for that matter, to be really cramped in the back. Put the front seat all the way back and the only way I can fit in is sideways. I think part of the problem is that the "theater height" seating raises the cushion enough that my legs need more fore-aft room, than with a lower seat. My head also hits the ceiling in back.
I swear the LaCrosse feels more cramped inside than my Dad's '03 Regal, although part of it might be the higher beltline and smaller windows of the LaCrosse. Even though the LaCrosse is a bit bigger than the Century Regal, having moved from the 109" Buick/Intrigue wheelbase to the 110.5" Impala/Grand Prix wheelbase, it seemed to have adopted the Pontiac's passenger cabin, which is swoopier and more rounded, which probably cuts into interior room.
As for the Lucerne, I looked at it as sort of splitting the difference between the LeSabre and the Park Ave, and trying to fill in for both at the same time. However, the cheapest Lucerne still seems more upscale than what the cheapest LeSabre was, while the top-line Lucerne seems a step above the Park Ave Ultra. I think the Park Ave's style had a bit more presence to it though.
I'd consider a used Lucerne if I was in the market for another car. But like Imidazol, I want to move ahead when it comes to fuel economy, not take a step back. I just noticed that for 2009, the Lucerne V-6 is the 3.5, rather than the 3.8. It's rated at 17/26, whereas the 3.8 was 16/25. So that's a slight improvement.
For comparison, the 2000 LeSabre is rated at 17/27 (the window sticker, which reflected the old rating method, was 19/30). My 2000 Intrepid is rated at 18/27 (20/29 on the window sticker).
So I guess 17/26, using the old rating system, would have been around 19/28 or 19/29? In real-world driving, that might actually not be too much of a difference compared to a 2000 Intrepid or LeSabre
3.5 or 3.9?
How does the '09 Impala compare with the LeSabre and LaCrosse, in your opinion?
The 3.9 in the Lucerne puts out 227 hp, 237 ft-lb of torque. Interestingly, it puts out a touch more in the Impala...233 hp, 240 torque. A few years back, in the Impala, it was putting out 242 hp, 242 ft-lb of torque. It was also a bit of a guzzler back then, too, as I recall. Maybe cutting the hp a bit is what helped its fuel economy?
Anyway, the 3.8 in the Lucerne was putting out 197 hp, 227 ft-lb of torque, so I'm guessing the 3.9 should be an improvement.
As for the Impala, even though it is a bigger car inside than the LaCrosse, it doesn't feel like it to me. My head still hits the ceiling in back, and with the front seat all the way back it's really cramped in there. It might be a little bit better, legroom-wise, than the LaCrosse, but I swear I fit better in the back seat of a Malibu or Aura.
If I was shopping for a car like this, that's probably the reason that I'd get an Aura or Malibu over a LaCrosse or Impala. While the LaCrosse/Impala are larger cars, they just don't feel like they're larger in any dimensions that would increase their usability to me. But then cars like the Lucerne, or the departed LeSabre, feel plenty roomy to me, without feeling any more bulky in overall size than an Impala or LaCrosse. And fuel economy is close enough that I'd probably just go for the bigger car.
this one and this flex fuel 3.9.
There is a difference in emissions, so both are not available everywhere.
Of the two, the Accord was notably the driver's car and both had 4-cylinder engines, which is what made me think that for steady-state driving like that Lutz might be on to something with his idea for turbo 4s in the Buicks. I bet that Lacrosse you rented would use 1/3 less gas on the highway with the turbo 4, while still having plenty of pick-up for freeway ramps and around town.
But it would have to be a less powerful engine than the one in the Solstice, because that one did no better for fuel economy in GM testing than their 3.6 V-6 when they tested it in the Camaro. Plus that one is more powerful than Buick's current base engine for Lacrosse and Lucerne.
Maybe the biggest problem for the future of Buick is how will they kill their twin reputations for being (1) rental cars, and (2) cars for old old people driving their final car into those twilight years?
I don't think it is a problem that Buicks have the rep of being cars for non-drivers (floaty, disconnected, "rolling sofas", etc), as Toyota has made a killing selling Camrys with exactly the same rep.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I don't rent all that often but this is the first Buick I can remember ever having (the rental places were sold out so I wound up renting from a Buick dealer on that trip).
There was a lot to like about the Buick. Comfy for the two of us, lots of gadgets to play with and I liked the way it drove, although it did have a bad pull to the right that I attributed to the tires or a curb hit by the last driver. The back up sensor saved the bumper when I was parking it in Chicago.
Old, old drivers? My 87 year old mom recently gave up her keys - she drove a 1990 Mazda Protege off the lot new into the twilight, after driving Buicks all during her 30's and 40's. But my elderly mom-in-law swapped her BMW for a Buick 5 years ago.
Sorry, I'm rambling here. I've never spent any time in a Camry or Accord to really compare, and spend most of my drive time is in a wagon or minivan. The last sedan I rented was a base '07 Mustang and the Buick was light years ahead of it for what I needed.
But I think a large Buick with a direct injected, 2.0L turbo four could end up rated somewhere around 25/35 EPA and still have plenty of power for everything people need their large cars to do. And that would be a huge step forward in terms of fuel economy for Buick.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)