The Rebirth of Buick.........

grbeck

My parents just replaced their 1999 Park Avenue with a 2008 Lucerne CXL. Their Park Avenue was beginning to nickel-and-dime them with repairs. It had 158,000 miles on the odometer. They were obviously satisfied with Buick, as they bought another one.

The Lucerne is certainly a nice car, but represents Buick's dilemma. It satisfies loyal customers - my parents are Exhibit A in that regard - but I don't see anything that will attract buyers from other brands. It's a nice, comfortable car...but there are lots of nice, comfortable cars on the market that don't carry the baggage of the Buick nameplate.

As for the Enclave - it's a very attractive vehicle (much better looking than the Honda Pilot and Acura MDX, for example), but it debuts just as the market for big, heavy vehicles like this is evaporating. It's about three years too late.

lemko

A loaded Buick Lucerne CXS V-8 was second on my car shopping A-list and probably would've been a more sensible purchase than the Cadillac DTS Performance I ultimately bought.

bumpy

The Solstice/Sky turbo is already DI, but it is old-school in that it's optimized for horsepower at the expense of fuel economy and NVH. A mild-boost DI 2.4 turbo coming in at 215hp or so would be a better fit for the next Lacrosse, and the Lucerne could do well with a mild-boost 3.0 V6 in place of the current 3.6 and 4.6.

nortsr1

I certainly agree with you. I have no idea where nippononly is coming from with that remark?????? 28mpg certainly sounds very reasonable to me. And the comfort level alone betwenn that and an ECHO is huge!!!

andre1969

28mpg certainly sounds very reasonable to me. And the comfort level alone betwenn that and an ECHO is huge!!!

I guess to me, what matters the most is the context in which this 28 mpg is taken. For instance, if I get out on the highway in my Intrepid and average 70-75 mph with the a/c going, I'd probably get about 28 mpg as well. If I turn off the a/c and loaf it, more like 60-65, I've managed to get 31-32 mpg. Driving my uncle's '03 Corolla in a similar gentle manner got me 37.4 mpg. So the real test, to me at least, is what kind of economy that LaCrosse would get with ME driving it.

Now if we could get Nippon into a LaCrosse and see what kind of economy he gets out of it, to compare with his Echo, or the 4-cyl Accord and Camry he mentioned, or get Steve in a 4-cyl Accord/Camry and drive it similar to how he drove the LaCrosse, it might put the numbers more into perspective.

For instance, if I'm only getting 37.4 mpg out of my uncle's Corolla, I doubt if I'd be able to get mid to upper 30's out of a 4-cyl Accord/Camry, unless I really drove it like an old lady.

Now depending on how you drive, you might be able to get a LaCrosse to break 30 mpg. Supposedly it's not that hard to do with older 3.8's, like the Regal, LeSabre, and Impala. I think Lemko's even been able to get close to 30 with his '88 Park Ave. The 3.8 in his car isn't as sophisticated as the newer ones, but the car's not as heavy either, so those aspects might cancel each other out.

nippononly

Once again, let me make it clear I was not comparing the Echo. Nothing Buick will make in the next 20 years will come close to the fuel economy I can get out of that Echo, which I bought to be my commute car.

I was comparing 2 long highway rides I did in the last 18 months, one in an '06 Camry, and one in an '04 Accord. They both pulled about 37 mpg overall. A/C running constantly, one was with 4 adults, the other was with 3 adults and 2 small children, both running 70-75 mph most of the time. Oh, and for andre's benefit I will add that I was the driver in both cases.

bumpy: I wasn't aware the Solstice turbo already had DI, but it makes sense. I agree with you that a low-boost DI 2.4 turbo makes good sense as the base engine for all future Buick sedans. Better city numbers, really good highway numbers, without a noticeable loss of the power Buick owners expect to have.

bumpy

28 isn't that hot when my dad gets 31 or so in mixed driving with the Avalon.

cooterbfd

Nippon:

What I think you are missing is that the Big Buicks not only have a bigger engine, but weigh more. Your Camcords weigh on average, 3150 lbs w/ the 4 cyl engines. My '99 Ultra weighs a shade under 3900 lbs. Whenever I have taken it on long trips, there are 4 people (2 large adults and a teen and a preteen) plus 4 pieces of luggage, I get between 30-33 mpg, depending on how fast I go (60-65 will get me 33, while 70-75 gets me 30). You also don't mention whether they were sticks or autos, as that can make a difference too.

My Uncle averaged 29 mpg in his '97 Ultra in all the trips he took from RI to Fla. doing 75-80.

So, you see, the mpg numbers aren't all that different when you consider the extra 750 lbs you carry around.

Think of it this way: You got ONLY 20% better fuel economy in the Camcords in cars that are 25% lighter, with engines that are 35% smaller than I did.

nippononly

How funny that this one little remark made to steve, half tongue in cheek, has generated such enthusiastic interest from folks that own Buicks!

Let's see, to address some of your points:
1. both the Accord and Camry seated four adults comfortably, size was not a limiting factor
2. both of them were automatics (boo hiss ;-))
3. if I am making the correct inference, you somehow view 750 extra pounds of curb weight as a positive. I view them as a needless negative, and certainly I WOULD agree with your implication that one significant reason the Buicks do a lot worse for gas mileage is the excess weight.

Really, all I was doing was calling steve out a little on his remark, and certainly if he is coming out of a minivan (which I didn't realize when I made the remark), 28 mpg must have seemed glorious. I don't in any way feel that Buicks have notably worse fuel economy than other large cars, but rather that the whole breed (large cars, that is) is needlessly gas-guzzling.

Stuff a little technology under those hoods, boost fuel economy and improve driveability all in one fell swoop, where's the harm in that in what is supposed to be a "premium" or "near-lux" automobile?

stever

Well, an Outback has been my daily driver for a few years now except on road trips, and my wife commutes in the Quest. But the mpg isn't all that hot on the Outback either.

I did enjoy driving my friend's 5 speed ECHO a few times although my '82 Tercel was more fun (but that's probably just my slanted opinion since I had great luck with the Tercel). :shades:

I gotta upload the ~'61ish family Buick station wagon pic I found at my sister's house a couple of weeks ago.

sls002

Putting a turbo 4 in a big overweight Buick will not result in a car that gets 35 to 40 MPG. The turbo in the HHR results in about the same highway fuel consumption as the standard 4, but the axle ratios are different. City fuel consumption is greater with the turbo.

While large cars may be needlessly gas-guzzling, SUV's are even worse. Perhaps the government should ban all vehicles larger than say 1000 pounds. I think using carbon fiber technology 1000 lbs would be possible.

nippononly

While large cars may be needlessly gas-guzzling, SUV's are even worse

You are sooo right! The ironic thing is we have mostly managed to kill the breed of truck-based large SUVs, only to replace them with car-based large crossovers that weigh just as much or more! The Enclave is a VERY good example of this.

sls002

Somehow I do not think the one size fits all will work. I was sort of interested in the Enclave until I saw that they all were going to weigh about 5000 lbs. I do find it interesting that the epa highway numbers are nearly 25 MPG though. The somwhat lighter weight SRX with V6 is rated somewhat worse.

What I think is needed is new body technology, carbon fiber can greatly reduce the weight, and with electric drive technology, vehicles can be designed for far greater efficiency.

nippononly

Absolutely, I am very eager for these things to make it into mass production. While carbon fiber can be very expensive to use, they could certainly use a lot more aluminum and high-strength steel, both of which can substantially reduce vehicle weight without costing anywhere near as much as carbon fiber.

sls002

Sorry, but todays cars are using aluminum and high-strength steel. This is what makes the CTS the car that it is, and it is heavy. The G-bodies (DTS and Lucerne) are also using advanced materials too, which makes them very strong, but also heavy. Audi did make extensive use of aluminum on a A8, but it was still very heavy. The Cobalt is also heavy because it is much stronger than the Cavalier.

hpmctorque

Don't you think the auto makers will substitute these materials, where it's cost effective? Your messages seem to imply that, somehow, they're missing some great bets because they're asleep at the switch. I don't think that's the case. Sure, some manufacturers are more capable than others, but make no mistake, they all get it. It's that certain materials and technologies that weren't economically justifiable at $2/gallon are now. Therefore, they'll be adopted.

nippononly

They could use more than they are using today, that's for sure, especially when it comes to aluminum. The CTS weighs about 3600 pounds, a few hundred too many to be sure, but makes very little use of aluminum outside the suspension, as far as I know.

The A8 is an AWD vehicle. It would weigh hardly any more than the CTS, despite being a larger car, if it were 2WD. And in such a case, it would weigh significantly less than its main competition today.

hpmctorque's point about cost is the real culprit here - among smaller and medium size cars, cost is a top priority, especially among the American carmakers who already struggle to make a profit in car-building. I never meant to imply that anyone was asleep at the switch, hpm, so please don't construe that from what I said. I am aware there are cost issues, but when we are talking about BUICK, a make that is supposed to be near-lux or at least "premium", whatever that means, cost should be less of an issue IMO. Plug in $1000 worth of better, lighter materials, and you might just make substantial gains in mpg AND sales.

Question: can we really view Buick as a premium brand while Lacrosse remains in the line-up?

captain2

While it (rebirth) might be good for some folks in Flint and/or some UAW types - how in the world can one reasonably anticipate anything good from a product line that is nothing but regurgitated, rebadged, and certainly unremarkable products. As long as GM is going to do what GM seems to do best - find the cheapest 'solution' to any problem - and lose gargantuan sums of money doing it - Buick, unfortunately, will be a stillborn.
GM would be better served to send Buick the way of Oldsmobile - except, of course, in Bejing where the customers apparently don't know any better...

hpmctorque

'Plug in $1000 worth of better, lighter materials, and you might just make substantial gains in mpg AND sales.'

The word "might" implies that maybe you will get enough incremental sales to compensate for the extra $1,000, but maybe you won't. Buick has been betting that it's customers and others who might cross shop that brand wouldn't be willing to cough up an additional $1,000 to make the effort pay off. In other words, customers either wouldn't be willing to pay the extra money, or they wouldn't recoup the additional expense with incremental sales. Now, maybe Buick bet wrong, and you're right. I don't have enough information to judge. Or, since each Buick model was conceived and designed in an era of significantly lower gasoline prices, their decision may have been reasonable, based on what was known then. Again, $4/gallon gasoline has changed the equation, so that the next generation Buicks may have more light weight materials. Although I don't know the details of the next generation Buicks, I've read in more than one source that all manufacturers are looking for ways to reduce weight to increase mileage.

It'll be interesting to see what happens.

"Question: can we really view Buick as a premium brand while Lacrosse remains in the line-up?"

The semantics are certainly debatable, but I'd call Buick a wounded, or unsuccessful premium brand in North America, at the moment.

lemko

Uh, what's so bad about the LaCrosse? Buick had a low-priced model called the Special back in the day and it didn't diminish Buick's reputation. Funny how the people bashing the LaCrosse don't even drive one. My girlfriend and I are pretty happy with the LaCrosse.

bumpy

The Lacrosse is rather homely on the outside (or blandly ovoid, if you prefer) and distinctly un-special on the inside. It offers absolutely nothing to draw in customers who weren't already irrevocably set on buying a Buick anyway.

nippononly

I don't think it's a question of what is so bad about the Lacrosse, it's a question of what is "premium" about it? Or is Buick not a premium brand? If it isn't, GM is doing itself a huge disservice by spending money keeping it going.

I, like steve, had a Lacrosse as a rental. I begged them for something smaller (which was what my reservation called for), but they said it was all they had left. I found it to be exactly as the rep led me to believe: somewhat plusher than say your average Accord, a rolling sofa in every sense of the word, almost totally disconnected from the road. I would be willing to bet this car has stolen more than a few Camry V-6 sales. But Camry is certainly NOT a premium car, Toyota is not a premium brand, and Lacrosse is holding back Buick from its future IMO.

Oh and BTW, why would anyone who dislikes the Lacrosse own one? (Funny how the people bashing the LaCrosse don't even drive one) :-P

I avoid large cars as much as possible, but even if I didn't I have had better drives in the current Taurus and Charger (although the Charger is IMPOSSIBLY cheap inside) than that Lacrosse. The Avalon is pretty nice too, although in that one I have only been a passenger, not a driver. I don't rent very often, but I imagine one of these days I will get an Impala for a straight-across comparison between two of GM's large cars.

sls002

The CTS's engine is aluminum. Audi did build an all aluminum A8 once, but it was not really lighter weight. See this link.

The current Audi A8 has an aluminum frame, which should make it lighter weight. But the A8 weighs 4300+ lbs, is smaller than the DTS, which weighs 4000 lbs.

lemko

The LaCrosse is a large car? It's a midsize at best by my standards. Good thing you said the current Taurus. I doesn't seem like such a bad car in a conservative sense. I HATED the previous one. I had one as a rental and couldn't wait to return it. I'd have much preferred driving my old beater '88 Park Ave to it.

cooterbfd

"3. if I am making the correct inference, you somehow view 750 extra pounds of curb weight as a positive. I view them as a needless negative, and certainly I WOULD agree with your implication that one significant reason the Buicks do a lot worse for gas mileage is the excess weight"

750 lbs of extra weight isn't a positive, it's a byproduct of being able to fit 6 adults comfortably instead of 5, and having an extra 2.5 cubic feet of luggage space, and the bigger engine to lug it around.

My point is that in relation to other cars, the fuel economy is comparable.

cooterbfd

What got me to start this thread was the comments seen in an autoblog story:

http://www.autoblog.com/2008/09/19/spy-shotss-2010-buick-lacrosse-little-camo-pl- - us-interior/

Check out some of the comments, as this is probably 95% of what we'll see in a year when it goes on sale.

Compare these comments to what we are saying about the current Lacrosse.

Again, if, IF it is GM's intention to "marry" Buick's styling and engineering with that of the Chinese Buick, much in the way they have done with Opel and Saturn, and Holden and Pontiac, AND the comments on the finished product are as positive as they were with the CTS and Malibu, then COULD we be seeing the rebirth of Buick????

dave8697

They are extremely comfortable and quiet. I paid 25% of original sticker for the used one I have now, back when it was 8 yrs old. I've driven it 80,000 miles in a little over 4 years. It has never been to anybody for a repair or part except the tire store. It has a few things wrong at 12 years and 168k miles, but It remains so solid and dependable. Great agility for 3650 lb car. Once I had to instantly swap lanes at 60 mph and it's agility really suprised me. The doors are 5' long and weigh 300 lbs each. Tough to reach out to grab them to close them. I couldn't believe it when I read that the new Camaro with a smaller 3.5 V6 would be 50 lbs heavier. Hard to imagine a '95 designed 3800 pushrod can even compete in '08.

nippononly

750 lbs of extra weight isn't a positive, it's a byproduct of being able to fit 6 adults comfortably instead of 5,

Well OK, but I was responding to your comment that you took 2 adults and 2 kids (1 pre-teen) on a comfortable trip. That's a total of 4, not all adults. I was kinda saying that the Accord or any other midsize car would have served mostly as well without the extra weight.

But I am curious: is this the market Buick is chasing? How many folks here have had six adults in their car for a trip of any length more than a half hour in, say, the last year? Ever?

If we are hitting the reset then I want to hear from the Buick owners and ardent fans: what IS Buick? What is its mission statement, the thing(s) that set it apart from other car brands, especially other GM brands? Because GM already has Chevy, which is a full line of cars, crossovers, and trucks.

It seems to me it doesn't matter how great the next Lacrosse is. The current one is a decent value, yet it doesn't sell well. Buick sells so poorly it is hanging on the edge of the precipice of death. Very few buyers are seeking out Buicks. I have lost all the Buick dealers in a 30-mile radius to bankruptcy in the last ten years - I have to cross two county lines now just to LOOK at a Buick.

If it can't set itself apart in a major, significant, easy-to-see way, I don't see how Buick will be reborn.

PS wasn't it ALREADY reborn with the arrival at almost the same time of all three models: Enclave, Lacrosse, Lucerne? It was out with the old, in with the new. Yet that accomplished nothing - sales continued to drop.

cooterbfd

I will try to answer your questions.

1) The Lacrosse and Lucerne are warmed over versions of old platforms. I think people realize this. Not to mention, look at the criticizims of them-for stodgy old people, looks like a Taurus.

2) Enclave: new model, and all I see driving them are women in there 30's and 40's, not old people. That's a good thing.

3) What is (or should be) Buick?? Understated luxury, just a notch below Cadillac.

andre1969

But I am curious: is this the market Buick is chasing? How many folks here have had six adults in their car for a trip of any length more than a half hour in, say, the last year? Ever?

Interesting observation. In my case, the last time I crammed 6 people into a car, it was my 1989 Gran Fury, so that would put it oh, summer of 1999? It was probably only for like 20-30 mins, though.

I guess some people might look at the ability to squeeze 6 adults into a car as an advantage. However, when it comes to being able to hold 6 adults in COMFORT, each of us is going to have our own definitions and standards. And by my standard, no car made has been able to do that since perhaps 1979, when the last mastodon-class car, the Lincoln Continental coupe and sedan, played out their last song.

Once cars started downsizing, even if they kept similar dimensions in shoulder room and even managed to improve headroom and legroom, other things changed. Seats often got thinner. The transmission and driveshaft humps got larger. The dashboards started intruding more into the passenger area. Less foot room under the seat for back seat passengers. The rear wheel wells started intruding into the passenger cabin, forcing the back seat to wrap inward at the edges.

Plus, once stuff like center armrests and split front seats became popular, they'd often render the center sport useless.

My 1985 Silverado has about 65" of shoulder room, which is about as wide inside as any car ever got. I've driven it with 3 people across, and even with that much width, I don't find it that comfortable. Now if a back seat was 65" wide, it wouldn't be so bad for three people, but as a driver, I need more room to be comfortable, and it's hard when I have a center passenger wedged up against me.

For 5 passenger seating, I'd say a large-ish FWD car like a Lucerne, DTS, or Taurus/Sable would be your best bet. Even though the Crown Vic has more shoulder room, it also has a huge driveshaft hump, and seats that curve to tip the outboard passengers inward. But now for 6 adults, if you really want everybody to be comfortable, something with a 2+2+2 configuration, like a minivan or SUV, is probably best. Even if the third row in most of them is marginal, it's still better for the long haul, than trying to squeeze in 3 abreast.

lemko

...Buick means a solid, durable, reliable, stately, conservative, sensible, understated, and luxurious car just a notch below Cadillac. I've been extremely happy with Buick ever since I bought my first car - a 1968 Buick Special Deluxe. Buick and Cadillac are the two cars I consistently purchase. If I didn't buy a Cadillac DTS Performance, I'd have most likely bought a Buick Lucerne CXS with the V-8.

hpmctorque

"...What is its mission statement..."

Answer: "You pay what we pay, and not a penny more."

"I have lost all the Buick dealers in a 30-mile radius to bankruptcy in the last ten years - I have to cross two county lines now just to LOOK at a Buick."

Or, you can go to a nearby rental car agency.

imidazol97

>Or, you can go to a nearby rental car agencyj

That sounds like you're trying to diminish the brand by suggesting they are rental material...

I can go to a car rental agency and see LOTS of brands of cars including Toyotas, Nissans, Chrysler products, Fords, Mazdas, etc.

hpmctorque

I was just trying to be humorous in this instance. Cynicism can easily be misconstrued, so it's not your fault if you thought I was serious. Those who've been reading my messages know I want the Detroit 3 and their brands to survive.

imidazol97

>Cynicism can easily be misconstrued,

Thank you for the explanation. I have trouble keeping track of who is pro GM and Anti GM and I didn't look back at your earlier posts like I should have done.

andre1969

I know you were trying to be funny, but there actually is some merit in that suggestion! If nothing else, if you go to a rental car lot and check out the Buicks, you can get an idea of how well they're holding up to abuse.

My Dad's '03 Regal is a former rental. He's had it about 5 years now, and I don't think it's needed much other than routine maintenance. I think the front rotors got warped, but all cars seem to do that nowadays! He doesn't drive that far, though. I think it had about 19,500 miles on it when he bought it, but I doubt if he's up to 50,000 yet.

lemko

To really see how well they hold up, come to Philly and check out my 20 year-old Park Avenue that is subjected daily to the harsh urban environment and potholed streets.

andre1969

Lemko, in all fairness, that's because that car was well taken care of before you had it, and you probably take care of it better than the original owner!

sls002

I had myself plus six (6) for a total of seven (7) people and their luggage for a trip of just over half an hour in the last month. I would not want to put that many in my SRX for very long though. The third seat is really meant for younger kids (say eighth grade or less), while I had younger adults (about 30 years old). The third seat is OK for 1 smallish adult for a short time I think.

nippononly

so from cooter, I hear Buick's mission is to be "Understated luxury, just a notch below Cadillac."

From lemko, I hear something similar, but a whole lot more specific:
"Buick means a solid, durable, reliable, stately, conservative, sensible, understated, and luxurious car just a notch below Cadillac"

Do you feel that the Lacrosse meets all aspects of that definition? I don't find much luxury to be in evidence in that model. Beyond that, I can give it most of what lemko said, except in times of $4 gas I think "sensible" is in jeopardy when the most frugal engine available in a 5-seat car is a 22-24 mpg V-6.

In the larger picture, this is a pretty narrow niche folks are drawing for Buick. Is there even space in the market for this tiny little niche? Sales would seem to suggest otherwise.

hpmctorque

I tried to find Buick's mission statement, but couldn't. In the past, though, I read descriptions that use some of the adjectives lemko used.

In fairness to Buick, there hasn't been much time to recalibrate that brand's mission statement since gasoline prices went from moderate to ~$4. As the products are redesigned to reflect the reality of expensive oil, Buick will have to modify its mission statement, even as its positioning in the marketplace, above Chevy, Pontiac and Saturn, and a notch below Cadillac, remains the same. It seems to me that, price-wise (but not market niche-wise), Buick competes with Saab in the GM hierarchy.

It'll be difficult for GM to keep all of its brands.

nippononly

Seems to me that most foreign manufacturers have introduced limited and other top-end trims of the cars and crossovers in their mainstream brands in order to fill this small niche. Only the domestics (Ford with Mercury, and Chrysler Group with the Chrysler brand) still have a whole separate brand to perform this function.

Mercury is at death's door, everyone but Ford seems to know this. It's less clear how much money could potentially be saved by letting it go to its grave naturally. Chrysler is more of a mixed bag, but that is an extremely troubled automaker overall.

It seems to me you could have some swish trim lines of the larger cars and crossovers in the Chevy line, and eliminate Buick without much fuss. Having a whole separate brand for this narrow piece of the automotive spectrum is weighing down GM with extra costs it really doesn't need to have.

lemko

Uh, I'm pulling closer to 28-29 MPG in both the LaCrosse and Park Avenue. That's pretty good for such "large" cars.

cooterbfd

"Do you feel that the Lacrosse meets all aspects of that definition? I don't find much luxury to be in evidence in that model. Beyond that, I can give it most of what lemko said, except in times of $4 gas I think "sensible" is in jeopardy when the most frugal engine available in a 5-seat car is a 22-24 mpg V-6."

Now??? Not really. I think if we rewind about 10 years to see where Buick was you'll find that they had 4 solid pre luxury sedans, and a personal luxury coupe. As Olds got phased out, Buick picked up their minivan and SUV, plus picked up an Aztek based CUV.

Eventually, they consolidated their 4 sedans to the 2 we see today, and 2 "SUV"s to 1, and dropped the minivan. The biggest problem is, the 2 sedans are based on the old W and G archetecture, while everybody else in the GM lineup gets the new latin named archetectures. THAT probably has more to do with the sales slides than anything.

Can Buick survive??? I see no reason why not, ESPECIALLY when married with the Pontiac and GMC nameplates, provided the finished product is as good as the Enclave is.

Let's take the mid sized GM sedans for example:

Malibu, G6, Lacrosse, Aura, and CTS.

Now, if we take the Aura and aim it towards imports like the Passat that puts it in a slightly different category.

Next, line up the sedans in order of price: Malibu, $18-24K. G6, $20-26K Lacrosse, $23-30K, and CTS, $30-38K.

Then, based on the materials used, HP outputs, options available, etc., you could have 4 viable sedans that are priced accordingly yet don't step on one another toes.
For example, leather (or at least a high quality cloth) could be standard on the Buick. Not as high quality as Caddy, but better that that in a high end Malibu.
If you want to gear the Chevy and Pontiac towards younger buyers, how about free OnStar for qualifying college students while in college??? I don't mean to stereotype, but the same could be offered in Caddys for say AARP members. Maybe a built in mp-3 player standard in the Chevy and Pontiac, but a built in 6 disc player in the Buick and Caddy.

The bottom line is, whatever they do, IF the products coming forward are likeable like the Malibu and CTS are, and are marketed well, they will do fine.

cooterbfd

Check out the retail prices for these USED Enclaves, some with as many as 22,000 miles:

http://www.cars.com/go/search/search_results.jsp?ct=564&tracktype=usedcc&searchT- ype=21&cid=&dlid=&dgid=&amid=&cname=&mdnm=Enclave&mknm=Buick&rd=10000&ddrd=&zc=0- 2809&makeid=7&modelid=8771&pageNumber=&numResultsPerPage=50&largeNumResultsPerPa- ge=0&sortorder=descending&sortfield=PRICE%20descending&certifiedOnly=false&crite- ria=K-|E-|M-_7_|D-_8771_|N-N|R-10000|I-1,7|P-PRICE%20descending|Q-descending|Z-0- 2809&aff=national

cooterbfd

http://www.edmunds.com/apps/nvc/edmunds/VehicleComparison?styleid=101035082&styl- eid=101006933&styleid=101037439&styleid=100975629&maxvehicles=5&refid=&op=3&tab=- specs

dave8697

I drive the supercharged version with 240 HP of that engine. 27.5 mpg combined overall through the second hundred thousand miles is what I got. I would be hard pressed to get less than 30 in a new Lacrosse. 30 is sensible. That would be 30 gallons to go on a 900 mile trip. The 34 mpg that a Mazda 3 with a stick gets is better, but the back seat is unusable for any body with a shoe size over 6, and road noise is present in the 34 mpg cars and nonexistent in the Lacrosse. The same trip would take 3.5 gallons less with a cramped, noisy, shift it yourself car and that's what divides sensible from non sensible? If you want to compare other $23,000 cars with similar torque to the Buick, you won't outclass the Buick in MPG. By the way, the base Lucerne can be had for a tad over $24k this week.

tlong

Now, if we take the Aura and aim it towards imports like the Passat that puts it in a slightly different category.

Next, line up the sedans in order of price: Malibu, $18-24K. G6, $20-26K Lacrosse, $23-30K, and CTS, $30-38K.

Then, based on the materials used, HP outputs, options available, etc., you could have 4 viable sedans that are priced accordingly yet don't step on one another toes.

I'd still argue that this is too fine a slicing of the market to support the overhead of all the brands.

Yet still, all of those brands just *might* work, except that IMHO GM has messed it all up.

As an example, although I've not driven the new Malibu, it looks like it has gone upscale somewhat in the interior (good). I did drive a rental G6 and it was in no way impressive inside. My sense (can somebody confirm this?) is that the Malibu is a nicer car inside than the G6. OK, you say, perhaps the G6 is slanted toward sportiness. Well my rental, while reasonably decent, was in no way particularly sporty. So why is the G6 more expensive than the Malibu as indicated in your sample prices?

GM's market segmentation between brands doesn't make any sense. It's muddled in a big way, as if the patient has been drunk for about a decade. If there was any hope in supporting all of these brands, there should be a clear theme/slogan/market target for each of them that is distinctly different. The fact that all of us in this forum, who know a lot more about cars than the average Joe, discuss and argue about each brand and what it stands for, makes my point. The whole potential advantage of "branding" has been pretty much screwed up at GM and they are paying for the overhead of all the brands without a good reason to justify them with any sensible differentiation.

Why is the Corvette a Chevy if Pontiac is the sporty division? Why does Pontiac have a crossover SUV just like Chevy and GMC? Why does Pontiac have a rebadged Cobalt as the G5? Why is Pontiac getting a rebadged Aveo as a G3? If Saturn is competing for the foreign crowd, why is their crossover the same as at 2-4 other divisions? Is this really fooling anybody? It feels like too little product being spread all over the place to give all these brands enough vehicles to sell. But they're not selling many of them anyway.

andre1969

As an example, although I've not driven the new Malibu, it looks like it has gone upscale somewhat in the interior (good). I did drive a rental G6 and it was in no way impressive inside. My sense (can somebody confirm this?) is that the Malibu is a nicer car inside than the G6.

I've noticed that too, about the Malibu versus the G6. I think part of the problem is that nowadays they seem to redesign these cars in waves, rather than all at once. If this was the 60's, 70's, or 80's, we would have seen an all-new Malibu, G6, and Aura debut all at the same time. At some point though, all that broke down. We got a new, much-improved (if rather homely) Malibu for 2004. Then for 2005, I think, the G6 debuted, which was a big improvement over the Grand Am it replaced. I wouldn't say it was any better than the Malibu though, when it came to interior quality. Then the Aura came out as a 2007 model, and seemed to be a big improvement over the Malibu and G6, as well as the L-series it had replaced directly.

Then suddenly, we get a new Malibu for 2008. GM really put a lot of effort into this car, and it shows. But suddenly, it eclipses the G6. And I don't even see a real difference in prestige between it and the Aura. I like the Aura's style a little better, it seems a little sportier, but it's not like the old days when a Pontiac, Olds, or Buick seemed a clear step up from a Chevy.

Why is the Corvette a Chevy if Pontiac is the sporty division? Why does Pontiac have a crossover SUV just like Chevy and GMC?

When the Corvette first came out, way back in 1953, Pontiac hadn't yet been established as a sporty division. In fact, I don't think the concept of a sporty division had even been thought of yet. In 1953 they still had clear hierarchies set in place, so it was hard for one car to become too nice, lest it outshine the next division up the corporate ladder. If you wanted performance (not to be confused with sportiness, as back in those days it just meant going fast in a straight line) you bought a Buick Century or Chrysler Saratoga...progenitors of the muscle car, where they just took the smallest, lightest model they offered and fitted it with the biggest engine.

Pontiac was actually viewed as an old people's car. A car for retired doctors and such. Buicks and Oldsmobiles were considered fairly sporty cars for that time. Upscale cars with some power, that younger people weren't afraid to buy...if they could afford them.

Chevy was by far the biggest seller though, so it probably just made sense to give it the Corvette, as that would have given it the widest market coverage. Pontiac really wouldn't begin its transformation to the performance division until 1957, with the introduction of the fuel-injected Bonneville convertible, and a heavily facelifted lineup that did its best to give some flash to the otherwise dowdy 1955-56 body.

Why does Pontiac have a rebadged Cobalt as the G5? Why is Pontiac getting a rebadged Aveo as a G3? If Saturn is competing for the foreign crowd, why is their crossover the same as at 2-4 other divisions? Is this really fooling anybody?

I think this kind of stuff is just a holdover from the glorious expansion days of the 1960's and early 1970's, when GM got so big that each division tried to be everything to everybody. The divisions all got too big, with too many dealers. Once small cars started becoming popular, Pontiac, Olds, and Buick dealers started complaining that they didn't have anything to draw buyers in, so they started rebadging Vegas and Monzas and Novas and such.

Pontiac got the G5 and G3 to woo those types of buyers into the showroom, buyers who otherwise would have gone to a Chevy, Ford, Mopar, or foreign dealership. Ditto, once the SUV craze and crossover craze caught on, every dealership wanted to get in on the action.

Now that Pontiac, Buick, and GMC products usually share the same showroom, that should eliminate some of the redundancy, you'd think. For instance, hopefully there won't be a Buick-badged Aveo or Cobalt!

cooterbfd

"As an example, although I've not driven the new Malibu, it looks like it has gone upscale somewhat in the interior (good). I did drive a rental G6 and it was in no way impressive inside. My sense (can somebody confirm this?) is that the Malibu is a nicer car inside than the G6. OK, you say, perhaps the G6 is slanted toward sportiness. Well my rental, while reasonably decent, was in no way particularly sporty. So why is the G6 more expensive than the Malibu as indicated in your sample prices? "

Time and space constraints keep me from making my point all in one post.

Andre hit the nail on the head though. In 1968, for example, GM redid the A bodies, and a new Malibu, Lemans, Cutlass, and Skylark all debuted the same year (as well as the Special and Tempest). Today, that wasn't the case.

IF, in 2010, GM came out with a redesigned Malibu, G6, Lacrosse, and CTS, my feeling is that as good as the materials are in the Malibu, they should be BETTER, or at least on par with, in the G6. If they are the same, then you still justify the price increase based on a stiffer riding, better handling, slightly more optioned ( bigger wheels, fender flares, small wing on the back, throatier exaust, nothing outragious though) G6.

Now, if the Malibu LTZ and G6GTP are optioned with leather, The base Lacrosse should get that quality leather as standard, with a better quality leather offered in the CXL version. Then the CTS gets the better leather as standard, and maybe an even better leather as an option.

Now, I'm not saying that any of these models can't be sporty or luxurious IN THEIR OWN RIGHT, but basically the Malibu is the everyman's car, the G6 is for someone who wants sporty performance, Lacrosse is understated luxury, and CTS is for the person "who has arrived".

To take a tangent, seeing as how there is a CTS-V, you could have high performance coupes come out as the Chevelle SS, GTO,GS,and CTS-V. they may not be high sellers, but they sure will get asses in the showroom.