Yeah, yeah, don't get me started on my Body by Fisher rant that started back when I was ten and I began wondering why our family's '52 Buick (a Special I think) had the same fancy sill plate logo as Chevys and Caddys. Why pay more for a badge if they all had the same underpinnings?
CTS is good, but an additional quality improvement can make it great. If you can add for one more step towards prefection, why not???? They should learn from the old management's mistakes.
Are you suggesting that GM *incrementally improve*? Oh the humanity!
You laugh, but when I look at my '29 Buick, there are quite a bit of similarities between it and a Chevy, Olds, or Oakland of the same year. In fact, the body manual I have is a Fisher Body, and not a Buick/ Fisher Body.
This notion is a fallacy in my area (west coast). Nothing will boost Buick showroom traffic.
Do west coast people have open minds? What if new Lacrosse gets grand slam home run reviews - will CA people ignore it? Certainly the styling on the latest Buicks is not stogdy. The Enclave has better styling than the snobbish Beamer crossovers they call SAVs.
Seriously, what started the ball rolling was the loss of individuality for each of the car companies. 80 yrs ago, Buick had a OHV 6 cyl, whereas Caddy had a flathead V8. Chevy didn't get an 8 until 25 years after Buick.
In a few weeks, I'll go look at a Lacrosse with the same engine as a CTS AND the Malibu. It is amazing that something like this will dog GM, yet 40 yrs ago Ford and Chrysler were putting corporate engines in their cars.
Now, I know an issue like this is only the tip of the iceberg, and there are far bigger problems dogging GM, but giving the brands back some form of individuality and character will go a long way towards a recovery, along with quality, reliability and price.
I am referring to everyone within 50 miles or so of the coast in California, which is about 30 million of the state's 35 million people. And as fezo mentions, it will be very hard in that region to even find a Buick dealer, let alone anyone who will take the trouble to visit one.
It's not a case of minds being open or closed, it's a case of an automotive market FLOODED with brands, good reliable brands, brands which are critically acclaimed. Buick is a forgotten name. This is the reason Isuzu doesn't sell any cars here any more - their name was just forgotten, it was run over by the volume brands. It's the reason Mitsubishi won't be selling cars here any more in 5-10 years - a forgotten name being run over by the volume brands that have better advertising, better deals, and in many cases better product.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I do not think it will help GM much. How is the 2010 lacrosse going to be that much greater than the new Malibu?? Most people buy cars and Suvs because of the image, not on how well it drives or if they are reliable. Buick still reminds me of old people..sorry.
"General Motors will offer zero-percent financing for up to 72 months on select 2009 and 2010 vehicles as part of a "72-Hour Sale" that begins today. Soon-to-be-discontinued Pontiac models such as the Vibe, G3, G5, G6 and G8 are on the list, including the Pontiac G8 GXP. The sale runs to July 6."
Me personally would not buy a buick quite simply because they are ugly : / Bad styling with a bad reputation(old ppl's car) is never a good sign. I guess the only good thing going for a buick driver is the fact you get to be original at a decent price(won't pass 100 other buicks on the way to work)
Thanks! Hard to believe Hyundai/Kia is even with Nissan already and breathing down C's neck. Only a matter of time.
As far as Buick is concerned, please don't tell me the new entity management is making tough decisions.
Chevrolet and Cadillac would be the tough decision. The easy way out is exactly what is being sought after.
The lessons still have not been learned. Hard to shake a bad brand.
Oldsmobile lost it, Pontiac was a slow death. Buick has already died. AFAIC, the Enclave should have been a Caddy. The La Crosse is really an Impala, a brand that was left by the wayside long ago.
that Chrysler sold 471,197 cars in 2009 and Kia sold only 147,404.
Who buys a Chrysler? Reality check for the American people, unless this funny minivan thing is still in soccer Mom's minds as a going concern, Chrysler doesn't offer much besides the old standard minivans and a decent pickup truck.
Kia offers more value for the money, more innovation, cooler designs, and a Long-Haul Warranty that is very hard to beat. I don't get people in this regard.
Like, who would be a L.A. Laker fan, or, even worse, who would be a Kobe Bryant fan? Are these the same people who buy Chrysler's?
"......Kia offers more value for the money, more innovation, cooler designs, and a Long-Haul Warranty that is very hard to beat. I don't get people in this regard."
I agree about the minivan thing. Like I was saying about Buick on the west coast, when it comes to a minivan, people just assume Caravan. That is probably the name everybody knows (I know that the Sienna and Odyessy have caught up).
Another thing, like Buick and the "old peoples car", Kia still has to get over being a "cheap" car. Then sales will increase.
One last thing I forgot to mention; Kia doesn't have the dealer network Chrysler has, either.
and there are several of them. Kia does not make cheap cars, Kia makes cars that are built well, but they don't agree with over-charging people for them.
Then they back up their cars with the best Warranty in the business. They will demand that you follow your maintenance schedule fully-completely in exchange for that great Warranty.
If I didn't own my '08 Mitsubishi Lancer GTS which is just about to eclipse 40,000 miles, I would probably buy a new 2010 Kia Forte sedan.
Notice I put cheap in parenthesis. My SIL has a 2001 Sportage that has been relatively trouble free, and has about 150,000 miles on it. I think it's dinky in size, and nothing special, but it does the job; gets her from point A to B relatively cheaply.
Back to Buick for a sec, June's sales seem to show a bottoming out for them. While GM was down 33.6%, Buick was only down 10.7%. That would be 3rd place for all luxury makes in this category, as only Volvo (+.6%) and Audi (-8.3%) did better.
And the new Lacrosse hasn't even hit showrooms yet.
You laugh, but when I look at my '29 Buick, there are quite a bit of similarities between it and a Chevy, Olds, or Oakland of the same year. In fact, the body manual I have is a Fisher Body, and not a Buick/ Fisher Body.
Everyone laughs. GM back then had the reputation tog et away with that...they could sell it as getting Buick/Olds components in a Chevy.
However, with GM's rep these days, it's vice-versa. You're getting Chevy components in a Buick/Caddy. That doesn't fly.
"..... You're getting Chevy components in a Buick/Caddy."
As far as the 6 sp auto and the 3.6 V-6 goes, do you really believe that? If so, THAT is old GM mentality. We're not talking a 250 backed up by a Powerglide. It IS a corporate engine mated to a corporate transaxle.
Yeah, but that was 17 years ago when Buick still had a little prestige. Today, Buick only has prestige with the people who were shopping for a Buick 17 years ago. :shades:
"......That whole not taking a bailout thing did wonders for them it looks like. "
I think it did too, as they weren't pushed into bankruptcy. However, I think the positive press surrounding the Fusion, F-150, and Taurus had as much to do with it as anything. Toyota isn't in trouble, and they took a sales beating too.
Yes it is, but we're talking perception here. If a company has a strong reputation, they can get away with being corporate across the board, and even twist it to help them: "Hey, this is Caddy stuff and you're getting it in a Chevy!" But for a company with a bad rep, or one that needs to be built up, the perception is that they're using the cheap-brand components in the expensive brands...and it becomes a Malibu drivetrain in the CTS, rather than vice versa. See what I'm getting at?
Unfortunately, that's something that costs a lot to fix, either marketing-wise or product differentiation. But until GM brings their reputation back up somewhat, the perception will be that Buick and Cadillac are using "commoner" Chevy drivetrains, and not that you're getting high-end luxury-brand components in your Chevy.
Well, if I really wamted to stand out on the west coast, I'd definitely buy a Buick rather than blend in with the sea of anonymous imports. If I lived in Beverly Hills, I'd be thundering through the streets in my massive 1958 Buick Limitied in an automotive expression of a huge upright middle finger to all those west coasters' import-worshipping elitism.
I'm sure there's at least one Buick LaCrosse you won't be passing. My girlfriend drives her car very aggressive and is as proud of it as you import fanboys are of your Teutonic tanks.
Heck, if I was a celebrity, I exclusively drive Buicks just to p-off my elitist peers! Heck, Buick wouldn't even have to pay for the endorsement - I'd do it for free because I truly believe in the product. Heck, I'd even have a custom Buick Lucerne limousine built for my appearances at movie premieres and Oscar night and such.
It blows my mind how "old people" are disdained in this country when they are revered and respected in others. Heck, those "old people" didn't get to live so long by being stupid. Heck, I'd rather be seen as a doddering old geezer driving a Buick, than a pretentious poseur valueless yuppie snob driving the latest overpriced imported ego-mobile.
As far as the 6 sp auto and the 3.6 V-6 goes, do you really believe that? If so, THAT is old GM mentality. We're not talking a 250 backed up by a Powerglide. It IS a corporate engine mated to a corporate transaxle.
That's one area where GM used to be really bad. It seems like they made Chevies cheaper on purpose, just to force you to move up the ladder to Pontiac/Olds/Buick. For instance, after the failed Turboglide, I don't think you could even get a 3-speed automatic in a Chevy until 1965, and then only if you got a big-block. I don't think the 3-speed automatic became available with the small-block until 1969!
I think Ford did something similar, although they got on the ball a bit quicker. One of my coworkers briefly had a 1962 Ford Galaxie with a 292 V-8 and a 2-speed "Ford-O-Matic" transmission. Chrysler, in contrast, got on the ball early, and in 1960, even the cheapest Valiant could be had with a 3-speed automatic.
I think people got used to Mopars and Fords being more and more alike, but expected GM to keep their individuality. So when the GM cars became more and more alike, customers started to balk. As for the engine swapping fiasco, the main reason GM got into trouble with that is Oldsmobile actually mentioned the "Rocket" V-8 in their advertising, and played it up to be a superior engine, and a strong selling point. So when people found out their Delta 88, which they bought based on the advertising, and perhaps past experiences with Oldsmobile cars, suddenly found out it had a Chevy 350 under the hood, they were understandably pissed.
And I'll admit, being a Pontiac fan, that I turned down a '79 Bonneville years ago because it had a Buick 350 under the hood, rather than a Pontiac 350. My main rationale at the time, however, was that my '82 Cutlass Supreme with its junky 231 was still fresh in my mind, and that Buick 350 looked enough like the 231 to make me leery. I did find out later though, that while the two were related at birth, they had both gone through so many revisions and alterations over the years, that they weren't that similar anymore. So while a Chevy 229 was just a 305 with two cylinders lopped off, the Buick V-6 and the smallblock V-8 were two vastly different beasts.
I also found out that, by 1979, Pontiac wasn't putting their own 350 in ANY full-sized cars anymore. If you got a 350 Catalina/Bonneville that year, supposedly they ALL had Buick engines!
Well, if I really wamted to stand out on the west coast, I'd definitely buy a Buick rather than blend in with the sea of anonymous imports.
You would stand out in San Diego if you did not have a Marine Corps insignia on your Buick or Caddy. They are still popular with the retired military that we have more than our fair share. They tend to keep San Diego a bit more stable than the rest of CA. We are also more conservative and tend to Buy American south of the LA/Orange County line.
Ugly? I think Buicks are drop-dead gorgeous! Bad reputation? How? They're bullet-proof reliable. If I had to escape Philly for a while and could take only one car to last me until I could return, it would be my girlfriend's LaCrosse. It's ultra-reliable, comfortable, durable, and delivers awesome fuel economy on regular gas!
Well, you can tell a Buick engine from the time as it had the distributor at the front of the engine. Heck a Buick engine would be a major selling point in FAVOR of a car for me.
It blows my mind how "old people" are disdained in this country when they are revered and respected in others. Heck, those "old people" didn't get to live so long by being stupid.
There's an old saying (I think it was John DeLorean that said it) that while it's easy to sell an old person a young person's car, it's almost impossible to sell a young person an old-people's car!
There's a difference between revering and respecting old people, and trying to imitate them!
Also, I think you have to look at WHY certain cars are driven by older people. Back in the 50's, 60's, 70's, and even part of the 1980's, often you'd see older people driving a Buick, Caddy, Lincoln, Chrysler, etc because they had finally gotten to that point in life where they could afford a car like that. Younger people may have been aspiring to that type of car, but just couldn't afford it yet. And that's why cars like the Chevy Caprice, Fury VIP, and Ford LTD came out...to give younger, less monied people who aspired to a Caddy, Lincoln, or Imperial a less expensive alternative.
Heck, I'd rather be seen as a doddering old geezer driving a Buick, than a pretentious poseur valueless yuppie snob driving the latest overpriced imported ego-mobile.
Well, I'd rather not be seen as either. We'll all get old eventually, so I'd rather not rush it! But at the same time, I'm not one to jump on the bandwagon and chase the latest flash-in-the-pan fad.
Well, you can tell a Buick engine from the time as it had the distributor at the front of the engine. Heck a Buick engine would be a major selling point in FAVOR of a car for me.
Yeah, if I had it to do over again, knowing what I know now, I might have bought that '79 Bonneville. It was white with a light blue vinyl top and light blue vinyl interior. The body was solid, and the interior was decent except for a rip or two in the seat. And the headliner had started sagging, so the owner had ripped it apart, and glued it back up piecemeal! It also had balding tires.
I remember also not being too impressed with its performance. Despite having a 350, it felt slower than my Grandmother's '85 LeSabre, which only had a 307. The Bonneville only had a 3-speed automatic though, compared to the LeSabre's 4-speed. And gearing was different. The LeSabre had a 2.73:1, while that Bonneville was most likely a 2.41:1. I'm sure the LeSabre was a bit lighter, too, as the B-body lost a bit of weight in the 1980 restyle, plus in that era Buicks and Oldsmobiles were often a bit lighter than Chevies and Pontiacs.
It blows my mind how "old people" are disdained in this country when they are revered and respected in others. Heck, those "old people" didn't get to live so long by being stupid. Heck, I'd rather be seen as a doddering old geezer driving a Buick, than a pretentious poseur valueless yuppie snob driving the latest overpriced imported ego-mobile.
Reinforcing the point that some people got old not by being smart but by being too mean and ornery to die. :shades:
Look at it this way, anything's better than the dreaded 301!
Definitely true. Even there though, I think if I found an otherwise nice car that looked like it had been well-maintained that had the 301, I might be willing to take the chance. That caramel-brown '77 Grand LeMans sedan that was at the Carlisle GM show in 2007/2008 (but not this year) has a 301. Although maybe it finally blew, and that's why it wasn't at the show for 2009! :surprise:
Hey Steve, Fisher Body was like a division of GM. They designed assembled the bodies. Your 52 Buick frame and body were nothing like a Chevy or Cadillac. I own a '52 Chieftain and a '52 Caddy and the frames and body work are not the same at all. The only thing common are some nuts and bolts. The Cadillac is larger, more "heavy duty" and has a more sophisticated front suspension. That's what you got for the premium $$$.
I've always wondered how much more beefy the C-body from that era was, compared to the B-body? You could definitely see the difference between an A-body (Chevy/Pontiac) and B-body (Olds, smaller Buicks), as the B-body wasn't much bigger, but was a LOT heavier. But then the C-body, didn't seem that much heavier considering the size.
In 1957-58, I think Olds might actually have been the best-built of the GM cars. While Buick and Cadillac went to that wasp-waisted "X-frame" in '57, and Chevy/Pontiac joined for 1958, Olds sort of doubled up, using an X-frame, but with perimeter rails as well. Sort of an X within a box.
For 1959-64, I think Chevy/Buick went with an X-frame, while Pontiac/Olds went with a perimeter frame. I forget now what Cadillac did.
Lessee, that was the summer of 1999. At that time, I had an '89 Gran Fury ex copcar as my daily driver, my grandmother's '85 LeSabre as a spare car, the DeSoto, the Catalina and a '67 Chrysler Newport hardtop coupe. So yeah, a '79 Bonneville would have fit in well. :shades:
I probably could have gotten it for a few hundred bucks. The owner was actually planning on donating it to a charity! He also had a 1988 or so Fiero GT, and a Chrysler 300M. Old guy, well into his 60's, but I think he had decent taste in cars.
I had a 1947 Pontiac and a 1948 Cadillac. They were night and day difference. Though both good vehicles. My feeling is GM lost it in the middle 1960s. By 1964 Dodge was building tougher trucks. By the 1970s GM was building mostly dogs. They got back into the truck business with the 1988 PU trucks. Lost it again in 1999. And have not done much since.
"......But for a company with a bad rep, or one that needs to be built up, the perception is that they're using the cheap-brand components in the expensive brands...and it becomes a Malibu drivetrain in the CTS, rather than vice versa. See what I'm getting at?"
Absolutely, I do. Fair or not, it IS something GM has to work hard to overcome. Even though the original Lexus ES was a gussied up Camry, the perception is that the Camry was a toned down Lexus. Fortunately, all the car rags seem to agree that the 3.6L is a world class engine. Hopefully, the cars they get put in will someday soon be seen as world class, and it won't matter that they run the same engine, just like it doesn't matter for Chrysler, Ford, Toyota, Nissan, et al.
"..... I'd be thundering through the streets in my massive 1958 Buick Limitied in an automotive expression of a huge upright middle finger to all those west coasters' import-worshipping elitism."
One caveat; we have to exchange the Limited's 364 Nailhead for a 425 w/ the 6x2bbl setup for more power and effect. Otherwise, the ultra rare Stage III 455 will do.
Your 52 Buick frame and body were nothing like a Chevy or Cadillac.
Sure, but impressionable kids like me noticed the Fisher logo on the sills in our Buick, and then I'd see the same logo in friends' Chevys. They should have used different badges there too.
It made me wonder "why bother" getting a Caddy or Buick if "parts are parts."
My father went from the '53 Buick to a Valiant to a Falcon. As much as he loved his Buick, I think it was the only one he drove. He was 36 when he got it and drove it for around 14 years, so he got his money's worth out of it.
"It blows my mind how "old people" are disdained in this country when they are revered and respected in others."
I agree, but for the image 'worry warts', newsflash, I see more older people driving beige Toyotas than other brands these days. [The 90's ended a decade ago, btw] So, in other words, update your 'image consultant catalog'.
Does this mean Toyota will be 'out of business' since older people drive them???? :P
Comments
Stuff like that led to GM's demise. :P
Are you suggesting that GM *incrementally improve*? Oh the humanity!
You laugh, but when I look at my '29 Buick, there are quite a bit of similarities between it and a Chevy, Olds, or Oakland of the same year. In fact, the body manual I have is a Fisher Body, and not a Buick/ Fisher Body.
Do west coast people have open minds? What if new Lacrosse gets grand slam home run reviews - will CA people ignore it? Certainly the styling on the latest Buicks is not stogdy. The Enclave has better styling than the snobbish Beamer crossovers they call SAVs.
In a few weeks, I'll go look at a Lacrosse with the same engine as a CTS AND the Malibu. It is amazing that something like this will dog GM, yet 40 yrs ago Ford and Chrysler were putting corporate engines in their cars.
Now, I know an issue like this is only the tip of the iceberg, and there are far bigger problems dogging GM, but giving the brands back some form of individuality and character will go a long way towards a recovery, along with quality, reliability and price.
Of course they will. Whatever Hollywood does, the rest of the Fashonista's blindly follow.
Then again, I have trouble distinguishing or justifying Toyota/Lexus, Nissan/Infiniti or Honda/Acura, much less Chevy and Buick.
My wife is shopping Scions ... because she likes Toyotas.
Of course I assume you'd find them once you went a bit inland.
It's not a case of minds being open or closed, it's a case of an automotive market FLOODED with brands, good reliable brands, brands which are critically acclaimed. Buick is a forgotten name. This is the reason Isuzu doesn't sell any cars here any more - their name was just forgotten, it was run over by the volume brands. It's the reason Mitsubishi won't be selling cars here any more in 5-10 years - a forgotten name being run over by the volume brands that have better advertising, better deals, and in many cases better product.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
The Wonks in Hollywood drive a Prius when people are looking. The rest of the time they are in Range Rovers, MB G55 AMGs and Rolls Royces.
"General Motors will offer zero-percent financing for up to 72 months on select 2009 and 2010 vehicles as part of a "72-Hour Sale" that begins today. Soon-to-be-discontinued Pontiac models such as the Vibe, G3, G5, G6 and G8 are on the list, including the Pontiac G8 GXP. The sale runs to July 6."
GM's 72-Hour Sale Includes Pontiac G8 (Inside Line)
GM: ---------------------- 952,904 down 40.1%, Market Share: 19.9
Ford: -------------------- 773,386 down 32.4%, Market Share: 16.2
Toyota: ----------------- 770,449 down 37.5%, Market Share: 16.1
Honda: ----------------- 530,778 down 33.1%, Market Share: 11.1
Chrysler: --------------- 471,197 down 45.3%, Market Share: 9.8
Nissan: ----------------- 347,744, down 33.0%, Market Share: 7.3
Hyundai: --------------- 204,686, down 10.8%, Market Share 4.3
Kia: ---------------------- 147,404, down 5.9%, Market Share: 3.1
VW: ---------------------- 134,853, down 15.5%, Market Share: 2.8
As far as Buick is concerned, please don't tell me the new entity management is making tough decisions.
Chevrolet and Cadillac would be the tough decision. The easy way out is exactly what is being sought after.
The lessons still have not been learned. Hard to shake a bad brand.
Oldsmobile lost it, Pontiac was a slow death. Buick has already died. AFAIC, the Enclave should have been a Caddy. The La Crosse is really an Impala, a brand that was left by the wayside long ago.
G8, G7,G6, G5, G4, G3, G2, G1..... Blast Off!
Regards,
OW
Who buys a Chrysler? Reality check for the American people, unless this funny minivan thing is still in soccer Mom's minds as a going concern, Chrysler doesn't offer much besides the old standard minivans and a decent pickup truck.
Kia offers more value for the money, more innovation, cooler designs, and a Long-Haul Warranty that is very hard to beat. I don't get people in this regard.
Like, who would be a L.A. Laker fan, or, even worse, who would be a Kobe Bryant fan? Are these the same people who buy Chrysler's?
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
I agree about the minivan thing. Like I was saying about Buick on the west coast, when it comes to a minivan, people just assume Caravan. That is probably the name everybody knows (I know that the Sienna and Odyessy have caught up).
Another thing, like Buick and the "old peoples car", Kia still has to get over being a "cheap" car. Then sales will increase.
One last thing I forgot to mention; Kia doesn't have the dealer network Chrysler has, either.
Then they back up their cars with the best Warranty in the business. They will demand that you follow your maintenance schedule fully-completely in exchange for that great Warranty.
If I didn't own my '08 Mitsubishi Lancer GTS which is just about to eclipse 40,000 miles, I would probably buy a new 2010 Kia Forte sedan.
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
Back to Buick for a sec, June's sales seem to show a bottoming out for them. While GM was down 33.6%, Buick was only down 10.7%. That would be 3rd place for all luxury makes in this category, as only Volvo (+.6%) and Audi (-8.3%) did better.
And the new Lacrosse hasn't even hit showrooms yet.
Everyone laughs. GM back then had the reputation tog et away with that...they could sell it as getting Buick/Olds components in a Chevy.
However, with GM's rep these days, it's vice-versa. You're getting Chevy components in a Buick/Caddy. That doesn't fly.
Well, I DID IT!!! 17 years married, 2 sons, all out of a 1988 Regal. My wife LOVES her Ranier.
As far as the 6 sp auto and the 3.6 V-6 goes, do you really believe that? If so, THAT is old GM mentality. We're not talking a 250 backed up by a Powerglide. It IS a corporate engine mated to a corporate transaxle.
Oh, and Lemko. :P
I think it did too, as they weren't pushed into bankruptcy. However, I think the positive press surrounding the Fusion, F-150, and Taurus had as much to do with it as anything. Toyota isn't in trouble, and they took a sales beating too.
Unfortunately, that's something that costs a lot to fix, either marketing-wise or product differentiation. But until GM brings their reputation back up somewhat, the perception will be that Buick and Cadillac are using "commoner" Chevy drivetrains, and not that you're getting high-end luxury-brand components in your Chevy.
I'm sure there's at least one Buick LaCrosse you won't be passing. My girlfriend drives her car very aggressive and is as proud of it as you import fanboys are of your Teutonic tanks.
That's one area where GM used to be really bad. It seems like they made Chevies cheaper on purpose, just to force you to move up the ladder to Pontiac/Olds/Buick. For instance, after the failed Turboglide, I don't think you could even get a 3-speed automatic in a Chevy until 1965, and then only if you got a big-block. I don't think the 3-speed automatic became available with the small-block until 1969!
I think Ford did something similar, although they got on the ball a bit quicker. One of my coworkers briefly had a 1962 Ford Galaxie with a 292 V-8 and a 2-speed "Ford-O-Matic" transmission. Chrysler, in contrast, got on the ball early, and in 1960, even the cheapest Valiant could be had with a 3-speed automatic.
I think people got used to Mopars and Fords being more and more alike, but expected GM to keep their individuality. So when the GM cars became more and more alike, customers started to balk. As for the engine swapping fiasco, the main reason GM got into trouble with that is Oldsmobile actually mentioned the "Rocket" V-8 in their advertising, and played it up to be a superior engine, and a strong selling point. So when people found out their Delta 88, which they bought based on the advertising, and perhaps past experiences with Oldsmobile cars, suddenly found out it had a Chevy 350 under the hood, they were understandably pissed.
And I'll admit, being a Pontiac fan, that I turned down a '79 Bonneville years ago because it had a Buick 350 under the hood, rather than a Pontiac 350. My main rationale at the time, however, was that my '82 Cutlass Supreme with its junky 231 was still fresh in my mind, and that Buick 350 looked enough like the 231 to make me leery. I did find out later though, that while the two were related at birth, they had both gone through so many revisions and alterations over the years, that they weren't that similar anymore. So while a Chevy 229 was just a 305 with two cylinders lopped off, the Buick V-6 and the smallblock V-8 were two vastly different beasts.
I also found out that, by 1979, Pontiac wasn't putting their own 350 in ANY full-sized cars anymore. If you got a 350 Catalina/Bonneville that year, supposedly they ALL had Buick engines!
You would stand out in San Diego if you did not have a Marine Corps insignia on your Buick or Caddy. They are still popular with the retired military that we have more than our fair share. They tend to keep San Diego a bit more stable than the rest of CA. We are also more conservative and tend to Buy American south of the LA/Orange County line.
There's an old saying (I think it was John DeLorean that said it) that while it's easy to sell an old person a young person's car, it's almost impossible to sell a young person an old-people's car!
There's a difference between revering and respecting old people, and trying to imitate them!
Also, I think you have to look at WHY certain cars are driven by older people. Back in the 50's, 60's, 70's, and even part of the 1980's, often you'd see older people driving a Buick, Caddy, Lincoln, Chrysler, etc because they had finally gotten to that point in life where they could afford a car like that. Younger people may have been aspiring to that type of car, but just couldn't afford it yet. And that's why cars like the Chevy Caprice, Fury VIP, and Ford LTD came out...to give younger, less monied people who aspired to a Caddy, Lincoln, or Imperial a less expensive alternative.
Heck, I'd rather be seen as a doddering old geezer driving a Buick, than a pretentious poseur valueless yuppie snob driving the latest overpriced imported ego-mobile.
Well, I'd rather not be seen as either. We'll all get old eventually, so I'd rather not rush it! But at the same time, I'm not one to jump on the bandwagon and chase the latest flash-in-the-pan fad.
Yeah, if I had it to do over again, knowing what I know now, I might have bought that '79 Bonneville. It was white with a light blue vinyl top and light blue vinyl interior. The body was solid, and the interior was decent except for a rip or two in the seat. And the headliner had started sagging, so the owner had ripped it apart, and glued it back up piecemeal! It also had balding tires.
I remember also not being too impressed with its performance. Despite having a 350, it felt slower than my Grandmother's '85 LeSabre, which only had a 307. The Bonneville only had a 3-speed automatic though, compared to the LeSabre's 4-speed. And gearing was different. The LeSabre had a 2.73:1, while that Bonneville was most likely a 2.41:1. I'm sure the LeSabre was a bit lighter, too, as the B-body lost a bit of weight in the 1980 restyle, plus in that era Buicks and Oldsmobiles were often a bit lighter than Chevies and Pontiacs.
Reinforcing the point that some people got old not by being smart but by being too mean and ornery to die. :shades:
Definitely true. Even there though, I think if I found an otherwise nice car that looked like it had been well-maintained that had the 301, I might be willing to take the chance. That caramel-brown '77 Grand LeMans sedan that was at the Carlisle GM show in 2007/2008 (but not this year) has a 301. Although maybe it finally blew, and that's why it wasn't at the show for 2009! :surprise:
Too bad you didn't. You really need another car. :P
In 1957-58, I think Olds might actually have been the best-built of the GM cars. While Buick and Cadillac went to that wasp-waisted "X-frame" in '57, and Chevy/Pontiac joined for 1958, Olds sort of doubled up, using an X-frame, but with perimeter rails as well. Sort of an X within a box.
For 1959-64, I think Chevy/Buick went with an X-frame, while Pontiac/Olds went with a perimeter frame. I forget now what Cadillac did.
Lessee, that was the summer of 1999. At that time, I had an '89 Gran Fury ex copcar as my daily driver, my grandmother's '85 LeSabre as a spare car, the DeSoto, the Catalina and a '67 Chrysler Newport hardtop coupe. So yeah, a '79 Bonneville would have fit in well. :shades:
I probably could have gotten it for a few hundred bucks. The owner was actually planning on donating it to a charity! He also had a 1988 or so Fiero GT, and a Chrysler 300M. Old guy, well into his 60's, but I think he had decent taste in cars.
Absolutely, I do. Fair or not, it IS something GM has to work hard to overcome. Even though the original Lexus ES was a gussied up Camry, the perception is that the Camry was a toned down Lexus. Fortunately, all the car rags seem to agree that the 3.6L is a world class engine. Hopefully, the cars they get put in will someday soon be seen as world class, and it won't matter that they run the same engine, just like it doesn't matter for Chrysler, Ford, Toyota, Nissan, et al.
One caveat; we have to exchange the Limited's 364 Nailhead for a 425 w/ the 6x2bbl setup for more power and effect. Otherwise, the ultra rare Stage III 455 will do.
Sure, but impressionable kids like me noticed the Fisher logo on the sills in our Buick, and then I'd see the same logo in friends' Chevys. They should have used different badges there too.
It made me wonder "why bother" getting a Caddy or Buick if "parts are parts."
My father went from the '53 Buick to a Valiant to a Falcon. As much as he loved his Buick, I think it was the only one he drove. He was 36 when he got it and drove it for around 14 years, so he got his money's worth out of it.
I agree, but for the image 'worry warts', newsflash, I see more older people driving beige Toyotas than other brands these days. [The 90's ended a decade ago, btw] So, in other words, update your 'image consultant catalog'.
Does this mean Toyota will be 'out of business' since older people drive them???? :P