Does this mean Toyota will be 'out of business' since older people drive them????
Only if Toyota "ages" with its clientele and can't bring in younger customers. I think the problem with Buick and Olds was that they once appealed to people in their 40's and 50's. However, sometime in the 1980's, they became less successful at bringing in the "new" 40-50 year olds, but rather stuck it out with the current crop of buyers, and followed them into their 50's, 60's, 70's, etc. Sure, there were SOME younger buyers getting Buicks, but not enough to replace the aging buyers who, as a group, tend to buy cars less and less often as they get older.
IMO, cars like the Honda Accord and Toyota Camry are starting to turn into what the Buick Century/Regal and Olds Cutlass Supreme were in the 1970's and early 80's. Actually, they might be more "aged" than that now. Back in the 1970's, I'm sure a 20-something would have been proud to show off his new Cutlass Supreme or Regal. But today, your typical 20-something would probably look at an Accord as a car that screams "family".
There's an old lady at work who used to have a Regal sedan. Not sure of the year, but I think it was around a 1991 or so. When it came time to trade, she got a 2004 or so Camry...so that Regal did give her good service. Now she has another Camry, a 2008 I think.
So, the Accord and Camry are definitely aging, when it comes to the type of customers they attract. They just have to make sure they can maintain the balance between hanging on to older customers, while bringing in new customers to replace those who age and die off.
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.
Sounds like my grandfather. Drove a big ol' black 49 Buick from likely before i came into the picture until about 6 months before he died. Spent that 6 months in a 60 or 61 Valiant wagon. We inherited the Valiant. We were convinced that if his heart hadn't done him in the Valiant would have.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
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.
She ain't gonna block my way. Unless she dares drive 120mph switching lanes, my specialty. :P
Buick's not facing the "old man" image IMO. It's the cars that are too old looking, not because it's aimed at older folks, it's because of the lack of updates and fresh redesigns. Once a company finds the magic formula for everlasting looks like Porsche then lack of fresh design is understandable. In Buick's case? No way :P
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!
It doesn't matter what you think, as long as the market disagrees, Buick WILL have to either change or die.
No, I disagree. It is design, too. Chrome grills, accents and stuff can be found pretty much only on cars aimed at folks that are 45 plus: Buicks, Cadillacs, Lincolns. People who remember (either personally or through second hand) Detroit's "gold age" of 50-60 full-size sedan designs. Oh - there is another group that seems to be liking that stuff - rapers and their followers - which is Cadillac Escalade and Hummer base.
It appears as though you have not seen the new LaCrosse. AW gave it rave reviews. If the old one was a 7, the new one is a 9 or 10 in my opinion. Pretty fast re-fresh on the design. Buicks have good reputation for quality. The Enclave has been doing extremely well in the market place. I suspect the new LaCrosse will continue the Buick revival in the marketplace.
".....No, I disagree. It is design, too. Chrome grills, accents and stuff can be found pretty much only on cars aimed at folks that are 45 plus: Buicks, Cadillacs, Lincolns. People who remember (either personally or through second hand) Detroit's "gold age" of 50-60 full-size sedan designs. Oh - there is another group that seems to be liking that stuff - rapers and their followers - which is Cadillac Escalade and Hummer base. "
OK, but this begs the question; aside from the "bling" crowd, what is wrong with traditional "American" styling in a car, which generally means a little bit bigger and the chrome accents and grilles? If they made an AWD variant of the old Lacrosse with a 6 sp. manual, and a 450 hp twin turbo 3.6L, and put a Corvette suspension in it, would it not get attention from the younger crowd??
Mind you, the Grand National and GNX weren't much different from this philosophically. Just an aging Regal V6 hopped up on Steroids.
Mind you, the Grand National and GNX weren't much different from this philosophically. Just an aging Regal V6 hopped up on Steroids.
I always thought Buick did a big disservice to its customers when they eliminated the T-type models. I guess the Gran Sport sort of took over for it, but I never liked that name, because it sounds stuffy, sort of like "Old Sport". And names like "Ultra" just seem a bit pretentious.
It appears as though you have not seen the new LaCrosse. AW gave it rave reviews. If the old one was a 7,
Perhaps that's the disagreement. In the world of medium sedans, I would not put it anywhere near a 7. So if the old one was a 7 then perhaps the new one is a 10. But if the old one is a 4 then the new one might be a 6!
As others have said, let's be realistic about the market. Buick is a tarnished name and even with excellent merchandise, their image is not likely to gain an significant market share. Does anybody *REALLY* think that Buick is ever going to have enough appeal to reverse the decade of decline to make it a brand worth keeping? That is why GM should dump the nameplate in the U.S.
I just don't get it. Buick is *three* specific vehicles. Soon to be two sedans.
Buick is to GM as Scion is to Toyota. A small niche group of three vehicles that sells well and are a step up from the plain vanilla offerings(yet not Lexus). Nobody's screaming for Toyota to drop Scion.
Buicks sell well, considering. The real deal is chat to do with Chevrolet's bloat and excess.
Interesting that you mention Scion. Their sales are tanking when you would expect them to be soaring with all the interest in small cars. Sales were down 65% for June for the three models. They are down 60% for the year. Sales of the "new" Xd were less than 1000 units, down 70%!!!
".....And names like "Ultra" just seem a bit pretentious."
I agree. I don't know if a name like Limited or Roadmaster just got long in the tooth in their eyes, but I know I'd rather see Roadmaster on my PA instead of Ultra.
I suspect the new LaCrosse will continue the Buick revival in the marketplace.
Which revival is that, exactly? Buick sales are by far the lowest the brand has ever had, and the decline continues this year.
There are those who feel that now that Toyota has basically ruined the Scion brand, it SHOULD drop it. The exciting thing about the original Scion models was that they were JDM models that were unlike anything Toyota offered in America.
Then Toyota replaced them with "Americanized" 2nd-gen versions, and now where's the attraction? Hence the tanking of sales. The same is true at Buick: its lineup consists exclusively of models that are little different from stuff GM already offers, and in Buick's case, they are also little different from what other car companies are offering. Where's the attraction?
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
"......Which revival is that, exactly? Buick sales are by far the lowest the brand has ever had, and the decline continues this year."
Last month they outsold Caddy. Should they now drop them??? How about Audi??? Volvo?? Acura??? Mitsubishi?? Suzuki??? Should they all go away???
The "revival" started with the Enclave. An SUV (CUV? whatever) that any upper middle class family would be proud to have in their driveway, if that is the type of vehicle they choose. When the concept came out, people raved about it's good looks, and THAT'S why they made it.
The rest of the lineup suffers because it's (in car years) "older than the people buying them". Now, last year we see the Chinese Invicta concept. People said wow, great job. I like it. Too bad it's not coming here (a comment people seem to make about ALL Chinese market Buicks). Well, guess what; IT IS!!! With very little change, it's the 2010 LaCrosse. And guess what, people STILL like the looks. Look at the comments from some of these posters:
Oh OK, it's just that you and I have a different definition of revival then. Yours is based on your perception (and critical review) of new and upcoming product, mine is based on sales figures.
But the sales figures show a continuing decline even AFTER these new and acclaimed models (like Enclave) came out.
I would bet a great deal against the 2010 Lacrosse turning that trend around. Buick needs a game-changer. They don't have one in the pipeline. OTOH, if I remember rightly they have had some gorgeous concepts in the last 10 years that might have been game-changers if they had ever gotten beyond the artist's napkin.
A sexy convertible? A sedan with some actual performance cred? Those could be game-changers for Buick. Maybe.
A 5500-pound minivan without the sliding doors and some small tweaks on an age-old formula for large 4-door sedans are not going to cut it.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I for one like the new LaCrosse (would never consider the '09). The '10 looks like a comfortable cruiser (wish it was RWD, though). I like the looks of it. I hope it sells well. Can't wait for a detailed review. Wonder when they'll hit the lots?
".....Yours is based on your perception (and critical review) of new and upcoming product, mine is based on sales figures.
But the sales figures show a continuing decline even AFTER these new and acclaimed models (like Enclave) came out."
Yes, there was a continuing decline, ONLY because $4/gal gas supressed Enclave (and all SUV) sales down. Again, the Lucerne and Lacrosse are OLD models today, coupled with the fact that fleet sales are down significantly for these 2 models. Also, while sales are sliding Buick has STOPPED the 40 and 50% sales declines, losing "only" 10% as opposed to Infinity or Acura, still losing 1/3 of their sales.
".....A 5500-pound minivan without the sliding doors and some small tweaks on an age-old formula for large 4-door sedans are not going to cut it. "
Based on that, I guess we could say ALL CUV'S are overglorified minivans. The new Lacrosse isn't a "tweak" it's a new car altogether.
"Bling" was standard in the 50's....we called it Style. The cars were made like battleships. If the metal was impervious to rust, these cars would still be on the streets in numbers.
Excellent post! If the 2010 LaCrosse had migrated to either top of the line Chevy or low end Caddy, there would be a major enhancement to either marquee....too bad it's wasted on BUICK. :sick:
It all depends what the goals were. Rolls Royce or Ferrari sold even fewer cars, so what. GM is not Ferrari, Buick certainly is not Rolls Royce.
The problem with pretty much all GM's brands was not just in number of vehicles sold, but size of the shortfall from what was their minimum required to reach profitability, or even maintain survival.
This year everybody is in the tank - the difference is some have cash, R&D and market position needed to make it to the other side of the slump, others had to be nationalized, force taxpayers to pay their bills, have their creditors trampled, shut off or sell half of their operations. There is a big difference.
Lacrosse and Lucerne both started off with good peaks in their first summer on the market (2005 and 2006 respectively), then sales steadily eroded without regard to gas prices or the economy in general. Enclave got off to a modest start and is generally holding its own over the last year.
Both the Lacrosse and the Lucerne were restyles of old platforms. Again, in the last 2 years, I'll bet a significant amount of the dropoff was due to a pullback in fleet sales.
As far as Buick vs. Rolls or Ferrari, I'm sure that they are far happier with their sales numbers than GM is with Buicks, as they cater to a MUCH MUCH smaller market than Buick. Last June, Honda sold almost 12,500 Acuras. This June; just under 8,300. Last June, GM sold 9,600 Buicks vs. 8,600 this June. GM must be happy with the fact that sales are reletively steady, especially considering that it could be assumed that many (like me) are holding off their purchase until the new LaCrosse is available.
The dealer I'm dealing with anticipates his first 4 will arrive next week.
That gets back to something I've been complaining about for a long time. American car manufacturers forgot how to make AMERICAN CARS! They're in the shape they're in because for the last 20 years or so, they've been trying to make copies of Asian or European cars and falling flat on their faces.
Ditto that. I'll be out in the Wildcat all day today. Ain't no euro sh^&box or [non-permissible content removed] crap that can compare to the class of that.
....had been a Chevy Impala instead, which car would sell more copies?
You take the LaCrosse, restyle it only slightly (grille, etc.) to be a Chevy, and market it as the new improved Impala (a la Malibu). Would that car get more sales than the Buick? IMHO the answer is YES. Which is why Buick is a mistake and one less division would lower GM's costs and increase their sales.
You take the LaCrosse, restyle it only slightly (grille, etc.) to be a Chevy, and market it as the new improved Impala (a la Malibu). Would that car get more sales than the Buick? IMHO the answer is YES.
Unfortunately, that's because Impala is currently designated as fleet-fodder. Putting a LaCrosse relative in a fleet-fodder slot will hurt in the long run.
Impala really kinda sucks, but that's why it's perfect for fleet-fodder. Make the Chevy LaCrosse a Celebrity or Lumina, keep Impala and make it fleet-only.
Well if you want, email me some pics (email is in my profile) and I could put them up on my site. I have an account with photobucket with tons of space.
That gets back to something I've been complaining about for a long time. American car manufacturers forgot how to make AMERICAN CARS!
Bingo!
Cars.com's American-Made Index highlights the cars that are built here, have the highest amount of domestic parts — with eligible models having parts-content ratings of 75% or higher — and are bought in the largest numbers by Americans.
The Toyota Camry, once an American-Made Index presence, hasn't appeared on this list since 2007. Not only does it return for 2009, it's displaced Ford's F-150 as the only leader this list has had since we began compiling it in 2006. Three others joined the list, two of which — the Ford Taurus and Toyota Venza — have never been on the AMI before, and Detroit automakers claimed just five of the 10 spots. That's a record low for them.
MP: "Foreign" automakers captured half of the top ten spots for American-made cars in 2009:
#1. Toyota Camry (pictured above) #4. Honda Odyssey #6. Toyota Sienna #7. Toyota Tundra #10. Toyota Venza
cooterbfd, find a picture on the net in another browser window that is no more than 600 x 480 or around that. Right click it and click "copy image location".
Then, go to your post, clik the "Img" button, then right clikc your mouse and click "past" so the image location appears after the
BTW, I think lemko was referring to "American" cars in the sense of styling, and not domestic content (though don't get me wrong, DC IS a major component). There has been, since at least the post war (WWII) a major difference in the way we and the Europeans have designed cars. I would say that here the car you drove was always as much of a fashon statement as it was transportation.
I don't understand the move to have everything LOOK like a Camry. People don't buy Camrys because they look good. Certain generations of them have been nice looking and some at least not offensive (I don't include the current version in either camp) but people buy them no matter what for what they perceive it offers - long, reliable life.
Now most here would agree that a Buick will provide you with a long, reliable life as well but you need to make it look American and be uniquely American to draw people in. It can be done. I look at what Ford is doing and they have the idea. NO reason GM can't do it other than the plug gets pulled before they accomplish it.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
OK, but this begs the question; aside from the "bling" crowd, what is wrong with traditional "American" styling in a car, which generally means a little bit bigger and the chrome accents and grilles?
When it comes to design, I believe the problem is: American cars still haven't managed to find the right theme that can last in the long run. And no, not even the Japanese have found that, so far only Europeans managed to do so.
The second problem is American consumers' love for chrome, which adds flash, but at the price of losing class. You don't see classy cars with chrome overkill, and yes, the same problem applies to Cadillac.
I've seen it, still not enough to lure the younger market IMO.
Remember Pontiac's old philosophy: "An old man will drive a young man's car, but a young man will not drive an old man's car"
Positive, negative, no matter. Give them what the market wants and sales will rise, that simple.
Like I said, Buick is pretty much dead. Now what's left is to salvage the best parts of it, namely fit-finish and reliability, and place them in the other divisions like Cadillac.
".....When it comes to design, I believe the problem is: American cars still haven't managed to find the right theme that can last in the long run."
I believe that is because Americans are conditioned to "what have you done for me lately". And that is from a style and fashon sense. Think about it for a sec; EVERY SINGLE CHEVY IMPALA from 1958 thru 1972 had it's own separate and distinct look, even if they shared a body style or frame among the years. Can you tell the difference between an '09 or a '10 Impala? Camry? Accord? Malibu?? No. only by the vin #.
VW sold a lot of Bugs poking fun at those annual model changes out of Detroit. VW touted the incremental improvements, not big styling changes. When the tail lights got big and round, that was a big deal.
Even now, while the new Rabbit is a bit of departure, does it really look all that different from the old Golf and the original Rabbit?
OK, but this begs the question; aside from the "bling" crowd, what is wrong with traditional "American" styling in a car, which generally means a little bit bigger and the chrome accents and grilles? If they made an AWD variant of the old Lacrosse with a 6 sp. manual, and a 450 hp twin turbo 3.6L, and put a Corvette suspension in it, would it not get attention from the younger crowd??
The problem with that styling is that it has become associated with inferior cars. If BMW and Audi had been blinging their cars and they were otherwise praised for reliability, refinement, handling, interior quality -- then those external aesthetics would become associated with desirability. Conversely, you have unrefined GM rental fodder with bling and after a while everybody associates those styling elements with crappy cars.
So for the New GM to break with their old past, they should ditch the "American styling" -- not because it is inherently bad, but because it helps the consumer believe that this is different and these companies have changed. Same reason why they should dump the Buick name and even the GM name should change somewhat. The more people feel GM has not changed the less likely they are going to be successful.
Well, we don't have to worry about the styling trend when it comes to U.S. content, now, do we?
The Toyota Camry is more American than the Ford F-150, at least according to Cars.com's annual American-Made Index. The findings further muddy the Buy American debate that rages across the country. Toyota Motor Corp. also is the most American car company, according to the rankings of the index in terms of U.S. content in its cars and trucks.
AFAIC, GM needs to reinvent styling, quality, brand image and Buick ain't it.
Unfortunately, that's because Impala is currently designated as fleet-fodder. Putting a LaCrosse relative in a fleet-fodder slot will hurt in the long run.
Impala really kinda sucks, but that's why it's perfect for fleet-fodder. Make the Chevy LaCrosse a Celebrity or Lumina, keep Impala and make it fleet-only.
So here's a novel idea for the "new GM". Dump Buick except in China. Sell the fleet-fodder cars and commercial trucks through GMC! Sell cars for the public at Chevrolet. No fleet sales, just good vehicles. No overlap with GMC. So you would have only the Traverse at Chevy (no more Acadia/Enclave/etc.), and you could have a GMC Impala for fleets. You sell your commercial trucks at GMC as well. So then you don't even need GMC dealers as all sales are commerical (trucks, fleet cars). Chevy and Caddy are your two lines a la Lexus/Toyota or Honda/Acura.
Think about it for a sec; EVERY SINGLE CHEVY IMPALA from 1958 thru 1972 had it's own separate and distinct look, even if they shared a body style or frame among the years.
Heck, they were able to take it longer than that...the Impala, and Caprice, actually had styling changes every year up through 1981! 1980 was a more aerodynamic reskin of the '77-79, with a lower nose and slightly taller rear deck, and elimination of the wraparound rear window on the coupes. And for 1981 they actually made the effort to change the grille on both the Impala and Caprice, although they didn't bother with the taillights. And then they used the same grille from 1981-85.
One reason they quit with the annual styling changes might have been those 5 mph bumpers. Before 1973, the bumper was often more decoration than anything else. As a result, it could be blended into the overall style of the car to make it look good...regardless of how good of a job the bumper actually did in protecting the car! But in 1973, the 5 mph standard was applied to front bumpers, and then the rear in 1974. So now, all of a sudden, instead of just styling the bumper to look pretty, they had to design it to be functional. And if it failed in the function, it had to be redesigned again until they got it right. As a result, once they got a bumper design that did the job, they were probably reluctant to mess with it any more than necessary.
Also, aerodynamics became much more important, so that resulted in a more generic look to cars, as there are only so many shapes, creases, textures, etc that will efficiently slice through the wind.
And, I'd imagine the rough economic times of the 1979-83 timeframe helped put a damper on annual styling changes. Chrysler and Ford almost went bankrupt (Chrysler would have if the gov't hadn't stepped up with loan guarantees). And even the mighty GM was feeling the pinch. There was one year in there, either 1982 or 1983, that the only reason GM even made money was because of GMAC financing. Without it, they would have been in the red as well. So, with issues like that going on suddenly doing things like changing the grille, taillights, or a crease here and there, seemed pretty petty.
Oh, one other thing...I'd imagine those tightening emissions standards in the 1970's probably took money away from the annual styling changes. The auto makers suddenly had to divert money towards more efficient engines, transmissions, fuel delivery systems. Plus, increased safety standards.
I do miss those days of annual styling changes, and more autonomy of the divisions, that helped make the cars so much more unique. But, I'm afraid those days are gone for good. :sick:
Commercial doesn't necessarily mean fleet. Small business buyers go to dealers same as we do (my local Ford dealer keeps a lot of F-250s, F-350s, and even F-350 and up chassis for just that reason). Need to figure out how to handle that...you need some sort of "GMC store" to serve these customers.
Comments
Only if Toyota "ages" with its clientele and can't bring in younger customers. I think the problem with Buick and Olds was that they once appealed to people in their 40's and 50's. However, sometime in the 1980's, they became less successful at bringing in the "new" 40-50 year olds, but rather stuck it out with the current crop of buyers, and followed them into their 50's, 60's, 70's, etc. Sure, there were SOME younger buyers getting Buicks, but not enough to replace the aging buyers who, as a group, tend to buy cars less and less often as they get older.
IMO, cars like the Honda Accord and Toyota Camry are starting to turn into what the Buick Century/Regal and Olds Cutlass Supreme were in the 1970's and early 80's. Actually, they might be more "aged" than that now. Back in the 1970's, I'm sure a 20-something would have been proud to show off his new Cutlass Supreme or Regal. But today, your typical 20-something would probably look at an Accord as a car that screams "family".
There's an old lady at work who used to have a Regal sedan. Not sure of the year, but I think it was around a 1991 or so. When it came time to trade, she got a 2004 or so Camry...so that Regal did give her good service. Now she has another Camry, a 2008 I think.
So, the Accord and Camry are definitely aging, when it comes to the type of customers they attract. They just have to make sure they can maintain the balance between hanging on to older customers, while bringing in new customers to replace those who age and die off.
Sounds like my grandfather. Drove a big ol' black 49 Buick from likely before i came into the picture until about 6 months before he died. Spent that 6 months in a 60 or 61 Valiant wagon. We inherited the Valiant. We were convinced that if his heart hadn't done him in the Valiant would have.
Well, at this rate can we actually expect more??? :P :P
She ain't gonna block my way. Unless she dares drive 120mph switching lanes, my specialty. :P
Buick's not facing the "old man" image IMO. It's the cars that are too old looking, not because it's aimed at older folks, it's because of the lack of updates and fresh redesigns. Once a company finds the magic formula for everlasting looks like Porsche then lack of fresh design is understandable. In Buick's case? No way :P
It doesn't matter what you think, as long as the market disagrees, Buick WILL have to either change or die.
And for 30 years, the parts worked better for the off-shore brands than the US. Before that, it was the other way around.
BTW, I see plenty of older folks in bimmers and audis. :P
Regards,
OW
2018 430i Gran Coupe
OK, but this begs the question; aside from the "bling" crowd, what is wrong with traditional "American" styling in a car, which generally means a little bit bigger and the chrome accents and grilles? If they made an AWD variant of the old Lacrosse with a 6 sp. manual, and a 450 hp twin turbo 3.6L, and put a Corvette suspension in it, would it not get attention from the younger crowd??
Mind you, the Grand National and GNX weren't much different from this philosophically. Just an aging Regal V6 hopped up on Steroids.
I always thought Buick did a big disservice to its customers when they eliminated the T-type models. I guess the Gran Sport sort of took over for it, but I never liked that name, because it sounds stuffy, sort of like "Old Sport". And names like "Ultra" just seem a bit pretentious.
Perhaps that's the disagreement. In the world of medium sedans, I would not put it anywhere near a 7. So if the old one was a 7 then perhaps the new one is a 10. But if the old one is a 4 then the new one might be a 6!
As others have said, let's be realistic about the market. Buick is a tarnished name and even with excellent merchandise, their image is not likely to gain an significant market share. Does anybody *REALLY* think that Buick is ever going to have enough appeal to reverse the decade of decline to make it a brand worth keeping? That is why GM should dump the nameplate in the U.S.
Buick is to GM as Scion is to Toyota. A small niche group of three vehicles that sells well and are a step up from the plain vanilla offerings(yet not Lexus). Nobody's screaming for Toyota to drop Scion.
Buicks sell well, considering. The real deal is chat to do with Chevrolet's bloat and excess.
Are the cars that bad or what gives?
Total Buick sales were over twice Scion sales.
I agree. I don't know if a name like Limited or Roadmaster just got long in the tooth in their eyes, but I know I'd rather see Roadmaster on my PA instead of Ultra.
Which revival is that, exactly? Buick sales are by far the lowest the brand has ever had, and the decline continues this year.
There are those who feel that now that Toyota has basically ruined the Scion brand, it SHOULD drop it. The exciting thing about the original Scion models was that they were JDM models that were unlike anything Toyota offered in America.
Then Toyota replaced them with "Americanized" 2nd-gen versions, and now where's the attraction? Hence the tanking of sales. The same is true at Buick: its lineup consists exclusively of models that are little different from stuff GM already offers, and in Buick's case, they are also little different from what other car companies are offering. Where's the attraction?
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Last month they outsold Caddy. Should they now drop them??? How about Audi??? Volvo?? Acura??? Mitsubishi?? Suzuki??? Should they all go away???
The "revival" started with the Enclave. An SUV (CUV? whatever) that any upper middle class family would be proud to have in their driveway, if that is the type of vehicle they choose. When the concept came out, people raved about it's good looks, and THAT'S why they made it.
The rest of the lineup suffers because it's (in car years) "older than the people buying them". Now, last year we see the Chinese Invicta concept. People said wow, great job. I like it. Too bad it's not coming here (a comment people seem to make about ALL Chinese market Buicks). Well, guess what; IT IS!!! With very little change, it's the 2010 LaCrosse. And guess what, people STILL like the looks. Look at the comments from some of these posters:
http://www.autoblog.com/2009/01/08/video-2010-buick-lacrosse-inside-and-out/
Not 100% positive, but a general feeling that it's a good looking car.
Now, if they can only market it. "Take a look at me now", eh.....valid point but eh...I dunno.
But the sales figures show a continuing decline even AFTER these new and acclaimed models (like Enclave) came out.
I would bet a great deal against the 2010 Lacrosse turning that trend around. Buick needs a game-changer. They don't have one in the pipeline. OTOH, if I remember rightly they have had some gorgeous concepts in the last 10 years that might have been game-changers if they had ever gotten beyond the artist's napkin.
A sexy convertible? A sedan with some actual performance cred? Those could be game-changers for Buick. Maybe.
A 5500-pound minivan without the sliding doors and some small tweaks on an age-old formula for large 4-door sedans are not going to cut it.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Happy 4th!!!
Regards,
Dale
But the sales figures show a continuing decline even AFTER these new and acclaimed models (like Enclave) came out."
Yes, there was a continuing decline, ONLY because $4/gal gas supressed Enclave (and all SUV) sales down. Again, the Lucerne and Lacrosse are OLD models today, coupled with the fact that fleet sales are down significantly for these 2 models. Also, while sales are sliding Buick has STOPPED the 40 and 50% sales declines, losing "only" 10% as opposed to Infinity or Acura, still losing 1/3 of their sales.
".....A 5500-pound minivan without the sliding doors and some small tweaks on an age-old formula for large 4-door sedans are not going to cut it. "
Based on that, I guess we could say ALL CUV'S are overglorified minivans. The new Lacrosse isn't a "tweak" it's a new car altogether.
Regards,
OW
Regards,
OW
The problem with pretty much all GM's brands was not just in number of vehicles sold, but size of the shortfall from what was their minimum required to reach profitability, or even maintain survival.
This year everybody is in the tank - the difference is some have cash, R&D and market position needed to make it to the other side of the slump, others had to be nationalized, force taxpayers to pay their bills, have their creditors trampled, shut off or sell half of their operations. There is a big difference.
2018 430i Gran Coupe
I will repeat this many times in the future until Buick goes the way of Olds.
Regards,
OW
As far as Buick vs. Rolls or Ferrari, I'm sure that they are far happier with their sales numbers than GM is with Buicks, as they cater to a MUCH MUCH smaller market than Buick. Last June, Honda sold almost 12,500 Acuras. This June; just under 8,300. Last June, GM sold 9,600 Buicks vs. 8,600 this June. GM must be happy with the fact that sales are reletively steady, especially considering that it could be assumed that many (like me) are holding off their purchase until the new LaCrosse is available.
The dealer I'm dealing with anticipates his first 4 will arrive next week.
You take the LaCrosse, restyle it only slightly (grille, etc.) to be a Chevy, and market it as the new improved Impala (a la Malibu). Would that car get more sales than the Buick? IMHO the answer is YES. Which is why Buick is a mistake and one less division would lower GM's costs and increase their sales.
Unfortunately, that's because Impala is currently designated as fleet-fodder. Putting a LaCrosse relative in a fleet-fodder slot will hurt in the long run.
Impala really kinda sucks, but that's why it's perfect for fleet-fodder. Make the Chevy LaCrosse a Celebrity or Lumina, keep Impala and make it fleet-only.
Bingo!
Cars.com's American-Made Index highlights the cars that are built here, have the highest amount of domestic parts — with eligible models having parts-content ratings of 75% or higher — and are bought in the largest numbers by Americans.
The Toyota Camry, once an American-Made Index presence, hasn't appeared on this list since 2007. Not only does it return for 2009, it's displaced Ford's F-150 as the only leader this list has had since we began compiling it in 2006. Three others joined the list, two of which — the Ford Taurus and Toyota Venza — have never been on the AMI before, and Detroit automakers claimed just five of the 10 spots. That's a record low for them.
MP: "Foreign" automakers captured half of the top ten spots for American-made cars in 2009:
#1. Toyota Camry (pictured above)
#4. Honda Odyssey
#6. Toyota Sienna
#7. Toyota Tundra
#10. Toyota Venza
Regards,
OW
Then, go to your post, clik the "Img" button, then right clikc your mouse and click "past" so the image location appears after the
BTW, I think lemko was referring to "American" cars in the sense of styling, and not domestic content (though don't get me wrong, DC IS a major component). There has been, since at least the post war (WWII) a major difference in the way we and the Europeans have designed cars. I would say that here the car you drove was always as much of a fashon statement as it was transportation.
I don't understand the move to have everything LOOK like a Camry. People don't buy Camrys because they look good. Certain generations of them have been nice looking and some at least not offensive (I don't include the current version in either camp) but people buy them no matter what for what they perceive it offers - long, reliable life.
Now most here would agree that a Buick will provide you with a long, reliable life as well but you need to make it look American and be uniquely American to draw people in. It can be done. I look at what Ford is doing and they have the idea. NO reason GM can't do it other than the plug gets pulled before they accomplish it.
When it comes to design, I believe the problem is: American cars still haven't managed to find the right theme that can last in the long run. And no, not even the Japanese have found that, so far only Europeans managed to do so.
The second problem is American consumers' love for chrome, which adds flash, but at the price of losing class. You don't see classy cars with chrome overkill, and yes, the same problem applies to Cadillac.
Remember Pontiac's old philosophy:
"An old man will drive a young man's car, but a young man will not drive an old man's car"
Positive, negative, no matter. Give them what the market wants and sales will rise, that simple.
Like I said, Buick is pretty much dead. Now what's left is to salvage the best parts of it, namely fit-finish and reliability, and place them in the other divisions like Cadillac.
I believe that is because Americans are conditioned to "what have you done for me lately". And that is from a style and fashon sense. Think about it for a sec; EVERY SINGLE CHEVY IMPALA from 1958 thru 1972 had it's own separate and distinct look, even if they shared a body style or frame among the years. Can you tell the difference between an '09 or a '10 Impala? Camry? Accord? Malibu?? No. only by the vin #.
Even now, while the new Rabbit is a bit of departure, does it really look all that different from the old Golf and the original Rabbit?
The problem with that styling is that it has become associated with inferior cars. If BMW and Audi had been blinging their cars and they were otherwise praised for reliability, refinement, handling, interior quality -- then those external aesthetics would become associated with desirability. Conversely, you have unrefined GM rental fodder with bling and after a while everybody associates those styling elements with crappy cars.
So for the New GM to break with their old past, they should ditch the "American styling" -- not because it is inherently bad, but because it helps the consumer believe that this is different and these companies have changed. Same reason why they should dump the Buick name and even the GM name should change somewhat. The more people feel GM has not changed the less likely they are going to be successful.
The Toyota Camry is more American than the Ford F-150, at least according to Cars.com's annual American-Made Index. The findings further muddy the Buy American debate that rages across the country. Toyota Motor Corp. also is the most American car company, according to the rankings of the index in terms of U.S. content in its cars and trucks.
AFAIC, GM needs to reinvent styling, quality, brand image and Buick ain't it.
Luxury
Mid-Size Sedan
Sport Performance Sedan/Coupe
Compact
Regards,
OW
1- Chrysler 300
2- Hyundai Genesis Sedan.
Neither is made in USA as far as I know.
Impala really kinda sucks, but that's why it's perfect for fleet-fodder. Make the Chevy LaCrosse a Celebrity or Lumina, keep Impala and make it fleet-only.
So here's a novel idea for the "new GM". Dump Buick except in China. Sell the fleet-fodder cars and commercial trucks through GMC! Sell cars for the public at Chevrolet. No fleet sales, just good vehicles. No overlap with GMC. So you would have only the Traverse at Chevy (no more Acadia/Enclave/etc.), and you could have a GMC Impala for fleets. You sell your commercial trucks at GMC as well. So then you don't even need GMC dealers as all sales are commerical (trucks, fleet cars). Chevy and Caddy are your two lines a la Lexus/Toyota or Honda/Acura.
1- Chevrolet: Mainstream
2- Buick: FWD luxury cars a la Acura/Volvo
3- Cadillac: RWD luxury cars like BMW/Mercedes
All vehicles whether they are passenger cars, trucks, or crossovers can fall under these three depending on price and class. Therefore, no more GMC.
Heck, they were able to take it longer than that...the Impala, and Caprice, actually had styling changes every year up through 1981! 1980 was a more aerodynamic reskin of the '77-79, with a lower nose and slightly taller rear deck, and elimination of the wraparound rear window on the coupes. And for 1981 they actually made the effort to change the grille on both the Impala and Caprice, although they didn't bother with the taillights. And then they used the same grille from 1981-85.
One reason they quit with the annual styling changes might have been those 5 mph bumpers. Before 1973, the bumper was often more decoration than anything else. As a result, it could be blended into the overall style of the car to make it look good...regardless of how good of a job the bumper actually did in protecting the car! But in 1973, the 5 mph standard was applied to front bumpers, and then the rear in 1974. So now, all of a sudden, instead of just styling the bumper to look pretty, they had to design it to be functional. And if it failed in the function, it had to be redesigned again until they got it right. As a result, once they got a bumper design that did the job, they were probably reluctant to mess with it any more than necessary.
Also, aerodynamics became much more important, so that resulted in a more generic look to cars, as there are only so many shapes, creases, textures, etc that will efficiently slice through the wind.
And, I'd imagine the rough economic times of the 1979-83 timeframe helped put a damper on annual styling changes. Chrysler and Ford almost went bankrupt (Chrysler would have if the gov't hadn't stepped up with loan guarantees). And even the mighty GM was feeling the pinch. There was one year in there, either 1982 or 1983, that the only reason GM even made money was because of GMAC financing. Without it, they would have been in the red as well. So, with issues like that going on suddenly doing things like changing the grille, taillights, or a crease here and there, seemed pretty petty.
Oh, one other thing...I'd imagine those tightening emissions standards in the 1970's probably took money away from the annual styling changes. The auto makers suddenly had to divert money towards more efficient engines, transmissions, fuel delivery systems. Plus, increased safety standards.
I do miss those days of annual styling changes, and more autonomy of the divisions, that helped make the cars so much more unique. But, I'm afraid those days are gone for good. :sick: