Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Most popular vehicles
Popular New Cars
- New Acura MDX
- New Acura RDX
- New Audi Q5
- New BMW 3 Series
- New BMW X3
- New Buick Enclave
- New Cadillac Escalade
- New Chevrolet Equinox
- New Chrysler 300
- New Dodge Challenger
- New Ford Edge
- New Ford Escape
- New Ford Expedition
- New Ford Explorer
- New Ford F-150
- New Ford Focus
- New Ford Mustang
- New Honda Accord
- New Honda Civic
- New Honda CR-V
- New Honda Fit
- New Honda Odyssey
- New Honda Pilot
- New Hyundai Elantra
- New Hyundai Santa Fe
- New Hyundai Sonata
- New Hyundai Tucson
- New Jeep Compass
- New Jeep Grand Cherokee
- New Jeep Wrangler
- New Mazda 3
- New Mazda 6
- New Mazda CX-5
- New Nissan Altima
- New Nissan Maxima
- New Nissan Rogue
- New Porsche Cayenne
- New Ram 1500
- New Subaru Crosstrek
- New Subaru Forester
- New Subaru Impreza
- New Subaru Outback
- New Tesla Model S
- New Tesla Model X
- New Toyota 4Runner
- New Toyota Camry
- New Toyota Corolla
- New Toyota Highlander
- New Toyota Prius
- New Toyota RAV4
- New Toyota Sienna
- New Toyota Tacoma
- New Volkswagen Jetta
- New Volvo XC60
- New Volvo XC90
Popular Used Sedans
- Used BMW 5 Series
- Used Chevrolet Impala
- Used Chevrolet Malibu
- Used Chrysler 200
- Used Dodge Charger
- Used Ford Fusion
- Used Ford Taurus
- Used Honda Accord
- Used Honda Civic
- Used Hyundai Elantra
- Used Hyundai Sonata
- Used Tesla Model S
- Used Toyota Camry
- Used Toyota Corolla
- Used Volkswagen Jetta
Popular Used SUVs
- Used Acura MDX
- Used Acura RDX
- Used Ford Edge
- Used Ford Explorer
- Used Honda CR-V
- Used Honda Pilot
- Used Hyundai Santa Fe
- Used Jeep Compass
- Used Lincoln Navigator
- Used Mazda CX-5
- Used Nissan Rogue
- Used Subaru Crosstrek
- Used Subaru Forester
- Used Tesla Model X
- Used Volvo XC90
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
Honda showed a concept based on the Fit which would be closer in size.
They've gotta squeeze more power out of that engine.
No doubt there are hard-core GM/Buick potential buyers that by their nature will stick to GM and will have blinders on to all of the other vehicles in the market segment. Perhaps the "young professionals" that Motor Trend cites as potential buyers have open minds and will at least look at and test drive brands and models other than Buick and/or GM. Maybe they won't pick GM as a rationale because that is what their father or mother bought.
It is the only premium brand compact crossover at that price. That segment is red hot.
They're hoping people who get sticker shock from an RDX.
Come to think of it, both the Countryman and the Juke offer significantly more power than the Encore, though the Countryman requires an engine upgrade to get it. That's going to be a problem.
There aren't all that many subcompact-sized crossovers out there actually. Honda's got something coming that's Fit-based, but nothing concrete. .
It's disingenuous to call the Encore a "Compact" SUV though, because it's really a size smaller.
The posts are still a mixed bag, but there are a few recent ones where test-drivers and owners think the 2013 CR-Vs still have too much road noise.
Encore is about 2.5 inches less in wheelbase than a Honda CRV but about the same weight. Honda is base priced $2K less. Anyone looking for a smallish SUV would be smart to look at many brands in or around the segment in dimensions, price range, test drive and then make their decision.
It's a subcompact SUV. This is life, deal with it. There's nothing wrong with that per-se. Supposedly GM wants to market this to empty-nesters that might nee to periodically tote a borrowed grandchild around. But don't make like it's something that it isn't, because if it's truly a "compact" SUV rather than a subcompact, it's a hideously small compact compared to the competition. And some of said competition is cheaper too. Put it up against a CR-V or a Forester or a RAV-4, or an Escape, and it loses. Badly. Heck, it loses to the Equinox and Terrain. :shades:
GM may think Buick is a premium brand, and some old people may also feel that way, but I don't think too many younger people see Buick as a premium brand. The branding is an issue that's going to be tough to overcome.
Then again, every single Buick aside from the Enclave has been nothing but models plucked from the China and Germany markets so plucking this little runt from Korea is merely par for the course...
GM, as little effort as possible... :shades:
Well, if one's "excellence" criteria is to be cramped in a tallish, awkward looking vehicle, than Encore is the winner. Given the wheelbase, expect it would not have as smooth a ride as the CRV. So, Encore could be the better choppy rider.
Seniors and seasoned citizens generally like a comfortable ride and sufficient interior space. Sales demos will show if the older generation and if so-called "young professionals" are the main buyers of this vehicle.
That size could appeal to urban buyers, which is surely where Buick is aiming. How many country boys would be caught dead in that "truck"?
I still think it could sell well.
MINI Countryman - good point, whoever mentioned that. Don't know how much those will overlap given MINI leans sporty and Buick is about quiet tuning.
Juke is cheaper literally and figuratively.
Impreza XV Crosstrek may be cross-shopped, but snow belters shopping for their 7th Subaru will not be visiting a Buick store, nor vice-versa.
I still don't see a direct competitor.
Daimler owned Chrysler for several years, was responsible for all of the vehicles developed during that time, and had its people completely in charge of Chrysler. It bought a profitable company that was improving its vehicles and sold a company that was gushing red ink and producing several critically panned vehicles. Vehicles that were developed under its watch.
No doubt the domestics had problems. Daimler was in charge of Chrysler, however, so the failure to surmount those problems was Daimler's fault.
During this time, Ford was able to negotiate competitive operating agreements with UAW locals that improved productivity and quality, borrow money to finance a successful restructuring, close unnecessary plants, offer workers a buyout and improve its line-up of vehicles. Nothing prevented Chrysler and Daimler from doing the same, except that Daimler management wasn't apparently up to the task.
Of course, my father is 78 and my mother is 72, so their purchase of a new Encore wouldn't exactly help Buick's image.
Again, no one has suggested Daimler wasn't responsible for what went on under its tenure and ownership. However, what got Chrysler, and the other 2 domestics in their "binds" was far more their product mix than car offerings.
During this time, Ford was able to negotiate competitive operating agreements with UAW locals that improved productivity and quality, borrow money to finance a successful restructuring, close unnecessary plants, offer workers a buyout and improve its line-up of vehicles. Nothing prevented Chrysler and Daimler from doing the same, except that Daimler management wasn't apparently up to the task.
Or GM, and they both wound up in the crapper. Ford was in the same boat, but they had a little more foresight (or luck, depending on one's opinion) in preparing for the future. It's doubtful that Ford executives could have accurately predicted the huge fuel price spikes that came, and their product mix (car .vs. truck offering mix) at the time seems to demonstrate they missed the mark as well.
The common denominator?
All 3 were incredibly dependent upon truck sales. Cars were much more of a supporting role. The history is pretty well documented on that point, if one is interested in reading about it.
Foreign makes fared much better, if for no other reason than they weren't so dependent on non-car sales.
I wonder if your mother came to like that high-up seating position in the Bravada? Also, once you reach a certain age, I think it might be easier to get into and out of a vehicle that's taller, and sits up a bit higher...as long as it's not too extreme.
For awhile, I found that the easiest vehicle to get my grandmother in and out of for doctor's appointments and such was my '85 Silverado. She had no trouble getting in and out of it, but she did have trouble with most cars. However, now that she's gotten older, less stable, more fragile, etc, and shrunk, I guess, she can't get into it like she used to.
She doesn't have too much trouble getting in and out of my Park Ave, but she sure had a time with my old Intrepid. I'm not about to try hoisting her up into the cab of my new Ram though. Heck, sometimes I even have trouble climbing up into that thing!
Having taken various seniors to doctor appointments, or shopping, over the years, generally cars work best if the senior has back or knee or hip problems. They can just sit down in the front seat sideways and then turn and put their legs inside. A van or Suburban is more difficult to climb into when seniors have these ailments.
Now if you have a senior that is in a folding wheelchair and can barely walk, a car works best. Extremely difficult to lift the senior up into a van or Suburban type suv.
I have a super senior woman relative aged 91 who still drives and has a newer Chevrolet Impala. She and her husband (deceased) were lifelong Pontiac owners and then had to switch to Chevrolet.
That's the part my grandmother would sometimes have problems with...the sitting down part. It was always a lot easier for her to just slide into something where the seat was more or less at [non-permissible content removed]-level. But, as she continues to age and shrink, cars are starting to become easier than trucks were.
Chrysler was in a "bind" before GM and Ford were, and before the general collapse of auto sales in the United States in 2008. That is why Daimler was desperate to unload the company, and did so in 2007, or before the collapse in auto sales in the middle of 2008. As you said, history is pretty well documented on that point, if one is interested in reading about it.
There, for example, is this:
In return, Daimler had hoped that Chrysler would radically raise its standing in the North American auto market. But due to tough competition from Asian automakers, Chrysler fell short. Billed as a "merger of equals," the $36 billion deal turned out to be anything but, analysts said. Shortly, control of the combined company fell to Daimler Chairman Schrempp.
"Eaton panicked," Lee Iacocca, said. "We were making $1 billion a quarter and had $12 billion in cash, and while he said it was a merger of equals, he sold Chrysler to Daimler-Benz, when we should have bought them." And Daimler was an all-too-willing, if uninformed, partner, analysts said. The company underrated the competitive forces that would invade the North American car market and take market share from the domestic carmakers.
"Due diligence? Daimler-Benz never did due diligence before it bought Chrysler, never looked into the future to see whether Chrysler could afford to be competitive with the others in the industry," stressed George Peterson, the president of Global Insight.
busris: It's doubtful that Ford executives could have accurately predicted the huge fuel price spikes that came, and their product mix (car .vs. truck offering mix) at the time seems to demonstrate they missed the mark as well.
This analysis is inaccurate on a few levels. One, Ford was better prepared with its line-up, as it had a refreshed Focus available in the fall of 2007, and had rolled out the new Fusion in the fall of 2005, which helped ease some of the shock caused by the decline in truck sales. Ford leadership realized that it had to move away from heavy dependence on truck and SUV sales long before 2008. That is why it had the Fusion and refreshed Focus in place before 2008.
Two, Ford worked to improve quality, and the results were apparent across the board in general, and with the Fusion in particular. As a result, the Fusion, after good reviews in magazines, and good scores in Consumer Reports reliability surveys, became the choice of people who wanted a family sedan but didn't want a Toyota or a Honda and didn't trust VW.
Placing all of the blame on an improper product mix is inaccurate. The domestic auto industry had some serious structural problems. Ford worked to fix them. Daimler thought it could ignore them. If Daimler ignored them, that is Daimler's fault.
busiris: Foreign makes fared much better, if for no other reason than they weren't so dependent on non-car sales.
They were less dependent on the U.S. for sales, and sales in their home markets didn't collapse in 2008.
And if Chrysler was overly dependent on truck sales, exactly which entity bore responsibility for that situation? Perhaps the one that had owned it and ran it from 1998 until the middle of 2007?
Which entity was in charge of product planning? (That would be Daimler.)
Which entity was in charge of new vehicle develoment? (That would be Daimler.)
Which entity was responsible for making long-range forecasts that took into account possible increases in oil prices and the fact that the U.S. economy was due for a recession before the end of the decade? (That would be Daimler.)
Which entity was charged with making sure that all of Chrysler's offerings, from the smallest car to the most expensive truck, were appealing and fully competitive? (That would be Daimler.)
Daimler was running Chrysler. GM management wasn't running it, and neither was Ford management. What happened with GM and Ford is therefore irrelevant. Daimler management was supposed to be SMARTER than those dumb old Americans, and would avoid the same mistakes that they did. Oops...didn't turn out that way. Daimler bears responsibility for that.
We all know by now the high "earning" executive class doesn't take responsibility no matter the situation.
I really don't like stepping UP to enter the Bravada.
The easiest vehicle for entrance and exit that I've driven within the last few years was the Ford Flex we drove at the Carlisle Ford Nationals. I felt as though I could simply step straight into it, without stepping up or down.
The head of Honda did take public responsibility for the lackluster 2012 Civic, and I believe that Lee Iacocca did take responsibility for squandering Chrysler's money on acquisitions instead of developing replacements for the K-car (although he then stayed on too long after that point).
On the other hand, I don't believe that GM's Roger Smith ever admitted his mistakes, which were huge and set GM on the road to bankruptcy.
Smith's tenure maybe earned him a trip to a hot place, if there is such a thing, that might be the eventual destination for that group.
In Chrysler's case, Iacocca wasn't fired or demoted, although he helped lay the groundwork for the company's second recovery under his watch. His income would have been hurt if any of it was in stock options, as the company's stock went into the toilet in the late 1980s. The UAW Jobs Bank requirements were in effect by the late 1980s, so no lineworkers would have lost their pay or benefits.
The problem was that, through the late 1970s, the Japanese weren't yet strong in the middle of the market, and Ford and Chrysler were consumed by their own problems. GM actually GAINED market share at the expense of Ford and Chrysler in the 1970s!
The weakness of the competition helped hide GM's problems - or, at least, allowed GM leadership to be complacent.
It was one thing for the low-profit Vega to lose sales to the Toyota Corolla. It was another matter entirely when the Ford Taurus and Honda Accord began swiping sales from the Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme. Or when the Chrysler minivans began stealing sales from intermediate and full-size station wagons. Those vehicles were striking at the heart of GM's success.
Roger Smith was smart enough to realize that GM had serious problems. Unfortunately, he had an uncanny knack for implementing solutions that either failed to address the original problem, or somehow made it worse!
You appear to have come to the conclusion that Chrysler would have done things differently if never associated with Daimler.
I see that as an assumption that can never be proven, especially since both Ford and GM followed the very same vehicle offerings structure (heavy on trucks).
Chrysler never had the external presence (outside the US) that Ford has enjoyed, so any domestic contraction would have a more significant impact on Chrysler.
I've already stated that, if one wishes to blame Daimler for making the same decisions that Ford and GM did in product offering, which history showed to be the wrong ones, I offer no argument.
Personally, I'm not one to make guesses on what "could have been, only if...", if for no other reason than once one goes down that path, anything becomes possible.
I think we've beat this dead horse long enough. How 'bout you?
One of our octogenarians has a swivel gizmo so he can sit and then more easily twist his legs in.
The minivan is perfect for us while we find the Outback a bit low. Our seniors have trouble climbing up into the van (I carry a little wooden box for her) but the Outback is a bit too low for him. Usually we try to use their Buick since it seems to be a happy medium, and the trunk is still big enough for his folding wheelchair.
We have a Mazda 5 (Mazda's microvan) and the height is between a car and an SUV. You pretty much just slide into it without going up or down. It has more room than a CRV, seats 6, and is way more maneuverable with a lower CG. The steering feedback is fabulous.
Somehow it's not very popular in the states, but then Mazda never advertises it, either.
I think a lot of people, when they break down and decide they must settle for a minivan, decide to get the biggest honking one they can find. They've about outgrown us.
Well, Bush pretty much did everything wrong, so the bailout doesn't surprise me. He has no excuse though, just is an idiot I suppose.
At least Obama can blame the dumb move to do bailouts to get re-elected by Ohio and Michigan. Paid off for 4 more years for him. What's Bush's excuse?
wow, a 21st Century Oldsmobile? I'd of guessed they were extinct in 1994, not 2004. When did they stop making those lemons? :lemon:
But there is no way you can argue that Daimler sent Chrysler downhill; they were already at the bottom. Read through the 200 reviews on the autos user review sections on msn.com of the 1995-1999 Dodge Neons.
Also, if Cerebus could do the same, I don't think they would have bought Chrysler either.
They were both idiots for buying a "dying" company in my opinion. I don't think they realized how bad it was.
So would Chrysler/Fiat even exist today without those 2 buyouts? I have a feeling they'd of gone bankrupt even earlier and sooner! What say you?
Not only that, but I'm sure there are thousands out there like me, that had been burned by Chrysler, and swore them off for life like me. When Daimler bought them, I could have won a $100 million dollar lottery and bought many new and exotic cars, but a Mercedes would not have been one of them simply because they "touched" Chrysler.
I dunno... Chrysler did have a wad of cash at the time.
From: http://mba.tuck.dartmouth.edu/pdf/2002-1-0071.pdf
In the mid-1990s, Chrysler Corporation was the most profitable automotive producer in the world. Buoyed by record light truck, van, and large sedan sales, revenues were at an all-time high. Chrysler had taken a risk in producing vehicles that captured the bold and pioneering American spirit when imports dominated the market – the Dodge Ram, the Jeep Grand Cherokee and the LH Sedan Series. In these vehicles Chrysler found an instant mass appeal, and its U.S. market share climbed to 23% in 1997. As revenues and market share rose, product development costs shrank to 2.8% of revenues - compared with 6% at Ford and 8% at General Motors.
Of course, there are 2 ways to interpret the last sentence in the above quote. Were they more efficient, or simply gutting development investment costs?
Also, if Cerebus could do the same, I don't think they would have bought Chrysler either.
No disagreement there.
My interpretation is pretty obvious.
They were selling cars worth 7,500 dollars for 15,000, and cars worth 10K for $20K. They would never step up to stand behind the product out of warranty for most folks.
They were selling tons and tons of replacement parts to the suckers that bought all those :lemon: . It was a business model that was not sustainable, but good while it lasted (unless you bought one of their products).
No doubt they made a lot of money! Ill-gotten gains I say.
I wonder what Rob Nardelli and Iacocca and other CEO's of Chrysler drove around in and bought with their own money?
Not bad work if you can get it...
My personal experience with Chrysler warranty services was great on the vehicles I owned from 1978 - 1995. After that, it went south in a big way on the 2000 Concorde and 2001 T & C minivan I bought. To be fair, though, the T & C had few issues, but then again I only kept it 4 years...
Regards,
OW