Sad article about Buick and GM...

[Guest rlbleeker]

And almost everybody knows they've turned it completely around. Might they actually benefit from their ugly duckling story in the long run?

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Might they actually benefit from their ugly duckling story in the long run? </div></div>

Other than one or two GM divisions, I think almost all car companies have an ugly duckling story behind them. Fords were all over the map before the Model T, as were the early cars from Olds. Chrysler was built out of the wreckage of Maxwell. Toyota, Nissan, Subaru, Mazda, BMW, etc. were pretty much all junk when they were first sold in the U.S.

The only current players I can think of that started off (in the American market) with better than average quality are Mercedes, Mitsubishi, Volvo, and VW. (And Buick, but that was over 100 years ago.) Audi and Saab first came here with unexceptional quality, but no real junk like many of the first Japanese cars.

The saddest stories are the ones that go the other way. No one remembers now, but British cars were generally considered very reliable in the 1950s. AMC also didn't have any serious quality issues in it's past prior to the 1970s. GM is trying to come back from that fate. So is Jaguar and Ford. I can't recall anyone pulling it off as yet. (Renault tried and failed to do it here, with quality that only improved for a short while in the late 1960s and early 70s. Fiat may have thought it was trying .) Hopefully it isn't impossible.

[Guest Skyking]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dave@Moon</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

The only current players I can think of that started off (in the American market) with better than average quality are Mercedes, Mitsubishi, Volvo, and VW. (And Buick, but that was over 100 years ago.)

</div></div>

As the late great Ralph Kramden would say, "you're a riot"

100 years....that's funny!

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Audi and Saab first came here with unexceptional quality, but no real junk like many of the first Japanese cars. </div></div>

I probably should've mentioned Honda here as well, although their products improved dramatically and rapidly (much faster than Toyota, et al), becomming exceptional only a few years after the S600 and Coupe were introduced.

[Gary_N]

Looey:

What's this crap about --"Yes, older people need slow boring cheap looking cars to keep their blood pressure down and all, but when they finally do croak". -- Are yo?. I'm 59, and I bet I could race your ass off on a road course, or drag race or whatever else. And, I'll be doing that until I die! I probably have more speeding tickets than you too. Ha!!

Anyway, I do think new Buicks are boring and I love the old ones. But, they are good cars. I don't want one...but that's me. So, complain all you want about the new Buick's. Keep the old crap to yourself!!!

Gary

[Gary_N]

Sorry, missed some words:

Looey:

What's this crap about --"Yes, older people need slow boring cheap looking cars to keep their blood pressure down and all, but when they finally do croak". -- Are you deliberately trying to [censored] us old guys off?. I'm 59, and I bet I could race your ass off on a road course, or drag race or whatever else. And, I'll be doing that until I die! I probably have more speeding tickets than you too. Ha!!

Anyway, I do think new Buicks are boring and I love the old ones. But, they are good cars. I don't want one...but that's me. So, complain all you want about the new Buick's. Keep the old crap to yourself!!!

Gary

[Guest imported_Thriller]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BJM</div><div class="ubbcode-body">hey Derek, you forgot the Reatta, although I don't believe your post was necessarily about noting all the collectible Buick sof the last 25 years.</div></div>

It's in there, but not much mention. As I have 3 small people living in my house, they aren't practical at this stage, so I haven't really looked at them much and don't know a whole lot about them. That being said, I know some parents are actually looking for 2 seaters for the new drivers in the family to limit the peer pressure involved with driving with passengers.

[jscheib]

Derek,

Tell your friends to be careful. I had the same idea back in the '80s when I got me kids a Ford EXP. Even thought I would have it myself as a collector car. But one day I found them coming home from school with four other kids in the back (shelf, not a seat). Also, they had three accidents, and I one. I hit about 3-4 deer just before Christmas (thought the sled and jolly old elf was coming next).

But the last accident was my son in college when a raised AWD Bronco. or similar, went over the hood. Car was totalled then but he was OK. Seriously, I think someone else had a thread about giving the kids an older, slower, heavy Buick. Sounds like a good idea to me.

Sorry to get off topic of this thread, but I think I recall Looey is 15, and if I recall, if I remember correctly, in one message he said he has a '52 Buick? Go figure!

John

[NTX5467]

We know that import brands have two-door cars (sedans, not hardtops). We know that USA brands HAD two-door cars, larger than the ones the imports now have AND hardtops in earlier times. We know that import brands have 4-door cars that young families (in the 20-something range) buy, own, AND show at NOPI events (I saw that on cable three years ago, so it's nothing really new).

When you look at the import brands and their content in the particular market segments, then compare them to similar USA brands in those same segments, once you get away from the chassis and powertrain areas, the alleged sales advantage (features, amenities, options) are pretty slim compared to the domestic brands. No OnSTAR, now power this, no power that, and so on. A Hyundai can have fit and finish comparable to a Honda, but what about the enging and chassis items? If you compare a Camry V-6 to an Impala, at the same price point, how do you determine the "best value" with respect to price and features?

I think that one reason that Ford seems to do well in the lower pricepoints is that their cars are more BASIC and affordable than what GM has, by observation. GM could build a Hyundai Sonata clone, but would have to leave out a lot of the content of the car for it to be a direct competitor to the Sonata V-6.

So, the imports started out as basic transportation and have seemed to stay there, with some upgrades. Honda begat Acura so it could get the upscale market and not have to call it "Honda". Same with Toyota and Lexus. And, kind of like how GM started out in the early days, they started out with more basic vehicles and expanded the product line to accomodate existing buyers that desired to stay "in the fold" AND to keep them there.

It's been said that the new Toyota Avalon is "the best Buick Toyota can build". But if you read the window sticker pricing on the Avalon, it can be highly revealing. Look at what the distributor charges for paint sealants and road-side assistance, for example. The road-side assistance tends to make the subscription charges for OnSTAR look tame, by observation. Try to replace a lost key on the imports where the key is titanium (rather than the softer brass) and also needs a new security system to go along with it--makes the GM chip and transponder keys look like bargains. Oh, you say the import brands have higher residual values so their lease rates are lower and resale values are greater? But they don't mention the "by the book" maintenance costs did they?

I also suspect that few 18-24 year olds feel the Avalon is aspirational, in the same orientation as a Chrysler 300, but how would those figures also compare to a similar Buick Lucerne? At least the Lucerne can have a center console and floor shift! Yep, the Avalon might have more V-6 horsepower, but how significant is that to the buyer? Checked the resale of a used Avalon lately?

In one respect, the fact that the Avalon is mentioned in the same breath as Buick can have two implications--one good (as Buick customers are "the target customer" for that type of car) . . . one bad (as Buick customers being the target customer for an Avalon, age and price and such). So that makes the only saving grace for the Avalon being its parentage. So, if Toyota's following GM's lead with the Avalon, is that a plus for Buick or a minus for Toyota?

One reason the domestic luxury cars might look so bland is that they are following the lead of the import brands of choice, namely Toyota and Lexus. BMW looks like a BMW and BMW gets antsy when somebody makes grilles that look anything similar to theirs (although theirs have changed from the original size and shape), but I wonder if they care that some seem to have borrowed their controversial rear end styling. End result, domestic brands have generally lost much of their distinctiveness over the past decades . . . but that seems to be changing. They seem to have discovered that following the leader has not worked as well as they thought it would, in styling. But when a current Hyundai Sonata might pass for a similar size Honda, that's viewed as progress?

I concur that GM needs a 2-door Buick which people of height and girth can comfortably fit into and enjoy driving. When that happens, then others can enjoy the same size and spacious comfort too.

If it means that a similar Cadillac would also happen, that would be good too!!!! BUT, they should be worthy of being called "Buick Riviera" and "Cadillac Eldorado", too--key point--with respect to those great Rivs and Eldos of the 1950s and 1960s era, with all due respect. Classic styling with modern amenities and safety features (and fuel economy!) would be a great mix, I suspect. Something with a high "WOW!" factor that people would lust after on the used car lot when they came back in off-lease or on trade later on. It can happen. It needs to happen!

And, while we're at it, how about a longer wheelbase version of the rwd Pontiac G8, with swoopy Buick styling (circa 1968?) that would be "Buick Wildcat"??!! Horizontal grille, wall-to-wall tailights, SweepSpear and all!!! There's still time for that to happen too!! Maybe even a 2-door model, too??? And, it might be heresy, but what about something in the Wildcat line to match Chrysler HEMI-C SRT8?????? Wouldn't THOSE send the sales figures spinning????

Better stop there . . . hehe

NTX5467

[Guest imported_Thriller]

Thanks John. Good points. It was just being thought of from the perspective of reducing the number of distractions in the car...now that you mention it, the Reatta, Fiero, etc. are pretty small cars and would go a ways underneath my truck in the unfortunate event of an accident.

[Guest Reatta1]

Well, after reading lots of comments and rhetoric from young and old alike, I've decided to put in my 2 pennies worth. First off, Buicks of recent vintage, I'll date that as the late 70's through present day, with the exception of the late 80's through mid 90's Regal coupe's and some Skylark coupes, and the Reatta, are pretty bland vehicles, in my opinion. Those Regal's, especialy the GS's are pretty potent and fairly good looking cars. I have a 93 custom coupe and it will give most anything on the road a real challenge while still getting me 28 to 30 mpg. I also drive a 01 Park Avenue base model simply for the comfort and luxury it delivers. Not particularly an impressive car looks wise, but the wife wanted a four door. To get a Buick with hot rod characteristics and 'youth' appeal you have to go back to the late 60's and early 70's when they built the Gran Sports. Some of those were the hottest cars on the road at the time, and they were good looking cars to boot. In those years, Buick had a lineup that appealed to young folks as well as us 'old farts', though I wasn't an 'old fart' then. Hot rods for the youngsters and four door sedans for the older crowd, a pretty good combo in my estimation. But for real class you have to go back to the late 50's. Remember the 59's and 60's with the fins? Or the 58 with the massive chrome? Not to mention the 55's, 56's and 57's. How about further back to the 47's and 48's. Cars today are all so alike that it about makes me puke. Rave all you like about the Enclave, I'm not impressed. Buick needs to bring back some 'retro' cars with names like 'Invicta', 'Wildcat', 'Electra 225' and 'GS 400'. Wouldn't you like to see a retro late 60's GS 400 or retro 59 Invicta? Now that would get my heart beating again for a Buick.

[Guest Tom]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 'Reatta1'</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Wouldn't you like to see a retro 59 Invicta? Now that would get my heart beating again for a Buick. </div></div>

I'll second that comment

[Guest Skyking]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Tom</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 'Reatta1'</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Wouldn't you like to see a retro 59 Invicta? Now that would get my heart beating again for a Buick. </div></div>

I'll second that comment </div></div>

Some will still complain.......it eats too much gas!

[WillBilly53]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 'Reatta1'</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> But for real class you have to go back to the late 50's. Remember the 59's and 60's with the fins? Or the 58 with the massive chrome? Not to mention the 55's, 56's and 57's. How about further back to the 47's and 48's. Cars today are all so alike that it about makes me puke. Rave all you like about the Enclave, I'm not impressed. Buick needs to bring back some 'retro' cars with names like 'Invicta', 'Wildcat', 'Electra 225' and 'GS 400'. Wouldn't you like to see a retro late 60's GS 400 or retro 59 Invicta? Now that would get my heart beating again for a Buick. </div></div>

I concur. retro is SO in with my young-ish crowd (i'm 31)

if there was a way to mix classic styling with energy efficient features (or possibly even a hybrid!) I honestly think it would do wonders for Buick and GM. I'm telling you, young professionals who have some money to spend and around the ages of 28 - 40 are very much hip to the "green" movement AND retro styling (and not just with cars)

[NTX5467]

All of the car companies have archived vehicles in their collections. The first time that really occured to me was in a Lee Iacocca television ad where he was in a room full of vintage Chrysler products, talking about "The first . . . ., The first . . . " and on and on as he walked around the room in what appeared to be a seldom-used warehouse building, as he walked toward the door to make his closing comments about Chrysler's product leadership over the years. I later recall reading where some of the inspiration for "then future" products came from that sort of environment, where younger (or recently-hired) designers would look at prior vehicles for inspiration of the new ones. IF you're going to have some continuity of design and orientation, these "retrospect" activities are necessary, I feel.

Of course, you have to also keep up with what others are doing OR getting ready to do. A GM designer once mentioned that when the 1957 Chrysler products were discovered in a holding yard in Detroit, they went down and hung on the fence, (basically) drooling at what they saw . . . and then went back to the drawing boards to keep pace, or ahead of it, for GM products.

Yet these new-into-the-fold designers might not fully understand the passion or societal orientations which led to some of these innovative, distinctive, and "down right sexy" designs back then. To really do that, as some of the Harley Earl Buick commercials tried to allude to, you have to get into the mindset of the times in which the vehicles were designed and produced--and THAT can be a problem for some, especially as newer generations use their perceptual filters to try to determine why something was considered "great" (much less "super"). Perceptual filters which can still be in their "formative years", regardless of demographic age of those involved.

With all of the focus on vehicle interiors in our more recent times, I WISH designers would take the time to go back (or even into the Plan59.com website, among others!) and look at how stylish and flashy (especially compared to todays designs!!!) and copy some of those styles AND fabric patterns into modern USA-brand vehicles. It's great to get all of the seams and lines to align perfectly, even with exposed edges, but everything just looks bland and uninspiring. Something about charcoal trim codes and burled walnut woodgrain just does not cut it for me, but a nice real brown tone trim code with the same burled walnut trim could look really classy, with appropriate "satin nickel" trim someplace OTHER than the instrument cluster. Lets spread something of that bright-metal-type trim around the whole interior! Let THOSE things perfectly align rather than bare edges!

Some of those things might not be as doable with the more narrow interiors of today, but there were some spiffy compact car interiors back then too! Vehicles with similar total dimensions as many current vehicles.

I, personally, believe it would be gREAT to get some of the prior Buick model names back . . . names which could be said in a theatrical voice orientation and ended on "a high note" as you pronounced them, rather than a "dead" sound at the end of the name. The only problem with this is that the product would need to have similarly gREAT design orientations--and THAT is where the problem would be, if there was one. If "Lucerne" had been named "Invicta", for example, it might have helped it gain more ready acceptance as a Park Avenue replacement. But to really fit the mold of prior Invictas, it would need some sort of spiffy paint treatment (and a body design that would support such activity!!) to really pull it off. Tagging it as "Electra" might have fallen a little short, though, with the amount of market demographics the Lucerne is supposed to be covering.

I find your comments, WillBilly, about how popular "retro" has become, interesting when considering that the post-PT Cruiser and last-gen T-bird car comments were to the effect that "retro" was something that was car designers/marketers didn't want others tagging their newer "heritage" designs with. So I suspect that certain areas of "retro" are better than others, so long as they incorporate incognito advancements of later times. Possibly kind of like a '50s era car having electronic ignition and R134a a/c . . . and radial tires, but all wrapped up into something completely modern in amenities and engineering.

Hopefully, future designs will contain more of the styling cues (which many WILL identify with, yet others will not understand where they came from . . . or really care) to better carve out styling leadership for their particular brands. There are trends in that direction, I only hope they continue and intensify before many of use get on "fixed income" for real.

Enjoy!

NTX5467

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So I suspect that certain areas of "retro" are better than others, so long as they incorporate incognito advancements of later times. Possibly kind of like a '50s era car having electronic ignition and R134a a/c . . . and radial tires, but all wrapped up into something completely modern in amenities and engineering.

</div></div>

I've never heard a kind word said by anyone under 30 regarding the Chevy HHR. The PT Cruiser has become a comedic icon shorthand for Walter Middy in mid-life crisis. Chances are if you see a middle-aged loser cruising for under-age girls in a movie, he'll almost certainly be driving one or the other.

And the people that make those derisive remarks think "Invicta" is an imported malt liquor.

Like it or not, if you want to appeal to the next generation you have to speak their language, so to say. Portholes and V8 rumble are our language. Such "talk" just drives them out door.

There's nothing "retro" about the long term success stories in automotive history. It's a short term solution at best. Just ask how well it's working for Chrysler and Jaguar sales right now.

[Guest BJM]

Retro styling has come under fire for sure with the PT Cruiser et al. But there is certainly nothing wrong IMO in incorporating styling from the past in current models. In some cases, that styling identifies the make. BMW's grille, Pontiacs, Lincolns have a family influence.

The PT Cruiser was the right car for Chrysler at the time. It's just that after so many years of seeing it, all without incorporating any change, it's now routine. All they had to do, about 3 years in, is continue the trend and the PT Cruiser's shelf life would be extended.

The HHR is a shameless copy not worth mentioning.

For Buick, we are looking for that Velite, new-Riviera to jump start our enthusiasm. I have not heard one person say they are against that, but Buick/GM seems to refuse to build it. Oh well.

Everyone I know agrees the new Mustang is a hit. It still looks good 3 years in, and they keep tweaking it. The Camaro also, looks to be a string seller and the new 'Cuda. Dave is probably correct in his inference that these are stop gap cars, because like the PT Cruiser, the last T-Bird, what do you do when you need to re-style? Your kind of screwed because the runs of the 1st gen Camaro, late 30's everycar, and so on came to ends with a companys routine style change. It's stopgap at best.

[imported_buick5563]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dave@Moon</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I've never heard a kind word said by anyone under 30 regarding the Chevy HHR. The PT Cruiser has become a comedic icon shorthand for Walter Middy in mid-life crisis. Chances are if you see a middle-aged loser cruising for under-age girls in a movie, he'll almost certainly be driving one or the other.

</div></div>

Chances are if you see an older loser in a movie, he'll be driving a Buick.

I remember being really knocked out by maybe five (production) cars in my lifetime. (*remember, I'm 40)

- Dodge Ram

-Mazda Miata

-PT Cruiser

-(new) Mini Cooper

-Lexus (hardtop convertible, whatever they number call it)

Notice a pattern? "Retro Styling"

OK, maybe it's because my first car I bought in 1985 when I graduated high school was a 55 Buick, so I appreciated older styling, or at least gravitate toward it.

I'm not trying to intentionally defend the PT, but I almost bought one when they came out except the engineering wasn't there. Now, you can get wide whitewalls, "wood grain", and whatever aftermarket goodies to fake your wannabe surfer dude Woodie Wagon, and join a local PT enthusiasts club.

I didn't even look twice at the HHR. Butt ugly, and 10 years late.

I agree with Dave, however that retro styling is a short term solution, but I also agree with Willbilly that our generation is ready for traditional styling with an eye on alternative fuel options.

Also, regarding NTX's comment on interior fabrics. When I got into a new Mazda minivan, I almost lost it. They have an updated version of 55 Buick fabric, NO LIE. Their grille on another car is also reminiscent of the Buick Honeycomb grille. I think one of their designers must be a Buick fan.

Mike

[NTX5467]

Well, it's obvious that Dave has not been to WalMart's automotive section lately. Last month, I was looking around and came upon some styling "add-ons", which I normally dismiss for what they are, along with the chrome wheel covers, but these were different . . . there, on the j-hook was a big stock of . . . (drum roll . . .) stick-on VentaPorts (6 to a pack). I thought that was interesting. Then, after that weekend, a set showed upon a fellow employee's new, black GMC Sierra pickup, tastefully applied to the rear of the hood (6 and then two more appeared a few days later).

Sure, they weren't a carbon copy of any of Buick's later model (or similar items sold in The Bugle) items, but it was obvious what they were supposed to be, updated with a carbon fibre texture inside of the oblong chrome rings. There was also a version in more of a laid-over rectangular shape. Then, they started popping up other places, too, even with some gray primer paint shot over them as they were applied to a hood in the same color!

So, IF retro (and possibly Buick) are in such dire straits, WHY are these (obviously) Buick-inspired Portholes showing up on cars?????? Haven't seen any on the HHRs yet, though.

It does seem, though, that with all of the short term orientations for many things these days, including reporting of quarterly corporate profits having direct affects upon personal and corporate wealth situations these days, having a vehicle styled by inspiration of prior iconic models seems somewhat appropriate. As corporate operatives don't seem to be concerned about much other than their next quarterly report (profit and loss and dividends) that's getting ready to happen, doing these alleged "stop gap" vehicles is totally appropiate. As mishandled as the last gen T-bird was, kind of like the way USA brands mishandled their last generation of fwd coupes in the 1990s, it was still a neat car (to me) and they even got the exact shade of turquoise right for the T-bird emblem. It had lots of correct styling cues to be worthy of the name "Thunderbird", from what I could see. Still, it was not meant (as Ford stated when they did it) to last past that particular platform's generation (a platform shared with the Lincoln LS and Jag S-Type). Those platforms went away and so the the 'Bird . . . just like when it shared platforms with the rwd Cougar and the Lincoln Mark VIII.

Each of these alleged stop-gap cars did happen at the right time, typically, and were built from existing platforms. They had customers paying "availability charges" to get them, although some waited a year for the hysteia to die down, but they still got the car they wanted.

For the market, the PTCruiser came out of nowhere and caused a really big "pump" in the market. It had that multi-generational appeal that few cars have, plus "being kewl" to be seen in by all ages. It has fueled a cottage industry of aftermarket parts, too.

When I first saw the HHR and walked around it many times, I could envision a similar aftermarket situation as with the PTCruiser, but it seems to not have happened. GM Accessories did have some woodgrain kits and tire/wheel packages, but the dealers just did not seem to understand why they were needed or "bit" for them. I do know that when some were dressed-up that way, they were sold within a few days, even after the initial sales frenzy slowed down.

To me, the HHR's shape would easily lend itself to add-on styling panels to make it a retro Buick, Olds, or Pontiac. Change the grille area, add some chrome trim to the body side, and the little car can be most any GM brand from back the earlier '50s or prior. Sure, the HHR is perceived to be "a copy of the PTCruiser", even aided by the same designer after he jumped ship to GM, but it's still a decent vehicle and the owners who have them had a great desire to have them initially.

In reality, the PTC and the HHR are econoboxes that don't look like econobox vehicles, plus having some additional utility in the mix, too. I believe the PTC sales are still reasonably strong. I do know that on the Chrysler LLC blogs, the existing PTC customers have beem somewhat vocal about what their cherished vehicle might become in the next generation (which they want to exist!). So, don't count "retro PTCruisers" out just yet!

So, with all due respect, Dave, some of the retro things which many have come to "not like" seem to be making a come-back in certain market segments. After the portholes, I don't know what might be next . . .

In the case of the Camaro, there is a later gen car that could be adapted to the same platform in several years. In the case of the Challenger, there were prototypes around for a next gen car, before sales in that market segment decreased and scared some Chrysler execs. I think a modernized '70 Mustang Mach I fastback would be neat too! So, there CAN be some later versions of these cars. Only thing is that unlike the more stable lives and markets we tended to have in those earlier decades, things are harder to predict in today's world . . . even 5 years out. Too much seeming uncertainty about where environmental issues might end up, for example, which can affect what it driven by whom and how much. Other societal issues are at play too, which can determine how much future customers can justify spending on their transportation (or public transportation, where available).

And then you get outside of the more crowded metro areas and things change to something more inline with what many of us used to know. Bluer skies, less crowded roads, and time to get to better know your vehicle . . . just like the old days when such things were a normal part of life. But that future transportation still has to be affordable to purchase and operate.

If the marketplace is so allegedly turned-off by retro-styled new vehicles, why is the vintage car hobby growing so rapidly? Why was the current gen Mustang an instant success (as the original was 40 years prior)? Why was there so many younger people standing around the Camaro displays (at the Dallas New Car Show) the last two years? With a lesser number around the Challenger, though? Highly multi-generational, to say the least. Something tells me that the prior orientations about "retro" have somewhat faded when a product comes to market with genuine appeal to the masses, which just happens to represent something totally and uniquely American in design and orientation. The PTCruiser did it . . . the current gen Mustang did it . . . and others will follow shortly, and will fuel a switch back to rwd on many larger vehicle platforms.

Now, to get some more GM product styling differentiations more aligned with what we had in the 1950s and things should become "neato" again . . . even "SUPER". It can be a time to reintroduce new generations to the styling uniqueness which made GM a sales leader in those earlier times, but with totally modern and cutting-edge powertrains and body structures to keep them modern well into the future.

Enjoy!

NTX5467

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well, it's obvious that Dave has not been to WalMart's automotive section lately. Last month, I was looking around and came upon some styling "add-ons", which I normally dismiss for what they are, along with the chrome wheel covers, but these were different . . . there, on the j-hook was a big stock of . . . (drum roll . . .) stick-on VentaPorts (6 to a pack). </div></div>

Which can be found in many neighborhoods applied ("tastefully") almost every Chrysler, Lincoln, and Ford Explorer on the block! They're most frequently seen in the company of ("tastefully") applied curb feelers, ("tastefully") applied faux-animal skin seat covers, and ("tastefully") applied 21 inch chrome wheels. The automotive section at Wal-Mart is not exactly the place to go to find the latest in automotive sophisication.

It's a common mistake to believe that the romantic past holds the key to a successful future. The Edsel grille was "retro". So were the last designs of Virgil Exner at Chrysler. They were unsuccessful "retro" designs, but even the most successful of them have an appeal that is quickly extinguished. The "retro" Mustang of 1994 was as rapidly as possible changed to Ford's "Edge" styling when it's sales tailed off after a year or so. The Prowler couldn't be given away after 2 years. The retro Jaguar designs have been an unmitigated disaster. Even the Miata has dropped almost all of it's Lotus-like styling cues.

Good design is just good. Nobody became a great painter by re-doing <span style="font-style: italic">Guernica</span> in a different color scheme. Nobody's going to fool the public with a design that recalls the past when it's the present that they need the vehicle for.

For an even better explanation of why "retro" design is a dead end, read this month's profile of the 1971-1976 full-size Buicks in <span style="font-style: italic">Collectible Automobile</span>. Head designer Jerry Hirshberg's explanation of why portholes were left off of the Centurion (p.12) explains it all. It's truer today than it ever has been.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> If the marketplace is so allegedly turned-off by retro-styled new vehicles, why is the vintage car hobby growing so rapidly? </div></div>

It isn't, the street rod hobby is and that's slowing if not in regression as well. Even the show field at Hershey is down 25% from it's former peak.

And what growth there is/was is strictly in the oldest generation that has the time and money to play with in the hobby. That, withou any doubt, is <span style="text-decoration: underline"><span style="font-weight: bold">not</span></span> the demographic that will 'save" any car company.

Get the kids, get the market. To do anything else is so much preaching to the choir.

[NTX5467]

"Kids" = lower financial demographics, not somebody ready to spend $40K on a new vehicle when an older one (is ALL "retro" just "older designs"?) better fits their financial capabilities. Sure, I recall teens working two jobs to buy that new IROC Z-28, but THAT was their life and not every "kid" is willing to do that, much less head toward a car costing another $15K. Sure, they might talk like they want that $40K vehicle (or more expensive, as in a Lambo or similar) as that's their "talking game" for others to hear, but when the money comes out of the pocket, that' when the used cars or new Hyundais start to happen--something they can afford.

Sure, the automotive area of WalMart (or similar) might not be a true measure of automotive trends, BUT SOMEBODY had to put the financial backing to design, manufacture, and distribute these products in the first place. SOMEBODY had to gamble that these products would sell. Look how many current model vehicles have factory plastic wheel covers which first surfaced at places like WalMart years ago, for example. If SOMEBODY had not figured the add-on portholes would sell, they wouldn't be hanging on the j-hooks at WalMart AND WalMart would not have given them that dedicated "shelf space" to start with. Make of that what you will, but it appears that somebody . . . . somewhere . . . . still likes certain Buick styling cues.

The fact that portholes were not added to the Centurions is NOT a condemnation of styling cues from earlier Buicks. It, most probably, is an indicator that all style things (especially the better ones) have to disappear for a certain amount of time to resurface in later years with a few different nuances which make them look "fresh" again. This has nothing to do with financial demograhics of customers, but that some change in styling needs to happen from time to time, rather than becoming "expected and stagnant" in the public's eye.

As for the Centurion, the particular design of those GM cars would have not been conducive to the use of portholes, BUT they were conducive to the use of sweeping side contours in the sheet metal--character lines--as the chromed SweepSpears did on prior decade Buicks. So, you delete one styling cue and adopt another one, which keeps MANY styling cues for a particular brand out on the road at the same time.

I understand that every vehicle manufacturer has high level meetings every so many years to build their "playbooks" for the coming 5 year (or longer) product portfolios. In the 1980s, GM tried to analyze each of their brands and distill the essence of each brand into a set of styling cues which the public would identify as "distinctive" for each brand. For Buick, it became "grilles" and "wall-to-wall" tail lights, seemingly. These were some tastefully styled vehicle which were readily identifiable as Buicks, but it kind of left things "in the middle of the car" to be more generic and less dramatic--except for the one Skylark that had seemed to be styled as a coupe with the 4-door sedan's rear door bodyside moulding being a straight line rather than having a slight curve to it (looking "ill fitting" at best). So, these styling cues are somewhat managed in order that some will not get "over-used" in the same concept as a movie studio not putting a star's face everywhere at once, not over-using them so they have a longer "life" in the industry.

In reality, "kids" end up with a used car or a newer car of lesser luxury or perfomance standing--something to get them around for a while. So they end up with that lower-priced import sedan, cut the springs to lower it, add a new paint job, add that special muffler, and end up pretty much doubling the cost of the car (or more) in personalizing it for them--not to forget the sound system. And none of this is typically cost effective, with all due respect. I've seen lots of that and suspect others have to. Somehow, though, I don't see that as building brand loyalty for the future, but it can just as what we did in our youth did build our own brand loyalties and brand preferences in OUR youth.

The other situation is that kids, many times, mimic their vehicle preferences to follow (initially) those of their parents (their role models, initially). Somehow, though, I somewhat doubt people would have the same teary-eyed passions for the fact they came home from the hospital in a Honda CRV rather than similar feelings for taking that first ride home in the back seat of a '65 Buick LeSabre. But then many never suspect that younger people would own (or willingly pay for) an import 4-door sedan, much less show that at national-level NOPI shows. Be that as it may.

Many might not have noticed, but GM's been targeting the youth market with Chevy Cavaliers (gasp!) and the Chevy Cobalts (much better!!) and other GM cars with the Ecotec 4 cylinder engines. MUCH "speed equipment" is available and supported by GM, much in the same way that Chrysler's Mopar Performance or Ford's late SVT/SVO programs have. Much of this is "under the radar" for many enthusiasts not directly involved or keeping tabs on it, but it's there--big time. Look at the rear "wings" on the perfomance-oriented Cobalt SS coupes, for example. Is THAT the domain of Buick? Not really, but it can be for a used Regal GS with the SC3800, even if it IS a 4-door.

End result, IF you focus only on a segment of the automotive arena and then project the results to the other areas, it might not be "good stats" as it would be for other things. Buyer behaviour, like economics, can be a trendy and moveable target, yet you don't completely sacrifice or lessen the focus of one area of your core market to chase another one that is sought after. There has to be a balance in these activities, which can be more evolutionary than happen "overnight".

Sure, the much-talked-about Youth Market is still there, but has many more players than in prior times as USA brands typically have not had products which competed well in that market. Remember the old comments about money not being made in that segment? That it was not a big profit center for USA Brands? Yet there have been some bright spots over the years (although some might disagree, I'd put the Chevy Vega and Chrysler Corp's Neon up as better examples of how to do it right and get conquest sales from import brands) but the seeming constant "bigger is better" USA orientation usually takes over at some point in those models' lifespan and rather than maintaining what made them great, the "grow up" to be something else.

Also, seemingly, when you look around at later model small cars, I see LOTS of younger people buying fwd Fords (whether young families or young singles that want a new car). I kind of doubt these Ford sales are fueled by the current Mustang, but by the fact the cars look nice, are nicely trimmed, and come in at good price points which are competitive with the import brands. How much of the Mazda association is perceived to be there might be variable, though (zoom, zoom), just as the influence of the larger (and aspirational nature of certain demographics to really want a used Crown Victoria sedan to haul their friends and growing families around in, in the coming years) Crown Victoria/Grand Marquis with their larger size, reasonably decent durability and reliability AND credibility within their social groups.

GM's working on the "credibility" part of the equation with promotions by Chevrolet in certain demographic areas of the population where a Cobalt's price point is important, or a Malibu's price point for something a little larger, or even a new Impala. These market demographic segments might not all be "first time buyers", but they have to operate at that level for many reasons. This would be the market where Chevrolets are "value priced" and affordable as new cars, but Buicks would be affordable only as a used vehicle.

In reality, what needs to be looked at is the total GM corporate situation rather than try to focus on Buick per se. Buick was not designed to be a "young person's new car" unless that young person was just out of college and was headed toward (or getting stabilized into) that first big job and wanting to look more serious about "going places". Still, infusion of power (V-8s) and "lighter" styling in the middle 1950s and later years built an aspiration of younger people to be successful and drive a Buick (newer, lower price model, or a 2-year old traded-in Buick).

So, perhaps it might be good, for the sake of discussion, to define "young person" as either a "just got their driver's license teen" or "an early 20-something person" or a "later 20-something who is starting their family with a nice home in the suburbs". Compared to the generally accepted definition of "typical Buick owner" (which has been pounded into our heads by media reports, for many years now), even a 40-something who drives a Regal GS or LaCrosse CXS is a "young person" by that definition! Yet ALL of those demographics have their own influence over others in their age groups about what they might desire to own and drive in the future.

I concur that until many naysayers about Buicks really get into them and spend some time driving or riding in them, they'll never admit that Buick is a viable brand of vehicle AND a brand of vehicle that really gives them the same things they are currently getting in their import or other non-Buick vehicle. Until these younger people stop to realize that the reasons the "retirement age" people like Buicks are THE SAME REASONS the younger people should like Buicks (i.e., reliability, fuel economy better than many would like to admit to, size, comfort, trunk space), then they'll keep shying away from them. Many of the older age demographic (and loyal) Buick customers might have pensions and such to help keep them in newer vehicles, but they also don't want to spend their money foolishly (nor can many of the afford to!) nor can they afford higher fuel and insurance bills each month. "Economy of ownership" means something other than high lease residual values, but can include a 5 quart oil change rather than a 6 or 7 quart oil change in the mix too (as for the Buick 3800 V-6 compared to other brands of high-tech V-6s) just as 28+mpg on trips impacts daily use expenses--things which mean something in the day-to-day world we live in.

Regards,

NTX5467

[Guest BJM]

Dave,

Since your such a defender of Toyota, can you elaborate on their styling heritage?

There is no money in the youth market, period. It doesn't take arocket scientist to see that the wealth in America exists in the 45 to 70 year old range. It's business suicide to market to 18 to 25 year old zit faced kids who have more interest in ipods and gizmos.

When they get out of college, get married and start down that road in life, perhaps they srat becoming a Buick customer, and Buick has nicely fitted LaCrosses and Enclaves for them.

Or not, it doesn't matter. The point is that o all new car registrations across America in any given year in this decade, the most sales do not go to the 18 to 25 year olds. Buick does not need to build a plastic trimmed cheapo $15,000 new car "to get the kids" into the showroom.

I personally think the 80's generation Skylark (olds had a small Ciera, Pontiac had a Grand Am I think) was a nice small car with decent GM cued styling, nice interior, room for four and good gas mileage. The Skylarks that replaced those were ugly and the line gets killed off. Riviera comes in, boosts prestige for awhile and is gone. The retrenchment saw a move toward the LeSabre basically for a few years with the sport utes and everyone agreed that was not long term.

Buick was floundering, fine but is not dead in any way. No direction change is needed.

[Guest Skyking]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BJM</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

The HHR is a shameless copy not worth mentioning.

</div></div>

Just think, if one of the Japanese automakers came out with the HHR it would have been a hit! Look at the ugly Scion econo-box and it will confirm my statement.

I personally think that the American public finally gave up on the Big 3. Drive into any Mall parking lot and 95% are imports. If you do find some American brands thrown in the mix, they are usually 3 years old or older.

My son-in-law might be in the market for a new convertible. I mentioned he should maybe consider a new Sebring......I knew darn well what was coming.........(he buys strickly Japanese). He said, "Dad, they don't last". What's funny is, my 2 American vehicles have survived 5 of his Jap cars. My old LeBaron that my son just sold was still going strong. Trust me, it's all perception.

[imported_buick5563]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BJM</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Dave,

Since your such a defender of Toyota, can you elaborate on their styling heritage? </div></div>

BJM,

I think Dave was the one saying styling was a short term plan. I was the one saying "Yay Retro!"

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BJM</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Buick was floundering, fine but is not dead in any way. No direction change is needed. </div></div>

Really? Fine is good?

Mike

[Guest Reatta1]

[quote

And the people that make those derisive remarks think "Invicta" is an imported malt liquor.

I've never associated 'Invicta' with an imported malt liquor, which is to say I've never heard of one called that. However, 'Lucerne' is is a Safeway brand dairy product and EVERYBODY recognizes that. I'd feel like I was driving around in a carton of milk driving a 'Lucerne'.

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Since your such a defender of Toyota, can you elaborate on their styling heritage? </div></div>

First, I don't defend anyone. I admire quality automobiles, and am especially enamored of hybrid cars which are the future. One the first count Toyota is one of many, on the second it was one of two until very recently.

As far as Toyota's styling heritage, they don't have one because they don't need one. There are a few Toyota products that aren't bad to look at, especially at Lexus dealers. However the big knock against Toyota has <span style="text-decoration: underline">always</span> been boring/uninspired styling. Look up any number of Camry reviews and see if you can find a kind word about their <span style="text-decoration: underline">looks</span>. It won't happen. Then look at what was passing for Toyota styling in the late 1970s and 1980s when they began eating GM's lunch in earnest.

Nobody ever bought a Toyota for what they look like. There are simply more important criteria, most of which was ignorred for years by the "Big Three" creating this mess. Given the deadly serious situations regarding the use of cars in the coming years, and the wide range in real quality that still exists, anybody who buys a car for daily use because of what it <span style="font-style: italic">looks like</span> is a fool.

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Just think, if one of the Japanese automakers came out with the HHR it would have been a hit! Look at the ugly Scion econo-box and it will confirm my statement.

</div></div>

Not really. Your statement (as I read it) is that people are duped into believing that "imports" last. That might be true for 2 or even 3 consecutive purchases. It's been 30 years of steady progess in this market by the "imports" now. Nobody's that dumb. Their durability is proven.

When people have confidence in your product you can get away with a tin box like the xB. If GM has 30 years to develope a similar reputation in the general market (and not just among us <span style="font-style: italic">cognoscenti</span>), then we'll be back in the ball game.

30 years.... What was that about it being a waste of time to market to 20 year olds?

[page2171]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 'Reatta1'</div><div class="ubbcode-body">However, 'Lucerne' is is a Safeway brand dairy product and EVERYBODY recognizes that. I'd feel like I was driving around in a carton of milk driving a 'Lucerne'. </div></div>

I had never heard of a Lucerne brand dairy product prior to Buick coming out with the Lucerne.

[NTX5467]

Well, Dave, I suspect there are lots of people driving around in Lexus vehicles for their looks (AND how they look parked in the company parking lot or the driveway of an upscale residence). If it's not the total styling package, then it MUST be that funny looking "L" emblem on them. And don't forget about BMWs being used daily by people of similar demographics who want the capabilities of greater performance in their vehicles than what Lexus/Toyota vehicles seems capable of providing. Yep, "excitement" (and images thereof) still sells cars (maybe not just Pontiacs anymore, though).

Cosmetics still have a heck of a lot to do with what people drive. That's one reason the PTCruiser was such a hit . . . an econobox that didn't look like one--distinctive and readily recognizable styling with utility and economy of operation. Same with the HHR in many respects, too.

In general, Toyotas have been "tastefully styled" (my words) for many decades, but none really broke any new ground in doing that. As an appliance vehicle, it all works pretty well like that . . . even with their "Best Buick Toyota Can Build" Avalon. I rather doubt that people would buy a Toyota (for daily use or whatever) if they felt it was "ugly" compared to other vehicles against which they compete. I don't suspect that many people would have thought that Kias and Hyundais might challenge the allegedly legendary Toyota fit and finish any time soon, but they are and appear to be better than Toyota on many of their vehicles--with some brighter and more youthful colors too.

Hybrids of some sort may well be "the future", but they all don't have to be "boring" or "nondescript" to look at . . . as the Chevy Volt proves. Many people might look past styling for utility functions and other perceived "values" which the purchaser deems important, but not everybody wants a bland looking "potatoe" car (as Iacocca once termed some vehicles when he was touting K-cars) when they can have something distinctive and visually interesting for the same money--yes, even for daily use. Kind of like the current Mazda commercial where one neighbor parks a new Mazda in his driveway and his neighbor says "I thought you were going to buy a new Camry (like HE had)". When the Mazda owner starts talking about how much this and that the Mazda has over the Toyota, the Toyota owner kind of shrinks back to hide his Camry in the garage. Zoom, Zoom!

Enjoy!

NTX5467

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I suspect there are lots of people driving around in Lexus vehicles for their looks (AND how they look parked in the company parking lot or the driveway of an upscale residence). If it's not the total styling package, then it MUST be that funny looking "L" emblem on them. </div></div>

No concession at all that the Lexus might be an excellent car bought by people who are happy with their quality? None at all? It "<span style="font-style: italic">MUST</span>" be superficial reasons?

Underestimating the buyer is almost endemic to the American car industry. It doesn't surprise me at all to find it here as well. You'd pretty much have to to the explain the last 25 years and still stand by everything that Detroit has done.

A team's best fans admit shortcomings and encourage change to overcome them, no matter the sport. It's least effective fans put blind faith in everything the team does, and looks for excuses when things don't work out. Excuses, such as seeing every other car companies' fans as being duped, run out eventually.

Nobody thinks styling doesn't matter. However it has to be backed up with product or there will be hell to pay. GM's hell is of it's own making, not Toyota's.

[Guest rlbleeker]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dave@Moon</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> No concession at all that the Lexus might be an excellent car bought by people who are happy with their quality? </div></div>

Of course they do, they are as good as a Buick!

The larger the budget, the more important styling becomes. Would those same people buy a Lexus if they looked just like a Toyota?

To deviate from the original topic a bit, why must we live with boring, unispired style in a utilitarian vehicle?

[Gene Brink]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: rlbleeker</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If brand loyalties are set for life, how come so many of my fathers generation 55-65 who were raised with the big three are driving Hondas? </div></div>

Right in my wheelhouse as I am 60, have always been a car nut (knew all of the makes and could call 'em out when riding in the car with my parents when I was three) and, sadly, witnessed the import onslaught first hand. Initially price and "sporty" (actually smaller) is what drove sales of the common import (VW only really) and what made them a success, I think, was pretty good reliability and build quality and when one had to repair 'em - cheap! Then the Japanese onslaught with Datsun and Toyota (Honda came later [and not many wanted their first car here - same price as a VW and much less car] and really did everything right). Cheap with a good bit of content and, again, reliability and good build quality (albeit pretty cheap materials at the time but screwed together well). US manufacturers continued to offer a wide array of choice in how you could build your own car - stripped down (and virtually as cheap as the imports) or by selecting options fully loaded. By the time you matched foreign content the US car was generally more expensive (and often you could not match with a 4 sp transmission, etc.) so kids did what kids often do - bought what they could afford. Over time the Japanese imports in particular have continued to offer great reliability and build quality with much better materials and for a period of time they exceeded the US cars in general (not so much today but still an overall edge) and that past heritage has endeared them to literally millions of buyers to this day. So buyer loyality for a lot of people was set while they were young (and all it took for someone slightly younger was an older sibling's good experience with something to influence them as well).

Buick can recapture market share if they are able to build products that will meet (or exceed) the expectations of people and that requires "cutting edge" thinking which they have not exhibited unfortunately. While their product line is generally solid it is not "exciting" and they lag behind current trends so are not benefiting from "first in the market" (I think the last time they were in that position was with the Opel GT - huge interest that created lots of buyer traffic <span style="font-style: italic">in 1970</span> for a very limited use car and that interest went away in a day when the Datsun 240Z came out - bigger, flashier, more powerful for about the same price) equals sales and interest. LaCrosse, Lucerne, Enclave, etc... are okay but...

Having said that I enjoy my Park Avenue. Been reliable, decent mileage, comfortable on the road and handles better than a large car should but my kids tell me that it is a geezer car...

[Gene Brink]

I remember being really knocked out by maybe five (production) cars in my lifetime. (*remember, I'm 40)

- Dodge Ram

-Mazda Miata

-PT Cruiser

-(new) Mini Cooper

-Lexus (hardtop convertible, whatever they number call it)

Notice a pattern? "Retro Styling"

Mike,

Don't think the Miata and Lexus are retro styled at all BUT the Miata was a retro <span style="font-style: italic">idea </span> as it was time for a sports car roadster that hearkened back to the British cars that "started" the love affair many had with the sports cars. The Lexus is just one of several other marques that realized there is a potential market but no retro look there either. (And I must add, you are a bit too young to have been there when the 1st generation Riveria released. Still lust for one...)

[imported_buick5563]

Good point about the "retro idea" Gene. I also shouldn't have implied that the Lexus was a retro syle, more that I was impressed by the compact hardtop convertible.

True, I wasn't even born when the First gen Rivs came out, but I love them, too. I'd have a 65 in a heartbeat and there wouldn't be much arm twisting to "accept" a 63-64.

Mike