2011 Buick Regal Announcement! TODAY

[Guest Skyking]

I review our companies auto loans everyday. I see a lot of monthly payments of $650 for 72 months. That to me is the essence of insanity. If you can afford a $650 per month payment for 72 months then put more down in the 1st place! That's my mortgage payment!

QUOTE]

Agreed!! The smartest thing to do is buy a 2-3 year old car, preferably a Buick, because the market made it now affordable!:eek:

[Reatta Man]

In a market that is down 40% and may stay down 20-30% when the so-called "recession" is over, Buick and every other real American car needs to sell every unit it can just to survive.

Just as the media seems to be totally in the tank for one political party and they can seem to do no wrong in the eyes of the media, the 'other' media seems to be totally in the tank for anything made with a foreign brand, whether it was made here or across the ocean.

So, like I said, GM needs to sell every unit it can. Should they be sold for $650 per month for 72 months? Of course not; that goes beyond the remotest or most extreme definition of common sense. But they had better be stylish (by today's standards, not the classic Buick standard) be ultra-reliable, and not cost a small fortune to buy, insure, finance or fuel.

Joe

[NTX5467]

Hey . . . BUICK never did abandon "upmarket", just that others moved into that territory and above . . . all of which are import brands. Buick is still where it always has been in the "Premium American Motorcar" location, with Cadillac just above it, but when Lexus comes in with higher price-point vehicles, then a higher nomenclature than "premium" had to be invented or the existing "luxury" nomenclature moved upward to the new price-point-leader's pricing territory. A "war of words", more than anything else, which has made Buick look poorly as a result, when it's really not changed anything in the process NOR strayed from it's original position!

Personally, to me, the "entry level Buick", whatever it might be, should have an MSRP in the $30K range, or possibly $28K. This would move the middle-level trim version into the lower $30K range, which should be affordable by many. Although the new 2010 LaCrosse CX and CXL are in that range, getting "too much" with the option packages can move it into the upper $30Ks, which is where a better-optioned CXS will be. Actual transaction prices might be a few thousand less, though. With the higher prices have come higher levels of standard equipment content (whether power accessories or more expensive-to-make DOHC engines with gazillion-speed automatics behind/beside them). Still, the marketing demographics for Buick will not tolerate a lower $20Ks MSRP price point for anything! At least in current times.

Remember when the Buick Century was re-introduced as a lower-priced Buick Regal? "Buick luxury for under $20,000" was the advertising line back then. It has soft ride suspension, standard tires and wheel covers, cloth interiors, and more basic content. Unfortunately, more grand mothers ended up with them than upwardly-mobile young couples. Still, it had attributes which BOTH age demographics would like . . . other than "serviceable" (read "bland") seat covers. Size, comfort, economy of operation, dependability, durability, and pricing were all working in its favor.

With the newly-rediscovered "international sizing" of vehicles, with many GM lines seeking to emulate target European or Asian brands in their vehicles' physical size (interior and exterior), things CAN become a little "intimate". As the outer widths are shrinking, this also puts more "shrinkage" on the interior widths too, which are also worsened by the wide center consoles and "center stacks" that NO ONE seems to be able to build a car without ANYMORE!

The new 2010 LaCrosse is a fantastic car, but when my right leg will normally touch the outer edge of the console, that's just a shade too wide of the console for me. But the earlier Lincoln LS had the same situation. Sometimes, just having a console that's 1/2" narrower can make things seem so much more spacious!

And with the 3.0L V-6 and 6-speed automatic, it will get on down the road . . . very quickly and quietly if the WOT mode is engaged for any length of time. To me, 5 speeds ought to be plenty, as the GM 6-speeds have two gear ratios (5 & 6) that seem too close together to really make any difference OTHER than in the EPA mileage tests. In an age of nano-second electronic responses, the 6-speed transaxles seem to have too many "lags" in their downshift responses, by observation.

The base Lucerne can standard with buckets and console. Adding the center cushion and such was extra, but the same buckets were used for the outer seating locations. With the buckets and console, it looks plenty spiffy! Still, many Buick owners still like wide bench seats than the narrower bucket seats. But the reason for the bench seats has somewhat diminished (sliding across the seat after entering from the curb side of the vehicle) with lowered roof lines, more seat belt buckles in the way, and less room between the front of the seat cushion and the edge of the instrument panel--NOT like it was 30+ years ago by any means. Even if there was a split-bench option, it would also mean a center set of seat belts to worry with and slide over . . . BUT it might make the interior seem more spacious and more agreeable, ala later 1980s fwd Electra Park Avenues. But as the Euro and Asian "luxury" brands don't have front bench seats/split bench seats, why should the USA brands (in something other than "police/fleet car-rated vehicles" have them?

Buick does need something more exciting than the current Lucerne as a flagship, but to do so would probably end up selling in the $50K range. What WE would like to see in such a vehicle is not what the current market might desire, though. Think how the press might receive a vehicle that now had "six seating positions", three front and rear, when everybody else had only 5? It would be great if a REAL sweep-spear styling would be on ALL Buicks again, but with the way the sides and door handles interact, that might not be possible even in paint or pinstripes--the 2010 LaCrosse was a start, but now the new Regal does not carry it through.

As the manufacturers have tried to decrease assembly times for their vehicles, MUCH has been lost. Not to mention other cost/content decreases!

Stylized Port Holes? You can buy them in the WalMart automotive section . . . very inexpensively. They've been applied to MANY non-Buick vehicles over the past few years.

A problem with Buick merchandising/design is that they have to have some (now more basic) models which will satisfy the "traditional" customers while also having enough "other" content to satisfy the younger buyers which are being sought for the brand. Although WE might not worry about such, the lack of a USB port for the radio can be a deal-breaker for some younger buyers!

A perceptual problem is that many of the attributes which appeal to us and people on fixed incomes are ALSO of interest to younger buyers . . . IF the younger buyers would get past the "old folks car" orientation toward Buicks. Heck, the way things are going, Ford Mustangs are becoming "old folks cars" as those of us that were around when they were first introduced and are still interested in buying/owning them are still buying them (not to forget about the new Camaro and Challenger!) in current times. Just like "pushrod" engines are considered "antique technology" unless they are under the hood of a Viper or Corvette.

$650.00/month car payments have been around for a while, but have not seemed to be "out of whack" to those that seem to need them. I always wonder how much negative equity is in that price? I guess that when the monthly price for vehicles gets too much for the budget, then something might happen. Still, it's more than I'd want to pay . . . unless I had sufficient funding and disposable income to support that situation . . . even then, though, I think I'd tend toward something "more sane". But for 72 months??? Where the interest is being paid on the front end of the note rather than being evenly spread out? I guess that if you get used to looking at the world from your "upside down" financial situation, you won't see reality coming in a few years?

Just some thoughts . . .

NTX5467

Edited November 23, 2009 by NTX5467 (see edit history)

[LINC400]

In a market that is down 40% and may stay down 20-30% when the so-called "recession" is over, Buick and every other real American car needs to sell every unit it can just to survive.

Just as the media seems to be totally in the tank for one political party and they can seem to do no wrong in the eyes of the media, the 'other' media seems to be totally in the tank for anything made with a foreign brand, whether it was made here or across the ocean.

So, like I said, GM needs to sell every unit it can. Should they be sold for $650 per month for 72 months? Of course not; that goes beyond the remotest or most extreme definition of common sense. But they had better be stylish (by today's standards, not the classic Buick standard) be ultra-reliable, and not cost a small fortune to buy, insure, finance or fuel.

Joe

Is that what automakers did during the Great Depression? Buick, Cadillac, Lincoln, Chrysler all offered cars priced the same as Chevys? No, I believe that is when Cadillac offered its V-16. Some automakers offered a lower price model to weather the depression. But they were not priced in Chevy range. And those that did not drop the cheap models after WWII, when they were no longer needed, suffered having their image cheapened. That hurt sales of both the cheap and expensive models.

A $650 a month car payment for 72 months may sound exorbitant to some. But the people that have them are probably paying a $3000 a month mortgage payment, not $650. If they are making enough to pay for it, why not? If I were making $125,000 a year, I wouldn't want a $22,000 car. For those that can't afford it, some will buy it anyway, they will also probably be maxed out on their credit cards, are not concerned with how much interest they are paying, and will be screwed if they lose their job. But that is not the automakers problem. If people are going to overextend themselves, why should Lexus get the sale instead of Buick?

Buick did not totally abandon its market. The Riviera, Park Ave, etc. stayed there. But the cheap models, Skyhawk, Century, etc. cheapened their image. They do not need to go back to offering cheap models. They need to build cars to improve their image, not cheapen it.

Edited November 23, 2009 by LINC400 (see edit history)

[Reatta Man]

A $650 a month car payment for 72 months may sound exorbitant to some. But the people that have them are probably paying a $3000 a month mortgage payment, not $650. If they are making enough to pay for it, why not? If I were making $125,000 a year, I wouldn't want a $22,000 car. For those that can't afford it, some will buy it anyway, they will also probably be maxed out on their credit cards, are not concerned with how much interest they are paying, and will be screwed if they lose their job. But that is not the automakers problem. If people are going to overextend themselves, why should Lexus get the sale instead of Buick?

LINC,

1. For those of us fortunate to have that kind of income, $650 per month for a depriciating asset IS riduculous. And, if $3000 per month for a house payment is more than 25-30% of your monthly income, you are in a house that you can't afford.

2. Maxing out credit is what got us a devistated housing market, banks lining up for 'free' bailout money from Uncle Sugar, 17.5% unemployment and a $12 trillion national debt.

3. I never ever want a Lexus to get a sale over a quality Buick. But, I do want people to do it in such a way that they don't put their family's future at risk.

If you would like to learn more about being really rich and not just trying to look rich, I suggest the following:

1. Find Dave Ramsey on your local radio station. He is on from 1-4 CST, 2-5 Eastern, Monday-Friday.

2. Read the following books:

The Millionaire Next Door by Thomas J. Stanley

The Millionair Mind by Thomas J. Stanley

Stop Acting Rich: ...And Start Living Like A Real Millionaire by Thomas J. Stanley

The Total Money Makeover by Dave Ramsey

Financial Peace by Dave Ramsey

3. If you are in debt up to your eyeballs (or worse) find a location near you where you can take Financial Peace University. Go to www.daveramsey.com and follow the instructions to find a course starting soon near you.

There IS another and a better way than being in debt all of your life and living paycheck to paycheck. I know; I found it, and now my money works for me.

Good luck!

Joe

[LINC400]

LINC,

1. For those of us fortunate to have that kind of income, $650 per month for a depriciating asset IS riduculous. And, if $3000 per month for a house payment is more than 25-30% of your monthly income, you are in a house that you can't afford.

2. Maxing out credit is what got us a devistated housing market, banks lining up for 'free' bailout money from Uncle Sugar, 17.5% unemployment and a $12 trillion national debt.

3. I never ever want a Lexus to get a sale over a quality Buick. But, I do want people to do it in such a way that they don't put their family's future at risk.

If you would like to learn more about being really rich and not just trying to look rich, I suggest the following:

1. Find Dave Ramsey on your local radio station. He is on from 1-4 CST, 2-5 Eastern, Monday-Friday.

2. Read the following books:

The Millionaire Next Door by Thomas J. Stanley

The Millionair Mind by Thomas J. Stanley

Stop Acting Rich: ...And Start Living Like A Real Millionaire by Thomas J. Stanley

The Total Money Makeover by Dave Ramsey

Financial Peace by Dave Ramsey

3. If you are in debt up to your eyeballs (or worse) find a location near you where you can take Financial Peace University. Go to www.daveramsey.com and follow the instructions to find a course starting soon near you.

There IS another and a better way than being in debt all of your life and living paycheck to paycheck. I know; I found it, and now my money works for me.

Good luck!

Joe

I don't need lectures on finances. I pay my credit cards in full every month and have zero balances. I pay zero interest on them. My mortgage will be paid off 14 years early. By the way, a $2000 to $3000 a month mortgage payment is nothing unusual in the Chicago area. I wouldn't mind a new Challenger or Camaro. But I would rather put that $40,000 towards my mortgage. And I don't think either is worth $40,000 anyway. But if I did want to take on a car payment, there is no reason someone else should tell me how much to spend on a car.

However, there are people that can afford a $650 a month car payment. If they can afford it, it is their business if they want to spend it on a car that is going to depreciate, dining out, clothes, save it or whatever. There will be car companies there to take their money if that is how they are going to spend it whether Buick pursues the more affluent car market or not. So Buick should be priced there.

There are also people that will buy things they can't afford. You can lecture them all you want, but it probably won't do any good. It is not Buick's responsibility to attempt to teach them to manage their finances. Lexus and Mercedes don't. They simply offer cars at a specific price point.

Edited November 23, 2009 by LINC400 (see edit history)

[Guest Charlie Larkin]

Fails the smell test on these counts:

1. Built in Germany. Why not just import the Opel Insignia? There is, afterall, historical precedence for selling Opels at a Buick dealer.

2. Four cylinders. I don't care what the rest of the world is doing, anything that expensive should have a six. You'll notice that Mercedes except for the SLK, has gone to all sixes in this price range, as has Lexus, Infiniti, and BMW. If they want to compete with forieign cars, offer something competitive...and build it here! If we're (illegally, I think) going to dump all that money into GM to save American jobs, how about building a car here using our plants?

Oh, that's right, it's doing the right thing, how silly of me.

3. I agree with a lot of people that a Regal (or any coupe) would be a welcome addition to Buick's lineup. However, we're still faced with dealing with a contemporary bland, not-really-that-attractive car, but at least they could try.

4. I want to see more real American cars, too. Enough of this global-sizing. I want a car with a wide six-passenger interior, rear-wheel drive and a V-8 (get daring...make a new straight 8!) With the modern lighter materials, a cylinder shut-off that works, and things like that, there's no reason why a standard-size, six/eight passenger (yes, I want a new Roadmaster wagon) eight-cylinder car can't get decent mileage, and if we can ever get the infrastructure for clean diesel here, they'd sell.

5. I agree that Buick's prices have gotten too high. If they still made a Century-type midsize car that was comfortable, easy to get in and out of and reasonably-priced, I'd buy one.

For the record, I'm 34 and I don't like most of the newer "young" cars; they're uncomfortable, not that attractive, and I think really overpriced, even the cheap ones. I think they're like most modern celebrities and the lifestyle too many people my age or younger try to live- too much flash, no substance. Is THAT what you want a car to be?

For the time being, I'll continue driving my 1991 Caprice wagon and keep looking for a good-shape LT1 Roadmaster/Caprice wagon until GM decides it wants to build real cars again, not make-pretend tin cans with exorbitant price tags.

Charlie Larkin

[Reatta Man]

Charlie,

I agree with most of your points. Making cars too small for a significant percentage of the potential buyers just keeps pushing people into trucks, SUVs and so-called crossovers (station wagons with lift kits).

However, I hope the car is just an Opel design that will be brough over here to an American plant with eager Americans wanting to work and earn a paycheck building it. If it is built overseas, the price will be uncompetitive due to the sliding dollar.

As for 4-cylinder engines, they have made HUGE improvements in them to the point that the modern ones don't even deserve to be compared to the GM and Ford four-bangers of the past. In other words, the Iron Duke is dead and good riddance! Also, remember that we WILL have $4 or $5 per gallon gas again, possibly sooner than anyone wants. Having that engine certified and ready to go into that car, mated to a six-speed automatic will help GM remain competitive. Just remember, a lot, if not most of the Camrys and Accords go out the door with four-cylinders, and that is who GM is competing against as their benchmark for their new products. If they shoot for Mercedes and Lexus, they will never produce the volume to stay in business.

Joe

[LINC400]

Why does everyone keep thinking that Buick needs to compete with Honda and Toyota and not Lexus and Mercedes? Did Buicks in the 1930's-1960's compete with Ford and Plymouth? No, they competed with Chrysler and Mercury. I don't see BMW, Lexus, and Mercedes pricing themselves in Honda or Chevys range to gain more volume.

Chevy is supposed to compete with Honda and Toyota not Buick. Chevy is supposed to be the volume leader. You can make money selling a high profit car in low volume just as easily as a lower profit car in high volume. If Buick offers the same type of cars as Chevy in the same price range, GM might as well drop them too. The purpose of having Chevy, Buick, and Cadillac is to cover the price range from low to high. Not have everybody offering the same low price cars.

[Pete Phillips]

I agree with the earlier comments by Dandy Dave! and Willie and others. Another 4-door sedan jelly bean car. YAWN. GM and Buick just don't GET IT!

Pete Phillips

Sherman, Texas

[NTX5467]

What ReattaMan was trying to get at was that people should not leverage themselves too deeply, even if it might look good on paper. In a regional newspaper, about a year ago or so, was a commentary about "$30K Millionaires". These would be the young male (typically) who goes to the bars, dresses very nicely (usually), makes sure everybody sees his trendy credit card, then goes home in his leased Audi4, except "home" is a very inexpensive apartment/rent house/duplex. Then you see him go to work at a very blue collar job (and related pay). End result, he has no real assets but lots of accumulating debts--if he has too many late credit card payments, here comes the "new" 29.9% APR interest rates!

There were many causes and contributors to the housing market issues of recent history--on BOTH sides of the checkbook (receivers and payers). Everybody was being opportunistic where some possible reason should have been, it appears.

About 25 years ago, I heard a financial advisor comment that new, just-starting-out young couples should plan on house payments which might be near the max they could afford. This might sound like a "set-up for failure" in a young marriage, but the reasoning was that as both partners kept their existing jobs, their pay would increase incrementally as time went on, making the house payment less of their total income each time. Having kids (and related expenses) was not mentioned, though! Still, in that economy, it had some credibility. And, 35 years ago, $700.00/month would have bought you a pretty nice new house in a suburban location in the DFW area.

When I was in college, both types of mortgages were discussed--fixed rate and adjustable rate. At that time, fixed rate mortgages were the norm, yet in mildly fluctuating economy, the adj rate could be advantageous--IF you watched the mortgage rates and trends thereof. Nothing wrong with that, but in the more recent market it was the adj rate mortgages and other related things (to increase home valuations) that helped "cook" the unwary consumer who, at the time, had a good job and a suspected stable employment situation.

Few people tend to realize that they can pay down the principle on a mortgage over and above their normal monthly payments. OR that rather than a 30 yr fixed rate mortgage, they can opt for 20 year or (as one real estate agent called them, "Industrial Strength Payments") on a 10 year mortgage. At that time, when he mentioned that, there were many good economic things going on in the DFW area, so some married couples (without kids) with household incomes past $150K/year could save massive amounts of money with the shorter term mortgages . . . or if they paid their 30 year note much sooner.

Be that as it may . . .

It was announced today, or at least in today's Detroit News, that that new Regal would be built in Canada. The same online paper had an article that the last Pontiac (a G6 sedan) was built today.

Which car brands that Buick or Chevrolet is competing against, these days, has more to do with price points and such than whether a brand is a luxury brand or whatever. BMW continues to do reasonably well "being BMW", just as Mercedes and others have been doing--regardless of price point of their respective models. Also, what we see of these brands in the USA is NOT their full line-ups, but ONLY what is exported/built to/for the USA market.

To me, the current Chevy Malibu is too nice to be a Chevrolet, but as its price has increased, it is now a viable alternative to Toyotas, Hondas, and probably the "small" Mercedes models for similar money being spent. People can tend to talk about lease residual numbers for Toyotas and Hondas, but not the amount of maintenance some of them will take over 100K miles of ownership . . . and prices thereof. CAR AND DRIVER has called the Toyota Avalon "the best Buick that Toyota can build", but when I looked the new Avalon at the Dallas New Car show earlier this year, it was lacking in many areas when compared to ANY then-current Buick.

As vehicle sizes decrease, especially length, 4-doors seem to make more sense IF the back seat is desired to be used for passengers rather than a place to throw a briefcase or the dog to ride. When we did have many 2-door hardtops and such, climbing into the rear seat (AND getting past the seat belt "maze") was not something that everybody could do. The new Challenger is not really that small, but with the passenger seat moved all the way forward, I can "walk" into the rear seat comfortably. New Camaro or Mitsu Eclipse? NO way! Probably, too many of use remember when a Chevy Impala Sport Sedan was a 4-door hardtop but might have missed the "4DSC" decal on earlier Nissan Maximas (4 Door Sports Car), or that almost any BMW 4-door would classify as "sports sedan"? In one respect, it would be reasonably easy to reconfigure/re-content almost every 4-door vehicle GM has as a "sports sedan". Might a Lucerne Super (with the standard front bucket seats AND center console) V-8 qualify? A more agressive wheel/tire package (NOT 20s, though!), Borla exhaust, slightly lower ride height, plus the refined electronic ride control and it could make a very credible version of a 1995 Chrysler LHS-type car. Personally, I'd rather have a car "with guts", however refined, than one with lots of electronic plug-ins and such. I can find enough good music on the radio or satellite to not have to carry it with me in a device that sounds like "peapod".

I concur, the current GM EcoTec 4-cylinder engines are great performing powerplants. Plus, the Camry 4-cylinder is a credibly-performing vehicle . . . until you get to the deeper depths of the accelerator pedal travel and you realize "it's a 4-cylinder". With the 2.0L EcoTec in a Cobalt, it'll surprise you how well it runs and performs . . . and those middle-30mpgs on the highway are nothing to sneeze at--even with JUST 4 normal forward gears in the automatic transaxle.

I happened to see a '72 Cadillac Eldorado convertible driving around the other night, before it got too cool . . . with the top down. Seeing it against current vehicles was highly graphic evidence of just how narrow today's "full size" cars are . . . with seats only 2.3 people wide rather than THREE+ people wide (which USED to be the norm, even for pickup trucks). Vehicles built during a time when luxury was about size, comfort, spacious interiors, many power assists, and big engines rather than what now defines that type of vehicle. And, if you really think about it, the interiors could comfortably accomodate as many people as a current Chevy Suburban can, and carry about the same amount of luggage . . . and weigh about the same (or even a little less!). IF we could return to those earlier body sizes, aerodynamic improvements and engine technology improvements would probably yield better highway fuel economy than the new Suburbans, too, I suspect. Oh, I kind of forgot, we used to have something like that . . . called Ford Crown Victoria/Mercury Grand Marquis/Lincoln Town Car! So, "Yes", it's very probable that the smaller "international-sized" cars of today could have very well driven more and more people to the Suburban-style vehicles . . . not to forget that those truck-based vehicles are also REAR WHEEL DRIVE.

I fully understand the reasoning behind building ONE size of vehicle for all of the world, BUT THIS IS THE USA and many of those vehicles just don't fit us over here . . . where GM and Ford are headquartered. As great as the Pontiac G8 might be, when I look at one I see the GM X-body platformed Pontiac Ventura (aka Chevy Nova) from the early 1970s, as it seems to be more THAT size of vehicle rather than "full size". That size of vehicle obviously fits many congested places in the USA and other narrower roadways of venues in Europe, but I'm NOT driving over there!

Still, GM USA has many great vehicles to choose from--even if they might be based on platforms which originated in Europe (and their sometimes worse road conditions) and then better fine-tuned in the Outback of Oz. Plus, they can also make us better appreciate the more vintage vehicles we might have . . . and why they need to be preserved reasonably "correct-as-produced" for future generations to enjoy and marvel over!

Happy Thanksgiving!

NTX5467

[Reatta Man]

Some points to consider:

1. Buick shouldn't shoot to beat Mercedes and Lexus because they are NOT high-volume brands. MB sold 253,433 vehicles in '07 (pre-recession) and 225,128 for 2008. Lexus had 329,177 for 2007 and 260,087 for '08.

Why are those numbers too low for Buick? Because Olds was selling 266,000 units per year when GM killed them off due to "poor sales." (BTW, wonder if GM would love to have those 266,000 annual sales back again?) So, if we want Buick to stay alive, 250K (+/-) annual units isn't enough. And, if we want GM to pay back the BILLIONS they owe US, they need for Buick and all their brands to be very large production brands. Forget about a 'near-luxury' status, it is all about profits and production.... And that will only come from quality and making a desirable product--including not having your accelerator pedals stick.

2. It has been said (paraphrased) "a $650 car payment or $3000 house payment is no one's business if someone can afford it...." Yeah, and when someone CAN'T afford their payments, it becomes EVERYONE'S business/problem. That is how we ended up in a record foreclosure and repossesion market. THAT is the point that a lot of people STILL haven't learned.

When it comes to money, I'm not lecturing, just letting people know there is a better way than being up to your eyeballs in debt and broke all your life. This is the point that Dave Ramsey and Thomas J. Stanley are trying to make; if you start doing things rich people do, you will be rich and if you always do the things broke people do, you will always be broke.

Joe

Edited November 27, 2009 by Reatta Man (see edit history)

[LINC400]

So should Cadillac start offering cheap cars in the Chevy price range as well because they will sell more cars then? As I said the reason for Chev, Buick, and Cadillac is to cover ALL price ranges from low to high. If Buick is just going to offer cars that are the same as Chevy for the same price, there is no reason for them to exist. They will just compete with Chevy then. That is why Olds is gone. They didn't offer anything you couldn't get elsewhere at GM for the same price. They had no problem when they occupied their own price range.

The problem is not expensive houses or cars. There will always be people that are able to afford them regardless of the economy. They sold V-16 Cadillacs and Duesenbergs during the Great Depression.

They also sold Buicks then that were nowhere near Chevy's price range.

The problem is banks and mortgage companies giving credit cards and loans to people with bad credit, bankruptcies, and income nowhere near what it should be to get a loan on what they are buying. When I bought my house, I had a hard time getting a loan, and I have excellent credit. Before the economy collapse, someone making the same amount as me could now get a loan for double when they had a bankruptcy and bad credit. That is what causes problems, not $35,000 Buicks.

[Thriller]

I made truck payments of nearly $1100...for 48 months...at either 0 or 0.9% interest. The Rainier payments are in the $700 range...again for 48 months and the same interest rate. Just another month or two of payments to go. When 0% interest is offered, I don't mind making payments and keeping the money in my accounts earning interest.

My '62 Special was a compact car back then. Now it would be somewhere between mid-size and full-size...my how times have changed.

[HurstGN]

So should Cadillac start offering cheap cars in the Chevy price range as well because they will sell more cars then? As I said the reason for Chev, Buick, and Cadillac is to cover ALL price ranges from low to high. If Buick is just going to offer cars that are the same as Chevy for the same price, there is no reason for them to exist. They will just compete with Chevy then. That is why Olds is gone. They didn't offer anything you couldn't get elsewhere at GM for the same price. They had no problem when they occupied their own price range.

No, that's not what we're saying. The point some of us are making is that GM now has 3 car brands, and they rank in at

High - Cadillac

High - Buick

Low - Chevy

The low level is the entry level...lets get folks hooked to then get their loyalty and move up the brand scale. Well with the missing "Medium - Pontiac" in that list, the jump is more like a quantum leap. It looks to me like GM wants the progression up the tree to be from Chevy direct into Cadillac. Look at those two brands...the styling and performance leads that direction. We see no cars in the Buick lineup with the looks of a CTS, DTS, SRX, etc. And for the lost performance, well, Cadillac offers that in the V series cars.

So what is Buick? Look at it's styling....it's main role is to go after the european competition. Then once you've won the buyer over to a USA brand, then move into the top of the line Cadillac if the buyer wants to move to the USA style cars. If they still want the euro-jellybean look, then they stay right where they're at in the Buicks. Lets face it, Buick is now driven 100% by the Chinese. Buick is now a european brand.

This is only my opinion, but I can say that the way it works for me now is that I want a car with style, and I see a progression from Camaro to CTS. If that progression involves performance, then go from Camaro 2SS to CTS-V. There's no Buick in that move, and if I'm right about Buick catering to the european look and feel buyer, there never will be another Buick in my purchases.

Buick used to mean style, elegance, leader of the pack in turning heads....all that has gone over to Cadillac. Buick is now about keeping the family in China happy.

[LINC400]

Personally, I think it was an extremely stupid move to drop Pontiac. Chevy is supposed to be filling the spot, but not everyone is going to automatically buy a Chevy or Buick instead. A lot of people will simply switch to Toyota, Honda or whatever. GM still hasn't learned that lesson from when they dropped Olds, and assumed that meant everyone would just have to buy another GM brand. They don't, and a lot didn't. Plus Pontiac was selling more cars, and selling to younger buyers, which Buick is unable to do right now.

Impala and Camaro already exceed $30,000 and Camaro goes to $40,000 if equipped with everything. So a $22,000 Buick makes no sense. Even the Malibu goes higher than that, and that is the mid-price Chevy.

Personally I think all the new Cadillacs are ugly. But I will say that while I do not like them, at least they are doing something unique as far as styling instead of copying Lexus and Mercedes like most others are. The performance should have been there a long time ago.

If I had to buy a new car, Buick would not even be considered. I hope they can start building some interesting cars again.

[Reatta Man]

Personally, I think it was an extremely stupid move to drop Pontiac. Chevy is supposed to be filling the spot, but not everyone is going to automatically buy a Chevy or Buick instead. A lot of people will simply switch to Toyota, Honda or whatever. GM still hasn't learned that lesson from when they dropped Olds, and assumed that meant everyone would just have to buy another GM brand. They don't, and a lot didn't. Plus Pontiac was selling more cars, and selling to younger buyers, which Buick is unable to do right now.

LINC,

GM still hasn't learned their lesson from killing Olds. When they killed that brand, Olds was selling about 260,000 units per year. Gone, and never gotten back. Pontiac, for 2007, their last year before the 'Pontiac is gone' rumors started flying, sold nearly 486,000 units.

So, GM has given up about 750,000 in annual sales with those two brands. It is a wonder that they ever expect to return to profitability if they think voluntarily killing off three quarters of a million units every year is a good idea.

And, those of us who have been GM and Buick fans all of our lives know that GM ever again having 50% of the U.S. annual sales is virtually impossible. (Think Detroit Lions winning the Superbowl and you get an idea of the odds.)

Joe

[HurstGN]

And, those of us who have been GM and Buick fans all of our lives know that GM ever again having 50% of the U.S. annual sales is virtually impossible. (Think Detroit Lions winning the Superbowl and you get an idea of the odds.)

Joe

Joe,

I'd think Detroit Lions have better odds at winning the Superbowl. :eek:

[Guest Skyking]

LINC,

GM still hasn't learned their lesson from killing Olds. When they killed that brand, Olds was selling about 260,000 units per year. Gone, and never gotten back. Pontiac, for 2007, their last year before the 'Pontiac is gone' rumors started flying, sold nearly 486,000 units.

So, GM has given up about 750,000 in annual sales with those two brands. It is a wonder that they ever expect to return to profitability if they think voluntarily killing off three quarters of a million units every year is a good idea.

And, those of us who have been GM and Buick fans all of our lives know that GM ever again having 50% of the U.S. annual sales is virtually impossible. (Think Detroit Lions winning the Superbowl and you get an idea of the odds.)

Joe

The problem is that management in most companies today doesn't have a clue what's going on. I see it in my company on a daily basis. The bad decisions are being repeated over and over again by the same morons in charge. Small companies are no different than bigger companies, it's just that the bigger ones lose money faster. It's just a shame no one can see the writing on the walls anywhere these days..............

[gsjohnny]

Personally, I think it was an extremely stupid move to drop Pontiac. Chevy is supposed to be filling the spot, but not everyone is going to automatically buy a Chevy or Buick instead. A lot of people will simply switch to Toyota, Honda or whatever. GM still hasn't learned that lesson from when they dropped Olds, and assumed that meant everyone would just have to buy another GM brand. They don't, and a lot didn't. Plus Pontiac was selling more cars, and selling to younger buyers, which Buick is unable to do right now.

selling to younger buyers by selling a 2 door(which almost everybody makes). now that's a novel idea to increase sales.

if my memory is correct, it was a 2 door buick got me started. NOT a 4 door. the kids are grown and i want a 2 door buick performance car again.

then again, there are always the ''other guys'' who'll be glad to take my money.

[Dandy Dave]

I sure do hope that the guys in charge of all those Buick bean's, and the designers frequent this forum. Maybe they will take a hint, The only Buick in my garage will be a Two Door....rag top perfered, but optional. The only 4 door Buick I will ever own is one I can buy cheep, and sell high. Dandy Dave!

[LINC400]

selling to younger buyers by selling a 2 door(which almost everybody makes). now that's a novel idea to increase sales.

if my memory is correct, it was a 2 door buick got me started. NOT a 4 door. the kids are grown and i want a 2 door buick performance car again.

then again, there are always the ''other guys'' who'll be glad to take my money.

Who sells a 2 door? Cadillac, Buick, Chrysler, Lincoln, Mercury, even Lexus, none of these have a 2 door. Lexus and Chrysler have convertibles, but no 2 door. Honda and Toyota are the only ones that seem to have them aside from the Camaro, Mustang and Challenger. So it seems if I want a new car, I either pay more than what it would cost for a luxury car to get a muscle car, or buy foreign. I refuse to buy a 4 door.

[Thriller]

The Cadillac SRX has more than 2 doors? The Chrysler Sebring convertible? Lexus has two convertibles, and, while it may not have pricing info, the LFA with a 552 hp V10. Chev also has the Corvette and a Cobalt coupe. That's without going to the others like Kia and the European brands.

There are domestic 2 doors. They may not be what one wants or in the price range they want, but they are out there.

I don't refuse to buy a four door...3 children from 9 to 13. However, I'd like an interesting four door and I'd like the alternative to purchase a "me" car. For the amount I drive the kids around in the truck, a 2 door that was fun and had better fuel economy than the truck would get some consideration from me. Actually, I'm starting to look at that a bit and the most likely right now is just a summer car in the last gen Riviera.

Edit: I see in re-reading that you meant 2 door coupe by 2 door and separated out the convertibles. Based on what others are saying though, a convertible is an alternative and possible for the youth market. Of course, it makes one wonder why it seems so bad to have a coupe and convertible in the same line.

Edited December 3, 2009 by Thriller (see edit history)

[Guest my3buicks]

I might be missing something here, but what's wrong with a 4 door? The styling of many 4 doors today are far sportier and have sexier lines than many 2 doors of the past and present.

With tight parking spaces a 4 door is far superior to a 2 door for everyday use.

I love a 2 door, I have had several 2 doors, but I can't say I would ever consider one again.

The looks and comfort and performance of many of today's 4 doors far outweigh the inconvenience of 2 missing doors.

That said, does Buick need a coupe, YES!!!

[LINC400]

I might be missing something here, but what's wrong with a 4 door? The styling of many 4 doors today are far sportier and have sexier lines than many 2 doors of the past and present.

With tight parking spaces a 4 door is far superior to a 2 door for everyday use.

I love a 2 door, I have had several 2 doors, but I can't say I would ever consider one again.

The looks and comfort and performance of many of today's 4 doors far outweigh the inconvenience of 2 missing doors.

That said, does Buick need a coupe, YES!!!

When I was growing up personal luxury cars were THE car to own. Four doors were for families and old people that didn't like the heavy 2 doors. Definitely not cool. While no one else might think that way, I still do.

Besides, 90% of the time, I am alone in my car. 9.5% of the time, I have one passenger. So I need rear doors for??? If you need or want a 4 door, you can probably get about 3-7 from each manufacturer adding up to several hundred models available in 4 door only. Yet from the above 6, you cannot get one single 2 door. Convertibles and 2 seaters are not the same as a 2 door coupe with back seat. 2 seaters hardly ever sell in any volume, and convertibles are not always practicle.

I also can't stand having a B pillar next to my face. If a 2 door has a B pillar, at least it is further back, not in my face.

I owned one 4 door, a 1988 Town Car, purchased because it was extremely cheap. I usually put my lunch or small items from the store on the floor in the back. With a 2 door, I open the door and toss it in. With a 4 door, I have to open the front door, unlock the rear door, open the rear door, lock the rear door, close the rear door, then close the front door. Twice a day every day. Gee, isn't that so much more convenient. I will never buy another 4 door again.

Yes I can see how a new Lucerne or LaCrosse is SO much sexier and sportier than a 1972, 1965, or even 1985 Riviera. Any 4 door hardtop from the 1950's - 1970's is sportier and way better looking than any 4 door pillared aero-egg built today, let alone 2 door. Slapping a "4 door coupe" or "sports sedan" (pronounced thports thedan) badge on a car does not make it so. Perhaps they should just slap a convertible badge on a 4 door pillarmobile as well. No need to make an actual convertible. Oh wait, VW already did that with the Phaeton.

You can get 2 door econoboxes, or one of 3 muscle cars on the market. There is nothing that qualifies as a domestic personal luxury coupe. Yet foreign manufacturers are able to offer them.

Edited December 3, 2009 by LINC400 (see edit history)

[gsjohnny]

2010 2 door cars, some can be ordered as a convertible

ford............focus, mustang

chrylser......sebring

toyota........yaris, solara

chevy.........cobalt, corvette, camaro

dodge........challenger, viper

honda........accord, civic

nissan........altima, z, gtr

bmw...........128, 335, 328, 650, m3, m6, z4

mecredes....e, cl, cls, clk, sl, slk, slr

jaguar.........xk, xkr

a lot of these models fit in the buick price range.

[LINC400]

2010 2 door cars, some can be ordered as a convertible

ford............focus, mustang

chrylser......sebring

toyota........yaris, solara

chevy.........cobalt, corvette, camaro

dodge........challenger, viper

honda........accord, civic

nissan........altima, z, gtr

bmw...........128, 335, 328, 650, m3, m6, z4

mecredes....e, cl, cls, clk, sl, slk, slr

jaguar.........xk, xkr

a lot of these models fit in the buick price range.

Chrysler Sebring is 4 door and convertible only. No 2 door.

Viper and Corvette are 2 seaters. Not the same as a 2 door

I refuse to buy anything foreign, despite the fact the the Toyota Solara was actually considered the last time we bought a car since domestic makes offer nothing. Some of the foreign ones are 2 seaters as well.

Focus and Cobalt are too small econoboxes. The Cobalt SS is actually not too bad though.

That leaves Camaro, Challenger, and Mustang. The 3 muscle cars I already mentioned.

Care to make up a list of 2010 4 doors and see how that compares?

[gsjohnny]

Chrysler - 2010 Sebring Convertible - Convertibles, Cars

its a 2 door regardless being a convertible.

and beside buick not making 2 drs, no conv's either.

[Dandy Dave]

I have seen several Seabring cars around here and like them. Get with it Buick before I run out and Buy a Seabring Limited Convertible. :cool: Dandy Dave!

[NTX5467]

It seems that many of the personal luxury cars (as in those who were designed to compete with the '58+ Ford Thunderbird) didn't seem to make it past the middle 1980s "intact". The '64 Riviera was in that hunt too, but as a larger 2-dr hardtop only, plus possibly the '62 Pontiac Grand Prix 2-dr hardtop and Chrysler 300 Letter Series cars. Still, with its smaller size and higher level of distinctive luxury, the T-bird defined that market (to me) back then--certainly an "aspirational" car. Even with the T-bird moving larger to share a chassis with the Lincoln Mark III, it still "had it". When I was looking for a '70 T-bird in the middle 1970s, there were NONE on the used car lots or in the papers--period--as people were obviously keeping them for themselves.

Then came the mid-size chassis vehicles of the middle 1970s, somewhat defined by the Chrysler Cordoba, Ford (Torino) Elite/Mercury Cougar XR-7, Chevy Monte Carlo/Pontiac Grand Prix, and including the Olds Cutlass Supreme and similar Buick 2-dr hardtops. Unfortunately, by the time the later 1970s downsizing filtered down into these cars, they were shadows of their former presences, with most eventually being discontinued. Part of the personal luxury equation included big-engine performance, really nice interior accomodations, and distinctive exterior styling. In this later group of personal luxury 2-dr hardtops, they could be more basic or leather trimmed with carpet you could lose your shoe in with a choice of engines--"Let us build one for you!" Now, you get a 2-dr sedan (typically) with very shallow pile carpet and a drab leather interior and a big price tag, in many cases. Many of the options that made cars of that earlier group special have now become standard equipment. Unless the particular vehicle was used to race in NASCAR, it generally had little reason to remain in production as a 2-dr vehicle.

At one time, there were some proposals for a "Chrysler Firepower" coupe, but other than the Chrysler Crossfire, the Firepower would never be approved for production. Now, with the Challenger, it would make great sense to do a vehicle of that sort (in the earlier orientation of the original Chrysler 300 Letter Series cars than just a fancy Dodge)! Plus, the wheelbase is long enough to allow reasonably easy entry into a comfortable back seat!

I think it would be neat to have a new Buick Riviera 2-dr as a companion product to the Cadillac CTS coupe! I suspect it will not happen, though, as it might be perceived to bleed off too much of the Cadillac's potential sales. OR it could increase GM's sales with brisk sales of BOTH vehicles, getting more sales and profits for GM in the process.

What has not been mentioned might be termed "XL Personal Luxury vehicles". These would be the 2-dr Lincolns, 2-dr Coupe DeVilles/Olds 98s/Electra 225s, 2-dr Chrysler Imperials/New Yorkers prior to about 1979. Definitely "luxury" inorientation. Definitely "personal" with 2-doors. Definitely enough interior room to accomodate 4 adults for a "night on the town" and luggage compartments with deep pile carpet to protect the expensive luggage of their owners. Plenty of "conspicuous consumption" in their exterior size and bigger engines. "Luxury" in size, comfort, "power everything", and an interior large enough to do justice to the stereo sound systems of that time.

In more modern times, though, I tend to agree with Keith on 4-doors, yet I also concur about the placement of the B-pillar on most current 4-doors--you have to look around it to check traffic prior to a lane change to the left. In a current era vehicle, if you want to have easy access to the rear seat (passengers or things you've purchased that won't fit into the trunk), then you need dedicated doors for the rear seat.

Now, I have noticed that many Buick enthusiasts greatly lament the lack of a 2-dr Buick and generally put GM's poor sales on that one fact. I understand this orientation, but I also feel that it's somewhat overstated by many. "No Buick a young person might want to buy", many have said, with the reason being "no 2-door cars".

Yesterday, I got an email from lxforums.com. I went to that website and discovered many "Modern Mopar Muscle" groups focused on the LX (Chrysler 300 rwd/Dodge Charger/Dodge Magnum cars of late--the new Challenger is also an LX car) cars. A GREAT number of these owners are younger people and others. At one gathering in Austin, TX, the picture looked to have about 50 cars there . . . all 4-drs and Magnum "wagons" . . . and "younger" owners. Perhaps the lure of Mother Mopar has seduced these younger owners to not worry about the number of doors as long as it's got a New-Gen HEMI in it and smokes the rear tires? Certainly NOT smaller 2-door imports with buzzbomb motors and grapefruit juice can exhaust resonators! Is Chevrolet the only GM division that might be supposed to be chasing that particular demographic customer or should Buick be involved in it too, now that Pontiac is gone?

GM had its chance with the last-gen GTO, but seemed to be unsuccessful. Yet the Camaro seems to have the success that that generation of GTO did not--sales wise. Some might recall the very nice looking GTO with a Buick Regal/Riviera style front end Photoshopped onto it? A little change to exterior sheet metal and a Buick could have been born that would have fit the same bill for Buick customers that the Camaro is doing for Chevy customers. Annual import quotas and sparse availability of the GTO to start with would have made the Buick version not work too well. There were some definite distribution issues with the GTO!

How Chrysler seems to be able to tap into that "youth market" and GM can't seem to do it is something to ponder. Before they were buying LX cars, they were buying Chrysler 300Ms . . . and personalizing them to their own tastes. Check out the forums of the LX cars and the 300M club. BUT what seems to go on in those groups is similar to what I've found on RegalGS.org.

Just some thoughts . . .

NTX5467

[Reatta Man]

For what it's worth, I just bought a 2008 Sebring Limited convertible with the folding hard top.

When closed, it is just as quiet as any two-door coupe. So, I feel as if it has the personality of two distinct cars. Tope closed; quiet comfortable coupe. Sunny day? Top down in 30 seconds; crank up the tunes and smile....

And, with the 3.5 V-6 and 6-speed automatic, it won't smoke a Camaro, but it has some pretty good power available.

I HIGHLY recommend anyone wanting an American-made two door to find a Limited convertible with the hardtop.

Joe

[LINC400]

It seems that many of the personal luxury cars (as in those who were designed to compete with the '58+ Ford Thunderbird) didn't seem to make it past the middle 1980s "intact". The '64 Riviera was in that hunt too, but as a larger 2-dr hardtop only, plus possibly the '62 Pontiac Grand Prix 2-dr hardtop and Chrysler 300 Letter Series cars. Still, with its smaller size and higher level of distinctive luxury, the T-bird defined that market (to me)

NTX5467

While many personal luxury cars got their start in the 1960's, the heyday of personal luxury cars was the 1970's, and even with the initial 1978 downsizing, they still retained their status. In fact I believe the 1984 Olds Cutlass was the best selling one.

Full size two doors are not quite the same as a personal luxury car. While I like them, I think a personal luxury car needs to have a long hood and short trunk, be a little sportier than what the division normally offers, and even though they have a back seat, they should give the appearance that this is a car catering to the driver and one passenger. While you can load the whole family in a 1970's Coupe DeVille, it just isn't as sporty as or have the special allure of an Eldorado. Also the luxury aspect was sometimes more an impression given than actual luxury. A Monte Carlo with crank windows, no a/c, and vinyl seats had nowhere near the luxury of an Eldorado or Mark series Lincoln. But still the Monte Carlo had a nicer interior than your basic Chevy 2 door and made you feel as though you had something special. While you could get a big engine in the early 1970's personal luxury cars, that isn't what sold them. It was the styling, upgraded interior, and implication that this was a more youthful car for the driver, not for a big family.

I think a big problem with the demise of personal luxury cars was the fact that after the late 1980's, no one wanted to update them on a regular basis because they were too busy dealing with SUV's and minivans and didn't bother putting any effort into them anymore. Anytime one was restyled or got a major facelift, you would see a ton of that new model on the road. However, they were generally then left to languish for 9-10 years with maybe one grill and taillight revision. Supposedly automakers want you to buy a new car every 3-4 years. This would mean that you would be buying the same car 2-3 times in 9-10 years. I don't know about anyone else. But if I am going to buy a new car, I don't want the exact same thing I bought 10 years ago. I also don't want to spend a large amount of money on my new car, and then see the exact same car sitting next to me at a red light only 10 years old, rusty, beat up, and purchased for a few hundred or thousand dollars. Then after selling the exact same model for 10 years, the manufacturer would drop it claiming low sales. Well of course it had low sales. Anyone that wanted one had 10 years to buy it, and they want something else now.

Style is what always sold the personal luxury cars. Most 2 doors (as well as 4 doors) lost that in the late 1980's to present. The reason the Chrysler 300, Camaro, and Challenger sell is because of unique styling. The new GTO did not have that. Most owners of antique GTO's did not like the styling and the fact that an American icon was based on an Australian Holden. The first ones didn't even have hood scoops until consumers complained. If you cannot please your target market, no one else is going to be very impressed either. The Camaro and Challenger succeed there while the GTO did not.

A new 2 door from any division is not going to sell in huge volumes. 4 doors will always sell more. But the purpose of one is to show off what the division can do and get people into the showroom. Many people looking at a Mark series Lincoln or Olds Cutlass probably left with a Marquis or Delta 88 4 door. But they would not have even been there in the first place if dreaming about a Mark or Cutlass didn't get them in the door. But if it is done right, 2 doors can sell in decent volumes as well. The same works now with people drooling over a new Camaro and leaving with a Malibu 4 door. But Buick has nothing to get anyone drooling and in the door.

Edited December 7, 2009 by LINC400 (see edit history)

[John_Maine]

No deck lid. I hate cars that look like someone chopped the back end off 6" from the rear window. May as well make a full fastback or wagon.

[Dandy Dave]

No deck lid. I hate cars that look like someone chopped the back end off 6" from the rear window. May as well make a full fastback or wagon.

The first cars that I remember seeing that way back in the late 70's, and early eighties were higher end cars. It looked like just like the trunk area was sawed off and shortend up. Yep, the though that went though my mind was, "Man that's ugly." Why would anyone want a big expensive luxury car with little, or no trunk??? I thought it made the car look cheep and that the main reason it was done was to save the auto makers money. Dandy Dave!

Edited December 9, 2009 by Dandy Dave (see edit history)

[gsjohnny]

after all is said and done, does anybody know IF anybody from buick with some authority reads these threads? or are we just beating our gums for nothing?

[Rawja]

after all is said and done, does anybody know IF anybody from buick with some authority reads these threads? or are we just beating our gums for nothing?

Doesn't really matter what we think, we do not represent the car-buying public. Most of us (myself included) don't buy new, and the expressed desires of the posters above don't generally coincide with the market. Sure Buick could build a superfly personal luxury coupe, a dual-cowl phaeton, a tail-finned retro-mobile or whatever we outliers daydream about, but there wouldn't be enough other takers to make producing our "wish list" cars a commercially viable proposition.

Case-in-point: I absolutely freekin' love the new CTS coupe and wagon (the coupe has been my desktop wallpaper for over 2 years). I can easily afford 'em right now, but I'd rather wait 5-10 years and pick up a hardly-used one for a few grand. Now how much I love the things really doesn't matter to GM, does it? I suppose tangentially it might as I am the "car guy" of my social circle and they all ask me what to buy, but beyond that? I may as well not exist.

[Thriller]

Roger - I think it is a little from column A and a little from column B. For daily drivers, particularly since we have some significant winter up here, I prefer new vehicles. I've been burned on used vehicles before and when I buy new I get a known quantity, a dealer behind me, and a warranty. I don't mind worrying about things a bit more for my old cars, but my wife doesn't have the know how to deal with an issue (phone call to roadside service or CAA / AAA is in the cards then), so we feel more comfortable with new. Now the next one would likely be a replacement for the Rainier, so most logically an Enclave, but I'd also like to have a fun car with decent fuel economy so I don't have to get the truck's mileage and ease of city parking.

That's me, so I do think there is a mix here of folks who would buy new as well as used. Without any two doors for how many years now, those who are looking for used don't have the product to choose from either. Would the last generation Riviera be the last two door Buick? If that is correct, it is '99 (or was that 2000?), so a 10 year old car.

[Reatta Man]

Yep, the Riv was the last Buick coupe...and it was in 1999.

So, if you want to stick with GM, you have the overpriced Camaro, the overpriced Caddy coupe, or the basic Cobalt coupe.

[Guest Skyking]

For what it's worth, I just bought a 2008 Sebring Limited convertible with the folding hard top.

Joe, I've always had very good luck with Chrysler cars...............

Chrysler might not be making any money, but they always have something different.

[dkbuick75]

I wish you the best of luck with your Chrysler convt--- I hope you never get rear ended with it. Repair alignment is absolutely critical to proper exact alignment of EVERY rear panel -- moving & non moving on this type of vehicle--- so many hydraulic cylinders, wiring, electronics, clearances, tolerances, etc. One of the body shops that I deal with is one of our DRP facilities, and is in the process of repairing one right now-- from a different ins co-- but none the less--- moderate to hard r/e hit---rear body, rail sag, etc. They have been repairing now for 3 weeks since ins co okayed repairs--- too many of the electronics are not even in the Chrysler schematics or parts catalog, and several of those parts have had to been spcl ord. When all is said & done and shop is through with their end of repairs, the car will still have to be sent back to the Chrysler dealer to have the top operation checked, recalibrated, reprogrammed and inspct'd for correct op. While the idea & concept of this type vehicle is a techno marvel in operation & quietness, I don't know just how practical they are in our modern world with all the insane, inept, and discourteous drivers we all deal with on a daily basis. Most tailgate and drive way too fast for conditions and above their skill levels and capabilities. Basically, if this style car ever gets hit< I doubt it will ever be right again, as the day it first left the factory-- no matter how good the body shop is. They are a body shops' nightmare.

Unfortunately, the damage is no where near vehicle value so totalling out the car is not even in the equation. I know, I shudder to think of fit & finish and top operation should my Wife's little Soltice ever get damaged-- reverse opening hood & deck panel - another critical alignment situation. But we buy what we like & want and hope & pray that we never get hit-- but ...