And "End of the Line" for GM, actually two of them

[NTX5467]

I knew the Cadillac DTS was being replaced by a new model. I also knew that its discontinuation would also affect its platform-twin Buick Lucerne. I confirmed, today, that Lucerne production has ended also.

A few months ago, a factory sales trainer for Buick was at our workplace. He mentioned that the current Buick LaCrosse would be positioned as the "premium Buick" model when Lucerne production was ended. At that time, I thought "Surely not. There might well need to be a Cadillac XTS production companion to help the particular plant have enough production volume to be more profitable." Unfortunately, I was advised that NO new Buick product will replace Lucerne OR that size of vehicle.

The related item is that this will also be the end of any sort of bench-type front seat in a Buick vehicle. Another observed mistake, as it was this sort of thing which helped orchestrate the decrease of Oldsmobile sales! Orchestrate? Yes, ORCHESTRATE! How?

When the last generation Oldsmobile Aurora was designed, it was stated that Oldsmobile was wanting a younger demographic of customer, rather than the "people who remembered World War II" generation. So, no more bench seats, or something similar.

Here's how it played out in the showrooms of the USA. The then-current owner of an Olds Delta 88 sedan, who regularly and reliably purchased a new Delta 88 every so many years, went to their preferred Oldsmobile dealer to look at new cars, wanting to look at, predictably, a new Delta 88. When they got there, they were advised that the new Oldsmobile Aurora was available, as was the Oldsmobile Intrigue. Open to new choices, they looked at them, as they were Oldsmobiles. Then they noted that they only had bucket seats and center consoles, with "floor shifts". They were told that no bench seat Oldsmobiles were available. Perplexed as to why, they left the dealership in their then-current Delta 88. As things usually happened, they decided to keep their existing Delta 88 and drive it a few more years, repairing it as necessary over time. Hence, in their grand desire to aim their products toward a younger demographic, they ALSO slammed the door in the face of the multitudes of existing and highly loyal Oldsmobile customers.

What the marketing whizzes who designed this situation might not have realized . . . is that these "old folks" were highly loyal to Oldsmobile as a brand of vehicle. The basis of Oldsmobile coincided with what they liked and they just kept buying Oldsmobiles as they had since their younger days. This generation of customer also grew up in a time where any car with a "floor shift" (before bucket seats were in sporty cars like '55 Ford T-birds or similar Chevy Corvettes) was a "cheap car", which higher class cars having automatic transmisisons and gear shifters on the steering column. Also, it was also quite common for drivers to enter from the curb side of the vehicle, rather than walk to the driver's side and open that car door into speeding city traffic -- a safety concern. With bucket seats OR a floor shift, it was not very possible to enter from the curb side and make it to the driver's seat! But it was easy to do with a bench front seat.

I can also tell you, from my own experiences, that no floor console makes for a much more spacious front seat area. Even with a factory floor shifter.

Further, the unfortunate thing about the last gen Aurora not having a bench seat option is that it might have cost another $50.00 production cost to adapt the parts from the companion Buick Park Avenue to work on the Aurora! BUT, somebody chose not to do that. "Orchestrated? Certainly!" (although you might have been hard-pressed to find somebody to point a finger at!)

When word got out that the last gen Buick Park Avenue was being replaced, along with the LeSabre model, by one model called "Lucerne", there was a feeding frenzy by existing Park Avenue owners to get a new one while they could. People who were then-current Park Avenue owners drove long distances to purchase "the last one", too! I observed that as it happened!

When the Lucerne debuted, it was purchased by previous Park Avenue owners. The standard front seat configuration was "bucket seats with console", with the "split bench" seat being a lower-cost option. When I saw the bucket seat Lucerne, I thought it was neat. It was also somewhat obvious that this was "Buick's version of Chrysler 300M", at least to me (the pattern in the leather seats not withstanding!).

Here's the way things played out. The actual "seat" was the same, whether it was for the "bucket seat" or "split bench" seat. What made the difference was what went between the seats . . . a console with floor shift and storage compartment or a padded cushion with fold-down armrest with a steering column mounted shift lever.

I rented several Lucernes during their model run. The first one was the first model year with a bench seat. I was paying attention to see if I could feel some of the customer complaints we'd had (from prior Park Avenue owners) that the steering response was "twitchy" . . . which I didn't find any evidence of. It was "OK", but it was also wearing Bridgestone radials. Later model years had Michelins as standard equipment . . . which obviously made an observed difference in ride and handling, for the better, to me.

For me, the Lucerne "with console" was a neat vehicle configuration, not unlike the Chrysler 300M or LHS before it in that respect. But for my Mother, who remembers WWII, when they went shopping for her current car (a 1995 Chrysler New Yorker . . . with a split bench seat as the LHS was console/floor shift as standard), she didn't want an LHS due to the "floor shift and bucket seats". She found a split-bench New Yorker at a small town dealership, the owner's wife's demo, and she bought it. Same orientation as the prior Delta 88 owners!

Also, it might well be that GM's marketing whizzes are using Lincoln as an example of "no big cars"? But, then I highly suspect that Ford's marketing people are in "another world", too! In one feld swooop, Ford has discontinued every high-volume car and small truck vehicle they had. Crown Victoria (already dead a while back, except for police vehicles), Mercury Grand Marquis, and Lincoln Town Car . . . all on the same V-8 rwd Panther platform. The Ford Ranger small pickup has also been discontinued. Ford has been seriously trying to present the Ford Taurus as a police vehicle, in AWD and EcoBoost V-6 configuration. Ford is also seriously trying to convert prior fleets who purchased Rangers into F-150s with V-6 engines and allegedly-similar fuel economy . . . not admitting to the fact that many fleets purchased Rangers for their smaller size and lower purchase cost. Obvivously, the tooling for these vehicles was at the end of its line . . . . AND . . . with the current financial situation of Ford, there was probably not money for new designs or tooling for similar vehicles . . . SO . . . they had to make their "best guess" (i.e., punt) and go with their more recent vehicle platforms and do their best to promote them to existing owners.

Now, Lincoln has an "alphabet soup" model mix (which means nothing to me as to which is "better" or what), many with platforms not originally designed by Ford in Dearborn, MI. They might be nice cars, but REAL AMERICAN CARS?????

The current Taurus is a very nice car. The new 3.6L V-6 runs well, and is nicely matched to the 6-speed automatic, but a good platform for a police car in fwd trim???? I rented one a while back and found it very nice, but not quite the same sort of vehicle which a former Crown Vic or Grand Marquis owner might really . . . key word, "really" . . . like. Certainly they might purchase one, but I also somewhat doubt they would be as comfortable in it as the older Ford they just got rid of.

Another issue will be, should a municipal entity purchase a fleet of AWD Taurus cars with EcoBoost V-6s, when they find out what it might cost to repair/replace (in the event of mechanical failure or collision damage) these high-tech powertrains, IF they'll choose Ford the next time or head right over to Dodge or the new Chevy Caprics PPV?

Everybody seemed to cheer Ford on for not having to take "bail-out" money, which is good, except that Ford had already gotten their financing arranged a few years earlier. But now, Ford has discontinued EVERY one of its higher-volume vehicles, even if much of the volume was for fleet customers, they were "sales" nonetheless. Many of these now-discontinued vehicles were Ford's core product lines, too! With no replacements in sight. Ford's poor decisions might not be evident soon, but could well be in the coming years as existing owners complete their finance/lease plans and seek "another one like I had". Ford, like GM, has a very active Australian company with many higher-performance rwd cars. Perhaps some of them might yield a rwd platform which could spawn future "Big Lincolns" with modern drivetrains?

Used to be that if a Ford Motor Company customer, usually highly loyal in nature (not unlike prior Oldsmobile, Plymouth, or Pontiac customers), could head on over to the Mercury store and see what they had. Now, with Mercury gone too and them not wanting an "expensive" Lincoln, the one car company which could well gain from this situation is Chrysler, with rwd vehicles the most like what they had, with over 280 horsepower in the V-6 or more in the Hemi models.

When Oldsmobile was deleted, the last full production year had approximately 250K vehicles sold under that nameplate. The numbers for the last full year of Plymouth production were similar. Both corporations noted a sales decline the very next model year, but did not really admit the real reason . . . less products for loyal customers to purchase, as the particular nameplates had vanished from the new vehicle sales areas. In all cases, if the existing customers had really wanted another brand of vehicle from the same parent company, they would have already had one. All Oldsmobile customers were NOT Buick customers or Pontiac customers . . . all Plymouth customers were not Chrysler or Dodge customers, either, especially the "core group" who bought Plymouths for their value instead of buying a sportier Dodge or more expensive Chrysler . . . or Oldsmobile customers who bought Oldsmobiles because of what such ownership "said about them". These loyal customers were DESERTED . . . and the probably migrated to an import brand, I suspect. Later data indicated that many Oldsmobile customers were loyal to their existing (former Oldsmobile) dealer, many of which had taken on a second line of import vehicles.

Now, we have "The End of The Line -- TWICE" for Buick vehicles. First is the larger, more prestigious "I've arrived" Buick model. A Buick vehicle, other than an SUV or similar, which can luxuriously and SPACIOUSLY transport four or five passengers in comfort and safety, with ample rear seat leg room and a large luggage compartment (for what we used to term "The Great American Summer Vacation"). Second, is the bench-type front seat vehicle configuration.

I have rented a current-gen Buick LaCrosse and can (and have) say that it's an exceptional vehicle. To me, the MAIN drawback is, for its size, the cramped 4-passenger interior. Once you get into the back seat, it's comfortable, but not very generous in leg room . . . NOR shoulder room. Similarly, the front seat passengers have little stretch-out room between the center console (a tad too wide) and the door panels. In this respect, the car it replaced was much better!

And now, THIS is the car that will be touted as the "Premium Buick". It might play well against similar Lexus models, or even some BMWs or Mercedes models, BUT will it play well against the prior Lucerne OR Park Avenue models for those owners??

To be fair, I have also observed many older, current, Buick owners trading into 2011 LaCrosses . . . even smiling as they did. The question I'd have might be "Can they really use all of the electronics' functionality after they get it set like they want it?" Looking for the trip computer? Check one stalk sprouting out of the steering column . . . the punch the right button and roll the drum to get what you want on the display. Other vehicle controls that used to be evident? Like changing the "balance" of the radio speakers or "bass" or "treble"? Then you'll need to be fully-versed in the GM version of "I-Drive" . . . or at least that's the way I felt about finding where everything to access the various functions (which used to have obvious buttons or switches, on an instrument panel shape receptive to such things). Be that as it may . . .

We know there'll be a smaller car, the Buick Verano. But I also feel that, all things considered AND having seen what happened with Oldsmobile and is happening at Ford Motor Company, that not having a larger-physical-size "Prestige Buick" is a product gap that should NOT be there--period. There needs to be something like that for BANKERS to drive, as in the earlier decades, so as to not give the impression they're making too much money (which the customer might have been getting in interest payments!). Not everybody who has "money" wants it to be known by the vehicle they drive. Many drive Lexus vehicles for their higher residual lease value, with resultantly lower lease payments . . . and alleged fiscal responsibility of that situation. But if many might currently drive larger Buicks, the possibility of them driving a smaller Buick is not in the cards . . . so "Hello Chrysler dealer . . ." IF there still is one nearby. OR BMW!

It's been observed that Cadillac's future model line will completely mimic that of BMW, with the new XTS sedan approximating the size of the BMW 7-Series car. Certainly long enough, but still not quite as wide as the prior DTS cars.

It's also been noted that the XTS will be on a platform similar to that of the current LaCrosse, just longer. If they can stretch/enlarge that platform for a Cadillac model, they can do it for a similar Buick model too!

If you feel that GM nees to build a larger Buick, a companion to the new Cadillac XTS fwd sedan . . . with a bench-type front seat option . . . to not alienate existing LOYAL Buick owners of Park Avenues or Lucernes . . . contact GM/Buick directly and make your orientations known. Smaller Buicks certainly fill market niches, but NOT everybody wants one, especially IF they are used to the larger Park Avenues or Lucernes and do NOT want to downsize the size of their vehicles, for whatever reason. I might add that although the Park Avenues were larger-size vehicles, with the Buick 3.8L V-6, they still got exceptional fuel economy and didn't take 7 quarts of oil for an oil change . . . which makes them "inexpensive to keep, but not look inexpensive in nature or stature"

It's been noted that the Toyota Avalon is "the best Buick that Toyota can build". Well, after closely looking them over at the last Dallas New Car Show, it became highly obvious that Toyota fell far short in matching the Buick product in MANY, MANY areas (not even considering the Avalon's generally higher MSRP!!) . . . even the prior Park Avenues, much less the most recent Lucernes! Do we really want people who'd "Really Rather Have A Buick" viewing a Toyota as their next-best option to their prior Lucerne or Park Avenue??????

Regards,

NTX5467

Edited August 26, 2011 by NTX5467 (see edit history)

[Bleach]

Excellent article NTX! I could have easily thought I was reading this in one of the major car magazines.

I recall the Avalon having a bench seat in earlier models. I haven't kept up with any updates in features and whatnot in the current model line up of any make. I no longer find new cars that interesting anymore.

I was always under the impression that bucket seats were an upscale feature, at least back in the 60's and '70s. I remember that they were an extra cost feature. I personally like bucket seats and add to a sporty impression of the car. Since I am a tall at 6'-2 or 6'-3 (depending how much my back hurt that day), I never liked riding in a vehicle with a bench seat as a passenger as usually the driver was shorter than myself. I didn't mind split benches as they would offer individual adjustment.

Just a suggestion in jest, there will probably always be a bench seat available in pick-ups.

[JohnD1956]

NTX, in my humble opinion, GM has been in self destruct for quite some time, and this news is not surprising, although unexpected. I just talked with a fellow who had a Caddy CTS for 4 years, and claimed he had receipts for 40 visits to the dealership for service, along with the need to replace all four tires multiple times in the period of ownership. He finally bundled all of the reciepts up and sent them to the Cadillac Motor Division expecting that someone would contact him to explain or at least apologize for the vehicles poor performance. You know, reach out to save a customer. But no one contacted him. So he dumped the Caddy, and GM alltogether, and bought an Infinity.

Sad day for what used to be an industry leader.

[Bleach]

Similar story, but my folks didn't bother sending their invoices but they dumped their Eldorado for a BMW but it appears the BMW isn't doing all that much better.

[60FlatTop]

I was recently in the market for a car. I use my '05 Silverado most of the time for work. My wife has an Infinity QX4. My previous "second" car was a 1994 Buick Roadmaster. New York winters had taken the toll on that one as they had the previous 1994 Roadmaster. I purchased the first Roadmaster after experiencing 3+ years with a Buick Park Avenue Ultra. 60,000 miles in the Ultra really turned me off to unibody cars.

Early this year I started shopping and I can buy pretty much what I want. I began to focus on a Lincoln Town Car or a two wheel drive Tahoe. As gas prices rose I targeted the second week of June as a purchase date. I figured gas would be at about $4.50 a gallon and I would capture my car at around a $5,000 discount.

Well, gas prices started dropping and then Japanese production was curtailed. Used car prices did not work in my favor.

The "new" car had to be one I could stick the key into and drive across the state if my truck was not available as well as be a good "plain folks" car for family stuff. Besides the two mentioned, I looked seriously at Jaguars, Rolls-Royce Spurs, Crown Vics, Marauders, Lucernes, hesitant (but interested) in Northstar powered stuff, pretty much the kind of cars a 63 year old guy would like.

Two weeks ago I paid top price for a very nice 1994 Impala SS. I wanted reliability, durability, and a great all around performing car. When I picked it up it was parked next to a 2011 Buick Regal Gran Sport WITH A FOUR CYLINDER!!!! GM, what gives?????

We are so lucky we have 100 years of cars to choose from!

I'm happy. Bernie

[Dave@Moon]

Overall car sales are up 10.4% over last year. All categories are up sharply over 2010 in (what was until recently) an improving economy, except two. Luxury car sales are up only 1.3%, and large car sales are off 6.9%. In fact big cars are the only category of any kind NOT showing an increase in sales except for large SUVs. Also domestic manufacturers, and specifically GM, have made major inroads against the "imports" in the past year. ( Auto Sales - Markets Data Center - WSJ.com )

In addition, Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards increase by at least 2 mpg every year for at least the nest 5 years by law, and will increase beyond that by the end of this decade when C.A.F.E. standards will climb from 39 mpg in 2016 to 54.4 mpg by 2026 (by agreement with all major car manufacturers sans only VW) ( President Obama Announces Historic 54.5 mpg Fuel Efficiency Standard | National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) ).

Times, and the market, are changing. What any one of us want is not a predictor of what the market wants. I'd like to have a good selection of mid-size station wagons to pick from myself. Try exploring that desert these days!

It sounds to me like GM is preparing to build precisely what the market wants and what the market will bear. It's a pretty abrupt change from what they did before being rescued from bankruptcy. It just might work.

Edited August 26, 2011 by Dave@Moon (see edit history)

[NTX5467]

Thanks for the kind words, Bleach. I tend to concur, JohnD, on the self-destruct orientation. For some reason, it seems that many automotive executives, automotive advertising operatives, and politicians all seem to suffer from a seemingly common malady . . . lack of knowledge of the history of their industry. The seeking of "new and better ideas" seems to be rampant, as the "new blood" seems to make the same mistakes as the "old blood" did, initially. Unfortunately, in our "modern world", "old blood" is considered to be outdated for our modern times, but the people who tend to believe this also might not be aware that "old blood" had to get through difficult times to get to the stage of "old blood", therefore "old blood" can usually be an untapped knowledge source of what not to do and why. If ONLY the newbies had the gumption to ask so they, too, would not make the same mistakes in a different decade!

I understand the frustration of the CTS owner, especially when the particular action resulted in "no action". The other side is that if the receipts were for warranty work, he should have received some sort of survey to fill out, possibly, from GM. The tire issue sounds unusual, though.

There's an ACDelco tech magazine which I believe you can sign up for, for email delivery, at ACDelco TechConnect . Many interesting subjects, including a recent one about placing wireless devices near the passenger's front seat, and how it might affect the air bag system for that seat. Once you get into the magazine's area, there should be archived issues going backward for several years, last time I checked.

I believe that one reason that Hyundai is doing so well is that, apart from their wide-spectrum product range (not unlike Chevy or Toyota), is that they offer just enough technology and infortainment in their vehicles to keep the customer base engaged with things that really matter to them. Fuel economy, build quality, USB ports, MP3 plugs, and nav systems, for example.

GM has tended to be a "bells and whistles" car company since the middle 1980s, as if such things imparted "product leadership" when, unfortunately, it was much ado about little. There WERE some bright spots, of which OnSTAR is one, though. Saturn was another one, at least until GM operatives started infiltrating German products!!! When they did that, it killed the cult following which Saturn seemed to greatly enjoy as "The American Car Company That Could . . ." Unfortunately, far too many people inside of GM and in the GM dealership network didn't understand why Saturn had to be a free-standing dealership franchise . . . or why Saturns could sell for MSRP and Chevy dealers had trouble selling (at that time) deeply-discounted Cavaliers (and be glad they got them sold!).

Or advertising "advantages" which looked good on paper but didn't really pan out in the real world of "competitive brands of vehicles". For example, it was an "advantage" that an Oldsmobile Achieva had a 2.5L 4 cyl engine, over a competing Honda with a smaller engine . . . but drive the cars and the real advantage of the Honda's smaller engine became quite evident (engineering refinement, etc.).

I always maintained that Oldsmobile could have been saved, with not much financial investment, some equipment tweaking, and some product re-alignment. No rocket science, no pun intended, but somebody (not a rocket scientist) must have thought it did . . . so Oldsmobile was left to wither away.

They wanted to make the Aurora out to be players in the same field as Lexus and Infinity, but forgot about the scrappy nuisance of Chrysler LHS. Intrigue could have been positioned against the Jag "S-type"/small Lincoln and Dodge Intrepid/Eagle Vision TSi. Alero needed some more refinement and fit/finish upgrades from the re-skinned Pontiac GrandAm it was . . . it should have been an effective entry-level Oldsmobile for young families. Every styling "problem" the GrandAm had, the Alero replaced with something much better and classy. It was all doable, just that nobody in GM wanted it to happen, by observation.

The advertising line "It's not your father's Oldsmobile" totally discounted that "Father's Oldsmobile" could have been a J-2 Rocket 88 from the horsepower wars of the middle 1950s, or a Cutlass W-Machine 442 from the later 1960s, or a tire-smoking big engine big torque Olds Toronado from the later 1960s . . . much less one of the wildly-popular middle 1960s - middle 1970s Olds Cutlass models (whether the much-loved Olds 350 4bbls was in it or an Olds 400, or whatever was under the hood). As an additional note, check the value of a 1970 Olds Custlass 2-dr hardtop against a similar Buick Skylark 2-dr hardtop and see which one is higher. In effect, that one flaky advertising tag line discredited ALL of the prior Great History of the Oldsmobile line of Vehicles . . . all at once! To a buying public that didn't know any better.

Then came the new Oldsmobile logo, which NOBODY recognized after decades of seeing and instantly recognizing the famous Oldsmobile Rocket. And then they named a car "Intrigue". Intrigued? If you walked up to it, you might were supposed to be "intrigued" about what brand it was, as it had an "Intrigue" emblem on the front end, but only noted "Oldsmobile" in the right hand back-up light lense. A separate Oldsmobile nameplate, small one, didn't show up on the deck lid until about the 3rd model year! Also consider that this was back during the time of the famous "brand management" era of GM, when it was the individual vehicle that was the "brand" rather than the division which sold it being "the brand". One of GM's darkest eras, period!

And now, we're seeing some of the same things surface again? All too often, car companies (and some dealers) take the "Monkey see, Monkey do" approach. It appears this is what GM is doing with abandoning the larger car business of Buick vehicles. As I recall, there are some larger Lexus models of cars, larger than the current LaCrosse. A larger Buick could compete favorably there, as the LaCrosse does with the mid-size Lexus cars. As Cadillac's seeking to emulate BMW, let Buick continue to go after Lexus (including the larger model sedans!!). Perhaps "Monkey see, Monkey do" needs to be focused more on Lexus than on Lincoln and Ford???

Dave, us "60-somethings" (or getting close to it) have some car buying still left in us. Many times, rear seat access is important, as in being able to put walkers in the back seat rather than the trunk. That takes a particular size of rear door frame and rear seat space, with all due respect. The 2009 LaCrosse would work fine with that, but the new one might cause some issues, by observation. If a 4-wheeled walker will fit in the 2010+ LaCrosse trunk, I'd like to see it.

Therefore, my comment might be "It's way too early to forget about us, just yet!" Fuel economy can be addressed with things other than physical size, but microscopic engines with turbochargers is not a good way either, in all cases. Even during the prior economic cycles when most cars got smaller, with smaller engines, there were still luxury cars with spacious interiors and large luggage compartments available. Lincoln Town Cars, Mercury Grand Marquis, Ford Crown Victoria were all around and sold decently well, as technology increased their fuel efficiency and and decreased their weight. Buick Park Avenues were around, too. Even some of the 1980s Buick Century sedans, velour interior and all, make "modern luxury" look Spartan by comparison.

ONE key thing which needs to happen is that people learn to drive their vehicles to achieve the maximum fuel economy potential built into the vehicles. We have tire pressure monitors, engine oil life monitors, oil level monitors . . . and we generally know what all of those things do and mean . . . but few people know that their vehicles might have an "Average Fuel Economy" readout, or an "Instant Fuel Economy" readout, too. These can be HUGE resources to refine one's driving style (fuel injection requires a slightly different driving style than what we learned with carburetors!) to unlock the fuel-savings available via modern technology.

Regards,

NTX5467

Edited August 26, 2011 by NTX5467 (see edit history)

[Guest Rob McDonald]

HEY NITTIX, great essay on the decline of providing what the (aging) customer wants. Your reference to the Cadillac XTS got me curious. It's generally a handsome brute in the current Caddy vein. However, someone stole a least a foot out of the car, between the A-pillar and the front wheelwell. Is wheelbase such an awful thing nowadays? I still get giddy when I see photos of the Sixteen. That thing really knew how to keep the snow off a driveway!

[Dave@Moon]

Therefore, my comment might be "It's way too early to forget about us, just yet!" Fuel economy can be addressed with things other than physical size, but microscopic engines with turbochargers is not a good way either, in all cases. Even during the prior economic cycles when most cars got smaller, with smaller engines, there were still luxury cars with spacious interiors and large luggage compartments available. Lincoln Town Cars, Mercury Grand Marquis, Ford Crown Victoria were all around and sold decently well, as technology increased their fuel efficiency and and decreased their weight. Buick Park Avenues were around, too. Even some of the 1980s Buick Century sedans, velour interior and all, make "modern luxury" look Spartan by comparison.

One observation: The 40 mpg 2012 Prius v (the dumbest name ever for a car!) has more interior and trunk space than any Buick (or standard Lincoln) sedan ever made. ( http://priuschat.com/news/2012-prius-v-information-and-specs )

Another observaion: A 50 mpg 2009 Prius is within 1 cubic foot of having the same interior volume as a 1983-1996 Century, and the exact same size trunk. The 2010 redesign of the Prius lost 2 cubic feet in interior space, but gained 8 cubic feet in trunk space (now having more cargo space than any Lincoln since 1977, 5 more cubic feet of trunk space than a Lucerne). That's one important reason why my 78 year old father bought one this year.

I don't mean to harp on the Prius, just to use it as a measure of what is coming. Every manufacturer will be marketing cars just like these in very short order. The needs you appear to be mourning are being met, just not in the same manner. The future is not as bleak as you might think.

[Guest brh]

Sorry if I am stating what has already been said. In my humble opinion G.M. died a long time ago, it started in the late 70s when a more economical car was required. In G.Ms rush to get an economical car to the market, they had a few failures which resulted in the public's dismay in quality. Not to mention quality issues that remained well into the 80s. I'll never forget Dad's 79 Olds wagon. Great car, he kept a box so that when parts fell off he would throw them in the box, when the lease was up he turned in the box and the car. BTW he couldn't fit the twisted drive shaft in the box so that went separate. Last Olds he leased, brand new, needed 3 spark plugs replaced, a valve job and the rear deck lid repainted. Yes, this was a new car. It was the last G.M. my Dad bought.

I feel G.M. has lost its way, each car line would specialize in something the public would want or could identify with. Buick has always been a "rock" for General Motors ( I know I am biased) hopefully they won't mess with that image. Wide track Pontiac, GTO. Olds was always the division that tried new things, if it "flew" then it went on to other divisions. But they all got stripped of their identity and reputations. As a result, same sheet metal, just a different name. BTW anyone else remember the Chevy engines in Oldsmobiles??? Bet that didn't tick off a few customers. Just my .02 I have always liked G.M. products, but had to drive Ford products and a few others, I really can't afford to have my car tied up in the shop.

[Barney Eaton]

Willis, your post supprised me as I recently saw a Buick ad that indicated there was a 2012

Lucerne. I had heard that 2010 was the last year but they continued on thru 2011.

With Oldsmobile and Pontiac gone, Buick must fill the gap between Chevy and Cadillac

Along with the auto companies, other businesses are letting the cart up the horse. The "bean counters" are making the decisions and marketing must hype the final result to the public.

Of course, our goverment is forcing the auto companies to meet federal mandates on fuel economy, which translates to each company needing to build lots of high mileage cars to offset the ones that get poorer mileage.

In addition to the above, you can count on one hand the new (US) cars that have an actual good looking interior. Sure they are styled nicely but when the entire interior looks like it was sprayed with black satin paint.... where is the appeal to that.

On the bucket seats, I have been looking at new GMC pick-ups and noticed that they all have two individual seats with a filler between them. On a WT (work truck) they hype it as a 3 passanger seat, on the mid level they have a folding arm rest and call some of the "bucket seat" equipped with the option of a 3 person, on top line they install a console that runs from the dash back between the seats and charge more and call them bucket seats. Bottom line, they all have the same seat, marketing just tells us something else.

Last, we purchased a 2011 Enclave. It does not have the $2500 entertainment option so it has (1) 12V outlet up front. There is a second 12v outlet on the back of the center console and the 3 at at the rear hatch. So now when we travel and need the GPS, power for the cell phone and a notebook hookup, it looks like there was a wiring explosing in the front seet. If you buy the entertainment you get an extra outlet inside the console and maybe a USB port.

[Guest Bob Call]

I hate to see the way car maufacturers are going. They have written off the older segment of the market. I had a 88 Sedan Deville, split bench, that I drove until it was totally used up. Then an 89 Park Avenue, again split bench, and again driven until used all up. Both were very comfortable and spacious in the front seat. My wife had a 98 Explorer 3 door and 99 Malibu. Both bucket seat console cars. After my cars died I tooke her Explorer. It was to small and uncomfortable for me. I'm 6 ft 240 lbs. Not too fat just fluffy. After she died I took her Malibu and passed the Explorer to my son and daughter-in-law. It was better than the Explorer but still uncomfortable. I then bought a 2006 Ford Fove Hundred. This platform has been rebadged as Taurus and the old Taurus platform retired. As the new Taurus the engine had bee increased from 3L to 3.5L, otherwise still the Five Hundered. It was slightly larger and a little more comfortable than the Malibu. The Malibu went to the son and Daughter-in-law. Drove the 500 until last year when a ditzy woman driving an Escalade takling on her cell phone rear ended my 500 on I 44 and totaled it. Got the Explorer back from my son as he now had an Expedition. Drove the Explorer until this June when I burnt an exhaust valve and also rear ended an Escalade on I 610. Decided that I was going to get a car with a bench or split bench seat so I could be comfortable. Start looking at 96 Cadillac Broughm, 96 Roadmaster and 96 Impala. Couldn't find one with low milage at what I thought was a reasonable price. Decided to go to a new car. Only choice with a split bench was 2010 Grand Marquis the last year. Bought one with 20,000 miles at a really good price. I'm 70 years old so this will be my last newer car as now even Ford has written off the older market.

So, with the future being 4 cylinder Buicks, Mercedes Smartcars, and the like, the FWD Impala and Taurus will be just fine for police cars.

:mad:

[Guest Bob Call]

Me again. I just remembered the comment about rear seat access in NTXA's essay. I have a prosthetic leg and it just doesn't work like a natural leg. I can get into the front seat with a little added effort but once in I have no problem driving with it. Getting into the back seat of anything other than a van with a sliding door is impossible on any car made in the last 50 years. Something like a 30's of 40's 4 dr is no problem as back then the rear of the passenger compartment was still designed to actually carry passengers.

And lastly, I am a car guy and 50 year plus oil and gas industry professional and I'll pay whatever price for the gasoline when I want to go somewhere.

Edited August 26, 2011 by Bob Call (see edit history)

[Dave@Moon]

And lastly, I am a car guy and 50 year plus oil and gas industry professional and I'll pay whatever price for the gasoline when I want to go somewhere.

It is the price everyone else has to pay for that kind of attitude (politically, environmentally, economically, security-wise, etc.) that has changed things, not the individual consumer preference.

[John_Maine]

I totally agree. I much prefer a split bench with column shift over buckets and console but as has been said, the times are a changin - and I really think Buick will be dead in the US within 5 years.

You know, it's interesting that we all like our older cars and yet lament not having everything we want in our new cars - ie, enough power outlets. I can get in my LTD with crank windows, no cruise, no cup holders, no power outlets, no AC, no nav, take a trip and be perfectly happy. I don't miss any of the so called modern conveniences. I think it's fun following my route on a map by reading road signs. I know exactly where I am most of the time.

Edited August 28, 2011 by John_Maine (see edit history)

[Guest Kingoftheroad]

Its beyond me how companies can turn their back on legions of loyal, repeat, older customers to cater to a younger market . Plus, discontinuing many popular models that still sell ?? Stopping production on the Ranger & Crown Vic really surprises me, you can't drive 10ft without seeing either of these two vehicles on the street, their everywhere....

[John_Maine]

It's ironic that the Ranger V6 4x4 is rated at the same mileage as the F-150 V8, 14 & 18 but I still don't understand Ford not coming out with a new Ranger. I suppose it's because they need to concentrate their efforts on fuel economy and having two product lines makes that more difficult, but the F-150 is so large, I can't imagine all Ranger customers are going to go to it.

One other thing that bugs me - manufacturers packaging options so you have to buy a bunch of stuff you don't want to get something you do want or only offering a particular interior with a limited choice of exterior colors.

And to comment on manufacturers writing off older customers, what about all us Baby Boomers? Seems like we'd be a pretty big market segment that would count for something.

Edited August 28, 2011 by John_Maine (see edit history)

[NTX5467]

It's ironic that the Ranger V6 4x4 is rated at the same mileage as the F-150 V8 . . .

One other thing that bugs me - manufacturers packaging options so you have to buy a bunch of stuff you don't want to get something you do want or only offering a particular interior with a limited choice of exterior colors.

And to comment on manufacturers writing off older customers, what about all us Baby Boomers? Seems like we'd be a pretty big market segment that would count for something.

One thing that's always seemed to bug the USA small truck market is that their small trucks, as nice as they might be when nicely optioned, is that their price is very close to a similar full-size truck and that their fuel economy is not that much better, which certainly allows the "what you get for your money" issue to recommend the larger truck over the smaller one.

But in the realm of the base model Toyota short bed pickup, the 4 cyl engine and 5-speed manual trans will certainly surprise GM S-truck owners. I drove one for work for a solid month, using it as we'd use a larger truck, for what we were doing. With the factory a/c going in July a few years ago, the little thing returned 25mpg average. It loved to run in the 2500rpm + range, which equated to 75mph and up. If I put it in low gear and forgot to upshift, the first thing I knew it'd be bouncing off of the rev limiter. In spite of these performance attributes, the bench seat was uncomfortable after about 15 minutes and a few other things were not as good as they would have been on a USA truck of similar size. But with a little owner-induced finesse, it could be "a sleeper".

As for the "option package" approach, the USA brands have usually had some popular equipment option packages available at a reduced price from what they would have been separately. These things usually had power steering, power brakes, whitewall tires, wheel covers, AM radio and rear speaker, and factory a/c. As these things slowly evolved into being standard equipment, then more luxury-oriented packages emerged.

In the later 1990s, I went to an Oldsmobile dealer training ride and drive event for the Olds Intrigue. The "competitor" the Intrigue was matched against as the Nissan Maxima (otherwise called "4DSC" or "4 Door Sports Car" by Nissan). The issue of what particular things on the Nissan cost, compared to the Intrigue. One thing was leather interior. It was a free-standing option on the mid-line Intrigue, but was part of some larger option group in the Nissan, such that the real cost of the leather interior was hidden "somewhere". This was one thing the sales trainers harped on as a reason to NOT purchase a Nissan, not to mention the unsightly mechanical bits under the hood which the Intrigue had covered with a sight shield.

During that time, Buick had a "Luxury Option Package 'D'" for the LeSabres and Park Avenues. It included some nice carpeted floor mats, plus several other things . . . at a MSRP of over $500.00. YIKES! Buying the carpet mats from parts was about $150.00, which made the rest of that package pretty expensive, too. Later, it appears that USA manufacturers have followed the lead of the Orientals in their approach to option packages, but Nissan still has some of the most confusing option packages I've ever seen . . . with each of the higher-end ones having only one of the "must have" things in it, so you end up getting more than one package to get what you want, but also get many other things you might not have any use for.

As to the "abandonment of prior loyal customers" . . . I'm reminded of some orientations alluded to in several country-western songs. Something to the effect . . . You might find somebody else at the dance you'd like to dance with, which is fine, but you'd better "Dance with the one that brung ya" . . . or you might not have a ride home at the end of the night . . .

To be sure, Buick and GM need to recruit the future generations of buyers of their vehicles! This is understandable, BUT you don't de-motivate the loyal and enthusiastic purchasers of your products for many decades just to cater to these needed "future buyers". Unfortunately, this is a problmatic situation for Buick, it seems, but should it be??? Certainly, having the availability of high-tech items available in the lower-level smaller-size Buicks is needed just to compete with the Asian brands, but you also need it in the higher-level larger Buicks to satisfy the 2nd and 3rd owners of those cars (for whom the technology might be painfully out of date by then) in order to be viewed as "viable cars" to those potential future buyers.

Unfortunately, how Buick/GM has packaged these things into the 2010+ LaCrosse can be significantly confusing to even a younger buyer, by observation. One reason is that there is no real space to put the function buttons on the instrument panel, so they have to use the various turn signal stalk, steering wheel controls, and additional controls on the center console to pack it all in. In so doing, it can become very confusing as to where to look for what function! But the LaCrosse is not the only GM vehicle with these issues, either! It seems that IF the ineriors and instrument panels were about 4-5" wider, each, it would solve a LOT of issues with these newer vehicles!!!!

Dave mentioned interior volume, as expressed in cubic feet. This can be a good, government-oriented measure of a vehicle's interior size, but it really doesn't tell me how much rear seat leg room there might be, or how much I might or might not find myself wedged between a padded armrest on the door panel and the center console, on a seat I sit "on" rather than "in". Certainly, such cubic feet figures can be a general indicator of interior size, but to me, "cubic feet" is better used to "size" luggage compartments than interior spaces.

Personally, I have "Elbow Factors" in rating interiors. Is the armrest located (and possibly angled) such that I can put my left elbow on it and use my left hand to interface with the steering wheel? Is the center armrest (fold-down or on the console) located such that I can use my right hand to interface with the steering wheel? Can the left elbow possibly be placed on the top of the left side door trim panel and use my left hand for the steering wheel, as in the "old days"? We all know that front seats generally have good leg room, so the "Elbow Factors" can be better determiners of driving comfort for me. There are other "factors" with respect to the rear seat area, none of which have any relationship to the total cubic feet volume of the interior, with all due respect.

There's also the "Drive-Thru" factor. This relates to the ease with which you can situate a drive-thru hamburger and drink for consumption as you sit in the driver's seat. You remove the food from the bag, place the bag under the hamburger to protect the interior, place the drink cup "somewhere", and proceed to neatly consume the food while parked. You would be surprised at how many consoles are il-conceived with such an activity in mind! For others, everything works great!

Another factor in the "Drive-Thru" factor is how far the outside rear view mirrors stick out from the body, which relates to how close you can get to the building to receive your order. This has become significant as mirrors are now the determiner of how totally wide a vehicle is.

Unfortunatley, if we are going to purchase a "simple vehicle", it could well be a Hyundai or similar. As USA brand vehicles have standard equipment levels which far, far exceed what was standard and optional in the 1970s or 1980s, that can mean that whatever technology options you might purchase, you could well end up with something that you might not really need or understand . . . but your kids or grandkids might fight over using. Remember the novelty with young 'uns and the buttons on the doors, back then? But at least WE all knew what they buttons were for and how to use them!

Many newer technology things are good, but they can also be prone to other issues. An emerging issue with GM has been the affecting of the passenger front airbag by electronic devices placed in the center console or on the passenger's seat. But as long as foreign car companies seem to push greater technology in their vehicles, the USA brands will be left behind if they don't compete in these areas.

When OnSTAR was first configured, it was a "voice only" system where the driver conversed with an OnSTAR representative, directly. The OnSTAR rep read back driving instructions. The reason for this configuration was vehicle safety as the driver could keep their eyes on the road, rather than have to look at a navigation screen in the middle of the instrument panel. Valid point!! Yet the foreign brands went toward the visual screen approach and every other brand had to follow suit, including GM. Finding a paper map, you now have to go to someplace other than where you purchase gasoline . . . or get one online.

The foreign luxury brands were perceived to be "better" with their overhead camshaft engines, so GM and others had to follow suit -- admittedly, the dynamics of an OHC of DOHC motor with respect to valve timing accuracy and related emissions control issues are valid, but the driving wheels don't know where the camshaft is, just that they get power to propell the vehicle.

I fully understand that each successive generation has their own ways of considering things. Not unlike my generation and that of my parents and grand parents. A natural progression of things.

I fully understand that vehicle manufacturers have to plan their new vehicles at, basically, 4 years into the future. This can lead to some sub-optimal judgment calls and can make which set of adisors is listened to very critical. In some cases, GM's upper management made some poor judgment calls, possibly based more on their egos of over-riding divisional management operatives rather than based on sound projections. Read DeLorean's book, circa 1981, "On A Clear Day, You Can See General Motors", and I think you'll understand that situation.

The "tight rope walk" has become how to offer expected "tech" content for younger buyers, have enough "tech" to be viewed as "a good brand", but not have so much that current and prior owners are befuddled as they might try to use what they paid for! Whether they really needed it or not.

At one time, the Buick Century played this role, with the Regal LS/GS expanding that role with the higher-tech approach to things, even supercharging and high-powered sound systems. The traditional owners had what they wanted in a somewhat "easy to use" Century, even with leather interiors, as the younger generation took to the Regal LS/GS models, for obvious reasons. Same basic platform and styling, yet two completely different buyer demograpics due to equipment "content" and orientation.

But we still need a Buick model larger than the current LaCrosse! Longer wheelbase for some of those Great Buick Lines, plus better rear seat leg room. Wider body for better lateral interior room, plus a widened stance for better Road Presence. Not to forget the bench seat/column shift package, either!!!!

Remember . . . www.buick.com/contact.html

Respectfully,

NTX5467

[Barney Eaton]

How do you thing the Holden that is supposed to be coming as a police car would/could fit into the Buick line. It appears to be bigger than the Lacrosse with a V8 and on an extended wheelbase.

[John_Maine]

NTX, I agree with you. I mentioned to the owner of our local Chrysler Dodge dealership that I rarely saw Dakotas on his lot. He said he didn't order them very often because there was very little price difference between them and the full size Ram and they were hard to sell as a result. Still, I just don't see the need for trucks to be as large as the current Ram, Silverado and F-150.

[NTX5467]

The Chevy/Holden Caprice is highly similar to the prior Pontiac G8 GT. I think it is the longer wheelbase version of the car we knew as "G8". First year (current) production will be the 6.0L V-8, with the 3.6L DI V-6 being next year. It would certainly be a worthy competitor for the Chrysler 300 or Dodge Charger!

There used to be some pictures, photoshopped, of a 2009 LaCrosse front end grafted onto a last-gen Pontiac GTO body. Looked pretty dang good, from the front! A sheet metal design similar to that would work, as would an adaptation of the '65 Buick "wall-to-wall" rear tail lights at the back end . . . in a more squared-off (i.e., powerful) look than the more recent smooothed curved variations. Of course, a REAL Sweep Spear down the side, ala '65 Wildcat, would be required. Heck, why not name it "Wildcat"?????

I sent my email via 2011 New Cars, Crossovers and Luxury Sedans | Buick. In the "When you'll purchase" time, I put "1 year" and put the model interested in as "Lucerne", each from their respective drop-down menu. I then asked what Buick could offer me in something similar to Lucerne or GM, with a column shift, or if I'd been "abandoned".

The Holden vehicle is a "known entity", in many respects. BUT our experiences were that build quality was NOT what they should have been on the G8 compared to North American-built Buicks. If it's going to have "BUICK" on it, something will have to get better quick, in that respect. The first Caprice PPVs have arrived, but it's too early to see how they're doing.

Barney, I certainly think there's "an option" there for a bigger Buick in the much-preferred rwd chassis configuration, even a V-8 engine!!! Wouldn't it be neat to have "big" Buick V-8 cars facing off with Chrysler 300 HEMIs again????!!!!Think of the marketing possibilities!!!!! Talk about putting some "life" back into larger Buick models!!!!!

(returning to earth . . .)

Regards,

NTX5467

[NTX5467]

JohnMaine . . . I tend to concur. Yet the Big 3 full size trucks from the middle 1980s look like wimps compared to the current versions, although they have the same basic capacities and capabililties. The current GM full size pickups, when their tailgates are down, the tailgates are about mid-chest high on me, which makes their lift-over height higher than it needs to be. Getting in requires a "hop" or "step" bars.

When the "new" Ram was introduced in the early 1990s, it was a little taller and huskier than the GM and Ford full size trucks. But then came the "4 wheel drive" look, even if it wasn't a 4 wheel drive truck . . . and things progressed from there. There are a few companies which sell complete lowering kits for the GM full size trucks, which put them about 3-4" lower, which makes them closer to "car height", but it also puts the bumpers closer to the ground which could affect off-road approach angles and such. Still, though, trucks with that kit look very neat and MUCH more viable for real-world people than those with lift kits on them or those at now-stock ride height.

In reality, the last gen Dakota was closer to what we used to know as full-size 1/2 ton trucks than the current full size trucks are. It would be an almost exact match for our 1969 Chevy CST-10.

Regards,

NTX5467

[Bleach]

In '85 I got a brand new F-150 long bed. It was a basic model with the a rear bumper and dual side mirrors as the only options. It was only a few hundred dollars more than a similarly equipped Ranger because the dealer was more open to negotiation on the deal on the F-150. I obviously opted for the full sized over the puny Ranger because of the larger hauling capacity, way roomier interior and more power the I-6 offered over the little four banger Ranger. I had no trouble getting 20 mpg or better when it was empty. Even loaded to capacity or more, it still got mileage in the mid teens.

[Guest]

The product planning boys and girls have a lot to do with the original question. Before I retired I noticed the average age of our product planning dept. was what seemed like about seventeen and that says a bunch for the bench seat argument. These are the people who put a instrument cluster in the center of the dash of what was our new mini van at the time, it soon migrated back to where it belonged----after turning off many customers. I have a real problem with the designers of trucks these days ( well in the last fifteen years ) because all they build is wanna be trucks. Just talk to people who actually work out of their trucks. Trucks today just wear people out. When a contractor has to climb in through the tailgate because the bed rail is so high he can't lift anything over. If I were designing a truck I would make the beds just like the old VW transporter pick-up with three sides that folded down and you could load-unload from anywhere or you could use it as a flatbed . Course talking to product planning about this always came up with the answer that it doesn't look kool that way. You should see the people they try their ideas on-nothing like the kind of people that will use the product.

I've got a H-D, D-21 long bed with a SOHC Hemi V-6, 5speed with a large 9.1" rear end that gets as much as 26mpg HWY and has twice the load capacity weight and a much larger box than a new Titan V-8, auto, and a dinky Dana 40.

D.

Edited August 29, 2011 by helfen (see edit history)

[Dave@Moon]

In '85 I got a brand new F-150 long bed. It was a basic model with the a rear bumper and dual side mirrors as the only options. It was only a few hundred dollars more than a similarly equipped Ranger because the dealer was more open to negotiation on the deal on the F-150. I obviously opted for the full sized over the puny Ranger because of the larger hauling capacity, way roomier interior and more power the I-6 offered over the little four banger Ranger. I had no trouble getting 20 mpg or better when it was empty. Even loaded to capacity or more, it still got mileage in the mid teens.

I've had a Ranger since 1996 (bought new). It gets a routine 23 mpg, and has been as high as 26 mpg on highway trips. That is a HUGE savings over an F150 in monetary terms.

The Ranger has now not had any changes (other than very minor cosmetic changes) since 1998. Never the less it is the 7th best selling 2011 truck in the U.S., still selling about 60,000 units/yr. and often outsells the Mustang on a monthly basis. The sales figures, especially for 2011, are surprising ( 10 Cars and Trucks the Ford Ranger Outsold in April 2010 - PickupTrucks.com News ). The Ranger is deninitely not in the same boat as the Dakota and Colorado.

It is being lost for ONE reason only. The F150 sells for more money, and is a cheaper vehicle to build (mostly due to volume). That profit margin is what Ford is "protecting". It's the same kind of thinking ("Our customers only shop at our dealerships.") that led to the demise of Oldsmobile with GM thinking they'd just sell more Buicks.

Ford might have weathered the economic crisis better than GM or Chrysler. but they're proving that they're not genuises with this move. Most Ranger owners, like me, bought one specifically because they didn't want to have to deal with a full size truck (particularly in terms of expense).

There is a new Ranger. It's been out for some time. We're just not going to get it here. Maybe Ford is holding it back in the U.S. to bring it back like some kind of savior later on, especially when Toyota starts jacking the prices up for Tacomas. They'll very likely need the Ranger for C.A.F.E. requirements before the end of the decade. Sadly it's not going to get the chance to establish itself in the market before that happens. ( Ford’s New Ranger: Remind Me Again Why We’re Not Getting This Here? | Automotive Addicts )

Edited August 29, 2011 by Dave@Moon (see edit history)

[Guest sintid58]

Yeah I want a Prius, NOT. You can buy a Volkswagon green diesel for a lot less money than a Prius and get better fuel mileage as well as a station wagon for a lot more room. No batteries made by kids working in a sweat shop either.

Another observaion: A 50 mpg 2009 Prius is within 1 cubic foot of having the same interior volume as a 1983-1996 Century, and the exact same size trunk. The 2010 redesign of the Prius lost 2 cubic feet in interior space, but gained 8 cubic feet in trunk space (now having more cargo space than any Lincoln since 1977, 5 more cubic feet of trunk space than a Lucerne). That's one important reason why my 78 year old father bought one this year.

I don't mean to harp on the Prius, just to use it as a measure of what is coming. Every manufacturer will be marketing cars just like these in very short order. The needs you appear to be mourning are being met, just not in the same manner. The future is not as bleak as you might think.

[Guest sintid58]

A very interesting look at the Toyota Prius by my favorite TV Show.

[Guest sintid58]

And then of course the environmental impact of the Prius.

[Guest Kingoftheroad]

Yeah I want a Prius, NOT. You can buy a Volkswagon green diesel for a lot less money than a Prius and get better fuel mileage as well as a station wagon for a lot more room. No batteries made by kids working in a sweat shop either.

Another observaion: A 50 mpg 2009 Prius is within 1 cubic foot of having the same interior volume as a 1983-1996 Century, and the exact same size trunk. The 2010 redesign of the Prius lost 2 cubic feet in interior space, but gained 8 cubic feet in trunk space (now having more cargo space than any Lincoln since 1977, 5 more cubic feet of trunk space than a Lucerne). That's one important reason why my 78 year old father bought one this year.

I don't mean to harp on the Prius, just to use it as a measure of what is coming. Every manufacturer will be marketing cars just like these in very short order. The needs you appear to be mourning are being met, just not in the same manner. The future is not as bleak as you might think.

I could see buying an efficient car like Prius BUT, its ugly IMO (no offense). I can't drive a car or own a car if my eyes bleed everytime I look at it.. Why do you have to choose between efficiency or good looks ??

[Bleach]

I wouldn't be caught dead in a Prius. I won't get caught up in that kind of fad hype that some people are blindly following or is being driven down our throats. It is far more green to keep an existing car going than buying any kind of new car. The cars made today will not last the 30+ years the way the cars we cherish so much on this site will. I don't see how anyone would even want to restore the kind of appliance cars that are made today.

I converted an old Mercedes diesel to run on waste frying oil and the emissions it produces is far less toxic than any low emission vehicle built today. I kept this car from going to a wrecking yard and by doing that I kept a lot of material from that car that can't get recycled from going to a landfill. I drive this car daily on a renewable resource.

Can you do that with any of the "green" cars made today?

[Guest Kingoftheroad]

I wouldn't be caught dead in a Prius. I won't get caught up in that kind of fad hype that some people are blindly following or is being driven down our throats. It is far more green to keep an existing car going than buying any kind of new car. The cars made today will not last the 30+ years the way the cars we cherish so much on this site will. I don't see how anyone would even want to restore the kind of appliance cars that are made today.

I converted an old Mercedes diesel to run on waste frying oil and the emissions it produces is far less toxic than any low emission vehicle built today. I kept this car from going to a wrecking yard and by doing that I kept a lot of material from that car that can't get recycled from going to a landfill. I drive this car daily on a renewable resource.

Can you do that with any of the "green" cars made today?

I've thought about converting one of my cars to electric power, steam, or something closer to FREE !!

[Guest Caribou]

I wouldn't be caught dead in a Prius. I won't get caught up in that kind of fad hype that some people are blindly following or is being driven down our throats. It is far more green to keep an existing car going than buying any kind of new car. The cars made today will not last the 30+ years the way the cars we cherish so much on this site will. I don't see how anyone would even want to restore the kind of appliance cars that are made today.

I converted an old Mercedes diesel to run on waste frying oil and the emissions it produces is far less toxic than any low emission vehicle built today. I kept this car from going to a wrecking yard and by doing that I kept a lot of material from that car that can't get recycled from going to a landfill. I drive this car daily on a renewable resource.

Can you do that with any of the "green" cars made today?

I've often made this argument, although I've obviously not done the math to prove it. Efficient operation has to be weighed against production cost, and right now my understanding is that the cost of a lot of our "green" technologies is incredibly high, particularly if we're talking about a car. New cars don't seem to be built to last, not without constant servicing, and even with that...

I have the same problem with fuel efficiency on my own day to day vehicles. I've got a 20 year old Cherokee that I commute to work in... not great on gas, but it runs and it's reliable, and it it doesn't seem to make sense to go through the cost of replacing it just to save a couple cents a mile.

And yeah, I know people out here doing the same thing with regard to oil. Cool experiment if nothing else. Now if only I could get my car to run on dust and grasshoppers.

[old-tank]

And then of course the environmental impact of the Prius.

Great video Sid...her is anotherFor all Toyota Prius owner (or soon to be owners) - YouTube

[Dave@Moon]

You can't mention hybrids without the usual misinformation (and jokes) being presented as argument. Luckily believing the nonsense in those links has gone the way of bemoaning 7' wide bench seats and 13 mpg V8s in a $4/gal world. I won't waste our time pretending there's anything here to debate. It's often a point of pride for some to be out of step with progress. Why burst the bubble?

So I won't.

[buick5563]

The news of the end of the Ranger is sad for me. I bought a new one in '92 then an '02 Mazda version when my Ranger got totaled. I never wanted a full sized pickup. I realize that my 4.0 liter "Ranger" gets atrocious mileage, but it was a more manageable truck to work out of (which I did for years). If I needed more than my small truck could handle, I'd pay for delivery. I hate the tall step up into full size trucks. I also HATE having to pick up wet pressure treated plywood. Why must a tall bed be higher than a Lowes cart?

Back to hybrid-bashing... Please make it funny if you need to. It's boring otherwise.

[NTX5467]

I'm GLAD to see that Dave and I agree, along with 5563, that smaller pickup trucks have a very significant place in our society! Just as there are places for full-size pickup trucks. Guess we need to send emails to GM to get them to lower the ride height of their full-size trucks, too???

When I saw the first Toyota Tundra at the Fort Worth New Car Show. I was apalled at how high the step-in height was. This is a "work truck"??? Easy for shorter people to get into, with all due respect??? There were other design issues I found with it too, like the column gear shift lever that has an arc which seems to coincide with where the radio knobs are, in the center of the instrument panel!!!! In reality, there were three reasons for that truck to exist -- 1) It's a Toyota 2) It's a pickup truck 3) It has a "damped" tail gate to keep the tailgate openning at the same rate of a fine stereo's tape door, hence no broken tail gate cables from customers openning the gate and then letting it drop against the cables.

Possibly the neatest smaller truck in production is the Colorado/Canyon 4-dr with the 5.3L V-8 "stuffed" into it. In the GMC version, it's the SLE-2 Package, which gets the sport suspension (lower ride height, allow wheels, performance tires) and other luxury options, along with the V-8. Bad thing it's in the high $20K MSRP range. Neat truck, though, especially with the two V-8 emblems removed! Same EPA highway as the Sierras, though. // Substitute the V-8 S-truck for the Dodge Magnum in the "That thing 'hauls' . . ." commercial, except that when the light turns green, the S-trk quickly disappears in a cloud of expensive Goodyear rubber smoke, leaving two WIDE indicators of direction of travel. For good measure, you can add an observer, in a Black Buick GN, who sees this and thinks . . . "There goes the neighborhood" //

Thanks for that link, Dave! It's quite informative, but it also looks like the Global Ranger is a larger truck than what we now have, or is it the 4-door body that makes it look that way?

Enjoy!

NTX5467

[LINC400]

On the Lincoln forum, the 1998-current Town Car is not as well received as you would think. Why? Is it because it is too big, too dated, too gas guzzling, lacking in techno-gizmos, or basically just an old mans car that no one wants? Nope. It is the exact opposite. It has no pillow top seats, no trademark opera windows or full width rear reflector, too cheap and European looking of an interior, and basically does not look much different than a much cheaper Marquis. Many also complain that the 4.6L V-8 offers less performance and not any better fuel economy than the old 5.0L V-8.

Exactly what you would expect from a bunch of crochety 70-90 year old farts that can't stand change or anything new, correct? Except there was an age poll on the forum a while back. Many members are in the 30-55 year old range.

Town Car buyers were extremely loyal. So is Lincoln addressing these issues to increase sales? No, they are dropping the car and offering no replacement. Basically telling their most loyal customers to get lost.

I'm sure many Park Ave, Lucerne, and DTS owners feel the same way.

Tastes do change, the older buyers won't live forever, and some younger buyers do look for different things in a car. They do want technogadgets - the more the better. They want smaller, fuel efficient, high performance, European styled, etc. Ignoring them would be a mistake too.

Except they are not going to buy the same type of car all their lives either. They might buy a techno loaded, small high performance sports sedan now. But when they get married and have kids, they might need something bigger. Maybe a larger car, minivan or SUV. Fuel efficiency or performance might no longer be as important as safety and capacity. After the kids are gone, maybe they will like their bigger car or SUV, and want a more luxurious version that they couldn't afford with kids at home. Or maybe they will do a complete 180 and get a sports car. So focusing all your efforts on one age or type of buyer is a mistake.

So how to make old loyal buyers happy, attract new young ones, and cater to the ones in the middle? Easy. Make separate cars for each. But actually cater to your buyer. They did this in the 1970's, and it can be done now. Ford offered everything from Pinto, Granada, Country Squire, and Thunderbird and everything in between. There was a car to fit your needs, age, style, and budget. Yes they offer different models now, but it is not like it was back then. There is not much difference in size, performance, or style between models. You basically get an econobox, mid-size 4 door, and SUV but with multiple similar models of each. There aren't too many models today as everyone claims. The problem is they are all too similar.

Offer a large, plush car with optional bench seat. Make technogadets an option for those that aren't interested. And you will keep older loyal buyers happy. Then offer a Eurostyled, high tech, high performance sports sedan to lure new younger buyers.

Lincoln, Buick, Cadillac, and others are dropping their large luxury cars because they think they create an old man car negative image for them. This is stupid. Buyers of Grand Nationals, 442's, Trans Ams, and Mustang GT's had no problem buying their car from the same division grandpa bought his LeSabre, Delta 88, Catalina, or Country Squire. Even current buyers seem to have no problem buying a Challenger, Corvette or Camaro from the same division offering a Caravan, Aveo, or police/taxi package Impala.

Dumping all your loyal buyers in an effort to attract new young ones that may never come is just plain stupid when you can offer cars to make both happy.

Edited August 30, 2011 by LINC400 (see edit history)

[LINC400]

One observation: The 40 mpg 2012 Prius v (the dumbest name ever for a car!) has more interior and trunk space than any Buick (or standard Lincoln) sedan ever made. ( 2012 Prius v Information and Specs | PriusChat )

Another observaion: A 50 mpg 2009 Prius is within 1 cubic foot of having the same interior volume as a 1983-1996 Century, and the exact same size trunk. The 2010 redesign of the Prius lost 2 cubic feet in interior space, but gained 8 cubic feet in trunk space (now having more cargo space than any Lincoln since 1977, 5 more cubic feet of trunk space than a Lucerne). That's one important reason why my 78 year old father bought one this year.

First, it is obvious that whoever is stating this has no clue about Lincolns. The car that had the biggest trunk and passenger cabin out of all the Lincolns in 1977 was the Continental/Town Car. It was also completely unchanged from 1975-79 except for the grille and minor trim changes. So explain to me this "since 1977" part.

Cubic feet would be a useful measurement if you are filling the car with water or sand, not people and luggage. I have been in a Prius, and 75-79 Town Cars. There is no way you can seat 6 people as comfortably in a Prius as you can in a Town Car regardless of whatever cubic feet statistics you come up with. The Town Car trunk is also cavernous. Even if there is a remote possibility you can fit the same amount of luggage in the Prius, I assume this means piled from floor to roof blocking all rear visability. Possibly even with rear seat folded down. This is not the same as locked out of the way, unseen, in a closed trunk with absolutely no loss of visabilty, and six adults riding in comfort in the passenger cabin.

[Dave@Moon]

Thanks for that link, Dave! It's quite informative, but it also looks like the Global Ranger is a larger truck than what we now have, or is it the 4-door body that makes it look that way?

It turns out that the new Ranger is much bigger than the current truck, a fact Ford is using as an excuse not to introduce it here ( All-New 2012 Ford Ranger Not Coming To The U.S.: Here's Why ). Funny how it's not expected to effect overseas sales of the F-150 though. Profit margins differing in other countries must have had their effect.

BTW, the Mahindra pickup from India that was supposed to be introduced for 2011 now looks to be dead in the water ( Mahindra Planet: Fear and Loathing in Alpharetta ). (Yeah, I know. I wasn't planning on buying one either.)

Edited August 30, 2011 by Dave@Moon
typo (see edit history)

[Dave@Moon]

I have been in a Prius, and 75-79 Town Cars. There is no way you can seat 6 people as comfortably in a Prius as you can in a Town Car regardless of whatever cubic feet statistics you come up with.

You haven't been in a Prius v. They aren't out yet.