Will the new wagon survive?

[NC-car-guy]

I read this article that puts a sad perspective  on the new Buick..

https://jalopnik.com/buick-has-no-idea-how-to-actually-sell-the-regal-tourx-1826984906

[Thriller]

Interesting. Some dealers don’t know how to sell in the first place though. 

 

When we bought our 2017 Regal, our favoured dealership didn’t have any in stock. They ultimately brought one in for us from another dealership. I just went and looked at the new Buick stock of this dealer. Of a total of 15 Buicks there was one car (a Lacrosse) and 14 classified as SUV (really crossover) reasonably evenly divided among the three. To be fair this is a quasi-rural dealership so they get most of their business in trucks. 

 

Then I looked at the Buick Canada site. We don’t even get the TourX...just like the Cascada. Sigh. 

 

Edited June 22, 2018 by Thriller
Typo (see edit history)

[Matt Harwood]

This is on my short list of cars to buy when I'm done with my Cadillac CTS wagon. When that is, I don't know, but it's approaching 100K miles and things are starting to unwind. I like the look of the Buick, it's certainly priced appropriately, but I'm kind of tired of being nickeled-and-dimed to death by GM's inattention to detail (the CTS, for example, has needed three $800 wheel bearings which are specifically NOT included in the warranty). But I like the look and I'm obviously a wagon junkie--these days, there aren't a lot of choices for us.

 

Of course, the Audi allroad is also on the short list--my last one was heroic enough that I still have it and treat it like a collector car (sparingly driven on nice days).

 

We'll see when the CTS finally breathes its last. The left rear wheel bearing is starting to make noise...

[NTX5467]

I'm not really sure what they were trying to accomplish with that "wagon".  It looks like a nice enough vehicle.  I don't feel it's got enough "motor" for what it is, but then I'm not a huge fan of GM's new small turbo engines for several reasons.  Seems there are some durability issues with them and similar ones from other makers, from what I've seen.  But that's what warranties are for?

 

The one video review I saw online from a younger video magazine reporter, he didn't like it too much.  The interior wasn't up to his expectations, for example.  I think it did perform decently, though.  Just that there are many others in that size and price area, which seem to set the standards that this Buick apparently didn't quite come up to for him.

 

With GM having sold Opel, there are many Buick-branded vehicles that might have s short future.  Not to mention the affect of tariffs on the Chinese-built imported Buicks!  I noted many years ago that one day, GM's globalization in products would come back "to bite".  Perhaps that time is approaching?

 

Many are claiming "sedans don't sell", but when you look at the "sedans" for sale, perhaps there's a reason they aren't selling as they should?  The crossovers are really "sedans" with an extended rear roof?  But you can't really call them "hatchbacks".

 

Sometimes, I think that GM drank the "fewer is more" CoolAid.  Only thing is that if any gaps exist in the product line, an import brand usually comes up with something to fill it.  IF they plan their product cycles correctly, that's easy to do.   If you take out the imported Buicks from China and Europe, that leaves the Lacrosse and the Enclave.  As the smaller Buicks have been where the sales growth seems to be.  An Avenir-type vehicle would be good to have, or the hot coupe several young designers did a year of so ago!  GM products just seem to be in "a funk" right now for some reason or another, as are some other aspects of some of their vehicles.  Time will tell.

 

NTX5467

[avgwarhawk]

I'm a wagon guy. I like this Buick and would purchase if in the market. 

[Frazer 49]

12 hours ago, wndsofchng06 said:

I read this article that puts a sad perspective  on the new Buick..

https://jalopnik.com/buick-has-no-idea-how-to-actually-sell-the-regal-tourx-1826984906

No it won't survive.  GM has lost it's way.

[60FlatTop]

9 hours ago, NTX5467 said:

Not to mention the affect of tariffs on the Chinese-built imported Buicks!

 

That's just a funny statement. It made me laugh.

 

I think I went through a 20 year period in my life where buying a new car was something I desired to do and did. I might buy a new pickup in the future purely from a practical standpoint. The "stuff" I looked at and tried out on this last go around seems to have been the final transition point for me. One can read the conclusions of others in road tests and reviews, but when it comes to the actual experience of getting in the new car, the person with decades of driving is at a disadvantage. So many cars have been built in the last century that were smoother, more solid, a better driving experience, that the new "stuff" just seems like less, a lot less.

A person who leases one vehicle and turns it in every 36 months won't notice the "creeping less". That is the target market, not us experienced, discerning buyers.

 

Yesterday, at lunch, my Wife asked me who was buying all those new cars on the lots. I told her pretty much no one. Most are being leased. The cars actually being bought are the 24 and 36 month off lease cars. As long as that little wagon can draw a used car buyer at $20,000 in a couple of years they will make it. If not, they won't put that badge on a Buick anymore.

Bernie

[JZRIV]

Got no further in article than the opening statement:

 

"With a starting price of just under $30,000, the TourX is supposed to be GM’s crack at stealing even a little bit of market share away from the Subaru Outback that pretty much dominates the rugged-lifted-wagon segment."

 

Couldn't believe what I was reading. No way this car can come close to the Outback. There are many reasons why its sales are through the roof. Buyers of the TourX over an Outback will do so only because they prefer the Buick logo vs Subaru and. Maybe the TourX is a good car in its own right but expecting it to compete with the Outback is ludicrous. I have a 2017 Outback Touring 3.6R. It is phenomenal in so many ways. Forget the old Subaru stereotype. Its dead.

[Frazer 49]

I think it is a nice appearing wagon.  It would have a slight bit more utility than a sedan, so in my opinion, it is a nice compromise between better styling and utility.

 

I used to work at a Subaru dealer and was a technician. They are well made, conservative cars. I would not own an Outback because they have not evolved in years, style wise.  But, Subaru owners are uber loyal, so the "crossover" buyer (pun not intended) who might consider a Buick AND a Subaru are few and far between.

 

I always thought "act like you been there." In other words, don't try and copy anyone, just make a great car, market it properly and see where the chips fall.  Unfortunately, the modern GM can not get out of it's own way.  Meaning, this will be another 2 and done, might go 2 model years, the bean counters will say "nobody is buying this model, it's done" and we will be back to sedans and SUV's.  "Well we tried" they will say, but we all know, they did not really try.

 

What does trying look like?  Market the car, incentivize getting some on the road so other yuppies can see it and go "what's that?" and put inventory on lots so people can consider it.   But the story that started this post seems to indicate almost instant sabotage by GM and the dealers, which leads back to my original point that GM is a moribund corporation that has lost it's way and will never return to the glory days. 

 

Yuppies are copiers.  When they drive home to their suburban cookie cutter house and see one in the driveway, and like what they see, they will want one to, or at least consider it.   This car is different looking, and with smart wheelsets and colors, you could be separated from all of the other Lexus' and such in your enclave.

 

They just fired the Cadillac GM, who came from Infiniti and Opel, after 4 years. Short leash mentality.  Meanwhile Mary Barra racks in 8 digit salaries and hires the Canada sales guy to replace him...

Edited June 22, 2018 by Frazer 49 (see edit history)

[60FlatTop]

1 hour ago, Frazer 49 said:

I always thought "act like you been there." In other words, don't try and copy anyone, just make a great car, market it properly and see where the chips fall. 

 

I like that. "Our answer too" or "Going head to head against" is just lame advertising copy.

 

But , then, advertising agents are young.

 

I gotta wonder about those Subaru owners. I saw an ad on TV where a totaled Subaru saved either the driver or his whole family. He was visiting the wrecked car, obviously now the property of the insurance company. And stuck his hand in and stole the shift knob, right there on TV! Personally I would be a little leery of petty thievery.

[56buickinga]

23 hours ago, wndsofchng06 said:

I read this article that puts a sad perspective  on the new Buick..

https://jalopnik.com/buick-has-no-idea-how-to-actually-sell-the-regal-tourx-1826984906

 

 

It wont do well because it's a Buick, it's a wagon, and its out of my price range so I can't take one off the lot. Local dealer had two both were over 40k. 

 

Also, Matt, jalopnik can be compared to the national enquirer for its accuracy, crack journalism, and over use of hyperbole stolen from other car forums.

[NTX5467]

To me, the TourX is headed toward a niche market, not a "mass market".  IF it is successful, others will follow.  Chrysler had great success hitting niche markets that were larger than expected in the 1990s.  Or better-researched the market demographics and fine-tuned their products to better fit the base demographic.  It took GM about three years to respond, at the next scheduled product refresh time.

 

Right now, with the platform sharing that GM now has, some products are too expensive for their market demographics.  Fleet sales have been long-demonized, so it seems they're pricing themselves out of that market, in some products.  The current Impala shares a platform with a Cadillac model, which makes that platform too expensive for a formerly mass market/fleet vehicle buyer.  Even a mainstream buyer that used to be the Impala's strong point.  For many reasons, those mainstream buyers now seem to be headed to Traverses and Equinoxes.

 

To me, the TourX and its stablemate exist so that GM could better utilize a factory and support another-brand product of similar configuration for another market somewhere.  The same thing brought us the last-gen rwd Roadmaster, from what I could see back then.  And THAT means limited longevity.

 

The amount and type of advertising you see for a particular product tends to mirror the manufacturer's orientations toward a particular model.  Lots of advertising (as Chevy pickups) vs. what we saw for Camaros in the early 1990s, for example.  In the Camaro's case, the sales brochures were lackluster at best . . . until the Camaro faithful revolted when "the end" was mentioned.  THEN, GM/Chevy started playing to them and the advertising got much better, there was money spent on sales brochure photography, and when all of GM's side deals  were done, a new Camaro was announced, it was met with waiting buyers (NOT just lookers, but drooling buyers).  The last-gen of 4-place T-birds/Cougars were lackluster as Ford knew the tooling was wearing out and the products were set to end.  The sales brochures were minimal at best.  Ford knew the end was near, their planned end, and didn't want a huge following to go somewhere else, so they sought "no following" and justified the products not be replaced due to poor sales.  The later T-bird roadster was scabbed onto the Lincoln LS platform, which saved much money in safety and crash certifications, which allowed that car to exist for about six years and let the T-bird name be revived and then "run its course."

 

There have (and still are) been many examples of just how far the manufacturers expected particular models to go and then orchestrated that agenda in many ways.  Platform/plant sharing can help this as much as it can hurt it.  Pushing things to a higher price point can be an indicator, too, as with many "sedans" on the market now.  Styling features can be in the mix, too, especially in the livery trade where trunk space to handle Pullman bags standing upright AND the trunk lid close is important.  LOTS of little things in vehicle design that can affect a model's success, too!

 

In targeting their vehicles toward noted market segment leaders, some marks are missed in that venture.  Olds wanted to target the Aurora against Lexus and Infinity, ignoring the scrappy Chrysler LHS in the process, from what I saw.  Lexus was more Buick territory that Olds didn't need to be in, but that was their way of proving the Aurora was "worthy of consideration" by the Lexus owners.  A failed orientation, from what I could see, early on.  OR was the participants in the "parade of managers" through Olds back then trying to make Olds something it wasn't?  At the behest of what "insiders" said the GM Board wanted Olds to become?

 

The Cadillac line with deNeyschen inherited didn't have his influence upon them, just how they were presented and sold.  He allegedly told Cadillac dealers to forget about future Cadillacs not being designed for adaption to the livery/fleet trade of the past.  Thereby giving Ford a market they didn't really have any "traditional" models to fill.  Then he came in with a dealership remodeling project that he claimed was needed, which also tended to put the smallest dealers "on the block".  He didn't make a lot of friends in a dealer body HE needed to follow his apparent directives from GM management.  He was the pawn of management above him.

 

From what I've seen, the TourX might be a great vehicle, but that product niche is not that large to support many great products.  There seems to be more and more that younger marketing types just don't seem to understand.  The "more products, the more potential sales" orientation doesn't seem to register on their radar screens.  There have also been many marketing mis-steps by GM over the past 30 years AND the manner in which GM models were compared to other vehicles in comparisons.  Making GM products look good on paper, less-so in actual real life execution.  So "We've got a better car, but it's not selling" obviously happened.  LOTS of things to consider!

 

NTX5467

Edited June 23, 2018 by NTX5467 (see edit history)

[EmTee]

I never realized that you could get whitewall tires on a Mercedes!  

 

[60FlatTop]

12 hours ago, NTX5467 said:

There seems to be more and more that younger marketing types just don't seem to understand. 

 

That was my point with the historical Granada ad. A marketing person with 30 years of experience in the US has aged in a era of entitlement. Government grants, government loans, cars leased not bought. Many couldn't sell steak without protection from the sizzle. I have been using the term "resale red" since I was about 13 years old. Today red is a $500 option. Which shade of neutral would you like your interior?

 

In 1949 Ken Purdy was writing about "all the cars looking the same". They did, in that context. At least they came off a different line. Today "corporate wants to optimize the production investment. Not a bad idea, but don't carry it to the homogenization of your product line. I really wanted to buy one of those Cadillac badged Impalas a few months ago. Too much Chevy was seeping through the cracks and I seem to be cursed with the ability to differentiate engineering from gadgetry, At least that's what the salesman thought.

 

I like the comment about those $30,000 Buicks lined up on the lot for $40,000. Remember when GM brought out the Solstice to compete , here's that term "head to head", with the Mazda Miata in the same price range? But all the Pontiacs had $10,000 of options.

 

There is a disconnect in the boardroom. And corporations have no history or no future. They live for the moment and each day is new (a little like dementia). Anyone who reminds of the past or warns of the future is ostracized. Like the guy who said "You aren't really going to call that made over Mazda a Zephyr, are you?" He's gone, but I bet he's still smiling.

Bernie

 

Oh, I should mention, and this is just my personal observation. When there is a crisis meeting and the historic path of how we got there is brought up, there is one who will stand up and say "That is not the point of this meeting. We are here to address the current problem and move forward from this point." THAT is usually the person who got you in trouble to start with. GM, are you reading this?

Edited June 23, 2018 by 60FlatTop (see edit history)

[Centurion]

Reviews of the Regal TourX have been generally positive.

 

GM has some great products, but the company consistently fails in its marketing.  Industry analysts have been writing for years that it is inexcusable for General Motors to lack a Chief Marketing Officer.  

 

The absence of proper marketing limits the ability of cars like the TourX to succeed in the marketplace.

[NTX5467]

GM DID have a CMO.  Named Ron Zarella, who came in from Bausch-Lomb and put Proctor&Gamble-style Brand Management in place.  GM made money as their market share decreased slowly.  Everybody was pleased until market share hit 19.9%  THEN they got worried, by observation.  It got down to about 17% before they finally "did something about it".  "Prior Management" was blamed for the slow slide from what GM's market share had been 20 years prior.

 

During that the later '80s and later, there was a "parade" of management through many GM divisions (except Chevrolet), with Olds seeming to get the most populous parade.  Many division functions were combined, including the merge of ACDelco part numbers with GM OEM part numbers.  It was noted that GM was moving toward a "marketing company" than where it had been.  Allegedly doing these things to "combine functions" for greater shareholder returns.  As I saw that happening from the dealership side of things, I had a strong feeling that much of the "tradition feel" of many higher-line products would be diminished as a more "generic" luxury feel was sought.  "Luxury feel" as determined by "other brands" of "new benchmark" vehicles. 

 

If "tech" is the "new luxury", then where will it all end?  The new Cadillac CT6 has some really neat engineering in its body, but if this allows the use of a "turbo 4" for the base engine as a main justification for losing that weight (at a higher production cost), in a market that demands complete engine smoothness, might a little less expensive platform have been better?  Otherwise, how many times will a Cadillac really need the capability of having 12 WiFi connections going at once, other than for advertising?  Possibly like an Olds Achieva 4 cyl having 2 more horsepower than a competing Honda.  "Advantage Olds" (as the comparison chart noted) until they drove the Honda.

 

Some good products were marginalized and their good names run into the asphalt, by observation.  Limited funds went to rebuild some divisions as others languished with what they had.  As Lee Iacocca was boasting that ALL of his Chryslers had a driver's side air bag, GM had NONE for a few years.  That "delay" meant, along with others, that GM was not the "force" it used to be OR should be.  Fewer models, fewer market segments, higher relative prices didn't help.  Some disasterour/ineffective advertising programs didn't help even as rebate-mania was in full swing.  GM did have some good products, but some warranty issues with them were other detriments to the situation.

 

GM's OTHER problem has seemed, from my observations, that whenever they did something good, which worked well, whether in product design or whatever, as soon as that program was ended, rather than build upon those accomplishments with better things in the future, it seemed that they'd reward that group by splitting it up and sending everybody somewhere else.  As if they did their jobs too well and better than their other groups, so they had to return to a more mediocre situation for whatever reason.  Some definite bright lights in a room of dimmer bulbs?  Chrysler and Ford didn't seem to have those issues, building upon past momentums as things progressed for even better products later on.

 

NTX5467

[EmTee]

On 6/22/2018 at 10:00 PM, NTX5467 said:

There seems to be more and more that younger marketing types just don't seem to understand.

 

I had a different take on this comment.  I think we're the ones who 'just don't understand'.  Largely for reasons that Bernie outlined; it has become increasingly clear that GM and other automakers are not targeting me with their advertising.  Although I could walk in, pay cash and drive away with a new car, that's not going to maximize the company's profit.  They'd prefer that I lease a loaded model for 36 months with 'free maintenance', so that I'll be sure to stop-by and see the dealer's service department for my 'free' maintenance.  "Oh, while you're here we suggest that you consider..."  And then on turn-in day, they can ding you for the 'abnormal wear & tear' -- but don't fret, we have a special loyalty lease deal on the new model, so you're still coming out ahead!

 

I had to roll my eyes at the latest Chevy ad where 'real people' who are dating are shown 3 SUVs in graduated size for when they move in together or have their '5 kids and a dog'.  No mention of marriage, however.  Why would they when they don't even want you to commit to purchasing one of their automobiles?  In the same vein, there's a local new car dealer whose ads stress how quickly they can get you in and out in that 'new car' --all before you realize what you've just done...

[60FlatTop]

I noticed that "shacked up" ad, too. One of those mental notes I stash away.

 

An ad showing them sleeping in their new 1974 Suburban after being turned away from a  Rutland, VT, hotel because they weren't married would have brought a smile to my face. Just a random thought, about a random event, by a random couple, on my part, of course.

Bernie

[NTX5467]

One of the purported attributes of the Pontiac Aztek was displayed in one of their ads.  A young couple "camping" in a public park, in the back of their Aztek.  A somewhat recurring theme, over time.  Prior to that, it was the Dodge pickup truck accessories (which included the Ramcharger and Plymouth Trail Duster 4wds) of the middle '70s, which had a factory soft top cover for the bed, with campsite scenes in the back ground.  Prior to that, there were some mentions of sleeping in the cargo area of the Plymouth Barracudas, in a remote area, rather than sleeping in a tent.  So, the new Chevy ads are a new take on some of that.

 

The OTHER orientation is the old "Vehicle for Every Purse".  Which has become, rather than starting with Chevrolet and moving into Pontiacs, Olds, Buicks, and finally Cadillac as one's financial situation increased during their lifetimes.  Now, it's about starting with a Chevy Sonic and ending up with a CUV, then a loaded SUV as things progress.

 

The "cheap lease" deals can be tricky for the OEMs, as Audi found out in the middle 1980s.  First they did 36 month leases.  The next year, they did 24 month leases.  Third year they did 12 month leases.  Only thing was that all of those lease vehicles started to his the used car auctions about the same time.  "Flooded" the market?  Leases which were highly subsidized by the OEM.  Used Audis got really "affordable".  It took many years before their resale value started to come back.  Things are handled much better now.

 

I suspect the "Fine print" of the lease deals will be where the "additional charges" will come from.  Some leases look really nice until you see the "Low Mileage" orientation  the advertising.  A while back, BMW had a really nice lease on their 3-series of that year.  I read the ad.  "9000 miles/year".  How could anybody but a downtown city dweller drive that few miles in "The Ultimate Driving Machine"?  "Normal wear and tear" can be an issue, too.  End result is that many get out of those leases earlier due to the mileage issue, I suspect.

 

Many have been including "normal maintenance" in the basic warranty coverages for a good while, even GM.  Key word is "normal".  That means according to the "normal use" area of the maintenance schedule.  With the specified oils, etc.  NOT the 3000 mile oil changes that many used to have, but when the "Oil Change Soon" message comes up on the Driver Information Center.  As Dexos 1 motor oil has progressed from semi-synthetic to full-synthetic, it's not a bad deal.

 

When BMW went to their "maintenance included, bumper to bumper" warranty, it did some things Mercedes probably wished they'd done.  BMW engines had some special oil requirements, in some models.  Their maintenance inclusion got that taken care of, at least for 60K miles (at that time).  It meant they had maintenance records when the cars came off-lease or cam back to the used car market.  Better resale values, as a result.  Dealership techs like it as they didn't need to ask customers about doing brakes or wiper blades, they just got a li ne on the repair order and did it.  No problems, that I heard of.  

 

Mercedes, on the other hand, had a bad deal on their hands when engines started failing due to incorrect oils and lack of maintenance.  When the dealers did those deals, with documentation, Mercedes paid the bills.  Without documentation, the owners did.  Not good.  As BMW obviously smiled.

 

All of the leases are based on projected resale value when the lease period ends.  IF the market values take a dump, that's what "Gap Insurance" is for!  If the vehicle's condition is not "normal", then the lease holder pays the bill.  IF the mileage is over-limit, the lease-holder pays the penalty (which is stated at so much per mile).

 

Back when I did dealer ride-drive training on the then-new 2004 Grand Prix.  They told us to NOT put a GTP Comp G car out on lease--period.  Reason?  The tires on the Comp G cars were particular BFG tires that would not generally last past 30K miles, on a 3 year lease period.  It was claimed that the leaser would have to put tires on it, so they wouldn't be happy, so just don't go there.  Nobody wants to have to put tires on a lease car 6k miles before they turn it back int.  IF it was a GM lease, that expense could be handled internally at less cost, before they put the car through the dealer auctions.

 

In the case of Buicks, I've seen many "typical Buick Owners" drive off in new Buicks with more tech in them than might be fully understood by the people driving them.  BUT the grand-kids would care about such things!  Can't target just the current owners, but the future ones, too.  As the latest CUVs have done, the "face of the typical Buick owner" is changing.

 

NTX5467

Edited May 13, 2023 by NTX5467 (see edit history)

[NC-car-guy]

I thought this was interesting to revisit as they've stopped making the wagons...  If I were to buy a "newer" vehicle though, one of these wagons would be a serious contender for me.

[JohnD1956]

Just saw one today. They do grab my attention.  Wish I had bought one back then. 

[B Jake Moran]

On 6/21/2018 at 9:39 PM, Thriller said:

Interesting. Some dealers don’t know how to sell in the first place though. 

 

When we bought our 2017 Regal, our favoured dealership didn’t have any in stock. They ultimately brought one in for us from another dealership. I just went and looked at the new Buick stock of this dealer. Of a total of 15 Buicks there was one car (a Lacrosse) and 14 classified as SUV (really crossover) reasonably evenly divided among the three. To be fair this is a quasi-rural dealership so they get most of their business in trucks. 

 

Then I looked at the Buick Canada site. We don’t even get the TourX...just like the Cascada. Sigh. 

 

Geez Derek has not visited since 2020 per his profile.  I miss the good old days. 

[dibarlaw]

We seriously thought about a 2018 here locally around $22,000 with a little over 20 K miles. Unfortunately, dark gray. This was back in November. The salesman was totally NO PRESSURE and no information. We did do a test drive and we would have been happy with it. 

When I tried to deal on one new back in 2018 it seemed as though the salesman was not wanting to even talk to me about it. That was a white one on the show room floor.

 The only thing enticing us is a well opted 2020 Envision with a little over 8K miles. But at $33,000.

 And I thought the TourX was too expensive for a 4 year old used car. We need to get something soon as our 2008 KIA Rondo just turned 188,000.

[Ben Bruce aka First Born]

On 5/9/2023 at 11:05 AM, B Jake Moran said:

Geez Derek has not visited since 2020 per his profile.  I miss the good old days. 

He is on FB a lot

 

  Ben

[billorn]

I think matt harwood has one of these wagons.........

[NC-car-guy]

1 hour ago, Ben Bruce aka First Born said:

He is on FB a lot

 

  Ben

unfortunately, FB has reduced participation in many forums.  Luckily this forum is still far above some of the crud found in FB groups.

[60FlatTop]

On 6/24/2018 at 11:18 AM, NTX5467 said:

so they wouldn't be happy, so just don't go there.

This topic resurfaced and I caught this quote as I was catching up. Made me remember the guys who have called on cars I had for sale and said they were bringing their wife. Yes, I ask. I usually recommend a restaurant somewhere in between as an alternative "and we will all be happier".

 

And sometimes a little denial with push the deal forward.