BUICK RACER Posted January 23, 2001 Share Posted January 23, 2001 Think the new Bengal is a cool vehicle? Click here to cast your vote. <A HREF="http://www.buick.com/home/news/" TARGET=_blank>http://www.buick.com/home/news/</A> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest COMPACTBC Posted January 23, 2001 Share Posted January 23, 2001 The car looks very cool EXCEPT FOR THE SLITS THAT I SUPPOSE ARE THE HEADLIGHTS. Havn't seen one in person but would sure like to. <P>------------------<BR> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 23, 2001 Share Posted January 23, 2001 I voted no. The should base it on the Camero drivetrain. Even if it only had a V-6 at least it would be RWD. I just can't get over FWD. I still say they should find a way to make the Blackhawk, even if they have to tone it down a little.<P>Tomsriv Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BUICK RACER Posted January 24, 2001 Author Share Posted January 24, 2001 Check this out! The rear wheel drive of the future, 2003 Park ave, maybe?<BR>Look under Statesman engine.<BR> <A HREF="http://www.holden.com.au/sc02_vehicle_showroom/" TARGET=_blank>http://www.holden.com.au/sc02_vehicle_showroom/</A> <P> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BUICK RACER Posted January 24, 2001 Author Share Posted January 24, 2001 One other comment, my brother works for GM Powertrain and says the 3.4 is not the engine of choice per your comments, If they would put the 3.8 in the Rendezvous, we probably couldn't build enough of them, maybe that's the key?<P>BUT this was in today's Detroit News, and very disturbing for us who work for the General, and unfortunately too true!<P>Depend on GM for your livelihood? Reasons adding up for you to worry<P><BR>By Daniel Howes / The Detroit News<P> FRANKFURT, Germany--If there are virtually no problems in today's auto<BR>industry that can't be cured with great cars and trucks, as Nissan President<BR>Carlos Ghosn says, then those who depend on Detroit's automakers ought to be<BR>a little worried.<BR> Detroit can, of course, build great products when it wants to. Just look<BR>at DaimlerChrysler AG's PT Cruiser, General Motors Corp.'s large pickups and<BR>Ford Motor Co.'s constantly morphing lineup of trucks and sport-utility<BR>vehicles.<BR> But those successes of the 1990s, trumpeted as evidence that Detroit's<BR>renaissance was real, are in danger of being overrun. Blame stubbornly high<BR>fixed costs, long-term labor contracts that stifle flexibility, nagging<BR>quality problems (real and perceived) and the comfortable tendency to focus<BR>on what works (trucks and sport-utes) and limp along with the rest.<BR> That's Chrysler problem these days. And GM's, too. Yet the constant talk<BR>of Chrysler's restructuring, due next month, is overshadowing a potentially<BR>far larger shakeout at GM that would make any change at Chrysler seem mild<BR>by comparison.<BR> Simply put, the state of GM should worry anyone in Metro Detroit - or the<BR>world, for that matter - whose livelihood depends on the General for income,<BR>contracts or charitable support. Sure, it's got a $13.3-billion cash hoard.<BR>Yes, it booked profits in North America and worldwide. And you can bet that<BR>President Rick Wagoner Jr., the youngest chief executive in GM history,<BR>would not stand by should GM nose-dive.<BR> He won't. But it means something when people inside the company tell you<BR>privately that the last time they were this concerned for their company,<BR>former-Chairman Bob Stempel and President Lloyd Reuss were running the<BR>place. We all know what happened next.<BR> The argument that a smaller, more profitable GM is preferable to a<BR>larger, money-losing GM has always made sense. We're now entering a time,<BR>however, when the slimmer GM is making less money - and claiming less market<BR>share - amid fierce attacks from its Japanese, German and South Korean<BR>rivals.<BR> The numbers don't lie. Neither do the reactions to some important<BR>products in the GM pipeline, the hot Chevrolet SSR and sharp Buick Bengal<BR>concept notwithstanding. Conventional wisdom holds that GM basically is<BR>incapable of generating excitement with its new cars and trucks. For once, I<BR>agree.<BR> You can feel the uneasiness about GM's business prospects in North<BR>America and Europe, despite bullishness from executives. The Opel lineup for<BR>Europe is tired. Plans for Saab, the quirky Swedish brand, aren't showing<BR>any public signs of movement. The edginess of the "new" Cadillac, judging by<BR>what we've seen, looks like designs for designers - not customers.<BR> None of this is comforting. The nascent revolution that Wagoner began by<BR>killing Oldsmobile and ordering a 10-percent cut in the white-collar<BR>workforce should only be the beginning. But we don't know if it's more like<BR>the end.<BR> It can't be. Arch-rival Ford is far better balanced in more segments of<BR>the volume and luxury markets than GM, thanks to Wolfgang Reitzle's Premier<BR>Automotive Group and an improving Ford car line-up under Richard<BR>Parry-Jones.<BR> In response, GM's Wagoner likes to say, "We have what we have." That's<BR>the problem. Still.<P>You can reach Daniel Howes, Germany Bureau chief of The Detroit News, at<BR>dchowes@detnews.com.<P><P>------------------<BR>Roberta<BR>BCA TREASURER 2000-2001<BR>BCA PRESIDENT 1998-2000<BR>BCA VICE PRESIDENT 1997-1998<BR>WEBMASTER<BR>Director-Michigan Chapter- Gran Sport Club of America 1989-Present<BR>http://www.geocities.com/buickracer<BR>1956 Special 2 door Sedan<BR>1966 Wildcats<BR>1968 GS-400 Convertible 4-speed<BR>1970 GSX Stage 1<BR>1970 Skylark Racecar - 11.26, 118 MPH, 7/22/00<BR>1986 GN, 4800 miles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave@Moon Posted January 24, 2001 Share Posted January 24, 2001 I voted "Yes" yesterday, and I don't live in Florida so it might count for something! It's a sleek, youthful car with some serious engineering thought behind it. Therefore it's sure to offend Pontiac, and has no hope of being built. <P>With regard to Mr. Howes and his "potentially far larger shakeout", I'm hoping that wiser heads than the one that decided Olds had to go will prevail. It's not the fact that a shakeout at GM is needed (most of us would've agreed to that many years ago), the main point is that the corporation <I> has </I> to come out of the "shakeout" an improved, reliable producer of <B> product. </B> <P>Dropping Olds, whithering and whitling away car lines, continuing (save Saturn) the practice of using <I> readily identifiable </I> platforms across "brands", limiting product development for the sake of the "image" of sister products, and constantly and consistently ignoring or disbelieving evidence of unhappy customers (which is what a poor reliability reputation is) continues to go on and continues to cost GM dearly. <P>How bad is this affecting the marketing of their products? One simple observation--Saturn has been on the market now for 11 years and <I> still </I> does not acknowledge it's corporate parentage in print anywhere on the car or in it's literature. And all of the General Motors ads and such are careful not to sully Saturn's name with their's (i.e. the recent "Jazz" series on PBS was underwritten by GM, which listed every division--oops, I mean "brand"--on the overleaf used on the show <B> except you-know who! </B><P>By the way, the Saturn S series continues to be a runaway hit with commendable reliability ratings that sells in numbers that the factory still has trouble keeping up with. I don't know, but I hope they've learned to make money on this car somehow.<P>The biggest concern I have is the thinking behind the axing of Olds. At a time when GM is being pigeon holed as a stodgy, old-thinking company, deleting the division which at least had the history of forward-thinking enginering and innovation sent out exactly the wrong signal about the company. It might've been difficult and expensive to continue the reforms in product that that "brand" began in 1996, but the need for that aura for at least one of it's products is just what GM needed. Instead we have the buying public percieving that GM isn't exactly the seat of permenance or the sure-thing that their parents told them it would be. Let's hope this thinking changes.<P>So Roberta, I wouldn't be <I> too </I> concerned with any restructuring that may take place, it should happen. Watch for the decisions, and see if they are being made for the sake of product or short-term stockholder interest. And then make your personal decisions accordingly.<P>p.s. By the way, I think this guy is spot on in his assesment of Opel and Cadillac design, but way off on Saab. Swedish cars aren't supposed to be style driven "constantly morphing" vehicle lines like most other cars are marketed. Their Checker-like permenance of character is supposed to be a virtue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 24, 2001 Share Posted January 24, 2001 I'm not one of the people that hates FWD cars, on the contrary for <I>most</I> driving situations (other than flat out performance) I think they are superior to RWD setups. On the other hand, a lot of people don't share my views. I noticed that when GM killed the RWD G-Bodies (Cutlass, Monte Carlo, Regal, Grand Prix) that a lot of the people that bought such vehicles began to buy <B>trucks</B>.<P>An attitude developed that if you won't give me what I want in a car (RWD, V8, Full Frame) then I'll get it in a truck or SUV. Is this what started the truck/suv trend?<P>Originally killed, I suppose, because they were too much of a drag on C.A.F.E. standards, the RWD cars should be able to be produced now (due to better technology...the Camaro's Ls1 gets close to 30mpg) and meet any standards and regulations with ease. I think the average american consumer would welcome such vehicles. Unfortunately the Holden's are the only such vehicles in the GM lineup. <P>Better marketing, better, more desirable <I>and</I> different products than the competition. These are all obtainable and realistic goals for GM. <B>And</B> hire some decent stylists. Fire the designer of the Aztec, shoot the person that approved the design. Kill the new "Industrial Precision" design of the GMC's and whatever you want to call the Cadillac's. Where are the Bill Mitchell's, Harley Earl's or Larry Shinoda's of this generation? (By the way, it's not only GM, I just saw pictures of the new Nissan "Z" car and think it's horrible. Kinda looks like a fat little hamster with wheels.)<p>[This message has been edited by wsc00743 (edited 01-23-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 24, 2001 Share Posted January 24, 2001 It is a great looking car, but can't they put an OHC in the 3.8 instead of putting in the 3.4. 3.8 is Buick's motor, and should not be replaced, updated, but definitely should not be replaced. It has been tried and true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
86 2dr.ltd Posted January 25, 2001 Share Posted January 25, 2001 Yes,RWD has better handling feel and is better on dry roads.I certainly wouldnt shoot down everything that wasnt RWD and V8.The V6 is Buicks pride and joy and is no gutless wonder in todays lighter cars.It does however lack the performance of other 4&6 cyl with OHC.There was a lot of wasted iron in those older cars,and them days is gone.<P>The well will run dry.<P>I agree a few more folds in the sheet metal would be refreshing,but Im getting used to the newer styling I just think they could do more.Funny how their not less expensive now without the chrome and stainless.Must be that "high-tec"thing??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 25, 2001 Share Posted January 25, 2001 [here we go again...]<P>>>"Swedish cars aren't supposed to be style driven "constantly morphing" vehicle lines like most other cars are marketed. Their Checker-like permenance of character is supposed to be a virtue."<<<P>Dave, please tell me, who decides these things? From a styling standpoint, why should an absense of change be considered a virtue? Is the Saab so GD perfect that they can't try a new profile after 20 years? I need an explaination as to why certain vehicles (Volvo, Saab, BMW) that maintain the same basic stale styling & design for 10, 15 or more years remain desireable. <P>Further, how does the (say) BMW 7-series buyer justify spending $50,000-75,000 more (or whatever the price spread may be) than the 3-series buyer? Does he feel he is getting $50K more car? Of course... he's not. (Is the 3-series buyer silently laughing at him then?) Does he feel that his car's nondescript and unimaginative styling makes him a standout & the envy of his fellow motorists? Stop already: the car is invisible. Are these ridiculous situations actually selling cars? <P>Holy crap: they are! I must conclude (someone enlighten me) that perceptions -both real & imaginary- have overpowered the aesthetic obvious so totally for these consumers that manufacturers are able to make stupid amounts of money from it. Real (& imaginary) credit for build quality, performance & engineering have so infused the reputation of these manufacturers that they are able to pawn off lack luster design and still be sucessful. <P>On another front: Remember the ads in the '80s where Volvo -ever touting their 'safety cage' indestructability- lowered a large box truck on the roof of a Volvo sedan & nothing collapsed? THE SHOCKS DIDN'T EVEN COMPRESS! What the hell were they thinking? They were soon challenged by some truth-in-advertising concern & admitted they had welded hundreds of pounds of reinforcing steel inside the sedan to support the weight of the box truck. That's nothing but outright fraud, my friends. Sales reprocussions: none that I'm aware of. <P>It really stinks down here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 25, 2001 Share Posted January 25, 2001 86 2dr.ltd;<P>Isn't it funny how the American car makers have gotten away from chrome (European influence?) while Harley Davidson (and all the HD copies) absolutely love the stuff. I don't think HD is having trouble selling their motorcycles and you sure can't beat their resale value. So do people really want all this "hi-tech" stuff. Makes you wonder. <BR> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jyrki Posted January 25, 2001 Share Posted January 25, 2001 I would say the big three lost the game already in the late 70's and 80's, when they were forced to concentrate on minimizing pollution. They just kept producing those dull square coffins, lacking design, power and engineering innovation. Thru the 90's the American designers and engineers gradually woke up from a 20-year sleep, but something else happened. The Americans are now copying the European and Japanese cars, being a BIG mistake. People, both in USA and abroad, used to buy American cars because they were so distinctively American. Nowadays you can't tell an American car from the others. And why did you GM and Ford send your best designers to Europe when you acquired all those European brands? Look at the styling of Jaguar and Volvo now, for instance! You are going to smaller and smaller cars, all FWD, and smaller engines, while the Europeans and Japs are going to bigger cars and engines, and more chrome. Did the Japanese ever succeed in copying Harley-Davidson? NO, and never will. If H-D had went up into copying Japanese, it would have lost the game long ago. People went to trucks and SUV's because they were and are still honestly American, with big V-8's and RWD (I think this has something to do with legislation also - I think utility vehicles are allowed more pollution and fuel consumption than passenger cars?)<BR>So, while small FWD's are great, please wake up and start making fullsize RWD cars again with ample power and innovative design - just copy the cockpit ergonomics from Europeans <P>I am European but have never owned anything but GM USA, because I USED TO love American cars. However I do not anymore. Japs and European are boring, too, but I feel I get more for the money. I wouldn't buy Swedish, though. I will buy American again, provided cars like Blackhawk see production. PT-Cruiser is nice but extremely sluggish. Dang it Chrysler, go turbo it if you don't know how to make power otherwise. European and Japs make twice the power from same size engine. And for you, American customers, stop buying European just because they are "continental". I do understand you buy Japanese because they make Japs-like cars better, and noone makes American cars anymore.<BR>Jyrki<BR>Finland Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now