End of Buick Motor Division

[FireballV8]

I have heard that GM is waiting till the end of the quarter to decide if it will keep Buick or kill it like Olds. Has anyone heard about this or has further info?

I was told GM wants to focus only on Cad, Chevy, Pontiac & GMC.

I hope its not true.

[NTX5467]

In reality, the demise of Olds probably started in the middle '80s, back when they wanted to bank on the "Cutlass" name and put it on most every model except for the larger cars. That was when sales plateaued due to what probably was some use of Olds profits to fund other GM projects, like rebuilding Cadillac back then. It was obvious they weren't spending quite as much money as they previously had to keep the vehicles looking fresh.

I don't feel that funds to build Saturn were a significan issue in this area either as it seemed that Olds was not "supposed" to have any great models back then. When the Quad4 came out, there was a companion concept Quad8 version with an instant 300 horsepower for the Olds 98--except that no automatic transaxle existed that could hold that much power. No money was spent on that V-8, but the future Cadillac "world class" NorthStar was mentioned within about a year later. At that time, Olds was perceived to be a strong brand, as it was, but when you don't spend any money on the vehicles and then let other things take their toll on the Oldsmobile product line, what started happening was the basis for what happened in recent history.

Everyone talks about how the Buick line is limited in scope with fewer models than other divisions have and the vehicles have been around for a good while with few changes other than colors and trim codes. BUT, what the press and others DO NOT mention is how profitable the Buick division has been, even in a shrinking market. Just as Mercury is making money for Ford, Buick is making money for GM. The extent of this is not known to outsiders, but all indications are that it is happening. Just as GM will keep supplying parts for older cars as long as there is a viable demand, as long as Buick is profitable for GM, it'll be around for a long while. Buick sales, even with fewer models, have been strong in spite of the economy. They might not have been as great as in more recent and better economic times, but the total volume is nothing to sneeze at.

Yes, GM corporate has been on a "combination" strategy orientation since the later '70s. When these combination strategies were initiated, it was for cost savings via combining the various duplicity of function of the independent divisions in to a more competitive corporate entity. Whether these complete combinations strategies, as they related to the individual divisions, were beneficial or seemed to kill the internal competitiveness of GM (as has been mentioned) can lead to endless discussions and speculation.

In reality, there IS a place for a vehicle in the orientation of Buick in the GM Vehicle Family now and in the future just as there has been in the past. Similar with Mercury too! There was a place for Oldsmobile too, but it seemed to be squeezed out as Pontiac moved upward and Buick moved downward just a hair, just as Dodge and Chrysler did with DeSoto in the early '60s.

In many respects, there was no real reason for Olds to go away. I have my own orientations on that subject and will not get into that here. Mr. Lutz has been quoted as saying to the effect that Olds could have been saved if he'd been there sooner. Unfortunately, the corporate powers that be already had Olds in their sites for extinction back in the early '90s (as I understand it). It's strange that many niche brands make do with substantially less volume that what Olds was selling. I'll stop there.

We know that a new mid-size Buick will be out in 2005. New engines are on the way too! If you were at the post-meal banquet event in Flint, were you paying attention to what Bob Lutz said in the "Happy Birthday, Buick" segments? When Bob Lutz says "The best is yet to come", from what I have read about Mr. Lutz, you'd better hang onto your seat to see what happens.

I've also read about a new luxury coupe for Buick too. Probably too early for any real information on that, other than it's being seriously considered. After all, with the Sigma Platform Cadillac CTS and SRX, plus a USA-built GTO in a couple of years, having a Buick version could be a possibility--key word "could". I keep reading that a vehicle called "Bengal" is under consideration, but a good business case must be developed for whatever Buick does. Of course, many of us would like to see The Blackhawk in limited production too.

None of us can predict another 35 or so years into the future. If we keep buying Buicks and Buick re-establishes and maintains itself as the Style Leader at GM and in the USA, then it should have very good longevity as it once again becomes an "aspirational vehicle" that people WANT to own--people of ALL ages.

Some people keep talking about "too many models" of new vehicles for sale in the USA today. Back when it was just GM, Ford, and Chrysler (the original), there were millions of build possibilities of model, engine, transmission, colors, interior trim, etc. This was the hallmark of the American automobile industry--unlike the Asian brands that had very limited build variations. It seems that whenever the USA brands cut back on variations of models, the imports move into the void and make those market segment work for them. End result, as everyone talks about decreasing the number of models, here come new car companies into the mix that just proliferate the numbers further.

Personally, I feel it's unfortunate what happened to Olds, but with the continued strength of Buick and the corporate committments being made to future Buicks, I would certainly hope that Buick will continue to be a financial pillar supporting the future business entity known as General Motors--just as it did in the beginning.

Happy Birthday, Buick! And many more!

Enjoy!

NTX5467

[Guest]

I think all GM divisions need to go back to having strong leaders. Buick needs another Hsrlow Curtice. Just like Pontiac had Bunkie Knudson and so on. Hell, I am not even sure who is in chareg of Buick now (sorry wasn't able to go the centennial)

Bryan

[Guest imported_PackardV8]

I'm guessing that GM is positioning product lines for 2wo disjoint future conditions: A globalized marketing and production scheme and a world wide economic change.

The B.P.O. (Buick,Pontica, Olds) and CC (Chev, Cad) concept began about 1980 and has roots back to the early 50's or at least to some significant degree. A good yard stick to measure this is to look at the GM Tec-Cnter in Warren. The 'East SIDE of the Tracks) was completely Chevy (probably still is ) while the remaining half was all other GM products combined. REMEMBER THAT CHEVROLET HAS AND ALWAYS WILL BE THE BREAD AND BUTTER CAR OF GM!!! Chevy at least historically has outstripped all other divisions combined.

Cadillac required very little overhead. Up until about the late 1980's Cad was manufactured at its original Clark and Scott plant not far from Briggs stadium while the BPO got scattered about among different facilities like Chevy.

NOW, dont get me wrong, I like Buick as much as anyone. Especialy the pre-1980 Buicks and the more recent FULL size models. I mean the Buick is just as fine and wonderful as any Cadillac so really whay buy a Cadillac????.

Nonetheless, I'm guessing that we will see GM become more of a holding company or parent company of other nameplates. Just like 1920's and 1930's when GM bought companies like Oakland they will now wait for impemding economic conditions to buy up current manufacturers.

What's good for GM is good for America. Amen and Amen.

[Matt Harwood]

I think GM has to move into the 21st century, so to speak. They have each division trying to be all things to all people. They all offer sedans, coupes, trucks, SUVs, minivans, etc. and they can't possibly make all of them competitive--they're spreading their money too thin. Then there's that idea that won't die, that young people buy a Chevrolet, then move up to a Pontiac, then to Buick then to Cadillac. That isn't happening any more the way it did in the 40s-60s, but they won't admit it.

GM's problems are with management not seeing the big picture, not being able to see where the global market is going and how to compete there. Chevrolet makes great trucks and the Corvette. Let them stick to that and do it well. Pontiac can have the sporty 4-door sedans and coupes like the GTO. Buick can be a conservative, offering reasonable luxury and they could probably put the minivans here, too, like the Rendezvous. And Cadillac should continue doing what they're doing--they're the only division that seems to have their eye on the game.

Trying to market the same car under three different nameplates powered by a 40 year-old engine is just stupid. Why compete with yourself? Build the best car in each <span style="font-style: italic"><span style="font-weight: bold">segment</span></span> and the customers will come. But trying to attract every customer with every division is just dividing your troops in the face of overwhelming competition. Chevrolet isn't America's car anymore--Toyota is (for all intents and purposes, Toyota is now the #3 automaker in the US). Kids today didn't grow up with the family Chevy, they grew up with the family Camry or Accord. They are not, and never will be, GM customers.

Don't even get me started on the fiasco that is Saturn--that's just throwing good money after bad.

Finally, to keep this on-topic, our beloved Buick, the forgotten step-child of the GM hierarchy. There aren't many people around who actually <span style="font-style: italic">lust</span> after a Buick. People buy them because (1) they always have, or (2) the deal is just too good to pass up (this is why my father bought one, even though it is a really crappy car). The Rendezvous is a minor hit, as will be the Rainier, but what Buick needs to do is determine its <span style="font-style: italic">segment</span> and hit it with all the resources the world's biggest automaker has at its disposal. They can't keep churning out weak-kneed facsimiles of luxury cars from the 70s, they have to build products that people want <span style="font-style: italic">today</span>. Their average customer age is 63 or something. That means half of all their customers are <span style="font-style: italic">older</span> than that! Who will buy Buicks when those people die? It isn't as if I'll hit a certain age and suddenly lust after a FWD LeSabre powered by a dinosaur cast-iron boat anchor. I'll shop elsewhere.

I've gone on too long. If you're interested in my other thoughts on the trouble GM finds itself in, take a look at my "Spinning My Tires" editorial from last month (July). Here's a link.

There are a lot of problems at GM. Getting rid of Oldsmobile, as much as I hate to say it, was probably a step in the right direction. No company can be all things to all people, let alone have five divisions trying to do it. Each division should do what it does best, and build great product. That's all there is to it, really--build great products and the customers will come. It's that easy, but nobody at GM seems to get it.

[Guest]

In 25 words or less, Buick's problem is its lack of product. You can buy a 4-dr. sedan Buick or a 4-dr. SUV Buick. Nothing else. Talk about unexciting...! A division that limited and that lacking in imagination deserves to be killed. And then they wonder why the average new Buick buyer is 63 years old???

Pete Phillips, BCA #7338

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Their average customer age is 63 or something. That means half of all their customers are older than that! Who will buy Buicks when those people die? </div></div>

If that were true Buick wouldn't be in half the mess that they're in!

An <span style="font-style: italic">average</span> age of 63 means that is the weighted center of the distribution curve. It is <span style="font-weight: bold">not</span> a symetrical curve! There simply can't be as many people buying Buicks at age 28 as their are at age 98!

Matt's description of the age 63 would apply to the <span style="font-style: italic">median</span> age of Buick purchasers. That number is certainly much higher, probably over age 70. Don't expect anyone to be publishing it, it's not exactly something GM's going to be proud of.

<span style="font-style: italic">And</span> that number has been declining due to the influence of the Rendezvous. Two years ago I remember reading that the average age for Buick had advanced to <span style="font-weight: bold">67</span>, beyond even Cadillac's tradionally (way too) high number.

For reference, BMW's average age of purchase has now risen to 54, which is causing <span style="font-style: italic">them</span> concern! The average accross all brands is 48.

I found these average age results posted by J.D. Powers (who in my opinion can be a little skewed at times since their bread and butter is selling the publishing rights of the results to the company whose results are most favorable). The numbers are about 10 years lower than any other's I've found published, but it gives some idea of relative rank. These numbers were published in March of 2002:

<span style="font-weight: bold"> [color:"brown"]Average age of buyers, by brand:

Plymouth 38

Mitsubishi 38

Volkswagen 38

Honda 41

Isuzu 41

Kia 41

Land Rover 41

Mazda 41

Nissan 41

BMW 42

Dodge 42

Jeep 42

Ford 42

Pontiac 42

Acura 42

Hyundai 42

Suzuki 42

Audi 42

Daewoo 43

Chevrolet 43

Porsche 43

Saab 43

GMC 44

Toyota 44

Volvo 44

Mercedes-Benz 45

Infiniti 45

Subaru 45

Oldsmobile 46

Saturn 46

Chrysler 47

Lexus 47

Jaguar 49

Mercury 50

Lincoln 51

Cadillac 53

Buick 57

Source: J.D. Power & Associates </span>

<span style="font-style: italic">(the results for Plymouth can be discounted since they were reduced to nothing but Neon sales by this point)</span>

It is interesting to note that these figures were published in an article explaining that <span style="font-style: italic">Toyota</span> was concerned about it's aging clientele and that's why it was introducing the <span style="font-style: italic">Scion</span> brand. Mid-pack was too high for them!

Notice how little correlation there is between relative cost and owner age. Buick buyers are <span style="font-weight: bold">NOT</span> old because they're rich, and don't think that Buick doesn't know that. Also note that (Pontiac aside) GM's Divisions (oops, I mean <span style="font-style: italic">Brands</span>) are consistently sold to an older clientele than their direct competators. Even Saturn!

Buick's in trouble. Buick's in trouble because GM's in trouble. If GM bails on Buick instead of fixing the trouble with <span style="font-style: italic"><span style="font-weight: bold">product</span></span>, there may be no hope for the corporation as a whole.

[NTX5467]

Part of what made General Motors great in the prior decades was that it DID compete with itself. This was before the off-shore competitors became as allegedly strong as they are now.

Chevy offered vehicles from economy to really nice family cars. Small cars, midsize cars, full size cars, convertibles, coupes, sedans, wagons, and ventured into the luxury field with the Caprice in mid-year 1965. Pontiac and Olds were similar, just as Buick tended to be. Yes, each division could be all things to the customer in their respective price ranges.

Yes, there was also some price overlap in the mix too. A high line Impala would be similar to a base model Catalina or Olds Delta 88 or even a LeSabre. Remember that it was the 3 year time payment contract by GMAC that let Buick outsell Plymouth in the middle '50s?

Back then, each dealership was a stand alone store, typically with only ONE franchise. Now, such single franchise stores are rare, except for Chevy and Cadillac--and those are diminishing with the GM combination strategy.

Yes, in those early days the GM Moveup Strategy worked. When Chevy started offering the fancy Caprice, it recognized the fact that once people were happy with a Chevy and didn't want to buy anything else, they would buy a fancy Chevy. Cadillac protested loudly in the early '70s due to some of the "baby Cadillac" look of the Caprices back then. Yet, this move by Chevy did not water down the basic strategy of how GM covered their various bases in the price ranges.

As for demographics, no one started worrying about that until about 10 years ago. Suddenly, the newer marketing types looked up and there were no real young people in the mix anymore. Reason? Probably not paying attention to the off-shore competitors or deluded into thinking that "bells and whistles" sold vehicles.

In the '80s, GM seemed bent on proving that their products were competitive by having and matching the features of other vehicles. Yet the GM 2.5L 4 cylinder did not typically match the refinement of the competition's same size engine. Not to sound flaky, but size is important so long as the refinement is there. GM's products from the middle '80s were solid, good products, but didn't really break any new ground as most of the development work money was going elsewhere. For other future products as they started trying to fix what they'd let happen.

Yes, most of these things seemed to happen when the financial people were in control of the corporation. When the basic "division" organization was being dismantled from what it had been. Sure, with emissions and safety issues looming large, why is it necessary to have each division with engine plants, foundries, design staffs, etc? Only thing IS that when that prior organization is combined, each division had their own culture and way of doing things that was now "dead". Former competitors now were on the same team, so to speak. Sure, each division was a part of the larger GM entity, but each division was also responsible as their own profit center (which they should be).

When GM was great, in prior decades, each division had their own power figures. The General Manager, the Chief Engineer, etc. THOSE people made each division what it was. These upper level managers were moved around in the corporation from division to division to continue their successes and build their expertise for the eventual rise to the 14th floor in the GM Building. This is why each division had differently designed engines that were part of the fabric of each division's vehicles. Similar with transmissions and rear axles too. Each one tailored to the mission statement of each respective division. It worked then and it worked very well.

Each division was competing in various ways with each other. Profits, assembly expenses, whatever. It appeared that what happened in those areas at Ford or Chrysler were not THAT important, in some cases.

Overlapping products? Sure. When you bought a Chevy, it was for its value and such. It was the entry level GM line and also the highest volume line. Then it went to Pontiac, Olds, Buick, and Cadillac. Even then, there were the orientations that a Chevy Caprice was as nice as a ________ and for less money. Everyone has their own orientations in that area while others want that name on the grille.

To me, the error with Olds was that it was repositioned against the wrong "Import" lines. Mitsubishi might have been better than Lexus or Infinity, for example, or even Jaguar. Look at the late, great Intrigue and how it compares to the S-Type Jag in size and such. Not to mention the Lincoln LS.

See any similarities to the cosmetics of a Lexus sedan and a Buick Regal? In the right color combinations (including the black paint on the rocker panels of the Regal), the Regal LS looks as good as the Lexus.

When the combination strategies with respect to GM's "divisions" AND the orientation of the '80s that all retailers needed as many lines to sell as they could handle, then the similar products were perceived to be a problem. Too many choices for the consumer? The choices were always there, just several blocks apart.

One thing that is being re-understood is that a Cadillac customer does not always want to partonize the same facility as a Chevrolet customer. These are two entirely different breeds of customer. Buick customers and traditional Olds customers for the larger cars want bench seats and column shifts (the fact that Olds could not deliver that in the Aurora was one reason the long time Olds Delta 88 customers left Olds in later history), yet those things in the midsize cars are not that big of a deal, usually. Yes, it's an age thing, possibly.

Interestingly, as GM tries to shun the "old" customer, Lincoln has said they like them as they just keep on buying Town Cars year after year. People in that age demographic don't always want the latest design vehicles, but something they are used to and can depend on to be there. But, Lincoln also has the LS model and other properties in the hotter segments where the age demograhics and buyer concerns are different too.

The one thing that hasn't been mentioned is that each plant has to have a certain amount of volume in it to remain financially viable. Hence, what happens with Impala will affect Grand Prix and Regal too. Not to mention LeSabre, Bonneville, DeVille. Similar with Grand AM and Alero. And, with the more global orientation, Opel in Germany and Holden in Australia.

Right now, GM's getting the next gen smaller cars ready to roll out of the plants. I suspect that if the existing Caprice and Cadillac volume has been greater for the Arlington plant, we would have not seen the last generation of Roadmaster happen. Therefore, what happens with Buick product will be tied to what the other divisions do moreso than in the past. I suspect that this interrelationship was a factor with the demise of Olds, unfortunately.

In the future, it appears that we will be moving into selective "all things" within a price demographic for the vehicle lines. Just because Buick is a higher level GM vehicle doesn't mean their owners might not want something smaller than a midsize car. Yet, such downmarker ventures are tricky, as Mercedes is finding out.

As for the economy side of things, the Buick 3800 V-6 engine (even if it IS old and has a camshaft in the block!) is an outstanding fuel economy and power engine. It's EPA highway figures are higher than many imports that are considered to be economy cars. Economy with good performance is its hallmark. Meaning you don't have to have a cramped beater to get good fuel economy. I challenge anyone that considers that engine to be old and outdated just because it does not have overhead camshafts to get into a Pontiac GTP Comp G and see how that old tech "torque" engine lay's a car length of expensive BFG rubber with the traction control turned on and then say "It doesn't work"! And still has an EPA highway of about 27mpg too.

Sure, GM's got a new line of V-6 engines ready to start being in production. After all, tooling wears out with time and age and it suddenly gets cheaper to do something neat with the same money you'd spend to refresh the existing tooling. It opens opportunities to upgrade the technologies in production and combustion dynamics too. While good things are good, the future will always need to have some progression in technology. Key thing is to not jump on the bandwagon of new for new's sake as those ventures can erode profits too much too soon AND make sure that what's replacing the prior stuff really is an improvement.

In short, it's not so much GM's product as it is GM's marketing. Sure, some more refinement is necessary in the modern and future marketplace, but when you've been around the imports and the domestics, the domestics aren't nearly so bad as they've been made out to be. Most of those stories started in the '70s and this is now 30 years later--things have changed because they had to change.

I'll concur with Pete's "no excitement" orientation. When chrome went away as styling accents, excitement tended to diminish. Then came safety and emissions "diversions" and the cosmetic details became somewhat bland by comparison. 2-door hardtops were probably a result of federal side impact regulations, but there are ways around those things too--if the money's there to develop them AND the customer will buy them. But, "no excitement" (as we've known it in the past) isn't necessarily what the younger breed of customer that did not grow up with those things considers to be exciting. Many have found the Regal LS and GS to make better alternatives to the Mitsus and such for their family cars AND they've discovered the bleed-over from the Grand Prix for performance modifications too. These are confirmed Buick customers and we just need to harness them for future products.

Sorry for the length, but it's a somewhat complicated mix of situations.

Enjoy!

NTX5467

[Matt Harwood]

NTX, I have to agree with you--what worked before won't work today or tomorrow. But I think you're being too kind with regards to today's GM product lineup (though I'll forgive you because you're in the trenches every day working with the hardware). The problem isn't that the cars are unexciting, it is that they are unexciting <span style="font-style: italic">and</span> use cheap materials <span style="font-style: italic">and</span> charge as much as other brands with better reputations.

GM has taken a beating in the past 20 years, and deservedly so. They do focus groups using people who already own their stuff so that they get positive reinforcement--basically middle management can say to the top brass, "See, people love what we're doing!" (witness the current Monte Carlo, for instance). Instead, they should be asking BMW drivers why they aren't driving that Grand Prix GTP Comp G. I'll bet the BMW guys wouldn't even consider the Pontiac. Neither will the Audi A4 drivers, nor the Lexus drivers, nor the Infiniti drivers, nor the Mercedes drivers, nor the Jaguar drivers, nor the, well, you get the point. They want to compete in this arena, but they show up to a gun fight with a pocket knife. Sure, it feels great to stand by the old American stand-by, torque. We make more torque. Well, hell, you only have a supercharger on a 3.8 liter motor to make it! To me, a modern motor at 3.8 liters should make 250 horsepower naturally aspirated, no questions asked. Nissan puts 260 horsepower in their bread and butter Altima that costs $10 grand less than the Pontiac, and the car is lighter and more nimble, too! Who, exactly, does GM think they are selling to?

And that's the problem. They've been doing the same-old-same-old for so many years that they actually believe their own hype (apologies to Dave@Moon). Give a hundred people $32,000 dollars and tell them to buy one of these cars:

1) BMW 3-series

2) Audi A4

3) Mercedes-Benz C-Class

4) Pontiac Grand Prix GTP Comp G

You'll get 100 different lists, but I'll wager that more than 90 of them put the Pontiac at #4. Just because the engine is powerful, that doesn't make it the best choice. And GM figures that we, as consumers, are dumb enough to just buy the marketing and purchase the car based on it. I've owned an A4, I've driven a BMW 325i, and the holistic approach to the car shows. In a GM car, it's basically, "Good power, but where are the brakes. And boy, aren't these gauges nice and...orange..." The whole has to be greater than the sum of its parts these days, and using that hoary old 3.8, regardless of power and efficiency ratings, just doesn't get it done. Same goes for the tired old 2.5L 4-cylinders and the wheezing 3.4L V6. The <span style="font-style: italic">experience</span> in GM cars compared to their competition is where the problem lies. I can buy a lot of refinement for my dollar at any of GM's competitors' stores. At GM, I get a big rebate an 0% financing. Nice, but not what I want out of a car. The whole experience, from the way the steering wheel materials feel to the way the tires sound on the road is what makes a car great. Putting a smaller pulley on the supercharger and adding some flashy plastic bodywork doesn't.

What does it say to you that GM has to price their products up to 20% less than the competition just to get them out the door? Or that they have built-in incentives factored into the financials before the car is even introduced? It means that they can't compete on equal footing. Yet.

I'm hopeful that they've opened their eyes. There are some very good products coming out of GM in the next few months, and they're going to be worlds better than what we got in the past. But it's going to take a long, long, long time to get over the public perception problem they have--they've lost two generations of buyers to the imports because of their quality. That will be hard to overcome, no matter how good the products are...

Aren't we wordy today!

[ranchero]

Great discussion and good reading. One minor correction and a general comment about the future of GM and Buick. While Chevrolet for many years was a cash cow for GM, at one time the financial heart of GM was Buick. Buick was, during the reign of Walter Chrysler, the engine that drove GM. These days are not likely to appear again but Buick did matter greatly at one time. Oldsmobile is gone. Saturn and Buick may be in jeopardy for reasons that go well beyond marketing. Mainly, GM (and Ford) are in dire financial straits because of horrible contracts they have with the UAW. They have tremendous obligations to retirees. Fewer and fewer workers and a smaller and smaller sales base are supporting increasing retirement benefits, especially rising costs for medical care. GM and Ford have hoped to get out of this corner by increasing volume. They have obligations to the UAW to keep workers on the job, so they can not reduce volume and increase prices. They have to pump out a lot of volume to keep the union guys on the job. This means poor quality, lack of money for development, rebates, rental fleet cars and consumers who would rather buy Japanese or German. Given the failing economics at GM and Ford, there may be limited futures for brands such as Buick, Saturn and Mercury.

[Guest 52buick72r]

I may stray off center on this, but I am going to offer my opinion if nobody minds. I saw my first Buick when I was 6. It was also the first time I sat & rode in one. The owner was a life-long friend of the family, so I always saw it. when I was 24, I finally bought it, a 1952 Roadmaster 72R for a mere 5K. Now, at that time, my first daily driver was given to me by my parents so that I could go to college. It was a 1983 Nissan Maxima. It was rusty, but ran. My folks bought it new, when gas milage was an issue. I sold it with 288,000 miles on it when I bought my first new car, a 1992 Nissan Stanza. The sole reason, as a recent college grad with 3, yes 3, part-time jobs, it was the ONLY car I could afford! It was at that point I was saving up for an old Buick. (Flash to the start of this opinion of mine). I sold that when my folks aquired a new car, and they passed on a 1994 Toyota Corolla to me...2 years newer, and with a mortgage and my first marrage, that was about ALL I COULD AFFORD, a USED car. four years later, and at age 30, I have finally been able to afford my wife a new car....a 2003 Buick, Century! My wife and I are soo happy with the car. It is as comfortable and as quite and smooth riding as my 52 Buick. It took me a long time to own my first NEW Buick, but I am proud of it. There were a few "offerings" on this topic that made mention that over half of the Buick buyers were over 63 or so. Well, out here on the east coast of CT, most of whom I see buying Buick are the 40-somethings! Anyone with gray hair (no offence to anyone, I have gray popping in now too) is still driving the Buick they bought back in the 80's when it was new. Why? It seems to me people with fixed incomes are more likely to hold onto their car, no matter what it is. I see more Buicks than any other U.S.A. mfg, with the exception of the imports. And of those owners? 20-somethings who CAN'T afford the 23,000+ cars. The cars they are driving are the often used, cheep, plastic 2-door coups. they modify the tails lights, put on coffee can mufflers that sound like a pack of bees, and go to Maaco for fresh paint. My point being, untill one slows down in life a bit, gets a full-time job for more than 3 years, and starts a family, NOBODY is going to be buying ANY car over 25K.

I have a new friend I want to tell you about. I met him over the summer when he walked past my house with his girlfriend. I was washing my 52 in the driveway. To make a long story short, he's 16 and ownes a 1970 (I think) Skylark Custom. Ok, it's not stock anymore, but he was interested in Buicks. I saw an article in an issue of the Bugle this year talking about the lack of new, younger members. Here's why, and I'll shut up. When I was 24, nobody was interested in talking to a "kid", they were too busy putting thier 27th coat of wax on their car for yet another trophie. If we start talking to these "kids" about WHATEVER U.S. car we drive, old or new, maybe some of these "kids" will hang around with us old farts and help keep these nameplates alive for years to come. I want to buy the new Ranier, but at 35 to 38K I am going to have to wait a couple of years. Simple math....I can't afford it yet.

I am a proud BUICK owner, a BCA member and went to the 100th in Flint. Not too many mfg's can say that they have been around for 100. If you were there, you would have heard during the closing that Buick has plans for 5, yes 5, new models in the next couple of years, including the Ranier. I CAN'T wait to see them. I think Buick is in good hands right now.

[BUICK RACER]

The Rainer is going to be a hit for Buick, a 3800 in a Rendezvous would have been a bigger hit, old school or not, it's a tried and true engine that all GM

Mechanics would rather work on than a 3.1, 3.4, or other v-6 engine. It works and gets mileage, but with the Rendezvous being built in Mexico, it makes no sense to ship engines from Flint to MX, hence the 3.1 already built nearby! I have been driving a 2004 GMC Envoy, with GPS, DVD, XM radio for the last 2 weeks, and for the most part it is an awesome vehicle, yesterday, I traded vehicles with a fellow employee, that needed a vehicle to transport his daughter to college and her stuff to Arkansas and got his 2003 Buick Ultra to drive til Monday, talk about a really nice car, and I'm a truck girl all the way, I already told my Mom, this car would be a nice replacement for her "Creampuff" '95 Riviera. It has portholes, it has a supercharged 3800 V6, has a comfortable interior, not too much technology, maybe a little with the headsup display. But drives, rides, wins at the stop light power, and the interior is not gaudy, and the paint is awesome, light blue metallic. Not something Mom or I would want, but it is pretty.After the Centennial Celebration presentation by Roger Adams, Buick Brand Manager it appears that there in no stopping Buick to become the leader in luxury cars, just behind Cadillac. Sure there's the Rainer, should be at your local dealerships in the next couple of weeks, a tweeked Regal/Century as both names go away, that will now be know as LaCrosee. Should be a cross over station wagon, sedan, so late in the market, but hopefully can kick the market's butt. Then the promise of a 2 door, convertible, niche car built at the Craft Center with the SSR, rear wheel drive, could be called Bengal, look for that in the 2006 model year! Buick not going away, what we need is a low slung station wagon, like the Volvo with duel exhaust, big engine, that we all could enjoy owning and would be affordable for all! Just my two cents, and insite from being an 24.7 year GM employee and customer!

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> what we need is a low slung station wagon, like the Volvo with duel exhaust, big engine, that we all could enjoy owning and would be affordable for all! </div></div>

Amen! Add Lexus-like build and design quality for GM's "Lexus brand" and I think we're all on board. <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

[Guest my3buicks]

My Rendezvous may not yet be the equal to the Lexas counterpart, but I find I get alot of looks while driving it. I work in a very upscale suburb of Pittsburgh and alot of my clients are impressed with it and several have commented on it being a bargain compaired to the Lexus. It does what it is supposed to do very well, looks good doing it, and will probably last as long as it's counterparts when all is said and done. Now I will say my next one will be a Rendezvous ULTRA : )

[NTX5467]

That "low slung station wagon" is currently called "Cadillac SRX" and maybe Buick could have a version of that one too! In fact, maybe even a version of the Sigma coupe when it gets online up here too????

The SRX is one awesome vehicle. I drove several last week at a dealer training event. The Lexus RX300, as one guy put it (after the handling course portion) belongs only on straight roads. The Volvo wagon, even with its "anti-tip" technology, has its shortcomings when compared to the SRX--even on safety issues. The only real competition, performance wise, is the BMW X5 V-8, but it's not designed to go to Home Depot.

Sometimes, it has seemed that market research has been talking to not enough of the "right people" in the past. It's interesting what Mr. Lutz says about focus groups and market research in his book "GUTS", that was written prior to his current GM residency.

One thing I've noticed, Matt, is that many buyers of the more allegedly desireable higher end luxury makes, buy those vehicle NOT for their performance or gadgets, but for the impression it makes with others at work or the way it looks in their driveway. Several of our managers at work viewed a Cadillac focus group with Lexus owners about a year ago. The idea was to get some information about what they liked about their ownership experience and such. One proud Lexus owner stated that HIS car was built in Germany. OUCH! or WHOOPS! depending on how you look at that.

Another friend used to shuttle vehicles for a Dallas Lexus dealership. Some of the customers did not like having a Toyota Camry to drive as a service loan car, even when they had the similar Lexus vehicle in their garage. So, to me, it's all about "perception" and such instead of what's actually there.

BMW drivers like the fact they can get free maintenance for their car as part of the deal. But that's all figured into the base price of the vehicle. Plus free loaner vehicles during service. Every amenity that these higher end import owners get is figured into the cost of doing business somewhere, but that's just the way the game is played. Of course, those who can afford those cars really don't mind or consider that fact.

I'll concur that Audi and the other vehicles Matt mentioned are first rate performance vehicles. They'll have decent reliability and such too. Nice fit and finish also.

We've talked about Pizzazz (and the lack thereof), but many mainstream owners are more interested in reliability, purchase price, and maintenance issues. Whether it's a young family with a used program car or someone that trades every year, these things are important from a utility standpoint. Just how much pizzazz does a Toyota Camry have? Yet it's a desired vehicle. Costs more than a base Impala, less room in the trunk and inside, less power in the 4 cylinder, etc. Build quality? Check the more recent JD Powers surveys.

I'll admit that I appreciate fine engineering as much as anyone, but I also know that it's very hard to beat the Buick 3800 V-6 and even the Chevy 60 degree V-6 (at this point in time) for fuel economy, "no problems", AND production cost. It's these reasons that while I eagerly await the next gen of V-6 engines from GM (which ought to be "kick ass" if they're as good as the EcoTec 4 cylinder!), but I also know that each car has it's own necessity to be a certain price when it gets to the end of the assembly line. So, you either spend it under the hood or put it elsewhere. With the LH cars, Chrysler managed to put neat engines under the hood (which, by the way, Matt, the 2nd gen 3.5L V-6s meet your power specs and also get very good highway fuel economy--from my own experiences) or you put it in the interior and places you can touch it. Chassis dynamics cost the same whether they are great, good, or mediocre. Struts cost the same either way too, but you can save some money on tires (probably one reason many Centurys come with Generals instead of Michelins?) if all that's important is that they ride smooth and hold air.

A friend used to sell Porsches in the '80s. He'd tell us about how trick they were and highly advanced they were. I'd counter that the 911 is nothing but a re-engineered, well finessed--50+ times over!--VW Beetle, from whence the old 356s sprang. He'd get flustered and couldn't really discount my observation. It was amusing. The current 911 doesn't look much like the old 356, but it's highly respected and desired. Similarly, the Buick 3.8L V-6 has undergone several engineering upgrades since it's first appearance. It, too, is highly respected for the great engine that it is. Hard to beat low production costs (compared to the SOHC or DOHC engines and all of their extra parts), very low warranty costs, and solid performance. But, as we all know, something better is just around the corner.

I know, Toyota and Nissan put high tech engines in their vehicles. Ever notice how the press nags about the inexpensive looking plastic in the new Nissan interiors? Just a few sentences after the complain about the torque steer? I noticed that most of the Nissan V-6 cars we sell have a limited slip differential in the front (which might negate the torque steer issue somewhat?). Or praise the V-6 Altima for its handling prowess and then talk about the rough ride? The Nissan Altima is a very impressive package, price and feature wise, even with the 2.5L 4 cylinder. Much more exciting than a Camry, for sure, but less sales than the Camry too. Look under the hood of a 4 cylinder Camry and everything you could ever hope to not work on is very easy to get to. Unfortunately the EcoTec in a Grand Am is not that way.

I know when I was in junior high and high school, talking cars was a great thing to do with friends and older people who worked on cars or were car enthusiasts. Finding a long time machine shop owner or (now/then retired) auto mechanic and talking with them was always a treat back then, just as now. All it takes is someone that doesn't mind getting their fingernails greasy (or used to) to take a younger auto enthusiast under their wings to help teach them about why some things are better than others and why some other things are marginal at best, to intensify the love of automobiles in the younger generations. Just preaching superiority will not get it, but explaining the superiority and why it is can be good. Then, you find several with different orientations and it all really falls into place!

I admire the really shined-up show vehicles, but I also like to see the unmolested vehicles in their natural state too. Personally, I like to see vehicles where the owners have done incognito upgrades and took the time to make it look "like it came that way", in a covert manner. A higher degree of execution, typically, than just some trick of the week in a magazine somewhere.

I believe we can generally agree that better days are ahead for Buick and GM, plus the automotive hobby in general. It will be hard to get past the miscues of the immediately past decades, but it can be done. GM did miss some market segments in prior times (a good 4 cylinder/5-speed Grand Am is one) and let the imports that did have those vehicles gain market share in the process. Some market segments were underserved too. We can all point fingers, but allocating blame doesn't necessarily move things forward into the future.

This is where WE come in. If there's a product in Buick that you'd like to see, let the GM operatives know about it. The other side of that is that if you commit to saying you'll buy something if they'll build it, it would be better if you weren't already deep in a monthly payment plan on a current vehicle that would prevent you getting that new Buick you've been wanting. After all, you'll have a couple of years before it happens anyway so you can be ready for when it might happen.

In the current time frame, Buick and GM does have some fine products in production now with more in the near future. We know they're good, but convincing the owner of another make that they are can be tough sometimes--especially when they "think" they need to be driving something else for whatever reason. The Buick and GM showings in the various surveys out there have been good and will continue to improve as time goes on.

Sure, an Audi A6 or supercharged A4 would be neat cars to run around in (and have decent utility too) just as a 3 or 5-series BMW would be. Unfortunately, those cars aren't for everybody. I suspect that not all of their owners fully respect them for their great engineering or handling prowess--it's that "name thing", just as telling someone you owned a Buick typically meant more then than now.

A few years ago, I rented a 300M and drove to Houston for a meeting. The Holiday Inn I was staying in had a youth group in town for a trip. One of them yelled and told me he liked my car. He added that when he got out of college, he was going to get one too. I smiled and thanked him. Point is, if Chrysler can get to that point pretty easily with neat products, so can Buick and GM. Like I said earlier, when Mr. Lutz says something neat's in the future, it most probably is. Look what happened when he was at Chrysler. Read his book and you'll probably see that he's done and will do many of the same things at GM too.

Enjoy!

NTX5467

[Guest sintid58]

Through the 80's and 90's I drove Chrysler mini vans because GM did not make a decent mini van. If Buick would have sold an almost good mini van I would have had one just because it said buick on it. GM still makes a second rate mini van with the rear seats set too low for adult comfort and the wrong motor (3400) available. GM seems to think they should make the engine decision for every one and they won't offer more that one engine per car line. A friend of mine has a 2001 1/2 ton Suburban and the only engine available is a mid sized V/8. The Chrysler mini vans I had were available with 3 different motors starting at 3.0 litre up to 3.8 litre. My daughters are now growing up and they would like to buy Buicks because of our link to the BCA and BDA and our long family history with Buick. We went car shopping the other day for my 17 year old and bought a 95 Skylark for her but they have both said if and when they look for a new car they don't think they would look at Buick, First because no 2 door models are available and second because of the lack of entry level cars(such as the old Special/Skylark). I am 47 and had a Rendevous only because it was the closest thing Buick ever marketed to a mini van. My wife loved it but it was too small (length) and didn't have the best thing from Buick (the 3800). What does the Automotive press say about the Rendevous UNDERPOWERED in spades. Having a supercharged 3800 would help that and the CAFE average. So what if there was a bulge in the hood. I am not exited at all about the Ranier. GM has for a long time played God with the engines in their cars. They killed off a grand idea in the Pontiac Fiero offering only a four cylinder with no power than at the last minute adding an under powered 6. I did hear on my satellite radio the other day that in the most recent JD Powers reliability survey that Buick was again number 3 overall which is great news for us all, but GM has a long way to go to be picking up more young buyers.

[Guest Skyking]

In another post I had mentioned we bought a newer car for my wife. A 2000 Buick Century Custom. This is the first Buick daily driver we had ever bought. The car drives nice, is comfortable, and looks as nice or better than the average car out there. We are extremely happy with this car. Last week we went out with some relatives and picked them up with our car. They have owned new Toyota Camrys, and Honda Accords for their last 4 or 5 cars. When they rode in our Buick, they couldn't get over the comfort & ride. They both said they never gave a new Buick a thought. It really made me feel good hearing this. I think the big problem today is people got a bad taste in the 70's & 80's with American cars and they will not go back to them. It's something that I don't see changing in the future no matter what the big 3 do. Something struck me very strange while I was in Flint. I noticed that no matter where we drove, or parked, the American cars out numbered the foriegn cars by a huge margin. I'm sure the whole state of Michigan is like this. Are they all wrong? Seeing this made me wonder.....Are the American people being lead like sheep?

[Guest AWBE]

BUICK IS THE ONLY ONE WORTH 2 HOOTS IN HADES!!!. All one has to do is look at the reliabilty ratings of any consumer research organizaton to see this. It is the only G.M. car I would consider to replace my Town Car and if it had rear wheel drive rather than that accursed front wheel drive , I would seriously consider it. The GM line (which at one time was all I would even consider buying ) <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" />,went down the tube in the 1980's and has never recovered. THAT'S WHY I NOW BUY FORD TRUCKS AND LINCOLN AUTOS.

[Matt Harwood]

<span style="font-weight: bold">Skyking,</span> I think the reason you don't see many foreign cars in the Detroit area is because most folks work for one of the Big Three. We took our Mazda Protege5 up to Flint, and I think we were one of three non-American cars we saw all weekend. It <span style="font-style: italic">was</span> kind of weird. And you're dead right about people not even considering GM products any more because of the past 20-30 years. This is exactly the problem they're facing and it will take an equal amount of time to get people back; it won't happen overnight. It's going to take <span style="font-weight: bold">one solid hit vehicle after another</span>--not another series of bland 4-doors with ancient drivetrains and stodgy styling that they can foist off on the rental car fleets.

GM is just trying to match what the competition is doing today, not taking the next step. To design and build a car that matches today's comptition takes 2-4 years. By then, the competition is ahead of you again and you're building a brand-new obsolete car. Or worse, you're just facelifting an old design and using marketing to convince people it is worth buying instead of letting it stand on its own merits. How come Honda can bring out an all-new Accord (usually with an all-new engine and transmission as well) every 4 years, but GM is using 30-year-old engines in cars that cost just as much?

And GM has to be consistent about it--you love your Century, but my father's 2001 Century is the most poorly constructed car I've ever seen. In the first six months, the driver's door panel came off in his hand, three of the four window motors stopped working, the rear defrost never worked, the paint looks like it was applied with a roller, the upholstery feels like the lining of a cheap suit, and it wanders all over the highway when you go over about 40 MPH despite 4 alignments at two different dealers. Good thing they gave him a $5000 rebate, 0% financing and knocked another $2500 off the sticker because he owned a Cadillac before that (an STS, equally poor in the quality department). He wanted a Maxima or the new G35 Infiniti sedan, but it just made better sense to buy a $14,000 Buick instead (though he's got me looking into the Infiniti again because he's completely fed up with the Buick). To me, that's pathetic. To discount a car $10,000 just to get people in the showrooms means they've got exactly nothing. Nothing at all.

I'm sorry to have gone on and on about this subject--you're all undoubtedly sick of my rant. But it's time for us to stop accepting mediocrity when better choices exist. Just because I'm a die-hard Buick fan doesn't mean I have to throw my money away on a new Buick. Yes, I'm a fan, but I'm not stupid with my money. I shop for value and bang for my buck and couldn't care less where it is built or by whom because this is a global economy today (Camaros were imports, Ford Crown Vics are imports, the Rendezvous is an import, etc.). Granted, the Century is probably one hell of a $14,000 car. However, it's a pretty poor excuse for a $25,000 car in light of what my $25,000 will buy me at the Honda or Toyota or Nissan or even the Hyundai showroom.

GM (and the UAW) have been counting on guys with that kind of blind loyalty to keep coming back for more of their yester-tech, paid-in-full-and-then-some tooling pieces of junk: "Hell, my father owned Buicks all his life, and so did his father!" Sure, back when Buick was great. They also count on selling to their employees with even sweeter deals than the one my father got (they get employee discounts AND the rebates!). And most of all, they count on selling to rental car companies, because, guess what, the rental car companies <span style="font-style: italic">are owned by the automakers</span> so they have a dumping ground to keep the factories open (thanks, UAW).

Send them a message: Build the quality cars we want and we'll buy them. Continue to insist that we want what you're building today and you'll be gone from our shopping lists forever. I hope I'm wrong, but I'm betting that GM will have less than 20% market share by 2010, and the Big Three will have less than 50% of it. Get with the program or go home. There isn't enough money these days to settle for less than excellent. Fortunately, there are companies who can deliver excellent for a very reasonable price...

I promise this is the last rant. And <span style="font-weight: bold">Skyking,</span> I sincerely hope that my father's car is a fluke lemon, because I want you to be happy with yours. I didn't mean to single you out--sorry.

Oh, one more thing: read AUTOEXTREMIST.com. If you love your cars, especially your GM cars, it doesn't pull any punches when it comes to telling it like it is. But if you hate me and what I've said, you should probably avoid it...

[Centurion]

Skyking, there is certainly some truth in what you say. It is interesting to me that the Century is currently ranking higher in the quality and dependability surveys than the Camry and Accord. Yes, we can get into arguments about which surveys should be trusted and which are likely to be biased, but the point is that the Century is a credible competitor in the marketplace.

General Motors' battle is not only one of producing fully competitive products; the greatest struggle may be the "perception" war. When I log onto the Internet in my office, the MSN.Com homepage comes up. Frequently, there are auto-related "news" topics, and I am amazed by the obvious bias in favor of the import cars. When a particular automotive market segment is the topic for the day, the content might as well be advertising copy for the import manufacturers. Domestic nameplate vehicles are seldom mentioned, and the flowery accolades are always reserved for the imports. Even when domestic automakers fare well in the quality surveys, these successes are inevitably downplayed and the headlines shout out the achievements of the Japanese automakers.

A friend passed along a 2002 issue of "Special Interest Autos", and the magazine included a historical piece regarding the development of Buick's first V8 engine. At the conclusion of the article, there was some reflection on the considerable engineering talent that made Buick Motor Division great. Lamenting that Buick Motor Division is now strictly a marketing organization, the author says that Buick's great legacy lives on in the 3800 engine. He notes that the engine is under-appreciated by the automotive press, who have been brainwashed by the import car "lobby" that relentlessly promotes import engine-design philosophy as superior. I think that there's some merit to the author's point-of-view.

It seems to me that Americans have grown cynical about our ability to build competitive products or do anything right. We're so eager to attribute superiority to overseas manufacturers. I understand fully that the domestic automakers defeated themselves during the 1970's and 1980's, but have difficulty understanding why we've made it so "fashionable" to buy the import brands. As someone who wants there to be a healthy American auto industry during the decades ahead, I'm most concerned about the slavish devotion to imported brands. If General Motors builds cars that are fully the equal or significantly better than those of the Japanese or Germans, will it make a difference to anyone?

[Guest Skyking]

Wow! Matt, I didn't mean to rattle your cage.......You speak about blaa 4 door cars. Take a good look at the Camry or Accord...they are blaa 4 doors! The Accord has looked the same the last 10 years. In fact, this year they did change it. They made the rear look like it was hit. But yet they're selling tons. So I really don't think the 4 door sedan Buicks have anything to do with non-selling....It's the people buying what other people buy. Why are alot of people buying SUV's?. They have to keep up with the trend or they simply don't fit in.

[Matt Harwood]

No cage rattling at all, <span style="font-weight: bold">Skyking.</span> I just get all bent out of shape over how the once great GM has fallen so far due to incompetent management.

Anyway, I totally agree that the bread-and-butter 4-door sedans are really lame looking, especially the conservative Japanese cars. HOWEVER, they are well made, well engineered and made of good materials. Styling is just one part of the equation. Nobody would buy Camrys if the door panels fell off in their hands, the window motors didn't work, and the interior materials felt cheap. Quality is often an intangible thing that works through your other senses. For example, the ashtray in my father's Century opens with a metallic "Whap!" The one in my Mazda is hydraulically damped and opens so smoothly and silently that I do it just to show my passengers. Vital to the car? No. Gives me a sense that somebody actually cared when designing and building this car? Heck yes!

GM doesn't get that. To them, if they can write it down on paper, it must be good enough. Well, good enough isn't good enough any more. That's all I'm trying to say.

OK, now I'm really out.

[Guest my3buicks]

I did an interesting thing today. One of my clients has a Lexus RX 300. I happened to be parked directly beside it in my Rendezvous CLX. Both vehicles are the same basic color so it was apple to apple sitting beside each other. The client whom is female and a close friend wanted to see my new car. We actually spent about an hour looking, compairing, and even driving the pair. The outcome, she is ordering a Rendezvous in October when her lease expires. She liked the interior room the Buick had over the Lexus(a fairly large difference especially in head and leg room and cargo room) - We both thought the Lexus had a much more refined looking interior(alot had to due with woodgrain in the Lexus and leather trim on the door panels) although the Buick seats where more comfortable and had a more upscale look to them and the Buick had much more versatile seat arrangements. We liked the looks of the front of the Rendezvous better than the Lexus, but we liked the backend of the Lexus better than the Buick. The Buick rode smoother and quieter(more sedan like) but the Lexus outhandled it. The Lexus was quicker although not anything that would make alot of difference in real life driving. The Buick actually held 65 with cruise on up a long hill better than the Lexus did with less shiftdowns. So we found when you compaired the vehicles for what the are really used for in real life the Rendezvous came out ahead for function and versatility and the things real people use them for. I know I am biased toward the Buick, but I can guaranty you she was biased toward the Lexus before the comparison. She said she can save money in both purchase and insurance over the Lexus and have an attractive vehicle that every other neighbor on the block or at the soccer game won't have. The sad thing is, she didn;t know what a Rendezvous was(great devertising). Is the Buick a better vehicle than the Lexus, probably not. Is the Lexus more refined than the Buick, prabably yes. But considering this is Buicks first attempt in this market, I can't wait to see the next generation Rendezvous.(I'm thinking beyond the Ultra although that will be a a good improvement) Unlike alot of you, I can thank Buick for the strides they are taking, and can appreciate what they currently have and can look forward to the things that are to come. Sometimes I think Buick collectors are BMD worst enemies. I have to agree with an earlier post, I don't think if an American car was the best car in the world it would be recognized as such. The old term Sheeple comes to mind - people following blindly in the market like sheep. I have owned foreign - Audi - Subaru and a couple others and I can say I have liked my American iron as well or better in some cases. I have also ran every car I have ever owned (lots) well into the 100K's and have been very satified with longevity of the Americans. Guess I am lucky after reading all the negative posts. And also if the great imports are so great then why is it so hard to get into a foriegn dealer for service? AS I said, I'm Buick/American biased and plan to stay that way. I hope my 42 age helps bring the average down for Buick. GO BUICK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Marc Futterman]

I'm feeling really embarrased right now, I had no idea Olds was dead !! <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />

[NTX5467]

Matt, I must say that I've never seen a door panel laying on the ground--ever--unless it was taken off for some inner door repair. I would certainly hope your father's Century is not the norm. Usually, the only times we have to order a door panel for any GM vehicle, it's due to a scratch during transportation or similar. If it is so bad, it might have been a good idea to request a buy-back for another GM vehicle. Not to doubt your experiences with it, just to say that I've not seen one that bad from GM.

Usually, when we see "laundry list" warranty repair orders, you can tell from what is listed that something of "buyer's remorse" has kicked in after the sale. Especially when everything that's complained about is not a normal complaint on the vehicle. Be that as it may.

Back in the '70s, when the Japanese were allegedly making their inroads, down here under the Texas sun, the paint on those Datsuns and Toyotas was pretty much baking off of the metal. The interiors (even on the non-Mercedes German vehicles) didn't fare that well either. End result after about three years, the cars looked much worse than any American vehicle. The reason? The paint was about three notches down from the acrylic enamel or acrylic lacquer that we used over here--and had been using since the earlier '60s. The interior vinyls were thinner and just weren't "tested" for our environment and heat. Yet, those Datsun and Toyota and VW 4 cylinders just kept on going with normal oil changes and maintenance. You'd see these cars every day on the way to work and back. They were basic transportation if you didn't care what they looked like.

When the clear coat paints of the '70s came online, there were lots of gold VW Super Beetles with crazing clear coat inside of two years. The saving grace was that there was a very strong aftermarket supplier network for those cars that had the repro interior parts, engine parts, etc. to keep these vehicles running much less expensively than items from the dealers.

So, the mechanicals might have been great, but the cosmetics on the imports just took a beating in our warmer climate. During that same time, the US makes always looked good for many years with little more than a yearly wax or polish.

One thing that can be critical in any longevity/reliability discussion, is that most American car buyers got into the trade every three year orientation so they seldom knew that their vehicles would run well past 100,000 miles with just basic maintenance. It was the people in the used car markets that found these things out. In the later '60s, Chevy led Ford in the used car market values, but when those resale values were extended out to 5+ years, it was Plymouth that was in the lead. Interesting . . .

There is no magic bullet about who has the best car or whatever, what it all depends on is if it's the right car for you and how you use it. Each make has their own "things" that make them good or not so good. It can be the way it rides, how the controls feel, the way it just keeps on running and running and running with little more than fuel and normal maintenance, or the way it looks to you and others. From what I've seen, when people venture from what they're used to, it can cause problems--especially when they perceive that all vehicles should act and feel the same. "Things just aren't right", it seems. All cars are not built with the same orientations and, as a result, will not be as acceptable to some when others consider them to be totally great.

Just as with the Mazda ashtray versus the Century ashtray, it goes back to what I said earlier about it depends on where you want to spend the money om the vehicle.

Not everyone is "meant" to love Buicks, Fords, Audis, or whatever. Finding what's right for you is important and can take a while to happen. There are still many loyal Buick owners just as there are loyal Mercury owners. As long as they're there, they need to be taken care of regardless of what their age demographics are. They don't need to be chunked out into the woods, so to speak, like the Delta 88 owners were. Lincoln likes their Town Car customers, but they also know that's not their only market to be into. The profits from those Town Cars goes toward new models that will similarly bring younger buyers into their showrooms. Just as Buick profits can do if GM management doesn't divert them elsewhere.

Just because current or near future Buick products might not have bunches of overhead camshafts or other "things" that other allegedly more desireable vehicles might have, that doesn't mean that our current Buicks are not very credible vehicles with good power, fuel economy, and longevity.

As for engine choices, what Roberta mentioned about the Rendezvous is accurate. They will use a local engine (for the assembly plant) before they'll spend money shipping them in. BUT, there are situations where GM ships engines across continents and oceans already. The real reason could well be that the original vehicle proposal just didn't suspect the need for more power in a fuel economy aware world. When the new family of V-6s gets up to speed, the Rendezvous will have it and the power issues should go away.

Remember too, each engine must be certified with the EPA for emissions, fuel economy, and such. Certification is not cheap. Remember, too, that when GM standardized their full size cars with the updated/redesigned 3.8L Buick V-6 with a particular automatic transaxle in the middle '80s, their approval ratings with customers suddenly went up by leaps and bounds. Building them all the same way does have it's merits, provided the original design is adequate or can be updated as time goes on. Powertrain choices can be good, but with modern realities, a few choices make more sense than a whole bunch like we had in the '60s--at least to those who pay the bills for EPA certification of EACH engine/trans combination.

At one point in the '90s, when Ford was having some issues getting their Crown Victorias to pass emissions/fuel economy regulations, it was discovered that with just a few different vendors, it's USA content would drop so low it could be considered an "import". Interesting. This was before NAFTA was approved, too. They got past those issues and it's content still allowed it to be a "domestic" vehicle.

From a dealership parts sales orientation (being paid on departmental gross profits), I can truthfully say that GM vehicles are getting better. We aren't seeing the same problems we did years ago or even last year. Much fewer repair orders come in that look like books too. Now, they are the rare exceptions, if at all. Sure, there are still some areas to improve on, but the "low hanging fruit" has been gone for a very long time.

Competition does improve the whole marketplace. Those who don't improve will not survive in the long term. Cost effective improvement will not come nearly as soon as some might like, but it happens.

On the issue of no import cars in Flint, we noticed that too! Had to get down to Detroit proper before we saw significant numbers of imports. When we went on the engine plant tour at the prior Flint BCA meet, one of the tour patrons asked a union employee about how many of the workers drove Hondas. He laughed and said that when an import vehicle was parked at a union hall for a meeting, there were some "messages" sent to that vehicle's owner. Those people know it's correct to support the company that pays your bills.

Sure, factory and dealership employees have had some great vehicle purchase opportunities over the past five years. That's one of the perks of being employed by a car company or its dealers. Many took advantage of it while others were not able to, but they were still there. GM has their reasons for the incentives and such and has the financial power to keep them going with the end result being great corporate profits in the end. If it takes rebates and such to get people to notice the fine products that GM currently has, then that's what they are going to do--it's not about foisting poor vehicles on an unsuspecting populace at all. Most people are so "into" other vehicles that they just don't look around at what's aveilable. I'll take a new Impala at low $20s anyday over a mid-$20s Camry any day of the week.

I rented an Impala last week for one day. With mostly easy freeway driving, mpg was nearly 34mpg. Not bad for the "antique" Chevy 3.4L V-6! One orientation is that many don't care what's under the hood so long as it moves the vehicle and gets good fuel economy regardless of the brand of vehicle. I've rented a couple of Camry 4 cylinders that didn't come close to that type of performance or mpg.

As for modern technology, there's more at GM than GM readily admits to. More coming too. Not even including their European or Japanese partners, just GM-USA. There's lots of information on their www.GM.com website. Even if it is their website, it makes you realize that they aren't still in the '70s technologically, as some might suspect.

This has been a great discussion!

Happy Buick Motoring!

NTX5467

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The SRX is one awesome vehicle. I drove several last week at a dealer training event. The Lexus RX300, as one guy put it (after the handling course portion) belongs only on straight roads. The Volvo wagon, even with its "anti-tip" technology, has its shortcomings when compared to the SRX--even on safety issues. The only real competition, performance wise, is the BMW X5 V-8, but it's not designed to go to Home Depot. </div></div>

NTX,

None, <span style="font-style: italic">exactly none</span>, of these vehicles are "wagons". They're all SUV's, which are inherently compromised vehicles (but don't expect the guy who's trying to get you to upgrade from the SRX to the Escalade to tell you that).

There is a world of <span style="font-weight: bold">great</span> handling true wagons out there. If you drive <span style="font-style: italic">any</span> of them, you'll never hear someone extoll the handling of their SUV again without laughing. I'd reccommend the Subaru Legacy GT or Imprezza SRX, the Mazda Protege5 or Mazda6 wagon (due out next month), the Volvo V70R (turbo), the VW Passat, BMW 5 series, or the Audi Quattro Allroad. (By the way, every one of these vehicles is rated more reliable than any of the SUV's you mentioned, or any other domestic or "European" SUV.)

Also, J.D. Powers is probably (in my opinion) the <span style="font-style: italic">least</span> reliable source of comparative information on car makes out there. It exists to sell the publication rights of it's survey results to the "winners". It's almost effortless for an experienced survey company to phrase questions in ways to slant the results toward more lucrative and/or reliable and/or desperate clients. That's why they have 7 or 8 differnt but nearly identical sounding surveys, the longest term of which is for owners that have driven their new cars only ONE year! (Most of their surveys are given to owners who's cars are a massive 3 months old.) I have <span style="font-weight: bold">a lot</span> more faith in <span style="font-style: italic">Consumer Reports'</span> system. You'll never hear anyone complain about <span style="font-style: italic">CR</span> car surveys who doesn't have an obvious ax to grind against a result or 200 that they didn't like. Too bad!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I know, Toyota and Nissan put high tech engines in their vehicles. </div></div>

Not my Nissan (2003 Frontier--I go to Home Depot on occasion too.). It uses (3) fan belts instead of serpentine belts, and has a belt driven clutch fan instead of an electric one. There's one and only one reason to buy "Japanese" cars, <span style="font-style: italic"><span style="font-weight: bold">to NOT meet Mr. Goodwrench!</span></span> Like it or not, there is <span style="font-style: italic">still</span> a big difference in many segments. If you haven't experienced it, You'll never know. (p.s.--My last 2 cars have been "imports", before that I had 3 "Domestics" in a row--2 of which are now built in Mexico. <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" /> My Nissan was made about 200 miles from here.)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> but the point is that the Century is a credible competitor in the marketplace. </div></div>

Centurion is certainly right. <span style="font-style: italic">Consumer Reports</span> rates the Century very highly, topped only by 3 or 4 of it's "Japanese" competators (all of whom are made in the USA, unlike the the Canadian Century). The only "American" car that consistently outrates the Century is the (Mexican) Chrysler PT Cruiser. Unlike the PT Cruiser, however, there is a question of just how dissappointed a group of drivers most of whom are retired and most of whom drive very few miles per year are going to be in a new Buick or anything else. That factor probably does influence the results for Buick in both <span style="font-style: italic">CR</span> and J.D. Powers. Never-the-less, the days when Buick should be avoided due to poor quality are probably over.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> If General Motors builds cars that are fully the equal or significantly better than those of the Japanese or Germans, will it make a difference to anyone? </div></div>

I'll set aside the fact the German car quality has slipped dramatically over the last five years, and try to answer this using myself.

From 1979 through 1996 I purchased "Japanese" cars exclusively. Beginning in the early 1990's, the quality gap between those and the then still domestic manufacturers had narrowed enough that I began purchasing them. My first, a Ford Ranger, was purchased mostly because the 1st Bush adminstration had effectively outlawed imported Japanese trucks with tariffs and the Ranger was <span style="font-style: italic">a lot</span> cheaper than two of the other 3 options, Nissan & Toyota. (The S10 was a reliablility nightmare at the time, and out of the question.) It performed admirably, the equal of my old Mitsubishi. My Dad has it now.

The next car I bought on it's merits, a Dodge Spirit (used). Very cheap, very low miles, mint. I loved it. Ran like a raped ape, 34 mpg highway out of V6. Unfortunately it blew a rear seal and lunched it's transmission at 99K miles, something that no Japanese car I ever heard of did. I've learned since not to trust high milage Chrysler drivetrains.

I then bought a Saturn. 39,000 miles without so much as a light bulb replaced. Had to go only because our family outgrew it (ditto for the Ranger). <span style="font-style: italic">This</span> car is proof that GM can build the equal of any car out there. Traditional GM fans who criticize Saturn do not understand it's significance. The S-series was an American Honda. Now they're just rebodied standard GM fare, and the reliability data bears this out. Sad.

I just helped my mother-in-law buy a 2002 Century. If I wanted a used mid-size sedan, I'd buy one in a flash. If Buick ever makes a BMW 3-Series wagon (which is the car <span style="font-style: italic">I</span> need), and it's as reliable as the Centuryt, I'm there. It'd be nice if it were made by some of those loyal GM customers I saw in Flint instead of by non-union Mexicans, however.

[Matt Harwood]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If it takes rebates and such to get people to notice the fine products that GM currently has, then that's what they are going to do--it's not about foisting poor vehicles on an unsuspecting populace at all. </div></div>

Have you seen GM's new "Road to Redemption" advertising campaign? Basically it says, "We know we built crappy cars in the past. Please come back and try again--we're getting better." Seriously--that's what they're doing these days. To me, that's the exact wrong message to send to a car buying public with so many choices. If you've been burned by GM once, are you really going to give them another crack at your wallet? And if you haven't been burned, but the company itself admits that their older stuff was crapola, are you going to include them on a list that may also include companies with untarnished reputations for quality? Most folks would say no, despite the advances in quality that GM has certainly made in the past 10 years. Once bitten, twice shy and all...

GM (and all domsetics) have tarnished reputations, some of which are earned and some of which are perceived. As long as it's been in decline, it'll take at least that long to get it back. It will take <span style="font-style: italic"><span style="font-weight: bold">great products,</span></span> not rebates and cheap loans, to make the public buy the cars they're building. That's my real point in all of this: <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">with great products, you don't need rebates, incentives, discounts or promotions.</span></span> People tend to buy vehicles that make them happy as much as need for utility. I think one of the primary needs people have is reliability, and there's the <span style="font-style: italic">perception</span> that domestics don't cut it. This may or may not be true, but perception is reality in the advertising game. The Japanese imports deliver reliability--nobody questions that. The problems my father had with his Century (and the door panel didn't actually land on the pavement, but it pulled loose on the bottom and two sides when he pulled the door closed) would not happen in a comparably priced Japanese sedan (or even a cheaper one). It just wouldn't. And whether it is a common problem or not, it happened. And GM lost two generations of customers from my family right there on the spot. <span style="font-style: italic">That's</span> why people switch to Japanese cars and don't come back.

I've also been harping on the "holistic" feeling of driving a car. To many people, myself included, this is very important. If your car gets great gas mileage, that's awesome. If it's quiet and smooth on the highway, great! But there's more to it than that for people who enjoy cars as a hobby--if it was only about fuel mileage and quiet, we'd all be driving electric shoeboxes. But it isn't. So while it is wonderful that the Impala gets 34 MPG and is bigger than its competition, it doesn't satisfy many people in a "holistic" way. That feel of the controls, the tracking of the suspension, the sound of a door shutting, the sound of the engine, the tactile feel of the interior materials, etc. is what sways a lot of people. I'd be willing to give up a few MPG to get improvements in those areas. To me (and obviously to a lot of Americans) gas mileage just isn't a real high priority. It's nice if the car you want gets great gas mileage, but with the way SUVs are selling, people obviously don't care much about that. Image, quality (however you define it), and overall Zeitgeist with the car matter more. And the point I'm trying to make is that this is exactly where the domestics are lacking, whether true or not. Perception, as I said, is reality for the car makers.

Heck, if driving a car isn't about feeling good, why do we spend all this time and money on our beloved collector Buicks? They get (for the most part) crappy fuel mileage, are outdated technologically, have inferior brakes and suspensions, etc. But they make us feel sooooo good when we drive them. We don't care about fuel mileage when we're behind the wheel of our collector cars. We care about the feeling we have with that old iron pumping away, doing its thing. That's the feeling I want from my new car, and most GM products aren't delivering that. My Mazda, despite driving it every single day, does make me feel that way. I just like the way the machine feels as it's working.

GM has a big hole to dig out of. I'm filled with hope seeing the products coming out of Cadillac these days. If I could afford one, the CTS-V would be my next car, no questions asked. But I would never, never, never trade my beloved Protege5, which is the most <span style="font-style: italic">satisfying</span> car I've ever owned, for any comparable product made by GM today. I don't care that the reliability would be the same or that maybe the GM product had a bigger engine or more horsepower or was cheaper. I do care that I have never driven a GM car that makes me feel as good as that little Mazda does. Remember, I used to build 500 HP C5 Corvettes for a living, so I've seen the stuff at its best.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Just because current or near future Buick products might not have bunches of overhead camshafts or other "things" that other allegedly more desireable vehicles might have, that doesn't mean that our current Buicks are not very credible vehicles with good power, fuel economy, and longevity. </div></div>

So we should all still be driving straight-8 Buicks? While I would love that, technology marching on is a good thing. Even though the older stuff can get the job done, progress teaches us that change can be good. I'm not talking about change for the sake of change, but rather improvements that are required to be competitive. Overhead camshafts aren't pipe dreams, they <span style="font-style: italic">are</span> better in many cases. The C5 Corvette shows us that the pushrod motor is alive and kicking, and it is great for many applications that need torque and low-end horsepower. But it still doesn't match the wonderful whirring of 32 valves and four camshafts in, say, a Ford Mustang Cobra. <span style="font-style: italic">That</span> engine feels refined and luxurious, and makes the car <span style="font-style: italic">feel</span> better than its price or quality numbers might reflect. Again, to me and many others, it is about more than "power, fuel economy and longevity." Those are only the minimum basic requirements for <span style="font-style: italic">any</span> car wanting to compete in today's marketplace.

This rebate nonsense also has to stop. Will anyone ever go to a GM dealership in the next few years without expecting to take a big chunk of change off the top before they even talk to a salesman? How long until paying sticker for a GM product seems reasonable? Years and years, because they've been addicted to this rebate game to keep numbers up. When I bought my Ranger pickup (not GM, but they're playing basically the same games), I put a grand in my pocket and still used the rest to drop my payments below $300 a month for a loaded truck. I wouldn't have bought it otherwise. When I bought my Mazda, I got it under sticker after some haggling, but there was no rebate, no cheap financing, and the amount under sticker they were willing to go was nowhere near the multi-thousand dollar rebates the domestics are offering today...

I know GM has the resources to build the greatest cars ever built. There are absolutely brilliant engineers and designers at work there. But they're often smothered by a ponderous and conservative bureacracy made up of non-car people. Great products won't come from a group that doesn't understand why cars mean so much to America. To them, it's about features that the competition doesn't have, gas mileage, price and maybe customer satisfaction. Those are things they can control on a spreadsheet. But there are other things that make a car great that can't be measured or quantified, but the engineers and designers know how to put them into a car. It's time to let them do just that.

[Centurion]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Also, J.D. Powers is probably (in my opinion) the least reliable source of comparative information on car makes out there. It exists to sell the publication rights of it's survey results to the "winners". It's almost effortless for an experienced survey company to phrase questions in ways to slant the results toward more lucrative and/or reliable and/or desperate clients. That's why they have 7 or 8 differnt but nearly identical sounding surveys, the longest term of which is for owners that have driven their new cars only ONE year! (Most of their surveys are given to owners who's cars are a massive 3 months old.) </div></div>

Hmmm. Since Lexus seems to be the perennial "winner" of the J.D. Powers surveys and most routinely includes the survey results in its advertising, perhaps we should be questioning whether we've been misled about Lexus' design and build quality.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have a lot more faith in Consumer Reports' system. You'll never hear anyone complain about CR car surveys who doesn't have an obvious ax to grind against a result or 200 that they didn't like. Too bad!

</div></div>

Perhaps the newspapers elsewhere did not cover last year's story when "Consumer Reports" published its annual car reliability surveys. The criticisms did not come from the auto industry, but from the mathematics departments of some of the nation's universities. The concern is that CR does not employ generally accepted statistical sampling methods in the preparation of its surveys. The readers of CR are unlikely to be representative of the car-buying public in general. As an example, survey results were reported for a particular model of Mercedes-Benz that sells in volumes of fewer than 5,000 units annually. In contrast, there was "insufficient data" to provide reliability results for a certain model of the Pontiac Grand Am that sold in volumes reaching about 150,000 units. The thrust of the articles was that CR is heavily biased in favor of the imports. As one who picks up CR occasionally to check it out, it was apparent to me that a regular reader of the publication will receive a steady diet of the "imports are better" mantra. I would be highly surprised if this did not influence results of their surveys. Does this all mean that the Consumer Reports ratings are worthless? Probably not. But what it does mean is that the car shopper who consults CR during the course of his car-buying decision would be well-advised to avoid thinking that CR is the gospel truth.

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Hmmm. Since Lexus seems to be the perennial "winner" of the J.D. Powers surveys and most routinely includes the survey results in its advertising, perhaps we should be questioning whether we've been misled about Lexus' design and build quality. </div></div>

Yes, exactly. At least as far as these results apply.

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The readers of CR are unlikely to be representative of the car-buying public in general. As an example, survey results were reported for a particular model of Mercedes-Benz that sells in volumes of fewer than 5,000 units annually. In contrast, there was "insufficient data" to provide reliability results for a certain model of the Pontiac Grand Am that sold in volumes reaching about 150,000 units. </div></div>

It's amazing what you can pay a college professor to argue.

Why <span style="font-style: italic">of course</span> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The readers of CR are unlikely to be representative of the car-buying public in general.</div></div> It suprises you that cars of a consistently superior durability and assembly would sell in increasing frequency to people who subscribe to a magazine <span style="font-weight: bold">named</span> <span style="font-style: italic">Consumer Reports?????</span>

What this means is that a larger percentage of the Mercedes owners read <span style="font-style: italic">CR</span> (or at least bother to fill in the subsrcibers' survey) than owners of a notoriously unreliable Pontiac. The "insufficient data" results are not statistical anomalies or intentional holes in the data, as some Math Dept. was obviously paid to make you presume. You can either accept their survey results with the inherently obvious grain of salt that the survey pool is slanted, or stand on a soap box and rail against the survey as inferior to an undone/impossible/infeasible/mythically different survey of a truly random group of owners.

Or you could accept that people who buy Toyotas because <span style="font-style: italic">Consumer Reports</span> tells them that they never break down <span style="font-style: italic"><span style="font-weight: bold"> [color:"blue"] may </span></span> be [color:"red"]<span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">more</span></span> critical of their cars when something goes wrong, not less. Or is this what you meant by: <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I would be highly surprised if this did not influence results of their surveys. </div></div>

[Guest Skyking]

It puzzles me when I hear people that own foriegn cars complaining about having to wait to get their cars in there dealers to get serviced.....Geeze, and they never break down.... <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" /> <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

[NTX5467]

Just a few short thoughts . . .

1 -- Dave, the SRX is built on the Sigma platform, NOT a truck platform. In using some allegedly politically incorrect terminology, it is a CTS "wagon". It is classed as (in politically correct terminology) as a "crossover SUV" that is "car-based". The Lexus RX300/330 is similarly car based as is the Volvo in that market segment too. The BMW X5 is similarly a car-based vehicle. It is predicted that all growth in the "SUV" market segment will be with car-based SUVs and not light truck chassis versions.

2 -- As for the surveys, J. D. Powers has been doing surveys for many years. They seem to have the most credibility in what they do, whether we agree with how they do it or not, or the results. There have been other groups/magazines that have done customer surveys and those awards have been mentioned in Buick and other vehicles' advertising when those results or awards are released. Motor Trend's Car of the Year award only considers NEW vehicles of that model year and not existing vehicles which might have been much improved over prior year's versions.

3 -- From what I suspect, the customer base of Consumer Reports might not be a representative sample to deal with, when compared to the greater population that J. D. Powers samples. I also suspect it's smaller than the customer population that GM regularly samples after warranty work has been performed or their new car has been delivered (the Customer Satisfaction Index ratings for every franchised GM dealership and vehicle line thereof).

CR also has a word that they throw around a lot -- "defect". To me, a defect is something that is broken due to poor design or just doesn't stand up to the use of the intended customer. CR classes headlights out of adjustment as a "defect", or at least used to.

CR, in the past, has had management that had "agendas" which later came out in court in sworn testimony. The Suzuki Samari "situation" was one. Or they perform seemingly "defective" stunts with their test vehicles, like doing a sudden lane change and then the test driver takes his hands off of the steering wheel. How realistic is that?

To their credit, they do test any and everything. I feel they do very well with applicances and other electrical items, but sometimes it seems their automotive tests have been a little flat. But, in recent times, they are getting better. In any event, when I look at their tests, I look at the numbers and not so much as their dialogue about the vehicle.

4 -- I will concur that "feel" and "character" are very good things to have in a vehicle. That's ONE reason I like older vehicles. The sound of the door latches closing. The sound of the starter. The sound of the engine as it moves the car down the road. The way the transmission shifts and how it reacts to driver input. The way the chassis reacts to steering input. The perceived solidity of the body structure. The "feel" of torsion bar front ends instead of coil springs. It ALL plays to the senses. Unfortunately, not everyone can key on those neat things (or understand those of us that do).

When GM was great and each division had their own chief engineers, each brand of vehicle had their own unique sounds and character. This is one reason that '77 Olds customers probably were very disappointed to NOT hear an Olds engine under the hood of their new '77 Delta 88. These are things that marketing people can't really quantify and transmit in their print advertising, but it matters to us.

Now, you can still tell a Chevy V-6 from a Buick 3800 just from the sounds they make. Not loud sounds, but sounds nonetheless (notice I didn't say "noise"?) When we were waiting our turn on the handling course the other day, I listened to the sounds of the quickly accelerating vehicles. The Lexus just whoooshed away quietly and smoothly. The BMW roared off and sounded nice too. The SRX made those lovely V-8 performance sounds. The others were quieter and somewhere in between. Even as quiet as modern vehicles are, there are still some key sounds they make which excite the senses. One thing that doesn't excite me is a 4 cylinder of V-6 with a loud exhaust--YUK!--but those who have them consider them "kewl". Many orientations and perceptions of "neat" depending on who it is.

Unfortunately, from the Lexus perspective, the only good sound is NO sound. Yuk! No sound can also be dangerous if you aren't aware of your surroundings. But too much sound can be annoying too, even if it's a nice sounding exhaust or the tires letting you know you're not on smooth concrete pavement anymore. With Lexus being a "benchmark", that's where everyone usually feels they need to be. A quiet and smooth running vehicle is usually associated with "luxury", but sometimes it can be taken too far.

I like vehicles that communicate their likes and dislikes back to the driver. Feedback, if you will. It's great to know that your vehicle enjoys cruising in the 75-90mph range (in appropriate areas and conditions) as the engine sounds nice and has tight throttle response and the chassis likes it too. When the "harmonics" are right, it just feels "right". Unfortunately, even some of the older vehicles are not quite as expressive in this aspect as some feel the same at 40 mph as they to at 80 mph. And we haven't even mentioned how the suspension reacts to turns and dips yet either.

But when everyone started going to front wheel drive and shorter wheelbases, it seemed that some of those character traits were dulled somewhat. Everyone was chasing the Japanese and what I call their "appliance" cars. Yes, they do everything they are supposed to quietly and reliably and efficiently, but they are just lacking in character, at least to me. Some of the main "offenders" in this area are usually most Toyota and Honda cars. Granted, the current Camry has some great chassis dynamics in it, but you have to drive it "not like a Camry" to discover them. Hondas have lots of performance potential--for a price--but are still reliable servants in their more mass market vehicles.

Some of your experiences might be different than mine--which I totally respesct--but these have been my observations over the years. Character in a vehicle is good, but much of it has been diminished in recent history in so many vehicles that try to follow the Japanese vehicles in an effort to gain sales.

Yet, it seems that whenever the Chrysler guys in the '90s (pre-DB) broke out and did something different and unique, they sold more cars and trucks. There's a message there.

5 -- Rebates, cheap of no interest rates on loans, or whatever, it's about moving product into the consumer's driveway. Back in the '80s, when the first GM rebates and cheaper interest rates started, I commented "Why don't they just drop the price of the vehicles to where they'd be with the rebates?" Then I realized that not all vehicles would qualify for the rebate and not all customers could qualify for the cheap interest (just as now). Hence, just like a mail-in rebate on an appliance battery, those things don't cost anything unless someone uses them. Hence, more profits than if they just dropped the prices in a normal manner. Lots of debates can happen on this subject and most will have valid points.

GM's on a mission to gain market share and is using the financial things to make it happen. How we judge their vehicles compared to others is not necessarily the issue, as each of us have differing orientations in that area. GM has the resources to keep this activity up until the newer and more desireable vehicles come to market (that hopefully will not need rebates to sell in large quantities). When I was at the Grand Prix dealer training event, we were told to take every prospect on a test drive. To use the throttle. To use the brakes. To create desire in the customer by the way the vehicle drove and reacted. To show off the neat things the vehicle would or could do FOR the customer. After hearing that orientation, I'm thinking I need to go back and figure out where we can build a demonstration track!

The key message was to build enough value of the vehicle with the customer that they wanted to buy the vehicle because of what it would do and what it was. The way it felt compared to the other vehicles. Pontiac, being the "performance" division of GM, desired that every prospective customer know the performance attributes of their vehicles and that they were desireable vehicles for many reasons--other than just purchase price. In this case, the purchase incentives were icing on the cake.

At this time, the incentives have lasted far longer than anyone might have suspected and still hasn't eroded the financial stores of the corporation. Now, it's more of a power play against the competition who doesn't have quite the financial situation that GM does. Questionable tactics? Possibly, at this time. Effective? Enough for them to continue.

Remember too, that it was GM that stepped up with these great purchase incentives after the 9/11 attacks. It is widely accepted that if GM had not done something to jump start things, the recession we were in at the time of the attacks would have become much more severe. Sure, it was a marketing ploy of sorts, but it also got people's minds off of the tragedy enough that they would at least get out of the house and go shopping for things they needed--like cars. We ALL know how much it can lift the mood to have a new car in the driveway. Whether we like all of the price incentive/rebate games, you have to give GM credit for taking that bold action back then. And, possibly somewhat reluctantly, many others followed and also saw the benefits back then.

Just as in the '80s, if one manufacturer does those things, the others typically will follow. It's been something that has been widely debated in the economics circles then as in more recent times, yet at some time in the future, it will be necessary to scale them back. Just as in the '80s too, I suspect that when they are, sales will drop, so then here comes more incentives (this has already happened a few times when GM tried to back away, but had to put a new program in to keep things moving). Also, notice that most of the incentives are on vehicles that have high inventory levels for one reason or another. The participation of Cadillacs and Corvettes will vary from program to program too. This is now the "buildout" period for the existing year's models and has always been a traditional time for such buying incentives too.

It is recognized that neat vehicles will move themselves from the dealerships into the new owners' driveway with no incentives. Everyone knows that and has been working toward that. Unfortunately, only a few of them have hit ground now, but there's more in the pipeline--from GM and others.

The next couple of years should see some really neat vehicles be introduced. We all know that things can't stand still with respect to the competition, too, but there are some observed cycles in the mix. One company introduces a new model that sells great. A few years later, the competition's new models will "answer" them and so it goes. It's a moving target that you can either react to or show some quality leadership as you do react to it AND anticipate what the next big things will be. This is where Lutz comes in.

6 -- Rental cars have been much maligned as a tool the manufacturers use to increase their sales. In the past, Ford DID own most of Hertz, Chrysler had controlling interest in Dollar and Thrifty. Each manufacturer also has their own in-house leasing entities too. Before the Daimler & Chrysler "thing", Chrysler spun off Dollar and Thrifty in what became a combined Dollar/Thrifty business entity (DTAG?). Ford got out of Hertz back then too, as I recall. National had partnered with Pontiac and Buick for promotional deals, historically.

Dollar and Thrifty are still deep into Chrysler products, but will use others to fill gaps in their rental vehicle inventories as necessary. National is still mostly GM oriented, but has Mitsubishis and Toyotas too. Hertz is still Ford-friendly too. Alamo has a little bit of everything, it seems, even as it has merged with National.

Key thing about the much lamented rental cars--they HAVE to be reliable and in service to make money. They might not see the easiest of treatment, but from my experiences with them over the past 7 years or so, there have been no glaring deficiencies in the vehicles. So, the fact that a particular model is in a national brand rental car fleet could be a good recommendation for it. Having those cars in rental service also provides people who might not otherwise be exposed to them to broaden their automotive horizons too. In fact, moving the electric trunk release from the glove box to the left of the steering wheel is one thing that changed as the result of the rental fleet business.

One reason I first became a National Car Rental Emerald Isle member was because they were featuring Buick Regal LS cars with leather interior, CD player radios, AND Gran Touring Suspension. The first one of those cars I drove was impressive with NO float. I was amazed! This was back when the Century had their smoooth ride suspension calibration, the regular Regal had a more firm calibration, and the GT suspension was superbly firm and smooth at the same time. In short, three different struts. Now, everything's in the "firm" calibration using tires and sway bars to make up the differences. Still, a good compromise.

7 -- GM has made some notable gains in quality of assembly and design in the past 10 years. In some cases, it's now acknowleged that they were a little timid in some respects of design and marketing, when compared to what everyone else ended up doing. There were some bright spots, anyway, just not universally so.

The J. D. Powers reports are one area where there has been continued improvement and noted higher rankings that many of the more prestigious marques, even in earlier times. The other great strides have been in plant productivity, as evidenced by the Harbour Report. GM also has more North American plants that rate high or at the top of the list than anyone else does, which is great. It's one thing to have great quality vehicles, but if you can't efficiently produce them, that's another thing to work on.

All of these gains have been through steady improvement. These improvements come from vehicle designs, assembly improvements, and a motivate work force. They also don't happen overnight either. Sometimes, it's a slow process, but a beneficial process and necessary to build into the future with.

8 -- Dang! I was going to keep this whole deal reasonably short, but looks like I erred in that desire. My apologies!

NTX5467

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> It is classed as (in politically correct terminology) as a "crossover SUV" that is [color:"red"]<span style="font-weight: bold"> "car-based"</span>. </div></div>

But not a [color:"red"]<span style="font-weight: bold"> "car" </span>, i.e. [color:"green"]<span style="font-weight: bold">"compromised"</span>.

--as an aside: If you want to have fun sometime, go back through old copies of <span style="font-style: italic">Motor Trend</span> and look up their past C.O.T.Y. winners. It is without a doubt the biggest joke in the industry. <span style="font-style: italic">Car & Driver's</span> 10 Best list is only slightly better. They do <span style="font-style: italic">some</span> actual objective comparisons, but mostly it's a "what'd be fun to play with" list. Most "Journalists" doing these types of things lost the ability to relate to prolonged ownership many years ago. Their world pretty much ends at 5999 miles on the odometer.

[NTX5467]

I'll concur with the comments about the Motor Trend awards. In the '60s, for example, it was given to the whole vehicle line instead of just one model. I would give those earlier awards more credibility than the more current onces. At least in the earlier times, everything was compared to everything and it was a more level playing field. Innovations were rewarded and lauded as real advances too.

CAR AND DRIVER's 10 Best deal is somewhat interesting, but probably more realistic than the current MT deal. I've seen situations where they'd hammer on a particular vehicle for some detail and then it'd turn up in the 10 Best list that same year and it would be a really good vehicle.

It seems that those automotive journalists sometimes seem too jaded in some respects that they have trouble perceiving the realities of multi year ownership. Some of the long term test vehicle articles are pretty decent, though. Some of the C&D writers seem to be of the orientation that if it isn't new, it's not worth having. I do like some of their editorial writers' monthly comments, though. In one of their family comparison tests, they checked the interior space for passenger accomodations, but didn't evaluate the cargo area for the week long family vacation, much less a small child (and all that adds to the mix).

I liked the old CAR LIFE magazine for their attention to technical/mechanical details. When they awarded their 1966 Car of the Year Award to the full size Mercury, they had lots of technical information in the article. Things that didn't relate to styling or hype, but solid engineering data of how much better the new car was than the old one in almost every measure. They probably could have also given it to the similar Ford that year, but obviously Mercury went just a little farther in some respects as it was a higher level car line than Ford. Anyway, they looked at things differently than Motor Trend back then. Pity that Motor Trend bought them in the late '60s.

As for the "car" versus "other" versus "truck" nomenclature. If the SRX (in either 2 wheel drive or all wheel drive) is termed "car-based" SUV, would an Audi sedan with Quattro all wheel drive (and a fold down back seat for added utility) be similarly termed "car-based" SUV? Both are built on car platforms whereas the "real" SUVs are on truck platforms. The whole "crossover" nomenclature is really new-speak for the dreaded "station wagon" nomenclature. It's been mentioned in many magazines (by noted writers) that "station wagon" is a bad word and "SUV" is "in".

In the earlier times, station wagons were some really classy vehicles! It is suspected that as the minivan generation doesn't need a minivan anymore, the crossover SUV will be what they might well move up to for their new vehicle--provided they don't go all the way to the Suburban/Tahoe or Explorer/Expedition vehicles (which also have been somewhat stigmatized by various groups). End result, "crossover" is good (with respect to vehicle designations). "Car-based" means better fuel economy, typically, than the larger truck chassis SUVs too. A duck is still a duck, but a crossover SUV is not a station wagon.

Enjoy!

NTX5467

[Matt Harwood]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I'll concur with the comments about the Motor Trend awards. In the '60s, for example, it was given to the whole vehicle line instead of just one model. I would give those earlier awards more credibility than the more current onces. At least in the earlier times, everything was compared to everything and it was a more level playing field. Innovations were rewarded and lauded as real advances too. </div></div>

Actually, there's quite a bit of politics involved with the Motor Trend "Of The Year" awards. Yes, the field is comprised of significantly new or new vehicles, but the winner, much as they would like to have you believe otherwise, is the company that promises the best advertising. Usually they have to submit a plan for how they will use the "Of The Year" title in their advertising (for which the Motor Trend publisher gets a kickback) and how much they will spend on print advertising (not only in Motor Trend, but in all magazines). As much as they want to appear objective, the MT "Of The Year" contests are rigged by the almighty dollar. When I want unbiased information, I usually turn to Car and Driver, which has a habit of pissing off automakers as much as kissing their hineys like some of the other big car books. This is one of the industry's best-kept secrets, but the Motor Trend invitation to automakers typically refers to this "competition" as a "Marketing Opportunity." Hmmmm....

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> GM's on a mission to gain market share and is using the financial things to make it happen. How we judge their vehicles compared to others is not necessarily the issue, as each of us have differing orientations in that area. GM has the resources to keep this activity up until the newer and more desireable vehicles come to market (that hopefully will not need rebates to sell in large quantities). </div></div>

Excellent point. I hadn't considered this, but it makes sense. Let's just hope the new products are truly world-class!

See, I can be brief!

[Guest AWBE]

They will sell one to me when they start making a reliable rear wheel drive vehicle which doesn't fall apart. Which they stopped doing after about 1972 or 1973.

[HurstGN]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Of course, many of us would like to see The Blackhawk in limited production too. </div></div>

<span style="font-weight: bold">Why limited production?</span> Lets face the facts, quality means nothing, it's the hype that sells cars. (Sorry Dave, we can't ignore the hype) <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Seriously - Buick spent some bucks creating the Blackhawk for the "Lets show we can build a fun car once and then turnout jellybeans for sale" mentality of the lunatics running the asylum. Have you ever seen the Blackhawk not get attention? No! Then why not build it and show the world Chrysler isn't the only company that has the stones to stick it on the line and retool to build a car for the sake of building an enjoyable car. Yes, most would be pampered and become beloved show vehicles, but some would be drivers. I'd buy one in a heartbeat if it was available in current trim. What? Too much displacement for today's gas miserly drivers....OK, set me up with a turbocharged 6 like the Grand National that can rip to an 11 second time slip for about $1,000 in add-on goodies, but still take grandma to the grocery store and get 25 mpg+ on the highway with 50 lb Delhi injectors and ice cold AC coating the rear window with frost to boot!

I just find it amazing that Buick can develop and invest in the concept cars to get attention at the auto shows, just to turn out more of the same old same old. Sad. Unleash another beast and shock the people! He-double-hockeysticks! Kiss is still touring and playing to packed houses of their original fans in depends, with their children there to help them get around, and their grandchildren waiting in the wings. They got it right. Shock the people! Make a beast like the Blackhawk a reality! What do you have to lose? A 65+ year old buyer that isn't ready for some horsepower? I'll bet you won't lose them. That 65+ buyer will see the classic lines of his/her first Buick in the Blackhawk, and want the new car because it brings back memories of their first Buick. Now that's a way to go out...go out in style!

[/off soapbox for a real car]

Dan McCann BCA #34734

Chairman - National Pike Chapter

serving Southwest PA, Northern WV, and Eastern OH

Forced air induction heaven:

1982 Turbocharged Grand National

1982 Turbocharged Grand National

1986 Grand National

1987 Grand National

1987 Grand National