Buick and those pesky young people

[Guest wildcat65401]

Hi all,

First off , Happy Thanksgiving .

Secondly , excuse my spelling .

Okay , well I've read a few posts about Buick's image problems and young peoples lack of interest in the brand . So I thought I'd add my thirtytwo year old Irish opinion . I moved to Atlanta Ga from Dublin Ireland four years ago and have been driving sixties Buicks ever since , I love them and so do most of the people I meet [even the young ones , including the "flat black " hot rod rockabilly types who like nothing except p.b.r.]

Well .. where was I ? okay . The most popular and sucessful raceing video game of all time "Gran Turismo" which really is an amazing achievment itself is in its soon to be released fourth version . This is a BIG deal . It will sell millions of copies . Anyway they had an promo award event in vegas recently , lots of prizes etc. best import . best in show etc . Well the "best hot rod" which also won "best in show" is going to be included in the game . each car in the game is perfectly modeled , believe it or not they even feel and handle as they would . there are five hundred cars in the new version , but NO BUICKS?????? Well the "best hot=rod/in show " in las vegas was a 1961 BUICK SPECIAL so . I for one am thrilled . sorry, for rambleing . I know its a small step but I think to a lot of young people Buick are not even " in the ballpark" , what I mean is , left to there own devices young people would never even consider a Buick new or old . I really think this is a shame . If they were exposed more to them it would be a different story .\

I have made many friends because of my Buicks , some of these friends even ended up buying there own Buick . I know this sounds dumb to you guys but Buicks are cool , they're just not around for people to see .

Anyway I've lost my train of thought , but I just wanted to say something about all of this . I love Buick and it makes me sad to think that they are becoming a lost brand that young people don't care about .

See you all later , I'm off to think about the 1970 electra 225 I'm buying next weekend . WOOOO HOOOOOO

As crazy Joe Walsh used to say ,"you can't argue with a sick mind".

By the way I love four door hard-tops, and I think the 90's roadmasters are awsome , I'd love one . Though , do they really have a chevy 350 in them ????

[Guest wildcat65401]

I believe my point was , the 61 Buick special will be included in the Gran Turismo 4 game which will be released some time around april 2004 . This will expose millions of young people to a beautiful Buick which they never even thought about before . I for one can't wait . And I look foreward to raceing you all online asap .

Thanks for reading my rant , but I do love Buick .

Paul.

[Smartin]

Yeah, the ROadmaster has a Chevy 350 LT1

As a 22 year old, I have been doing my best to get the younger crowd into Buicks. The only way to get the younger folks into this is to really PUSH performance and speed.

Look what they;re all driving now....Camaros and Mustangs. Most of which, a stock 70 GS455 would wipe them clean off the racetrack.

We've gotta stop pushing rice in these kids' faces and start showing them what it really means to go fast.

[Philippe Racicot]

Nice point Adam, We also have to get younger people interested in full size cars! They are much cheaper to buy than Gran Sports (I mean the "small" ones) and even Skylarks.

Ultimate performance isn't our first goal when we buy large boats but they have their own advantages that could be appreciated by 16 years old people too! One of them is the much lower insurance premiums for daily drivers. I began searching for a decent low priced full size Buick when I was 14 and after having inspected a few cars (65 Le Sabre Custom coupe, 65 Wildcat deluxe 4 door hardtop, 76 Electra Limited coupe and a 75 Park Avenue), I bought my 68 Wildcat custom 4 door hardtop at 15 (in 1992). The Wildcat wasn't really expensive to operate (save for fuel cost), it was more loaded than the usual mid size car and relatively performant with it's 3.42 rear axle. I couldn't have a better car for the 600$ Can. that I paid for it. The body wasn't in very good shape and I had no intent to keep the car for 8 years but that's what I did. I learned a lot with this car and wasn't really worried about "touching" it since it had no real value. When I had an accident with it almost 4 years ago, the insurance compagny even paid me 5800$ for it! And I kept the car and sold parts out of it... The engine and tranny are currently in a 65 Skylark and still running! I also kept the 3.42 rear just in case I buy another Wildcat.

[NTX5467]

After the Buick Centennial Celebration in Flint, I have a renewed appreciation for the compact "baby Buicks". At one of our yearly shows, a guy brought out a pretty much pristine Special station wagon. A few "indiscretions" as for tires, radio, and such, but very nicely and tastefully done -- with NO major body mods. Even still had the original wheels and wheel covers! It really surprised him when he was awarded the Best Of Show award.

From what I've observed, the people whose age demographics show up in the buyer statistics are for NEW Buicks. With each used car cycle, the age typically gets younger and younger. Yep, even for the 4-door Regals with the normal 3800 V-6. LeSabres are still great family cars for the Great American Family too (for families that need more room than a Regal, but not wanting a van-type vehicle). Park Avenue customers do probably approach the much stated age demographics from what I've seen.

Getting some kind of neat Buick in the video game networks might be a good move. We all know that Chevies and such were NOT the only fast cars in prior times and it's still that way. Heck, if you look at the 0-60 times of a 3800 V-6 Regal LS, it will put many of the muscle cars of the '60s to shame (especially the ones wit the "standard" rear axle ratio) in "as produced" configuration. Even Karen Cisco drives a new LeSabre in the television show!

Enjoy!

NTX5467

[riv2x4]

In Chicago this weekend the zone ads for new Buicks included and additional $500 rebate for AARP members. The ads also states you only need to be 50 to join AARP. As far as I can tell Buick is actively going after the more senior market and is happy there. This is where they have made their bread and butter over the years and there must me a "if it isn't broke don't fix it" attitude there. Bring on the Blackhawk.

Larry

[NTX5467]

Mercury has the same AARP offer in their ads for the Grand Marquis too. From the original plan for the various carline divisions of GM, the mainstream Buick owner will be an older ("older" is relative here) due to the price of the new vehicles. Not typically something a 20-something would go out and buy for a new first car due to that fact, which is why the second owner demographics can be so important.

What's missing is the "aspirational" aspect of Buick's perception. I recall seeing a video with old car ads in it. It showed a female (and possibly single) school teacher being elated that she could buy a NEW Buick instead of a lesser make of car. It might have been a base model Special with blackwall tires, but it was an early 1950s NEW Buick nonetheless. Buying a Buick with the help of GMAC financing (remember: female, young, new job in those days probably meant no bank would do a car loan for her) was the key to helping her (in this case) start her new job on the right foot functionally and perceptually. Back then, a Buick was a Buick regardless of whether it was a Special or a Roadmaster--the message was the same, I've arrived and I'm going places in a reliable and classy AND upscale vehicle.

In the current design schemes, it's kind of hard to get the same visual pizzazz as in the 1950s with basically NO chrome trim or two-tone or three-tone paints, much less wire wheels from the factory. Yep, those are '70s and '80s styling cues, but they typically dressed up the cars much more than what the aftermarket has been able to do today (AND at much less cost than current aftermarket kits).

Perhaps with an infusion of Lutz magic, sales and marketing can branch out to capitalize on the youth aspects, especially now that kids don't always end up in 2-door coupes any more.

Hope y'all had a nice Thanksgiving and also have a great Holiday Season!

Enjoy!

NTX5467

[Guest 31tudor]

The reason that kids aren't drawn to new Buicks is because there's really nothing exciting about them, and Buicks are also one of the more expensive marques to be had. Buick had the right idea with the GN; tons of power and MEGA bang for the buck, but where are they now?

Yeah there's lots of rice running around, and I'll pick the most popular one there is, the Civic SI. At 170 HP and less than 2000 lbs, it's quick right from the factory. There are immense amounts of performance parts for it, and 100's of manufacturers are fighting for these kids money, driving down the price of parts drastically. Did you know you can buy a set of 17" wheels with tires for $500 on the internet, and that includes mounting, balancing, and SHIPPING TO YOUR FRONT DOOR?

IMHO, the bottom line is that if our marques were as readily available and exciting as Hondas, as cheap to buy/own/upgrade/maintain then that's where the "kids" would be searching. Most of these 16 to 50 year old "kids" really do appreciate our old cars, and in many cases would prefer owning and driving one, but we've scared them off by telling them how much time and money we put into our rides. In all reality, both groups spend everything they can and the amounts are probably equal.

Remember where our future is. These kids will get sick of rice and need something significantly more soon. The cycle has been happening for years, and will continue to happen. Some of you older guys know that when you were kids, you were considered hoodlums or just bad kids because you hopped up an old Model T and went ripping around town. Don't label today's kids the same way. You didn't appreciate it, and they don't either. Again, remember where our future is! A little respect goes a long way.

Okay, I'm off my soapbox.

[Guest my3buicks]

You find a Honda exciting?

[NTX5467]

With all due respect, when's the last time you heard of someone spending $10K on an American V-8 so it would run fast? Sure, the Honda/Acura cars are fast and can be made that way if not, but look at what it takes to make that happen. Look at how light they are too. And they were NOT really cheap to buy when new either, unless you look at the very low level Hondas.

If those import people were really concerned about going fast, cheaply, they'd be driving hot rodded Chrysler Turbo 2.2L cars. With about $40.00 of readily available parts from the hardware store, they will scare most of the import turbo people with how fast they'll run without getting into the motor for extensive mods. Lots of speed equipment out there too via the Chrysler Mopar Performance and aftermarket (Forward Motion and others) pipelines, not to mention the Neons too.

As for cheap performance parts for the current W-car GMs? There are tons of sites out there for that stuff. It all started with the Grand Prix people and spread to the similar Regals, Intrigues, and Impalas. Check out www.RegalGS.org and the other related sites. Lots of very in-depth tech information out there too, plus how to drag race a front wheel drive car!

I've NEVER gotten excited about any Honda/Acura, even the high end NSX. Good cars and such, just not my orientation. Sure, there's lots of import performance stuff out there, as evidenced by the Tuner TV shows on Speed Channel and similar, but if you notice their car shows do include FOUR DOORs too, plus all of the full custom stuff with PlayStations for every seating position (it seems). Lots of money spent on "eye candy" stuff that really doesn't make it any faster or handle better.

Many of us here are old enough (whoops, there's that word again!) to remember when sport coupes and convertibles were the glamour cars and such. Naturally, they usually had big motors that could lay rubber 'til whenever and peg the speedometer, but those cars are ssslllooooooowwww by modern standards. It's natural to suspect that the youth of today want the same cars as we might have liked when we were younger, but they obviously have different tastes in those things OR haven't spend enough time to break from the peer groups to explore what might be out there in the way of older cars or newer domestic cars. They also seem to be of the orientation that they HAVE to change something to get what they THINK they want, when it might already be out there from the factory. Be that as it may.

If you want NEW Buick stuff, the American Sunroof Corporation has packages for the Regals, Impalas, and Grand Prixs just as SLP had for the SS Camaro and Firehawk Firebirds. Brakes, suspension, exhaust systems, etc. Some pretty neat stuff for a price and nothing that could not be done to existing similar cars too. It's all out there NOW, just few people not into those cars are typically aware of it.

It probably is not "approved" to advertise high performance in a luxury car brand for whatever reason, but Buick has the hardware to do a better job of building a performance option package from existing parts than they have done recently. If they are getting ready to do it for Pontiac they can similar do something similar for Buick.

They could take a Regal GS, get the same strut calibration as they used on the '98 Regal GranTouring Suspension, add some larger sway bars and some 17" or 18" performance tires, maybe lower the ride height just a tad, add on some of the aftermarket exhaust items and maybe a less restrictive air inlet, and maybe a more agressive ECM calibration for good measure. Selective black-out paint on the lower body with some chrome accents here and there, plus some more prominent Tri-Shield emblems for that Buick Identity.

Even though this would be a luxury brand, the whole package should not be configured such that it had ALL of the luxury options in it. Performance should take precedence over posh, but posh should still be there as it IS a Buick car. Carving up corners doesn't require automatic a/c or even head-up displays, for example.

For good measure and marketing issues, the excellent Monsoon sound system of the earlier Regals would need to be included. End result, quite an automobile from the factory!

Market it against the similarly sized Jaguars and Lincoln LS, for example, but it could probably also pull from the Chrysler 300M ranks too. Several options there! It could do the same job that the late Olds Intrigue could have done in that market segment. Fast with Class and Value.

There could also be an upscale LeSabre-body car with supercharged power and upgraded chassis components too. Bucket seats with a console too. Similar things as the Regal I mentioned--it could be Wildcat. It could aim squarely at the 300M and probably could win, hopefully for about the same price as a 300M currently is. Sure, the new 300 car will be rear wheel drive, but the current 2004 Grand Prix is proving that front wheel drive sedans are not all boring, just as the 300M did.

Sure, Buick's core buyers will continue buying the cars they have for years, which is good and can fund the more niche models that will raise some of us' excitement level. But with a few option package repackaging of components, a synergy can very possibly exist that would put a performance tag on Buick moreson than in the past. It would have to be done carefully as Pontiac is again tagged as the "performance" division of GM. Pontiac = Performance with an edgy attitude. Buick = "Unsuspected" high performance that doesn't come out unless provoked. Cadillac = Luxury with highly sophisticated high performance hardware.

In reality, the Honda tuner market segment is being addressed by Chevrolet, Pontiac, and Saturn. There are already several "tuner" cars in those GM bodies with 400+ horsepower EcoTec 4 cylinders that are making the rounds on the nation's drag strips and tuner race/show activities.

The Honda/Acura tuner people are not going to give up their "kewl" cars just as the diehard Toyota Camry customer would "never" consider a Regal. There's a cetain mindset those particular people have bought into and exist within, which is fine if that's where they want to be (regardless of the monetary cost to make it happen). What probably needs to be done is make a credible case for GM vehicles they might enjoy owning and then make it happen. The way the 2004 Chevy Malibu is being presented in dealer training, it is a viable contender in that respect, for example.

The current and future hardware for some more performance oriented Buicks is already there, just as the market segment is (as www.RegalGS.org and other websites already proves). I recently rented a 2004 Grand Prix (base model) for a trip. Great chassis dynamics and performance, but those "racing inspired" seats with "wings" make it harder to get into and out of, but once there, it's great. Then, last week I rented a Regal LS. Better to get into and out of, but with the chassis calibrations and such of the GP (or the '98 Regal I mentioned above), it would have been more fun to drive. Somewhere between the two is a Buick that many might like to own instead of an import!

Enjoy!

NTX5467

[Matt Harwood]

I was reading in Business Week magazine this afternoon about Buick's predicament (in fact, the state of the US auto industry). Sure, the Regal is the highest rated car, but it doesn't pull in many buyers. Why? Well, it just isn't attractive to current buyers compared to the competition. Its quality doesn't outshine other aspects of it that turn people off. Seats that get less comfortable the longer you sit in them, for instance. It appears that the buying public wants more than reliability--they want other "intangibles" that the domestics can't quite grasp. For example, Buick may have eliminated squeaks and rattles in the dashboard, but did it by making it out of a large sheet of unattractive plastic. A lack of problems at delivery, however that's only due to the use of a decades-old design. See the problem? They are patching holes that the imports make, fix and then move on. It appears that Detroit is just trying to keep up, not leap ahead. And that's the problem.

Sure, it would be great if kids started hopping up new LeSabres. But until they are not only well-built, but cutting edge in terms of technology and styling, they'll get no more than a passing glance at best. But to do that means taking a chance at alienating their current bread-and-butter customers, the elderly. GM isn't a chance taker, and hasn't been for fifty years since the Corvette debuted. They're starting to catch on, but it's going to take a while to catch UP.

I hate to always be the wet blanket for these discussions, but a lot of you look at Buick as a do-no-wrong company. WE'RE THE ENTHUSIASTS, guys! We can't overlook every misstep and wonder why these dumb kids don't like Buicks because, damn it, they're fine cars. We need to look at the problems and fight them. We know what great Buicks are like--why keep putting up with mediocrity simply because we are Buick fans? I love my '41, and I think it was probably one of the finest cars of its era, an opinion that few will disagree with. But I'm not going to blindly follow Buick to its grave simply because I love my '41. In fact, I am more insulted and infuriated by Buick's present state of affairs than I am enthusiastic. I'm supposed to be the keeper of the torch, fine, but give me something that generates some heat, a spark, anything!

The problem isn't young people being blind--the problem is that there isn't a single Buick product out there that they can be enthusiastic about. Young people don't really shop brands--they shop product. Give them what they want and they'll buy it. Product is king, it's that simple. Build a better product, customers will come. Young, old, whatever--if it fits a need and does it with style and performance that are accessible, understandable and affordable, it'll be a hit. Obviously, that's hard to do, but right now, Buick isn't even trying. A rebadged 4 year old Chevy TrailBlazer with some soft springs and a leather interior is their latest "hot" product? C'mon! How about a 250 horspower DOHC V6 pushing the rear wheels of a Riviera-sized 2-door through a 5-speed automatic? How about a V8 powered 4-door with room for 5 and style that goes beyond tacked-on "portholes" to recall past glory.

Enough already. I'm too long winded. Sorry.

[Guest Skyking]

What a bunch of Buick bashers!!!!!!!!You all should find an import forum........

[Steve B]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What a bunch of Buick bashers!!!!!!!!You all should find an import forum........ </div></div>

I think Matt has a good point. Buick has turned a blind eye to the public: not the reciprocal. Quality and performance are no longer entwined at Buick. Trying to capitalize on their previous image does not stand the test of reality. Our innovative cars from yesteryear should have been the predecessor to today?s leading edge vehicles, but instead preceded mediocrity. That lies at the heart of why so many early Buick owners feel betrayed.

I write owning 6 Buicks: two 80's Park Avenues, one 67 Skylark racer with 525 monster Buick engine, a 66 GS convertible 4-speed, a 65 GS Skylark HT and a 63 Riviera. I am certainly not a Buick basher, but even in my small collection the earlier cars have more pizzazz than the top of the line Park Avenues. At 41, my first new car ever purchased is not a Buick, but a Ford. I wish it had been a Buick, but they, nor GM, offered what I wanted at a price I could afford. Now I have a solid, good looking 390 hp supercharged V8 convertible with a 6 speed manual transmission and independent rear suspension. Too bad Buick could not even come close!

[rocketraider]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Now I have a solid, good looking 390 hp supercharged V8 convertible with a 6 speed manual transmission and independent rear suspension. Too bad Buick could not even come close!</div></div>

If you listen to the gurus at <span style="font-style: italic">Hot Rod</span> a Subaru WRX STi can wax a Cobra's hindparts.

When the mag came yesterday, with that as the cover story, I said enough is enough and promptly e-mailed them to cancel my subscription, after throwing the magazine in the trash.

We all need to remember that left to their own devices (as they were many years ago) Buick and the other GM Divisions would probably build quality, desirable cars again. They are hamstrung by General Motors Corporate, who IMHO have had their heads up their collective asses for so long they'll never again see the light, much less assume a leadership role in the auto industry. There are certain "powers that were" at GM who realistically should have been shot, or at least served prison time for what they did to the company.

[Guest my3buicks]

That type of car is not what Buick has EVER been about nor will ever be about. Yes Buick has built some awesome performance cars but never one in that particular catagory. Even Buick performance cars have been aimed at a more mature(you've made it type crowd) over the years. Read some of the adds for the 60's GS's and they squarly aim at financially secure buyers. I for one as I grow older(43) find I want something different than when I was 21 - I want something that is comfortable, solid and practical but still says upper end.( I think I would have looked odd hauling an Antique bedroom set I just purchased in the back of your SVT) I think Buick is trying for a renewal and it can't happen overnight. I think Buick could build a fire breathing V8 Luxury Sport Sedan that blows away the rest of the market and it still wouldn't satisfy allot of posters on this forum.

[Steve B]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That type of car is not what Buick has EVER been about nor will ever be about. Yes Buick has built some awesome performance cars but never one in that particular catagory. Even Buick performance cars have been aimed at a more mature(you've made it type crowd) over the years. Read some of the adds for the 60's GS's and they squarly aim at financially secure buyers. I for one as I grow older(43) find I want something different than when I was 21 - I want something that is comfortable, solid and practical but still says upper end.( I think I would have looked odd hauling an Antique bedroom set I just purchased in the back of your SVT) I think Buick is trying for a renewal and it can't happen overnight. I think Buick could build a fire breathing V8 Luxury Sport Sedan that blows away the rest of the market and it still wouldn't satisfy allot of posters on this forum. </div></div>

Can you say GN, GNX, Stage II? What about those 13 66 Buicks GSs with 470 in stroker Nailheads? These all had leading edge technology built by Buick that lead the field: not followed it or maintained in it. Besides I have a diesel Suburban 4x4 for the end table.

[Guest my3buicks]

If you read my post you would have noticed that I did allow for the Buick performace cars of the past. But all of them were basically regular Buicks, beefed up, with bigger engines. Leading edge technology??? Maybe the GN/GNX. Not to say that Buick hasn't been a leader in inovation over the years. You just have to realize that Buick is never going to build a car in the same catagory as your SVT, it's just not Buick. I can't remember the exact words used that I have heard GM Brass use for what Buick would be but it was in the line of - Mature - Substantial - Powerful, etc - I think that's pretty much were they are and are going.

[Guest 31tudor]

I think Matt and Steve saw my point, but others missed it. My point was never directed toward Honda's being more exciting than Buicks.

First, KIDS don't see new Buicks as exciting cars. I'm 32, and I don't either. Big fluffy seats, fake chrome, and front wheel drive aren't my cup of tea.

Second, everyone is always bashing "kids". You were all the same way at some point, looking for the best thing you could afford. Your elders saw you as a bunch of good-for-nothin-trouble-makers, and you didn't appreciate the label... even if you knew it was true.

I won't be here forever, and a lot of you guys are much older than I. Don't shun the younger auto enthusiasts just because YOU think they don't like your Buick (or other older car). These are the kids that will carry our torch after we're gone, restoring and hopping up classics until the end of time. At some point in time, wasn't there someone older than you that took you under their wing to teach you about cars?

I'm a hot rod and a Buick enthusiast. I don't own a Honda, never have. My current collection of cars is two Fords, two Chevies, and my '62 Buick Invicta. Looks like it's gonna stay this way for a while.

[Guest Skyking]

Plain and simple: Todays kids are buying the rice cars because that's the "Fade"

Now let me explain what "Fade" means in the good ole USA. What people buy because their neighbor or co-worker buys. Let it be cars, clothes or just about anything........

[Guest 31tudor]

Silly me, I always thought that was a "FAD".

[Guest Skyking]

you got the picture...........

[Steve B]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Leading edge technology??? Maybe the GN/GNX. Not to say that Buick hasn't been a leader in inovation over the years. You just have to realize that Buick is never going to build a car in the same catagory as your SVT, it's just not Buick. </div></div>

Innovation is relative to the time period. How about the early V8s and switch pitch transmissions, and how about what Tommy I. and Max B. were able to do in their time with Buick engines? Buick's hallmarks had been understated performance and abundant quality combined with a willingness to offer something new. These marquees are what have faded into the corporate platform that offers nothing new or distinctive. What Buick of today will be collectable tomorrow? If you ask yourself this question, what honest answer do you find? The SVT is the GN of today, but Buick doesn?t have the stones or imagination to build it anymore! They would rather rest on their laurels and sell mundane cars of average quality. I think the public is smarter then that and wants more for the buck then Buick is offering. Unless they learn to provide something substantial, Buick will follow the path of Olds. That would truly be a shame to this proud Buick owner!

[Dave@Moon]

I just spent the holiday driving my mother-in-law's 2001 Century. I put about 150 miles on it, the most I've put on a "new" Buick in 20 years. I'd helped her find and buy the car earlier this year. We wanted her to get a Century because she couldn't afford a brand new car, the Century's resale value was so bad that she could get a pretty good one in her price range (without resorting to a truly unreliable car).

I was not impressed.

There was a visible divergence in the beltline between the front and rear doors, most prominent in the side view mirror. The front left fender sat abour 1/8" higher than that corresponding side of the hood. The (giant plastic monochrome) dashboard, whose lines extend in a cove on to the front doors, was slightly higher than the cove area on the left door, and slightly more lower than the cove area on the right door. (And no, this car was never in any accident of any kind.)

What was worst of all, the NVH characteristics of the car were approximately the same as my old Chevy Celebrity, which is to say that it was still pretty much the same old A-Body ride that GM's made for decades now. So was the driving position (bolt upright if you wanted to see over the very high dash at 5'11"). My cheap Nissan truck has <span style="font-style: italic">much</span> better seats (in an orthopedic sense) than this Buick.

A Camry, this wasn't. Bray all you want about loyalty and pride, <span style="font-style: italic">nobody's</span> backing it up for you in Detroit.

The reliability factors for these cars have improved. The Century has done quite well for itself for some time now, and the Regal has recently surged from what was a pretty dismal record two or three years ago. However this is only one measure of a car's quality. 25 years ago, when Toyota was already showing GM the door in terms of repair incidence, at least sitting in a GM car was not an ordeal compared to what passed for comfort in an import at that time. Times changed, and today a good Toyota is a place you want to stay for a while. This Century was good for 15 minutes, after that I kept wishing I could adjust floor height, seat firmness and lumbar position to better approximate my truck, and for the quiet that the interior fabric initially seemed to be promising.

And I haven't even gotten to the horrible 1972 era cruise control/wiper switch, or the headlights that were so dim I checked numerous times to see if they were on.

Buick is dead. It has been replaced by <span style="font-style: italic"><span style="font-weight: bold">General Motors</span></span>. "Buick" is now the tag sewn into <span style="font-style: italic"><span style="font-weight: bold">General Motors</span></span> cars so that they'll appeal to people who associate that name with a pleasent memory (e.g. old people). Ditto for most of the other GM "brands" that have been recombined in this manner, foriegn and domestic. This is deliberate. It's the same reason why Nike makes Air Jordans and velcro strapped mall-walkers.

Those who are here trying to discriminate between GM and Buick are trying to pull the river back out of the ocean. If you don't like what "GM did to Buick", then you don't like Buick. And you're not alone.

And one more thing, I've noticed a number of posters in their fourties (I'm 45) who appear to think that "appealing to the youth market" means catering to the college dropout rice-rocket crowd. It isn't. The average car buyer <span style="font-weight: bold">is</span> in his/her fourties, <span style="font-style: italic">unless you're selling Buicks in which case it's about 72!</span> "Appealing to the youth market" means selling to people who still have kids and a mortgage, not people who are kids and are trying to avoid a mortgage. Buick lost the "kid" market a long time ago, what little of it it ever had.

"Buick" is now the tag sewn into <span style="font-style: italic"><span style="font-weight: bold">General Motors</span></span> cars so that they'll appeal to people who associate that name with a pleasent memory. When that memory dies, so will "Buick". I had hopes it would go the other way, and Buick would become the new Toyota. It still may, but it looks more doubtful with every passing AARP discount.

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> If you listen to the gurus at Hot Rod a Subaru WRX STi can wax a Cobra's hindparts.

When the mag came yesterday, with that as the cover story, I said enough is enough and promptly e-mailed them to cancel my subscription, after throwing the magazine in the trash. </div></div>

Glenn,

You do realize that you just trashed your <span style="font-style: italic">HOT ROD</span> subscription because it said that a GM car (Subaru, albeit 25% ownership and growing) could beat a Ford, don't you?

[imported_buick5563]

Ya know, I was talking to a friend of mine who was talking about the" Harley Earl was here" commercials. The reason he left his hat on the hood of the SUV was because he (Earl) was disgusted at the fact that Buick was putting all their design in a Pontiac Aztec looking SUV instead of a Blackhawk type car with soul. Where was the Buick 100th anniversary hype? You couldn't turn on the TV without seeing a Ford commercial with a model a, Thunderbird, Mustang, etc. when it was their anniversary. I am a pesky young person with a pair of nailhead powered Buicks. It just bums me out to see Buick blowing it by not competing with a TT roadster or Mitsubishi Eclipse. I don't want no stinkin' SUV!

[NTX5467]

Some of Glenn's comments are pretty valid! Look at what GM was in the 1950s or so and look at what it's got for "assets" now--Gone: Euclid heavy equipment, Detroit Diesel, heavy duty trucks, FrigidAire, and DelcoRemy, among other things. GM vehicles helped build the highways the big GMC trucks hauled the produce and raw materials in (with Detroit Diesel engines in them if they were big enough) to the appropriate processing areas, then hauled the finished goods to and through their distribution networks, the purchaser took them home in their GM vehicle (if it was a food item, then it was put in their FrigidAire refrigerator). In effect, some GM entity touched the lives of most every USA citizen at some time in their daily lives. There's also a good chance that the locomotive that might have also moved the goods was built by GM Electromotive too.

Ford was similar in many cases, except for their Ford Tractor division that might have been used on the farm and the lack of locomotive production. Ford has heavy duty trucks then as now, but also had their Philco line of household electrical items.

If you have read the John DeLorean book on his time at GM, the comment was made that when innovations in GM products took place, it was during a time when the engineering types were in control of GM. When product tended to be bland, it was when the accounting types were in control. Probably one of the last times when the engineering people, per se, were running things was in the time prior to the 1980s. The accounting people pulled off a "palace coup" in the early 1990s and the rest is history.

One of Mr. Lutz's strong points is that he is neither an engineer nor an accountant, but fully recognizes that both sides can work together to produce exciting products for the same price as a mediocre product--or less. Cost controls and innovative engineering solutions can do it.

Much of what GM is dealing with today harkens back to management decisions made during the middle or early 1980s in one way or another. It really serves no purpose to fault those people for what they did then or what they did not do then as it was a "different world" in many respects.

What might be faulted could be termed as "turf battles" related to individual or collective corporate issues instead of really looking at what might lie ahead in the marketplace. If you spend too much time putting out fires, you can't fully focus on the issues at hand before they, too, become "fires".

GM had many marketing miscues and misdirections in the 1980s, as I've observed. That, plus delayed new products did contribute to the demise of Oldsmobile while other GM "divisions" maintained decent sales for the times. It was a curious chain of events, followed by the beloved "brand management" that helped dig the grave for Olds.

As GM morphed from a group of individual car company entities into what it is today, there certainly were some sound financial reasons for this to happen, but sometimes you can carry the "duplication of effort" elimination a little too far in some areas and not far enough in others. If the previous divisions were still more intact than they are today, each division might be more responsive to market issues as they were not only competing with outsiders, but also with the other GM divisions for profits and sales. This sibling rivalry helped drive much of what happened at GM in the earlier decades. When everything was combined, so to speak, that went away, as did the greater individuality of each of the division's vehicle lineups.

There are many side issues related to this whole situation! Some with good results and some otherwise. What some might see as plusses, others would count as minuses and vice versa.

Sure, some of us here are living in the past to a certain extent. After all, we've holding onto vehicles that have some special meaning to us for some reason or another and bring back pleasureable memories of times gone by. Many times, they caught our eye when we were younger and could not afford one new or a younger person might have seen one and decided they liked the old ones better than the new ones. Whatever the case might be, we are here as automotive enthusiasts that happen to also appreciate a particular marque of vehicle(s). We can talk at length about where things have been or how we got to this particular point in history, but what we need to be looking at is where we're going in the future and how to best get there--both for what we're doing in the automotive hobby and how it relates to the Buick automobiles we do or might want to own (old, older, new, newer, or otherwise) in the future.

There are enough decades of Buicks for someone to find something they like, appreciate, or want to preserve for future generations. Each generation of a particular vehicle platform or model series has their own unique plusses and minuses that might best fit our particular automotive tastes. These things can also transcend all age demographics of enthusiasts too.

Sure, we can all send communications to the powers that be at GM, Ford, DC, or otherwise and tell them to build cars that WE want and that WE perceive that others also want. Where the problem might come is that few of the current designers might really understand what WE want as THEY are not from our generation AND are looking at things about 7+ years down the road and trying to best balance things against safety, emissions, and fuel economy issues. Definitely a multi-faceted situation!

Buick must maintain its core customers and still reach out to new customers at the same time. More product will do that in many respects. If WE stop buying Buicks for whatever reason, how can WE expect others to buy them? WE are supposed to be the hard core enthusiasts that stick by their beloved marque through thick and thin, aren't we? Through this demonstrated loyalty, hopefully we might influence the powers that be to alter their planned courses with respect to future Buick products as WE are the loyal customers instead of "fair weather" customers.

Unfortunately, it appears that the next new product cycle will not be car-related, but SUV-related. But, if all of the new car-related products that can be out are out, then the 2006-2007 time should be an exciting time for GM. In the meantime, keep the faith and make a better tommorrow a reality.

NTX5467

[Guest Skyking]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I just spent the holiday driving my mother-in-law's 2001 Century. I put about 150 miles on it, the most I've put on a "new" Buick in 20 years. I'd helped her find and buy the car earlier this year. We wanted her to get a Century because she couldn't afford a brand new car, the Century's resale value was so bad that she could get a pretty good one in her price range (without resorting to a truly unreliable car).

I was not impressed.

There was a visible divergence in the beltline between the front and rear doors, most prominent in the side view mirror. The front left fender sat abour 1/8" higher than that corresponding side of the hood. The (giant plastic monochrome) dashboard, whose lines extend in a cove on to the front doors, was slightly higher than the cove area on the left door, and slightly more lower than the cove area on the right door. (And no, this car was never in any accident of any kind.)

What was worst of all, the NVH characteristics of the car were approximately the same as my old Chevy Celebrity, which is to say that it was still pretty much the same old A-Body ride that GM's made for decades now. So was the driving position (bolt upright if you wanted to see over the very high dash at 5'11"). My cheap Nissan truck has <span style="font-style: italic">much</span> better seats (in an orthopedic sense) than this Buick.

A Camry, this wasn't. Bray all you want about loyalty and pride, <span style="font-style: italic">nobody's</span> backing it up for you in Detroit.

The reliability factors for these cars have improved. The Century has done quite well for itself for some time now, and the Regal has recently surged from what was a pretty dismal record two or three years ago. However this is only one measure of a car's quality. 25 years ago, when Toyota was already showing GM the door in terms of repair incidence, at least sitting in a GM car was not an ordeal compared to what passed for comfort in an import at that time. Times changed, and today a good Toyota is a place you want to stay for a while. This Century was good for 15 minutes, after that I kept wishing I could adjust floor height, seat firmness and lumbar position to better approximate my truck, and for the quiet that the interior fabric initially seemed to be promising.

And I haven't even gotten to the horrible 1972 era cruise control/wiper switch, or the headlights that were so dim I checked numerous times to see if they were on.

Buick is dead. </div></div>

Dave, it surprises me with all your knowledge in automobiles, you would buy your mother-in-law such an undelectable car.......

[rocketraider]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> You do realize that you just trashed your <span style="font-style: italic">HOT ROD</span> subscription because it said that a GM car (Subaru, albeit 25% ownership and growing) could beat a Ford, don't you? <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" /> <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> </div></div>

I don't think a car like the WRX has any place in <span style="font-style: italic">Hot Rod</span> . If I wanted to read about tuner imports, I would go for <span style="font-style: italic">Sport Compact Car</span> or <span style="font-style: italic">Import Tuner</span> magazines. If the story had been in <span style="font-style: italic">Road and Track</span> or even <span style="font-style: italic">Car and Driver</span> I wouldn't have blinked an eye over it.

My anathema toward <span style="font-style: italic">Hot Rod</span> has been brewing for a while. I quit reading it in the 80s when the Pro Street movement dominated their pages (come to think of it, most Pro Streets were very much like these damn ricerockets, a lot of tacky add on stuff with no cojones to back up the look, and bookshelf wings are nothing new), and there was nothing in it but that and repeated buildups of SBC and Camaros, with no real innovation. It was the same thing every month. Got boring quick.

I had a <span style="font-style: italic">Muscle Car Review</span> subscription and had just renewed it for three years when Petersen/Primedia ( <span style="font-style: italic">HR</span> parent) bought the mag and promptly scuttled it after three issues- the ones that were in production when the sale was completed. My unfulfilled sub was changed to <span style="font-style: italic">Hot Rod</span> , which I didn't think much of but decided to give them a chance.

The first issue I received was, you guessed it, another lame SBC buildup and a Camaro-fest. Now, their direction is increasingly aimed toward imports and I am not interested in them in the least, no matter who makes them or holds controlling interest in the company.

It boils down to, why should I pay good money to read about something in which I have less than zero interest? Ergo, cancel the sub.

[Matt Harwood]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What a bunch of Buick bashers!!!!!!!!You all should find an import forum........ </div></div>

So we should blindly enthuse over whatever Buick throws at us because we're Buick lovers? Because we are unwilling to accept mediocrity we are automatically fans of imports instead? <span style="font-style: italic">Please...</span>

The problem is exactly what you use as a badge of honor--blindly accepting whatever crapola they foist off on consumers. Buying Buicks because you love Buicks is fine if you're getting your money's worth and a car you actually want to own. But wouldn't you feel a little stupid buying a Buick when there are obviously better choices for the same (or less) money? You're spending $20-25,000 for a car, when, for the same money, you can get a car that has been designed in the last 4 years instead of within the last 4 decades? Yes, go ahead with the "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" argument, the new technology for technology's sake isn't a good thing and all that. GM is counting on guys who think like that, in fact (witness the Opel-based Malibu, an excellent platform, saddled with the pathetic 3400--oops, 3<span style="font-style: italic"><span style="font-weight: bold">5</span></span>00--pushrod V6). I would at least like to believe that an engineer took a look at this thing sometime in the last five years to make sure that it is really worth the money they're asking for it. Voting with your wallet will show GM that it's time to do better.

I'm no import lover, but I do love my money, for which I work extremely hard. I <span style="font-style: italic">am</span> a Buick lover, but again, I don't find that I get my money's worth shopping there. If I was only about pounds of sheetmetal for my dollar, I'd get a Mercury Grand Marquis. If I wanted reliability, I can buy just about anything on the market that appeals to me--the details that separate the most reliable car from the rest are invisible minutiae. It is my belief that any modern car will be as reliable as I need it to be, so I shop for value and something that appeals to my tastes. I'm 32, and there are exactly zero cars at Buick that I would even consider renting for a weekend, let alone dropping tens of thousands of dollars on. I don't need a fire-breathing sports car like my Mustang, nor do I need a luxury car (and the definition of luxury car <span style="font-style: italic">has</span> changed in the past two decades, whether Buick understands that idea or not).

What <span style="font-style: italic">would</span> make me buy a Buick is a powerful, preferably RWD coupe or sedan (or, <span style="font-style: italic">dare I dream, a <span style="font-weight: bold">convertible!</span></span>) with 250+ horsepower from an all-aluminum 4-cam V6, a driver-oriented interior, 5-speed automatic (with optional 6-speed manual--<span style="font-style: italic">hey, it's my fantasy</span>), a comfortable balance between comfort and roadholding in the suspension, and adequate room for 4 (I don't need bench seats so I can cram 6 people into a car, thank you very much), and a reasonable price. Oh, wait, everyone <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">except</span></span> the domestics already makes such a car and prices it at about $30,000: Infiniti G35, Nissan Maxima, Acura TL, Lexus IS300, Mazda 6, Volkswagen Passat W8, etc, etc, etc... Why the heck can't Buick (and the biggest automaker in the world, for crying out loud!) make a piece of hardware like this? I would much rather buy it from Buick than from a foreign company (Oooh, you say, look at the new GTO! Um, designed and built by Holden in Australia, not Detroit, and it looks like a 2-year-old Grand Prix for Pete's sake!). But instead I must be saddled with "adequate" performance and styling from GM when there are other choices. Does GM really wonder why they went from 50% to 28% (and dropping) market share over the past 20 years?

Laugh if you want, call me a fool who doesn't recognize the way the world works today, whatever, but this "fantasy" of mine is exactly what Buick used to be--a good balance between sporty and luxury with enough performance to make it competitive with about 90% of the cars on the road. Look at my '41 Century or the late 60s GS cars--power, style, luxury in one package, built with care by people who were on top of the trends in the industry. They <span style="font-style: italic">used</span> to know how to do it, why can't they do it today? The forumla isn't hard.

I'm not a Buick basher--I'm just a regular consumer who loves cars and expects more for his dollar. I shop where my dollar gets me what I want. Build what people want, and they'll buy it. Is that so hard? It must be...

[Guest Skyking]

First off Matt, anyone who spends $25,000 or $30,000 for a car is a fool. I work hard for my money too. That's why I spent $8750.00 for a 2000 Century. Call it too much depreciation, call it what you'd like, but I say I made a good choice for my money.......

[Matt Harwood]

I agree--The current Buick Century is one hell of an $8700 car. I definitely think we agree on its market value...

Second, I think you risk offending quite a few people for calling us fools for paying what is, today, a reasonable amount of money for a new car. I don't find spending $30-35,000 for my next new car to be foolish. I get what I want and if there is value there for me, then I'm satisfied. You speak as someone who looks at cars as no more than transportation appliances, and that's great. I don't fault you for buying a used car at all, because it can be a wise financial decision. But I am passionate about cars in all their forms, and my daily drive to work is greatly enhanced by traveling in a vehicle that brings me pleasure in its every action, from how the shifter feels in my hand to the way it accelerates around an on ramp. I don't consider that foolish, and wager that many people agree--the $30-35,000 price segment is the most hotly contested segment of the industry at this moment.

And you should check the prices of new cars--this isn't the 70s where a new car costs $5000. Even a basic Ford Taurus costs more than $20,000 these days. I can appreciate buying cars second hand, but for me to put my wife and family in a used car is unthinkable. I want a new car with a warranty and roadside assistance a phone call away. Anybody who knowingly puts their family in a bad situation when there are alternatives can probably safely be considered a fool. But not one who inists on the best for family.

Be careful with your words--you can make your point without resorting to [foolish] generalizations.

[Guest Skyking]

Don't you think I got a little offended by you calling me "stupid" or did you suddenly forget?

[NTX5467]

I concur, Matt, the $30K range is where a good bit of the growth and activity will be in the marketplace. Pontiac recognized that when they configured the 2004 Grand Prix to have all of the cargo functionality it has. The comments were to the effect that younger buyers in that price range wanted something with high value, high style, and high functionality that would let them spend their money on other things than cars. In reality, though, the $30K range has been highly competitive for some time now, even if you wanted to expand it to $25K-35K. That covers a lot of territory and many neat cars.

I looked at the G35s several months ago. I like the lines of the coupe much better than it's sibling Nissan Z-car. More upscale too. But when the sedan had less leg room than many other similarly sized cars, that was the end of that. Plus all of the high level (read "Expensive") options on most of them, the normal import "package" deals for options suddenly reared their ugly head. Yikes! With some restraint, it did seem possible to get a G35 sedan for a decent price. Oops, it's on the OLD Maxima platform instead of the NEW Maxima platform? So much for really new stuff there.

If you just want something "by the specs", then the GTO is right in there too. I DO wish it was of North American manufacture and origin, but with the global orientation of the auto companies today, we got what we got. No reason at all that WE could not have done something of that nature up HERE in the first place either! Too many distractions with safety, fuel economy/emissions, and such on this side of the Equator, I suppose?

I might be a little older than Matt, but I TOO understand the reason for carrying a cell phone with me, not to mention buying something with OnStar on it too. No real place to carry tool boxes anymore! Nor is it fun to use them out beside the road anymore either! Are we all getting lazy or just becoming more aware of the world we live in not being the safest place in the world? Changing orientations with different times and advancing ages.

I doesn't bother me to own and drive older cars, but if I had a wife and kids, they'd have to have something reliable and safe (which new Buicks and other newer cars DO tend to be). It most probably would have some OnStar accessibility and she would have a cell phone with her--maybe even one of the older Analog 3-Watt models.

I suspect that if anyone starts shopping the various roadside assistance programs, you might discover that GM's program is one of the overall best. OnStar makes it better too.

A local paper had an advertisement for a new Grand Marquis GS. Selling it at about $500 over stated invoice (not mentioned that way, but just my suspicion) and adding all of the various rebates/allowances (AARP and Mercury Loyalty), the selling price suddenly dropped to about $19,000.00. Maybe with that much rebates and such, if you don't get too deep into a finance plan you might be able to drive it for two years and not spend too much money on depreciation.

Just some thoughts,

NTX5467

[BUICK RACER]

Ok, you guys, I agree with alot of your comments, my Mom just made a 800 mile round trip in a '95 Riv, and I am scared cause it's basically an old car, with no parts or support available, what would I like to see her driving? I really don't know, there's nothing out there that impresses her as much as the '95 Riv does other than a '85 Riv, but that's another story! I told her we should look for a low mileage '98 Riv, diamond white of course, but then that's still an orphan! The Cadillac SRX is an interesting piece but with the 3.4 engine is kinda scary as well as other things I know about how they paint them! The Rendezvous is off limits as it is not made in the USA, so forget that, the Rainer is more vehicle than she thinks she needs, the other Buick models are over priced, have way too many options, that aren't necessary, so what's a GM girl to recommend for her Mom's next car?? A Saab 9-2X? We get a GM discount on the Saab's now, not sure about this one, the Subaru WRX we definitely don't get a GM discount on yet, and when we do, ask me about a discount! RV

on the other hand, there is a RWD version of a Buick Convertible on the outlook for 2006, but I don't know any details, Bengal is the name!

[Matt Harwood]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Don't you think I got a little offended by you calling me "stupid" or did you suddenly forget? </div></div>

Ah, I see the problem. Apologies. Though I clipped your quote, my comments were to the forum at large, and to a lesser extent, to GM, who may or may not be listening (I'm betting on not). I certainly didn't mean to single you or anyone else out, and my "stupid" comment was certainly not directed specifically at you, <span style="font-weight: bold">Skyking.</span> Again, my apologies for the misunderstanding; it was not intentional. I'm not here to make enemies, I'm here to talk Buicks!

Hope this makes everything right. Sorry about the confusion.

[Guest Skyking]

Matt, there's no problem here. I also apologize.....sometimes I get carried away. I think the problem here especially with me is I can't mix old cars & new cars together. I'm sure you & I have the same views on older cars than we do on newer cars. To me they just don't mix well. You are right about the new cars just being transportation to me. See I don't get the same feeling with newer cars as I do with my older Buicks............

Bob

[Guest]

I don't even know where to begin with that comment.  It caught my attention right off the bat because I suppose I'm one of those "pesky young people."  I'm 19 years old and I belong to a Washington State based car club called "United Classics."  The club consists of about 15 other members who are all right around my age, and pertains to 1958-1973 Fullsize GM vehicles.  I happen to know a lot of people around my age who love, own, and appreciate old gm cars, buicks included.  I saw some people talking about General Motors and having that include saturn, suburu, hummer, etc.  Anybody who knows anything knows that GM is Cadillac, Buick, Pontiac, Oldsmobile, and Chevrolet.  Everything else is crap.  The reason "pesky young people" are into hondas, imports and all that other nonsense, is because they needa role model, lol.  Everyone's a product of their environment, so unless their dad or someone they know is into buicks or rides of any sort.  They're going to like what their friends do, which is usually something like an import.  Just like I always say though, if everyone on the planet liked it, it wouldn't be cool.  I grew up with my dad liking datsuns, and toyota's, so everyone is different on what their taste will be.  Besides, you've all been to monster truck shows and such.......all the old imports are used in the roll over contest.........you honestly think a honda will be a classic someday?  That'd be like taking a restored honda cvcc to a car show.  To be honest I LOVE old buicks, but you damn pesky old dudes w/the fat wallets prohibit us "pesky young people" from buying them.   Most young people can't afford an old car because its a project, and needs restoring, which always takes a lot of money to make it happen........granted you can buy them running, driving, and rust free, but anyone who has a car like that will know its worth, and then once again price is an issue.  Just know that all youth isn't totally turned off to the idea, it just takes more work and effort to get something old on the streets.   For those who'll go through all that, and do it, are the ones who'll prove your theory wrong about pesky young people and their buicks.

[rocketraider]

United, thanks for a refreshing and different take, that needed to be said. Many old car hobbyists would do well to heed your words, because they ring true.

The thread is not a slam against young folks so much as it is a slam against GM for not building new cars that would attract a young buyer. Never mind that one of the sales mantras at GM is "youth market"- I believe they truthfully haven't a clue about youth market. Otherwise, why aren't they building sporty, well-built cars with appealing performance and styling, <span style="font-weight: bold">at an affordable price?</span> A market that, as bad as I hate to admit it, the imports have cornered.

Back when GM <span style="font-weight: bold">was</span> Chevrolet, Pontiac, Oldsmobile (r.i.p., for it is no more), Buick, Cadillac and GMC truck, instead of "brand management groups" that peddle the exact same car with slightly different nameplates, they were the acknowledged leader of the automotive industry. That can't be said now, and a great deal of the credit for that fiasco can be laid at their own doorstep. Sure, the accountants figured out how to make more money by consolidating carlines and eliminating styling updates and innovative engineering, but at what TRUE cost? If people aren't buying your stodgy cookie cutter product, you're not going to remain in business long.

I agree that some of us old pharts (hey, I'm only 47) are guilty of pricing the old cars and restoration parts out of the financial reach of young folks who have a true interest and appreciation of them. I've got a casual friend who deals in Impalas, and he has not sold one for under $15,000 in the ten years I've known him- and these are cars that still have some rough edges. But people buy them, and then spend several thousand dollars more with him buying parts to finish the car properly. I've heard him say he doesn't like selling one to a kid because they won't buy the restoration stuff from him, so he jacks up the price on the car where they can't afford it. Told him once he might want to get his prices in line with the other vendors- "NAWWW- I won't make any money!" Well- the others are making enough to stay in business, and their prices are 8-10% cheaper than yours with more overhead costs than you have. He's also said he'd rather sell to people with money. So you have to get past sellers and parts vendors with that mentality.

I lost an ebay auction last night to a guy who I know will resell the part at 300-400% profit. I needed the part for one of mine and made a fair bid. Now, to get it, I'll have to pay out the wazoo for his "very very rare part, hard to come by" (his standard prattle for everything he sells).

Guys like you are one reason I take my old iron out to cruise nights, and even just to cruise the strip on weekend nights. I pull into a parking lot where people are hanging out (before the cops come and run everyone off, local PD considers any gathering with more than three people hanging out a riot situation or gang war, what idiots <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" />) and shoot the breeze, not only about old cars, but cars in general or anything else. I've found out that there are more like you, who will privately confide that they can't stand imports, but have to go along with the trends or be alone.

So, put up with us- we're crusty and opinionated, but we're not all bad guys and truthfully most of us aren't that far removed from where you are right now. There are a few of us who can see the future of the old car hobby and realise it's guys and girls like you.

But with the crap the carmakers are building for us and government is regulating for us, thirty years from now there may not be an old car hobby. The stuff being built now won't be of interest to anyone, and the government will have outlawed our polluting old dinosaurs by then anyway.

[Centurion]

Well said, Rocketraider!

United Classics, it's great to see you on this forum, and I note that your group is here in Washington state. Every summer, we're doing a joint, one-day driving tour with the Buick, Oldsmobile, and Pontiac clubs here in the Puget Sound area, and most of us are also heavily interested in the 1958-73 era. Would certainly enjoy having your group join up with us for this or other events. If United Classics is eager to hook up with some other GM car enthusiasts in the area, please feel free to e-mail me at laurance@integrity.com

[HurstGN]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Buick had the right idea with the GN; tons of power and MEGA bang for the buck, but where are they now?

</div></div>

My garage! MUHAHAHAHAHA! Except for the 86...it's here at work with me...the daily driver.

I still patiently await a REAL Buick, like the Blackhawk. C'mon Buick, make this old man a Blackhawk!!!!! <sigh> I think I'll be waiting a while...