Car & Driver off the mark

Dave@Moon · February 21, 2004

"It almost looks like a Buick!"

This was the insult that I just heard Car & Driver TV use to disdain the new styling of the 2004 Mitsubishi Galant. It was probably the worst overall review of a car I've ever seen on that show. They hated it to put it mildly. However...

It was the use of this statement as a dig that sticks in my craw. I've never been a great fan of the newer Buicks, (now there's a big secret!) but I've always felt that they were among the most attractive cars on the road. C&D complained that the Galant was boring in appearance, blending in with the other cars on the road so as to be invisible. That's as maybe, as is any presumed (and I'd say fanciful) resemblance to any Buick product whatsoever. But the mainstream use of "Buick" as as an insult in this form breaks new ground.

New Buicks aren't dramatically styled or striking. They look like what their supposed to be, distinctive near-luxury cars. I find them all (physically) very attractive, and I consider myself a pretty good student of car style. I've not heard the overall appearance of the Buick marque used as a negative before.

This comment may have been off-base, but it illustrates the bad public perception of the brand that's been cultivated of late. It must be fixed. "Me too" sedans and SUV's won't do it.

Mr. Lutz, your work will not be done for a long time!

rocketraider · February 21, 2004

Dave- consider the source. Since time immemorial, if it wasn't built in Japan or Germany, the "enthusiast" magazines generally had little good to say for it. Although it does sound strange that they would slam a Zero. Maybe Mitsubishi Heavy Industries is figuring out that American car buyers like cars that look American and style the product to suit.

You gotta remember C&D types are people who could find fault with a Rolls-Royce. But Rolls, like Buick, fits its target market well. Big deal if it can't go 100 mph thru the esses and then stop in 50 feet.

NTX5467 · February 22, 2004

CAR AND DRIVER have been known to break new ground in many areas for quite some time. Not the first time they have chosen a Honda over a Buick (or other similar GM vehicle) and it won't be the last. In their last "family car" comparison test, they chose the Honda over a Regal and Impala by a large margin, but we know full well that a Honda would not nearly fit the mold of the middle '60s family cars WE grew up with--small trunk, no leg room, no shoulder room, no "makeout" room (had to mention that, hehe)--not to mention costing more to boot with more required maintenance. Oh well.

Many in the press have somewhat "tilted" views of what used to be middle class luxury cars. They're always hammering them for their "old platforms" (but no similarly derrogatory mention that a current Mustang dates to the 1978 Fairmont!) or their "low tech" motors (with no similar comments about Corvettes or Vipers that similarly have pushrod motors) or allegedly low sales (as if they are ripe candidates for "heaven", regardless of how much money they put into the corporate bank on each one sold or what great values they might be). In essence, they don't understand the target market as most of those media types are NOT in the target market for those vehicles. They might live with them for a short time at best so they might miss some of their endearing virtues for whatever reason.

I recall an Edmumds.com review and article on an Olds Intrigue. It was obvious that they did not want that car and especially not one with the rear spoiler on the deck lid, much less the color they found in dealer stock (and bought as they were under the gun to get one).

That car had innumerable alleged faults that resulted in many trips to several local (Los Angeles?) dealerships, all with unsatisfactory results. The people the car was basically signed out to did not like it -- period -- and it showed in their comments about it. One staffer took it back east to visit the relatives. They told him up front how much he would not like the car (for their laundry list of reasons and should have taken the favored Honda Accord in their fleet). Funny thing was, his log book comments were about how comfortable it was, it's great handling and ride, room, economy, reliability, and general feel. He stopped in Denver for routine service and even had a good dealership experience there too--fancy that. The car performed flawlessly and he noted that. His associates back in CA probably could not believe that as it was totally opposite of their orientations. Some people are seemingly in awe of Honda or Toyota for their great cars, but that does not mean everything else is junk either. Even when that test was done, the GM products were already probably better than or equal to their oriental competitors in many respects, just that no one really knew it or bothered to look at the total picture. After reading that Intrigue article and a few others on the Edmunds.com website, I marked them off my list of "impartial" sources for automotive information.

Dave, Buicks have been referred to in many aspects for quite some time and that's probably not going to change. Some are good, some might not be. Just have to look at who's saying it, consider their point of reference or hidden agenda, and go on down the road. Sometimes, those media people are in a space of their own. For a while, it seemed that C&D's main people looked at things through "Honda colored" glasses. We're paying them for their opinions, just that some put too much stock in their (C&D) opinions. Just because they say something (which should be taken as information that we will validate ourselves) doesn't mean it's "gospel".

As for "anonymous" cars that blend in, the orientals seem to have those styling cues patented. If you look at a middle 1980s oriental vehicle, can you tell which one it is without finding a nameplate? Each one now seems to have some minor styling cues to distinguish them from others, but some are still pretty "blended in". Problem is that when GM tried to crack those particular market segments, they figured they needed similar styling so that's where they went as they suspected that target buyers in those markets wanted "anonymous styling".

Enjoy!

NTX5467

Dave@Moon · February 22, 2004

Glenn,

I always assume that enthusiast mags are not going to think well of Buicks. They're just not enthusiast cars. But this was different.

Is there anyone out there that thinks the current Regal or Century is an unattractive car? Can you really say that they're duller looking than a Camry or Accord (or the Galant for that matter)?

I think this slip of the tongue (or pen) speaks more to Buick's image problem than any of it's products. When your name is the butt of jokes and derogatory comments you've got a lot more work to do than just product improvements.

February 22, 2004

Dave I've been saying this for quite some time about the looks of Buicks. They are no more boring looking than the Camrys, Accords or any of the competition. In fact, they are much better looking than a Honda. The sheet metal on an Accord is terrible looking with the tail end hanging looking like it got hit. There design front & back is horrible but yet they sell like hotcakes. And as far as the statement made by C&D, it's just tippicle of American journalism putting our own products down....it's nothing new.

Smartin · February 22, 2004

I just saw it!!!!

They definitely made Buick sound like one of the most "plain Jane" stamp-out cars ever.

I think people are missing the mark when they declare something like that...especially when there's so much more to the history they nobody sees.

I agree with Dave.....what a stupid comment.

NTX5467 · February 22, 2004

I just saw the replay on Sunday. The remark in question used the word "almost" so that might lead me to wonder if they really know what a Buick looks like? BUT, would you not want a low $20K car that "famed" C&D said "almost" looked like a $26K+ Buick?

In many cases, the smoother flowing curved bodies of modern vehicles don't really lend themselves to pizzazz-boosting cosmetics as in the prior times when cars had REAL LINES, lines that could be accented with two-tone paint, additional trim, or tasteful tape stripes. I even caught the Subaru ad that mentioned "sophisticated monochrome paint" on some Forrester variations. Some of the advocates of sharper body lines will always find vehicles with smoother lines to be boring--to each their own.

But did you also catch the glowing praise of the Cadillac CTS-V??!! Even a mention of putting the Corvette-spec engine in "grandma's car" too! To their credit, they did much more to that car than just put a more powerful engine in it. I do tend to find C&D Television's new "in your face" background music and tone of voice a little too busy, though, but that kind of goes with adapting to the younger market, maybe? Definitely a change from the previous shows.

Enjoy!

NTX5467

Matt Harwood · February 23, 2004

I know my thoughts on the subject of GM's styling and engineering faux-pas have been well documented here, but I do want to chime in with a few thoughts.

First, with all due respect, you guys sound like a parody of the "typical old man:" Why, in my day, cars had tailfins and lots of chrome, and we liked it that way! Cars just aren't what they used to be..." The market has moved, and continues to do so at an ever-increasing pace, and some companies can keep up, and some can't. Buick of late is an example of a company that can't.

Second, Buick's reputation as an old man's car with bland styling, to my 34-year-old enthusiast's eyes and ears, is well-deserved. There isn't a single vehicle in their lineup that I would even consider buying, no matter how inexpensive, reliable or wonderful it may be. My father's late-model Century is the most bland, personality-free, invisible and uninvolving vehicle I've driven since I was a kid pushing one around on the floor. Then I drive my buddy's Nissan Altima (which costs about the same), and even with a 4-cylinder, is A LOT more fun to drive and to my eye, looks vastly more interesting, what with some sharp body creases (REAL LINES?) and a rakish greenhouse. The Century looks more like a used bar of soap than any car since the 1997 Taurus. The oval grille theme doesn't help, either...

Again, I realize that some of our differences of opinion arise from either 1)age differences, 2) personal tastes and 3) market exposure. I certainly don't fault anyone for liking today's Buick line-up, but it just isn't for me. It isn't so much about mechanical sophistication (remember that I used to build and race high-performance Corvettes with the LS-1 pushrod motor), but about mechanical harmony. To many consumers, good performance goes beyond numbers and into the realm of subjective intangibles. My father's Century has mushy brakes, tires that squeal even on modest corners at modest speeds, numb steering that isn't proportional to wheel input, rotten seats and a thrashy motor that sounds like it's really working hard, even when it isn't. In contrast, the Altima made neat precision mechanical sounds, went where I pointed it without any drama, gave me confidence when I turned the wheel and stopped accurately and without any nonsense. It just worked more like I want a car to work.

Now I'm not singing the praises of imports over domestics simply because they're imports and I love imports. Quite the contrary, in fact. If I can buy a domestic product that does everything I want it to, I do. But Buick doesn't build such an animal. Neither does Chevrolet. Or Pontiac. Or Ford (well, except for the new Mustang!). Or Lincoln. Cars I'm currently looking at for my next purchase: Dodge Magnum wagon, Mazda 6 wagon, Mercury Marauder, Infiniti G35, Cadillac CTS (wish I could afford the CTS-V!). About half-and-half import/domestic, yes? No specific engine/driveline configuration (from a pushrod V8/AWD setup to a 24V DOHC V6 and FWD). It's about the hardware, not who makes it. I've said it before and I'll say it again:

Product is king. Build a better product and people will buy it, no matter whose name is on the badge. It's that simple.

I also find it remarkable that the CTS can be referred to as "Grandma's car" when the virtues of the Buick are extolled. WHAT?!? The CTS was tuned on the Nurburgring in Germany and has handling and driving dynamics that rival the benchmarks. The CTS is the first Cadillac in years, if not decades, that features some driver involvement and--gasp--a manual transmission! With 400 horsepower, RWD, a 6-speed transmission, 14-inch brakes and fully independent suspension, this thing has the hardware from a sports car. It has styling which, while not to everyone's taste, looks unique and unabashedly American--somebody took a chance on it. THIS is a car I lust after.

So, to get back on-topic, I don't blame the guys at C&D for using "Buick styling" as an insult. Buick styling, to me, is the complete absence of style. It was designed by a committee to be inoffensive to everyone, but passionate to no one. Buick is a simile for uninvolving, uninspired and, dare I say it, boring. I think they're spot-on in their comments--the Mitsubishi does look bland and Mitsu should be criticized for bringing an all-new car to market and cloaking it with lousy sheetmetal (just like Ford is being criticized for their new 500 sedan--which not only looks bland but only packs a 200 HP V6). In today's family-sedan market, consumers expect at least a little flair in their sheetmetal, even if they don't want a racy look. They expect some power and performance, even if they aren't hot-rodders or sports-car enthusiasts. They expect some feeling of "worth the money" when they get in the car. If they cross-shop every other car in the Century's price range, they probably would be disappointed by the Century and buy something else (Rabid Buick enthusiasts notwithstanding ).

If the world were based entirely on JD Power ratings and Consumer Reports, then sure, Buick would probably be a good deal more popular than it is. But statistics are like bikinis: it's what they don't reveal that is important. Filling out the forms for JD Power, the questions merely ask if you are satisfied, not how you are satisfied. Yes, the car gets me to work and doesn't break down, therefore I am satisfied with how it does its job and with its reliability. I don't freeze in the winter or sweat in the summer, and I'm not deaf from driving it, so I am satisfied with its comfort. It gets decent gas mileage, so I'm satisfied with its economy.

That's glowing praise, apparently, because that's all Consumer Reports and JD Power track.

But do I love driving the car? No. Do I stand in the garage and admire its lines as I do with my '41 Buick or my wife's Audi TT or my step-father's Infiniti FX45? Heck no. Does it make me want to drive for the sheer pleasure of driving? Absolutely not.

Ask those questions about some of Buick's compeition, and the answers might be very different. I know they would be for me. I can get all the virtues you guys extoll about the Buicks, and add in a dash of performance, a responsive suspension, typically better fit and finish (there's a gap almost an inch wide between the dashboard and the front doors in my father's Buick--and it's on both sides, so don't tell me it isn't a good fit--which would be a HUGE flaw, by the way), all for the same money? They make not choosing the Buick too easy. Choosing between the compeition, all of whom offer all that, is the hard part.

If Buicks give you what you want out of a car, great--I'm glad you enjoy your car, which is all I really want. But insisting that others are blind for not seeing the same "virtues" in it that you do is crazy. C&D drives hundreds of cars each year--I think their backsides are pretty well tuned to what "feels" good about a car. In my experience, both in reading the magazine and in having my cars tested by them, they pretty much call 'em like they see 'em. Right now, Buick is a snooze-fest and there are better alternatives out there. That's why almost everyone sells more cars than Buick does. And the instant Buick changes its styling, attitude and performance from "adequate" to "let's kick arse and take names," I'll be there saying, "Yay Buick!" But until then, I refuse to be the blind led by the blind. My money's too hard to earn to throw it away.

If adequate is all you want, adequate is all you'll get and you'll be satisfied with it. That's not a fault or a character flaw or even a crime. You do have to realize, however, that many people won't accept adequate, and that's why today's cars are so good, so reliable, so fun and so affordable.

I'll be waiting for the hate mail, as always...

PS: NTX, heck yes the magazines hammer the Fox-chassis Mustang. C&D even called it "inexcusible" that they would charge almost $40,000 for a car that was designed when Carter was president... And it's just embarrassing how out-classed the Impala and Regal are when compared to the Honda. Have you driven them back-to-back with an objective mind and no personal interest? It doesn't sound like it. It isn't the 60s any more, and consumers typically don't want those kinds of cars (though they're perfectly happy to have those kinds of cars disguised as trucks, oddly enough). The glory days weren't so great--today's Honda Accord will run away from a vast majority of the muscle cars built at the height of the era. We all have rose-colored glasses for the past, but...

February 23, 2004

Amen, Matt.

Several years ago, Automobile magazine test drove the Toyota Solara convertible and loved the car. They likened the experience to that of driving a mid-50's Buick convertible in terms of solid feel and the open-air experience. When Buick again produces cars that evoke that kind of memory, I'll buy one. Until then, my money goes elsewhere.

JMC

Matt Harwood · February 23, 2004

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> That car had innumerable alleged faults that resulted in many trips to several local (Los Angeles?) dealerships, all with unsatisfactory results. The people the car was basically signed out to did not like it -- period -- and it showed in their comments about it. One staffer took it back east to visit the relatives. They told him up front how much he would not like the car (for their laundry list of reasons and should have taken the favored Honda Accord in their fleet). Funny thing was, his log book comments were about how comfortable it was, it's great handling and ride, room, economy, reliability, and general feel. He stopped in Denver for routine service and even had a good dealership experience there too--fancy that. The car performed flawlessly and he noted that. His associates back in CA probably could not believe that as it was totally opposite of their orientations. </div></div>

One funny story that may be relevant. My uncle came to visit us several years ago. He's lived in Sacramento for 30 years or so, and hasn't visited us in Cleveland since the mid-80s or so.

Anyway, the first thing he asked me was, "What's with everyone driving around with their headlights on?" Obviously he meant the DRLs on GM cars. When I told him that the lights on GM cars come on when you start the engine, he replied, "Oh. We don't see many new GM cars in California. I never noticed that before."

If that doesn't tell you about the sorry state of GM's marketing and sales, nothing will. The biggest car market in the biggest car market country, and GM doesn't sell enough cars there to even be noticed. Holy cow!

Just an anecdote that NTX's quote above reminded me of.

Sign In

Car & Driver off the mark

Recommended Posts

Dave@Moon

Link to comment

Share on other sites

rocketraider

Link to comment

Share on other sites

NTX5467

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Dave@Moon

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest Skyking

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Smartin

Link to comment

Share on other sites

NTX5467

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Matt Harwood

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest John Chapman

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Matt Harwood

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Activity