LeSabre's Replacement: Portholes and Available V8

[Centurion]

On today's AutoWeek.com:

High-end Buick LeSabre replacement to get V8; move stirs internal debate

RICK KRANZ | Automotive News

Posted Date: 9/13/04

DETROIT -- Buick will drop a V8 engine into the highest-priced LeSabre replacement, a move that is spurring an 11th-hour debate.

General Motors staffers are wrestling with how to position the high-end model - the first Buick with a V8 in nearly a decade - in relation to the V6-powered replacement for the LeSabre.

One element both models will share is a series of portholes in the front fenders. That styling cue will signal whether the model carries a V-8 or a V6. The V8 version has four portholes; the V6 has three.

Buick's top-selling vehicle, the front-wheel-drive LeSabre sedan, will be re-engineered and restyled for the 2006 model year. Sales will begin in late 2005.

A new name is likely, as Buick introduces a family of sedans and nameplates to rejuvenate the brand. One name mentioned by dealers is Lucerne.

A GM insider who asked not to be identified says that the V8 LeSabre replacement will be marketed as a "sport luxury" sedan. It will be priced to fill the slots vacated by the Park Avenue and Park Avenue Ultra. Those vehicles have sticker prices from $37,145 to $42,320, including destination.

The insider says the V6 sedan will be priced to keep LeSabre owners in the fold. The 2005 LeSabre's sticker prices range from $27,945 to $33,605, including destination.

2 schools of thought

Because the V8 model's sticker price could be as much as $8,500 above the top-end V-6 LeSabre, GM is debating how much difference - if any - needs to be created beyond portholes.

"That is still in flux. There are two schools of thought," says the GM source. Some say, "You should have some differentiation between (the V6 model) and the sportier edition, and the other (view) is spend your money a different way."

While specifics other than portholes were not given, the sheet metal between the V6 and V8 models will be shared. The V8 model could have a different fascia and grille, along with large wheels.

No 20-inch wheels

Some within GM's styling group want large, 20-inch wheels, the rage in the aftermarket. But wheels larger than 18 inches will not be offered. The car's suspension was not engineered to handle the bumpier ride caused by low-profile tires and large wheels, says a GM engineer familiar with the program.

The last V8-powered car Buick offered was the big, boxy 1996 Roadmaster, a sibling to the Chevrolet Caprice.

The Buick Rainier SUV has a V8.

Portholes were a Buick styling characteristic for many years, starting in 1949. They were reintroduced on the 2003 Park Avenue Ultra. But the portholes were expected to die when the Park Avenue is killed this year.

Sources say that GM Vice Chairman Robert Lutz revived portholes after the Maserati Quattroporte sedan was unveiled at the 2003 Frankfurt auto show. That Maserati has three portholes in the front fenders.

[Reatta Man]

A list price up to $42,000? Another Buick that costs more than several Cadillacs? Yep, that ought to be great for sales. Sorry to be pessimistic, but with Cadillacs all over MTV, Oprah giving away new Pontiacs, I can see $5,000 rebates on this car in less than a year.

So much for GM wanting to ween the public off of rebates.

[Centurion]

Remember that Cadillac is moving further "upscale", so there should be less price overlap between the two brands.

As for rebates, the determining factor will be the product. I believe that Buick has stronger brand equity than Chrysler, for example, and look at how well the new Chrysler 300 is doing. I'm hoping that the product will prove so attractive that sales will remain strong without rebates. There are no photos out there yet, so we may not know for several months how this car will look.

[Matt Harwood]

I'm really excited to see Buick focusing on product again--a V8 sedan can only help their position. I also like the idea of portholes finally coming to mean something again. For the extra money, I don't much care if the car looks significantly different becuase <span style="font-style: italic">I'll</span> know what's under the hood. However, it would be great if people learned to respect the 4-porthole Buicks again!

As the Chrysler 300 has proven, <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">PRODUCT IS KING!</span></span> Build a better Buick and the sales will come, I guarantee it. There are no rebates on the 300, a waiting list at most dealers and new product variants already in the pipeline (Dodge Charger sedan, Chrysler 300 SRT, coupe version, etc.) which proves that a good product will find customers. Seeing them on MTV and rolling on 22" rims means that they have found the youth audience as well. Nicely done.

Buick needs a home-run product like this. No more bloop singles, but a home-run. As Brian pointed out, Cadillac is moving up-market somewhat (a $70,000 Cadillac is a tougher sale than a $40,000 Buick to my eye) and that means that it's probably OK to build a nice car. The worst thing they could do is neuter a new product to keep Cadillac dealers happy (the 90-series Buicks of the late '30s and early '40s were superior cars to their Cadillac cousins, and were yanked when Cadillac complained) because the public will know it. Product is king--you aren't selling Buicks to Cadillac dealers, you're selling to the public. Every car <span style="font-style: italic">must</span> be as good as it can possibly be at every price point. If you don't want sales cannibalization between divisions, don't build such similar products. Cadillac is going all rear-wheel-drive, so keep the Buicks FWD or something like that. But don't make a car a gelding just because of cost considerations. That's just cutting yourself off at the knees before the race has even begun.

See? I <span style="font-style: italic"><span style="font-weight: bold">DO</span></span> know something about marketing--anyone want to offer me a job?

[Guest karlde]

Any V8 they put under the hood will probably be a chebby 5.3L or 6.0L from their SUV and truck line. Wouldn't a new Buick designed V8 be something to get us to the showroom?

My two cents.

Karl

[JohnD1956]

And PULEASE!!! Make it a two door if not a convertible. I already have a grocery getter.

John D

#3757

[Reatta Man]

Agree with some comments; don't agree with others.

First, the analagies to the 300 are good, up to a point. The 300 demand is partially artificial, because everyone likes to control supply at first to make their product launch look like a huge sucess. Just remember how bad the Pacifica launch was; less than half the predicted sales in the first few months. The other part of the so-called 300 mystique is due to the fact that several hundred, if not thousands of them produced back early this year were electrical nightmares. Shutting down a line to work out early production gremlins will definitely affect supply. As for the demand, that will likely die down a lot in a matter of months or a year or two. Just remember the so-called demand for the Miata, the PT Cruiser and others when they were first introduced. A fast initial demand dies down because that demographic quickly moves onto the next new thing.

As for price vs. market position, I'm NOT a believer in price setting that. A large part of it is depreciation as well as how all these things affect the buyer's perception. If I look at a $40,000 Buick and know it will be worth $20-22,000 in a year, I have to think twice. And, remember that the Buick only has a 3 year, 36K warranty. A Mazda carries a 48 month, 50K mile warranty, and a Hyundai has a 60 month 60K bumper to bumper warranty for less than half the price. Laugh at a Hyundai? Go look at the latest J.D. Power rankings, then go look at a Hyundai XG350. So, buy a Buick for about what you used to be able to pay for a nice house, let it depreciate 50% or more in 18 months, and be totally out of warranty in 36? Hmmmmm......

Bottom line is, there needs to be a perception of value for the money and the manufacturer needs to back them for at least half as long as it takes to pay for it. And, price out a $42K loan for 60 or 72 months ($825-875 per month for 60, $625-700 for 72, with GOOD credit) then add on that the fact that you are upside down on your loan almost from day one, and it is hard to shell out FORTY THOUSAND DOLLARS +++ for a Buick.

Don't get me wrong; I want great, fast, fun-to-drive Buicks to be prowling the streets again, including two-doors and ragtops. But there is a lot more demand for quality products out there and more companies offering them than there was in 1960 or 1970.

I'm just concerned that if they don't get a good balance between product, price, value (depreciation) and backing by the manufacturer, they may just be building the next great car for the rental car fleets.

[Matt Harwood]

Excellent points, <span style="font-weight: bold">Reatta Man</span>--all issues I hadn't even considered, but extremely valid. This kind of depreciation is why leasing isn't as popular as it once was--banks realized that they were losing their shirts on this massive depreciation of certain American cars. And being upside down on such a major investment is downright scary to consumers. But that's what GM (and other domestic manufacturers) are going to be fighting for the next decade or more because of this rebate game and long-suffering products. But great product is certainly a step in the right direction!

As far as the engine, I'll put $10 on some sort of small-displacement Northstar variant, such as the one currently living in the Pontiac Bonneville.

[Dave@Moon]

A little economics:

1. A $30,000 2006 "LeSabre" with $8500 V8 upgrade: 22.1% markup for (essentially) just a drivetrain upgrade.

2. A $3034 1968 Road Runner with a $714 Hemi engine upgrade and optional $198 4-speed transmission upgrade: 23.1% markup for (essentially) just a drivetrain upgrade.

3. A $3034 1968 Road Runner with a $714 Hemi engine upgrade and mandatory $39 automatic transmission upgrade: 19.9% markup for (essentially) just a drivetrain upgrade.

That better be a hell of a lot more than just a shoehorned Silvarado or Northstar motor!

[NTX5467]

The way things are going with GM, already having "high feature" engines in the higher level vehicle lines (i.e., DOHC, 4 valve/cylinder), it would appear that Buick would be more closely aligned with the Northstar architecture than the Chevrolet-use pushrod V-8s and V-6s. Problem with the Northstar architecture is cost (assembly labor and all of those extra camshafts that can change timing and other related items controlled by computer input), which will dictate a higher priced vehicle. If there's a V-6 version, it will probably be the new 3.6L VVT V-6 or a variation thereof (which seems to be even more "ShortStar" than the previous DOHC 3.5L V-6 that was in the Intrigues and Auroras). Just my gut suspicions . . .

One huge problem with one car covering the middle and higher price ranges is the same one that the beloved new Chrysler 300 has. Pricing from the middle $20s for the base 2.7L V-6 and then up to the higher $30K for the Hemi models, for example. To get that car into the lower price ranges, they still deliver a Chrysler 300, but without the leather steering wheel covering, the nicer sound system, less expensive seat covers, etc. The first one of these cars I rented was the base model, which had 3 whole miles on it when I got it. Grabbing a hold of that steering wheel was a turn-off. Felt like squishy plastic (the new Malibu has a similar feel, but is much firmer in feel), but the grain of it did perfectly match the instrument panel cover, though.

The 2.7L might be needed for the export market, but with a heavier car than the previous Intrepids, the electronic throttle control was doing all it could to make that little engine carry that 4000lb car. Didn't need traction control! In short, it had the basic attributes of the fancier models the magazines have been raving about, but it was totally lackluster in so many areas. Or . . . was it because they were so good you didn't notice them? And then there was that somewhat athletic feel of the chassis of the earlier cars that was now gone, improved hardware notwithstanding. In short, NOT impressive.

The second one I happened into was a 300 Touring, which meant more upscale trappings and the 3.5L V-6 with 250 horsepower. Also, a leather covered steering wheel. On this car, it was more of what I expected the car to be. Once I turned off the "ESP" traction control, or changed it into the "fun" mode, then the engine would spin the rear tires about as much as the earlier 300M did the front tires. The chassis felt firmer and more energetic about changing lanes and turning corners too. In other words, the car that Chrysler should have as the base model instead of paying extra for it. With the HEMI models, fancier trim still, although there's a non-HEMI fancier 3.5L V-6 model.

Now, as the "powers that be" decided that Plymouth should sail off over the horizon, Chrysler has been trying to cover those price points with various models (including the base 300 and base Town&Country minivans). Now, in the grand plan of trying to move Chrysler "upscale/upmarket" (meaning in the $30K+ ranges), they are leaving a gap at the bottom. As things are now, the base Magnum "tourer" is only a little bit less money than the base 300. Where the new Charger will fit has yet to be determined. So, if Chrysler tries to move upward on the "scale" scale, in price and whatever else, that leaves a place for less expensive Dodges . . . but will also probably leave a gap at the bottom where Plymouth was as when Chrysler moves higher in the price ranges, Dodge will probably follow to a certain extent.

Now, look at the Chevy Cavalier and the new Cobalt. Cobalt will probably be a much better car than Cavalier ever was -- and cost more too. Moving Cobalt up in the "scale" from what the Cavalier was. Hence, here comes Aveo to fill in the gap at the bottom, entry level car.

Without Olds in the lineup any more, Pontiac has been on a "move up" situation too. Cadillac has the CTS for the middle $30K price point, but that doesn't totally compensate for the lack of an Olds in that price point region. With Cadillac also moving "up", then Buick will be tugged upward too, to a certain extent.

None of this is new, though. When Chrysler discontinued DeSoto along about April 15, 1961, the Chrysler Newport models moved downward in price to cover the gap between Dodge's high priced models and the existing Chrysler models. Dodge fancied up their fancier models to catch the lower side of where DeSoto had been. Hence, Dodge moved up a little on their high end and Chrysler moved down a little in their base models to cover the gap where DeSoto had been.

So, all of these grand plans to move various carlines upscale will always leave gaps somewhere. If one model/body style of vehicle is to cover about a price range of $25K to $40K, as the current Chrysler 300 does, there needs to be something "at the top" to justify the exclusivity of that higher price point. In the case of the 300, it's the HEMI V-8. Initial production of the 300 was supposed to be about 100,000 cars, or which 40% were planned to be HEMI Cs--it's running closer to 60% HEMI Cs, though.

As Matt mentioned, the "product" drives sales. The new 300 looks the part too, but with appropriate "heritage cues" (as they now call them) that give it a family heritage look that goes all the way back to the C-300 in 1955. Similar in concept to the Buick grille. Plus product "perceptions" that "make" people buy certain import models too.

For some reason, it seems that Ford and Chrysler can effectively play their existing model names to their advantage better than GM seems to be able to, but change the sheet metal the nameplates are attached to in the process. Is it a "name recognition" issue? Yet, the GM operatives desire to have new names to go with their new sheetmetal so people will talk about "that new Buick _________", in the orientation that it'll generate more salesfloor traffic and get more new people into the dealerships. Just as with economics, marketing orientations have so many variables that you can make positives out of negatives and vice versa. Chrysler is highly successful with its models that have high name recognition and GM wants new names that no body knows (even if they do have some prior history as a Buick showcar or something). WE would know what "Blackhawk" would mean, but some might confuse it with the ill-fated Lincoln Blackwood "fancy truck".

If GM's going to put a new name on the LeSabre replacement, they need to use something from the '60s that has a dramatic "ring" to it. "Wildcat" and "Electra" are two that always seemed to sound good to me. And we all know that Wildcats were in the same price class as Chrysler 300 models were, the non-letter 300s that is. And Electras sold against similarly priced Chrysler New Yorkers. Seems pretty easy to me.

The other thing to consider is how the new Buick model will interface with the Cadillacs and Pontiacs it'll probably share a platform with. Let the new "LeSabre" type Buick be toward the Pontiac side of things and the "Park Avenue" type be more toward Cadillac, just as it is now.

Engines? The Bonneville V-8 is still the same 4.6L Northstar that Cadillac uses, although the earlier press said it would be a smaller version. They put the lower power version in the Pontiacs, but of the 4.6L Northstar V-8. Maybe they can do a larger Northstar for the Cadillacs and juggle displacements with the Buicks and Pontiacs. Again, remember that Dodges, DeSotos, and Chryslers all used Hemis in the '50s, but with different bore/stroke combinations to produce different engine sizes unique to each carline? Remember, too, all of GM's engines are now "GM Powertrain" engines. Chevrolet might have pretty much exclusive use of the LS1 V-8s in cars and light trucks, but the Northstar engines are only for the higher priced carlines. Similarly, the new Pontiac G6 will have a version of the new Vortec 3.5L V-8 (used in the new Malibu) that will be 3.9L in size. Where Buicks might fit into those strategies might be open for discussion after the beloved Buick 3800 V-6 goes away. But, I don't think many would complain about a GMPowertrain LS2 6.0L V-8 under the hood of a larger Buick, provided the chassis would let you fully use the power it had. But instead of having 400 horsepower, let it be a torquemonster of the breed, so it'd have a Buick flavor to it. Then put it in front of an advanced GMPowertrain 6-speed automatic transmission. Several possibilities.

After looking at the new Cadillas STS the other afternoon, I was very impressed with the interior refinement, plus choice of textures and color/type of woodgrain trim. That chassis could generate a Buick or two, but if they are going to use one body to replace the LeSabre and Park Avenue, there'd better be more differentiation than there is with the Chrysler 300s. Contrary to what some might envision, the higher priced car needs to have a longer wheelbase on a longer body, resulting in the luxury of rear seat leg room. Can't do the same thing as with the LaCrosse where the higher level car gets the DOHC engine and sportier suspension tuning on the same body of car. Just my orientation.

We also know that to not send the traditional Buick and Cadillac owners straight to the Lincoln/Mercury dealers, there will need to be a split bench front seat and a column shift, something the current STS does not have. Don't need to repeat that lapse of judgment as it was with the last generation Aurora and the previous Delta 88 owners.

So . . . lets have a Buick Wildcat as the LeSabre replacement and then put "Electra" on the higher priced version, that would be a technological and styling and engineering capstone vehicle for Buick. Those names "work" and with the same degree of product finesse as the new STS displays, the product can "work" too. New names but still "Buick names"!

As for the issue of wheel size, 18" wheels is plenty "big". The 300s have similar wheel diameters too. Besides, if they went to factory 20s, then that would NOT guarantee there would not be something "better" in the aftermarket. PLUS, an oportunity for the GM Parts organization to have some "factory authorized" wheel/tire packages with 20s. Bigger wheels need to have bigger brakes behind them. As there's a certain spatial relationship between the tire/wheel and the vehicle body, "big" is not always better.

Consider "real world" situations where the roads are not always smooth. All of the harshness that is not absorbed by the tire's sidewall comes into the chassis somewhere and somehow. Not to mention the "safety factor" for when you don't see that curb at the bank drive-thru. Those "short sidewall" tires on larger diameter wheels might look neat, but they are much more vulnerable to damage from pot holes and such--even on the 60 series tires on the current Grand Ams.

Then there's the issue of longer stopping distances with just a change to 18s or 20s from 16s. Some of this can be addressed with different brake pad compounds, but it typically means larger brake rotors and such too. ALL of that means more initial cost to the customer that might not need or appreciate it. Several different orientations. Not having 20s from the factory has not hurt the 300s either.

In reality, what tends to make the 300 "work" as is, to me, is that the designers have successfully kept "the essence" of what the earlier models were, but put it into a completely modern vehicle. Same styling and advanced (for the time) engineering attributes, but in different decades. GM can do the same thing for Buick without pricing it into the stratosphere, but still staying under the $50K price points that the larger Cadillacs seems to have staked out from all directions.

Sure, the higher priced Buicks will have prices that will overlap the Cadillac CTS, but the higher priced Buick's customer is typically not a CTS customer. There's always been price overlaps between the GM divisions anyway. Part of the greater choices you have with American vehicles.

The reason the Chrysler Pacifica and also the Cadillac SRX got off to slow sales starts was that too many of the more option laden models were produced first. People saw this neat product but balked at the price with all of the goodies on it, and went elsewhere. After the product mix was reconfigured to include the more basic, but still nicely equipped models (of the Pacifica and the SRX), then sales rebounded somewhat. Unfortunately, it took about 6 months for that to happen.

Lease rates? Highly affected by perceived "hotness" of the model and desireability of the used vehicles. I've watched some lease residuals for some cars, in their initial model year, be very high or at least higher than other cars in their price/status class. Next years model? Much more realistic residuals in the leasing price books. Higher demand means higher lease residuals just as they also equate into higher prices on the used car lot.

I recently spent about three days with a new Honda Accord 4-cylinder sedan. How did I do this? It was a vehicle from the Thrifty car rental fleet in Columbus, OH. Yep, a Honda Accord "rent car"! Kind of makes those comments about the Buick Centurys in the car rental fleets have a new meaning?

I was impressed in some areas, but surprised in others. Some things the average owner might not notice too, but I did. I would rather have one more than a similar Camry, for sure, as the Honda impressed me as being more "crafted" than "assembled". Yet, still a few areas and details that I was surprised they didn't do better with. Plus the keyless remote that would not open the deck lid unless I pressed it hard with the tip of my fingernail . . . Still, it's a neat car in many respects.

Enjoy!

NTX5467

[Reatta Man]

NT,

All of that information is great, but there still remains several points to consider:

1. Is the world REALLY ready for a Buick "Lesabre/whatever they call it" that costs more than several entry-level Cadillacs, Mercedes, or Lincoln LS? [color:\\"blue\\"] <span style="font-style: italic">To me, the answer is NO. </span> [color:\\"blue\\"]

[color:\\"black\\"]

2. Why is it that a huge block of the automotive world can back their cars for more than 36 months, but GM can't, with the exception of Cadillac? [color:\\"blue\\"] If you don't think this is important, remember that a water pump replacement on the Northstar or any derivative is $1300+ due to the layers of junk that have to be removed. Also remember that the starter on the Northstar is UNDER THE INTAKE MANIFOLD and would probably cost even more. Add to that the replacement cost for one or more of those modules on the car, the electronic transmission, and the cost can be more than many good used cars. [color:\\"black\\"]

3. Does GM still actually think of Buick's competition being Pontiac and Cadillac? [color:\\"blue\\"] Comments in here suggest that, but I would submit for consideration that Buick's competition is Honda, Hyundai, Nissan, Lincoln, Volvo and Mercury.

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> If you don't think this is important, remember that a water pump replacement on the Northstar or any derivative is $1300+ due to the layers of junk that have to be removed. </div></div>

That's nothing. To do <span style="font-style: italic">any</span> bottom end engine work on an Envoy/Trailblazer/Bravada/Ranier you <span style="font-weight: bold">MUST pull the body off of the frame to get at the engine!</span> Tow too much weight...throw a rod/fry a bearing...total a 3 year old car! (There was a thread somewhere on the forum about this, but it's now mysteriously missing.)

I think we've answered the warrantee question. I wouldn't warrantee them either.

[Guest John Chapman]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...I would submit for consideration that Buick's competition is Honda, Hyundai, Nissan, Lincoln, Volvo and Mercury... </div></div>

I would argue that the true competition for Buick is Toyota Camry and Avalon and the Lexus ES330 and Lexus GS330. Toyota has been building the cars that Buick <span style="font-style: italic">should</span> have been building, in terms of performance/fit/finish/durability and target market.

IMNSHO, Honda misses the mark on interior quality, Hyundai and Nissan, while good products, don't make the material quality cut, the L-M products are hopelessly dated and the Volvo... well, let's just say 'maintenance nightmare' in reliablility and expense.

Cheers,

JMC

[Guest John Chapman]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...any bottom end engine work on an Envoy/Trailblazer/Bravada/Ranier you MUST pull the body off of the frame to get at the engine...</div></div>

D@M...

Thanks, man. I've been seriously considering a new XUV. That piece of data above has moved a late-model 4Runner back to the top of the list. Maintenance nightmares like that should have the design team horsewhipped. Do I hear 24/24,000?

JMC

[Centurion]

I remember the discussion about the Envoy/Rainier et al. I remember wishing at the time that someone would confirm from GM's service procedures or today's equivalent of the shop manual that removal of the body would, in fact, be required. The story may be correct, but I would like someone to prove its veracity.

[Reatta Man]

John,

QUOTE I would argue that the true competition for Buick is Toyota Camry and Avalon and the Lexus ES330 and Lexus GS330. Toyota has been building the cars that Buick should have been building, in terms of performance/fit/finish/durability and target market.

I agree with you totally. I just forgot to throw Lexus into the comparison list.

In the 70's and 80's when foreign makes were building reputations for quality, and many domestics were ALLOWING theirs to crumble, the rationale was due to their work ethic, their culture, and their government's subsidies for export costs, design costs, cheap steel, etc. etc.

Now that Honda has been paying John and Jane Doe in Ohio to build their cars, and many cars are designed here and most of their parts are made here, there is no reason for any domestic to lag behind Honda/Acura or Toyota/Lexus.

As for Hyundai, I've noticed for years that many of their key people have mentioned publicly that Buick was their target to meet or beat, and J.D. Power seems to say they are suceeding. Does the warranty make the Hyundai attractive to me? No, I really rather would have a Buick. I'm just not eager to keep one past the 3/36 warranty because I know how expensive it can be for the most basic repair.

Just to throw something else into the mix, how would many of you react if you could choose between, say, a $5,000 rebate or a $2,000 rebate AND a 6/60 bumper to bumper warranty, or something close to one?

The offers for zero financing no longer have any appeal to me, since my credit union is offering 3% for 60 months and 3.9% for 72 and I rarely take the full term to pay off a car. I also have to add the cost of the rebate BACK into the car to get GM's subsidized finance rate, and when I compare the two deals, taking the rebate is almost always cheaper.

[Reatta Man]

Brian,

If you know the shop manager at a good independent shop, get him to call up the proceedure on AllData.

They get their information from the manufacturer, and the proceedure will clearly list what panels or components have to be removed in order to do a specific job.

AllData will also show the number of hours prescribed for the proceedure. If it takes, say, 4.5 hours to remove and replace an oil pan gasket on a Lesabre, and it takes 14 hours to do the same thing on a Ranier, that will also tell you that something is very different about that vehicle.

By the way, if the front body panels are mad to be EASILY removed as one assembly, GM may be doing the mechanic a favor. That task sounds difficult and intimidating, but some entire dash assemblies can now be taken out in less time than it used to take to remove some factory radios.

If the panels do come off easily, just imagine how easy it would be do to a lot of things, such as plugs, belts, hoses, sensors, etc. if the front end was off. Maybe GM engineers are using guys that used to work for International Harvester and the took the idea of an 18-wheeler's cab tilting forward in order to get to the engine. And, with that stuff out of the way, you would not have to worry about scratching the paint or breaking a plastic body part. Just a thought....

Joe

[Matt Harwood]

I don't really care how it is priced relative to other vehicles (I'd pay more for a top-of-the-line Buick than for a bottom-of-the-line Caddy any day). What is important to me (and to most consumers) is <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">value for the dollar</span></span>. If a consumer feels that the product warrants the price, it'll sell. It's that easy.

Now, getting the consumer to believe that or actually building a product that can justify its price, well, that's another story. I agree 100% with John Chapman above when he says that the Toyota Avalon and entry-level Lexuses (Lexi?) are what Buick should have been building all along. Perhaps throw in a rear-wheel-drive flagship with a V8 and make that one cost somewhere in the $40s, and people will buy it. Oops, that's exactly what Lexus did (entry-level ES, mid-level GS, flagship LS. Voila! Customers for life--where have I seen this done before...?)

Remember when Lexus hit the market in 1989--the flagship RWD, V8 powered LS400 sedan cost about $36,000. Nobody, the Germans in particular, thought the public would buy such an expensive Toyota (in 1989, an LS400 was roughly twice the cost of a "garden-variety" Toyota). But because it was a superior product with the right backing (customer service was a big thing), it was a runaway hit, even at a price point "inconceivable" for a Japanese brand. This is also why Infiniti tanked initially--not quite the right product with a bad marketing message--and why they don't quite play at the same level as Lexus today. It's also why Lexus can now command $70,000+ for an LS430 without anyone batting an eye. Superior product, good customer care and strong resale. Nobody noticed that their pricing went up faster than inflation could justify--the car is just that good.

So why not a $40-45,000 Buick flagship? Doesn't a Park Avenue Ultra already cost about $40,000 and it uses a wheezy supercharged V6 and 4-speed automatic driving the front wheels! Build a lithe, athletic 4-passenger sedan with an adequately powerful V8. Buick has a reputation "hole" to climb out of. A bunch of mediocre cars that are <span style="font-style: italic">slightly</span> better than their predecessors won't help fill that hole. They have a lot of negative equity to overcome. But it's still more than nothing, which is exactly what Lexus started with. There are still people who remember what a Buick used to be, and they aren't all interested in pillow-tufted bench seats, wire wheelcovers and whitewall tires. All those import buyers had to come from somewhere--probably from parents who owned Buicks.

Build a better Buick, and people will buy them. Build a so-so Buick and discount it, and maybe you'll make a buck or two, but you won't have all that other great stuff: customer satisfaction, resale values and a weaning off of the rebate game.

Here's my challenge to any Buick executive out there who may be listening: I<span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic"> WILL</span></span> BUY YOUR $45,000 BUICK FLAGSHIP. But it must be a RWD, 300 HP, 4-passenger bucket seat sporting, fully-independently-suspended, 18" wheel wearing, 5-speed automatic shifting, handsomely (note: not bizarre (Aztec) or bland (GTO) or over-wrought (Park Avenue)) styled machine. You have 4 years to build such an animal, or I'll go somewhere else. Fair enough?

To me, that's not so hard to do. They already have the hardware. Package it right and you can hit the cost targets, guys (hell, steal the Sigma platform from Europe and Cadillac to make it work). I don't care if you call it an Edsel, I'll buy it. Send me an order form and I'll send you my signature and deposit. But it has to be great.

<span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">Great.</span></span> That's all I ask.

[Centurion]

Reatta Man, thank you for the suggestions. I took a different approach, and posed the question on the GMInsideNews GMC/Chevy truck forum. I received an immediate response regarding the engine removal. GM's service procedure (copied verbatim in the attached link) is to remove the engine out the top, and there is no mention of removing the vehicle's body.

http://www.gminsidenews.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=7856

[Guest John Chapman]

Matt....

Concur. In addition it <span style="font-style: italic">must</span> be reliable beyond the pale. I recently saw a quote from an automotive journalist discussing the Rover line. In summary, he said that Rover had a waiting list of first purchasers. The problem was that because of maintenance cost and reliability, it was difficult to get them to buy a second vehicle as a repeat customer. No brand loyalty is developed.

Cheers,

JMC

[Dave@Moon]

The information regarding the need to pull the body on Trailblazer chassis' for engine bottom end repairs came from the October 2003 issue of <span style="font-style: italic">Vintage Truck</span> magazine.

Noted automotive author Tom Brownell's collumn that month was titled <span style="font-style: italic">"Frame Off Repair"</span>, and went into some detail regarding the need for the body removal process. His point, with which I do not agree, was that it's better to rebuild and reuse old trucks than to buy new ones because the service procedures are too complex (read: expensive).

The article was published repleat with a photograph of a 2003 Bravada in a GM dealership service bay receiving exactly this treatment. The body is suspended on a lift, cables aplenty dangling. The frame/chassis is on the floor slightly forward of the body, and the engine is in the process of being serviced upside down on a stand.

Please note that this was written by one of the most prominent automotive authors in the business, not a novice or alarmist in some fringe publication. Vintage Truck is one of my favorite subscriptions. It is among the most technically competant publications I know, and as editor at large and the author of several dozen automotive books I think Mr. Brownell is rather trustworthy.

To date the article has not been rescinded/clarified/corrected by the magazine (although I haven't seen the latest issue as yet).

[Dave@Moon]

The article I mention is not available online. I'll reproduce it in part here:

<span style="font-style: italic"><span style="font-weight: bold">"Good engineering, I've been told, is doing with $1 what any bungler can do with $2. That being the case, what's happening with today's trucks?

"Sure, they're lot's more comfortable and have morpower than the vintage trucks whose virtues we extol in these pages, but they suck fuel like an Abrams tank and to repair them--you don't even want to go there.

"One of my former students, Jimmy --- ----- </span>(name deleted by me)<span style="font-weight: bold">, sent the accompanying photo of a technician's nightmare and gave me the idea for this "Reflections" topic. </span>("Reflections" is Mr. Brownell's bi-monthly feature.)<span style="font-weight: bold">

"Look at what the 'nightmare' picture shows: an Olds Bravada SUV that's been entirely disassembled so the technician can get access to the engine.

"This Bravada has that much-touted new GM six, whose aluminum block requires a steel plate to hold the crankshaft bearings tortionally rigid. But the plate isn't the issue. To remove the engine for major service. which this truck required, the body had to be seperated from the frame. (Looking closely at the photo, you'll notice that the chassis is still on the shop floor, the engine is disassembled and is mounted on a stand in the foreground, while the body is suspended on a lift.)

"Think for a moment about having to do a frame-up disassembly to overhaul an engine, and then multiply the number of hours to take apart your truck down to it's frame by the billing rate at your local GM dealership. Someone better hope that engine is covered by warranty.

"The next time you open your vintage-truck's hood, celebrate all the space surrounding the engine. Two men could probably stand alongside the engine and not feel especially cramped. As i have been crawling under and around 1960-and-earlier Chevrolet trucks while writing the update to </span>How to Restore Your Chevrolet Pickup<span style="font-style: italic">, I'm reminded of just how straightforward our older trucks are.....

"...Did the engineers who made it impossible to work on the Bravada's engine (and that of other GM SUVs built on the same platform) without removing the truck's entire body structure really think the engine would never need service, or did they plan for all the truck's major components to calve simultaneously? Does Ford think that spark plugs in it's Trition V-8 engines never need replacing? Are the manufacturers borrowing a page from the restorer's notebook and making frame-off disassembly part of the repair process? If the latter condition is the case, we've got one more reason to appreciate our older trucks, since nearly all our service work can be done with the truck still essentially intact."</span></span>

Like I said, it has never been rescinded. The body removal might have been done based on a TSB, or an update of the manual. One thing's for sure, whoever lifted the body off of the Bravada in the article wasn't doing it for fun!

[Matt Harwood]

Dave, that's downright scary. I'd hope that alternatives would present themselves in the fullness of time, because servicing that truck 5-7 years from now will be nigh impossible for anyone but Mr. Goodwrench. Have we just seen the birth of the disposable $40,000 automobile? Ugh!

That said, when I was building tuner Corvettes with Mallett, the guys from GM insisted that the only way we would be able to yank the LS-1 engines out of the C5 Corvettes was by dropping them out the bottom on the subframe, the reverse of how they were installed. We were eventually able to get our procedure down to about 45 minutes start to finish--<span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">out the top!</span></span>

Hope the guys servicing these trucks get it down, too.

[NTX5467]

I, too, like to see the things (i.e., water pump, starter, alternator, a/c compressor) all where I can see AND get to them easily. Probably one of the best late model vehicles in that respect is the Camry VVTi 4-cylinder, from what I've seen. When the GM people were justifying their placement of the starter in the Northstar, when it was a "new" engine, the dialog regarded the enhanced reliability of the starters and such. In reality, that's pretty true. It might look like a nightmare to get to, but the main thing is pulling the intake manifold off, plus the cost of the new seals to do that. Not like jacking things up and unbolting it as in prior times, but still not beyond what a competent mechanic can do (which I've seen done). But then, how many "typical" Cadillac owners will wrench on their newer cars? In short, we just don't see that much inquiry about starters for Northstars, either in the shop or on the customer counter.

The worst thing about the Northstar's water pump is the "quick assembly" method to install it. Pretty slick, just put the outer o-ring seal on and twist it into place and locks against the appropriate locking tabs. There's a special tool to do that with too, but it usually breaks. When you start to change it after it's been on there several years (and many times upwards of 100K miles), that little seal o-ring has "glued" the pump to the housing. This is where the special tool usually breaks the first time. Then it can be "hammer and chisel" time. Still, we don't see too much volume on those parts either, considering the number of Northstars that are out there. So, some of these things that might be "issues" are not really issues, until they get to the 2nd or 3rd owner or so.

We've been through the issue with the DOHC I-6 engine in prior discussions. In reality, from what we've seen, those engines are very reliable, but nothing will compensate for "customer" issues. Again, very little service work needed other than regular maintenance, by observation. I also suspect that if you start looking for engine parts, there will be very few dealers with any in stock--there's a reason for this, not related to "changing assemblies" specifically either.

I really would not consider the Camry as a LeSabre competitor as it's more in the Impala price area. Avalon? Maybe, but then at the Park Avenue ride & drive event when the PA was new, they had an Avalon for one of the comparison vehicles. If you look at a top level Avalon, that little "high class Camry" is really in the PA's price area. Yet, if you compare the pricing for what you get, just looking at items standard and optional on the Avalon window sticker, it makes the PA look like a pretty good value. THEN look at fuel economy! That little item makes the PA or LeSabre look like an even better value in the long run, even considering depreciation.

Lexus, most probably, is a better "target" vehicle for a Buick competitor than not. Buick's been hinting at Lexus with some of their little styling cues for a good while, especially with the Regals.

It's somewhat common for car companies to "follow the sales leader" in styling cues and such. That's been going on for a long time, so with the high level Japanese cars being the market "leaders", then THEIR "conservative" styling has been the "benchmark" of sorts. So, don't really fault Cadillac DeVilles for being "bland" as the similar Lexus models are not the most dynamic styling exercises on the road. As I've said before, if I had the choice of a DeVille or a Park Avenue, I'd take the PA without thinking, even the Ultra too, as I perceive the PA to be the best value and something I'd feel more comfortable owning and driving. Just my preference . . . value, styling, "traditional American Luxury", performance, fuel economy, and less maintenance cost (that little Buick V-6 only needs about 4.5 quarts with an oil change instead of the 7.5 (approx) quarts of oil that many Northstars take on each oil change.

Warranty coverage? Yep, that's a marketing point--Chrysler proved that in the early '60s when they did the first 5/50 warranty on new vehicles. In modern times, I don't perceive it's the strong marketing tool it used to be. No matter how long the basic coverage might be, there can be loopholes that require an "extended" warranty to cover. Just how much those longer warranties on the Hyundais and such really matter to the second owner might be reflected in their transfer rates to the subsequent owners (probably for a nominal fee and paper work, as is usually the case). Currently, there are some things that are covered under an 8/80 warranty on Cadillacs (not just body rust through coverage!). So, before a warranty can be fully evaluated, you need to read the fine print as to what is or is not covered and what any deductibles might be, if any. What might look good on the surface can really be "not quite so good" when you read the fine print--especially on extended warranties.

Matt, you mentioned the "4 bucket seated luxury" in your comments. Have you seen the new Maxima with that option? Really pretty neat with the console extending fully from the instrument panel to between the two rear seating positions.

By the way, Matt, pretty neat articles in "The Bugle"! Great pictures too!

Somebody mentioned the manufacturers controlling initial supply of new vehicles to help keep demand high for the products. Other than the quality issues of a new vehicle, as they relate to getting production fully ramped up, that can happen. But the other side of things is that Chrysler really lacks the production capacity to really be a threat to GM or even Ford, BUT as with the first Ram pickup, they CAN do some things differently that gets the public's attention and imagination that can cause GM and Ford to alter their prior paths to "keep up". Then, Chrysler and Dodge are the ones being chased in the product desireability and design "wars", even though they can't dominate the total sales numbers.

One other thing that relates to products moving "upscale". Many "trappings" of being a higher level vehicle these days include much more complicated electronic architectures in the vehicles and the "requisite" DOHC engines. In many cases, reliability and durability are sufficient for them to get out of the manufacturer's basic warranty period and to the end of the payment book--many things last a good bit past that too. Therefore, that first owner really doesn't have to pay for fixing those things as they are still under the manufacturer's warranty or an extended warranty purchased with the new car deal.

Here comes the second or third owner after the vehicle has about 125,000 miles or so on it. Doesn't matter if it's a Mercedes or Lexus or Cadillac or Toyota, it's going to cost to fix things that break or quit working. If maintenance "down the road" was really an issue, those cars ought to be dogs on the used car lots, or is it the natural "gambler" orientations that many consumers have? Or do the possibly lower prices (due to greater depreciation) justify the possibly higher repair costs? Or do these later owners really not care or know about those things and just deal with them as they happen, as part of owning that fancy car? Or do they tap into the reasonably large network of independent repair shops that "know" those cars and their quirks and failure-prone areas, plus know which aftermarket parts are the best value?

I'll concur with Matt's basic proposed vehicle specs. I might put a wheelbase and length concern in the mix so that it would be long enough for some "good lines" and rear seat leg room, plus sufficient trunk space to support that "traditional American Vacation" activity of old, but have enough "chassis" under it to not be afraid of curves and bumps and dips. If it's going to have to have the larger 18" wheels, then it needs enough brake rotor to fill that rim. Those wheels NEED to be spiffy too and accent the vehicle instead of just "being there".

In many respects, the current LeSabre is a good size spec, but the wheelbase could be lengthened a few inches to move the wheels out toward the vehicle's ends a little more, but not too much. Enough length to develop some neat styling "lines" too. Then add an inch or two to the interior width (that 3-abreast seating deal, but comfortably) for that added touch of spaciousness. Not a "land yacht" or "barge", but something a 6'3" person could get into and be comfortable, front AND back. Don't forget about having enough foot room under the front seats for the rear seat passengers' feet either! Lots of little things can really make a difference even if the vehicle is shorter.

And let's make "easy to work on" in the mix too. Easy to get the oil filter out of the engine without dripping oil over the front subframe or body work, for example. Spark plugs might be in there for 100K miles, but put them where they are easy to get to, for that second or third owner, or the orginal owner that wants to change them if he keeps the car that long. Same with the starter, alternator, and such. Plus an access panel in the luggage comartment to remove the fuel tank fuel pump module too, which some Buicks already have. Easy to fix could well translate into "easy to assemble" too.

Pricing? Lots of orientations there. Key issue is "value", which has many discussable areas too. The LeSabre or Park Avenue might cross pricepoints with Cadillac CTS and Lincoln LS, but I suspect a LeSabre or PA owner would not look at a CTS and vice versa, similar for the LS too--just my gut suspicion. Imagine the conversation at the water oooler between a CTS owner and a Park Avenue owner . . . "Gee, I could have gotten a lot more car for the money I spent on my LS". Of course, if the CTS was a V-Series, that conversaton might be different.

I suspect the typical CTS or LS owner is more concerned about their luxury nameplate on the smaller vehicle, which might fit their dwelling and lifestyles better than the larger car, plus a more nimble package for where they drive rather than how much sheet metal they can buy for the same money. For some people, "Less IS More".

In my "Honda Experience", one thing I was impressed with was the fuel economy of the 4 cylinder engine and how well it ran (once it got past that initial low rpm weakness). What I started noticing was that even when cruising on level Interstate at 60 mph or so, if I wanted to accelerate just about 2mph or so, it'd "grab another gear" and then the tach would head toward 3000rpm or so. When it reached the slightly higher speed, then it'd back down into OD and settle back into the normal cruise mode. The transaxle shifted very smooth, so there was no real clue as to what was going on other than a little more engine noise and the tach action. Seemed a little odd, considering how much power it had, but then it was "weak" below about 2500rpm, with the cruise rpm being below that. If I'd been in a hurry to gain that few extra mph, it'd been understandable, but with such an easy acceleration, it seemed a little unusual.

Putting the Accord against the Camry or Impala or Regal, who would choose which one would most probably depend on a diverse group of factors and orientations--none of which would be completely without merit.

Onward and upward!

Enjoy!

NTX5467