Is this a Buick trashing site?

[Guest]

Did I accidently get on the wrong forum? I have never seen such trashing of Buick anywhere, let alone on a Buick site. You all need to go get a ford and enter another forum! I read all the post on the "advertizing" thread and hardly could imagine that this is a Buick site dedicated to the love of Buicks. I am 40 years old and own a beautifull 97 Park Avenue that I am proud to drive. I also own a 72 Electra that I love. They are simply styles from different eras. The style of cars has changed in the last 50 years and we all need to realize and accept that fact. Would you have wanted Buick to keep the style of the 50s forever? If they had we would not have seen the 59-60 Buicks or the 60s Wildcat, or the 60s and early 70s Riviera, or the early 70s GS, or the Reatta. I would like to see some different styling for Buick and I am sure we will eventually. The new trend towards retro styling is fantastic and I hope it continues and finds it's way to a Buick soon. Doesn't anybody have anything positive to say about a newer Buick. Anybody?

[Guest Shaffer]

I do!! I think the new Park Avenue is a beautiful car and believe it or not, I really, really like the 1997-2002 Buick Century. In fact, I am considering buying one. My grandparents have a 1996 Buick LeSabre and while it is not my favorite car by far, it is a great dependable car. Also, if anyone does not know, the 1986-1991 Buick LeSabre was rated the most dependable American car on the road during that time. I agree that the styling changes is what makes the cars of yesterday classics. If cars had stayed the same, we would not appreciate the cars of the 50s, 60s and 70s now. I think that Buick still makes some of the nicest cars today. I think it takes some time for some people to like certain cars. I know that when the newest style Cadillac DeVille was introduced I hated it and thought they should have kept the 98-01 design. Now, I think the 01-current DeVille is a very nice car.<p>[ 04-07-2002: Message edited by: Shaffer ]

[Guest]

Go beyond the style to the substance. Many people who are enthusiatic about old Buicks are underwhelmed by the current offerings, as you saw from the posts. That doesn't mean they want the old ones made again, it means they'd like to see a contemporary offering from Buick that is much different than its current one.

[Dave@Moon]

When nobody cares enough anymore to criticize, then you can start to worry. <P>When your team is losing, you offer up whatever you think may help. It's still your team and you still are rooting for them. It just isn't constructive to pretend that loyalty to or enthusiasm for an entity requires or even implies unconditional acceptance.<P>And these days and in this market, Buick is losing big-time. <P>-----------------<P>For the record, I agree that the current line of Buicks is very attractive, but my tastes run very conservative for someone of my generation (43). <P>There have been many marques that went out with their best looking models. More importantly most people would agree that today, with the average car loan running 6.5 years, anybody who buys a car on looks is crazy. <P>The problem with Buick's product line isn't appearance.<P>[ 04-07-2002: Message edited by: Dave@Moon ]<p>[ 04-07-2002: Message edited by: Dave@Moon ]

[Centurion]

I find the current Buick offerings to be attractive cars, but every model except the LeSabre and Rendezvous is now in its sixth model year without any significant styling or engineering enhancements. Given the intensely competitive marketplace that Buick faces, I have to agree that Buick is starved for product. The tremendous resources of General Motors should allow Buick to field a line of cars that is fully competitive with other "near luxury" cars in the marketplace, including models of BMW, Acura, Lexus and Infiniti. For whatever reasons, Buick has failed to do so. <P>My hope is that the message will somehow get through to those who are in a position to remedy the problem. The encouraging thing to me about all of the "Buick trashing" on this site is that there is clearly a great deal of passion and interest in the Buick marque. If General Motors fails to take note, then it will have missed a tremendous opportunity -- and might as well continue to hand its market share to the imports on a platter.

[Centurion]

In my above reply, I stated that I think that Buick's current offerings are "attractive" cars. I will go a step further than that, and say that I also think that they are fine cars -- at least the Regal, LeSabre, and Park Avenue models, all of which have the 3800 engine. (My old '89 LeSabre with the 3800 is a supremely reliable car that has given me great respect for that powertrain.) Nonetheless, the cars have very limited appeal to my peers (I'm 48) and those who are younger than me. I think that at least part of the problem is perception; Buick's marketing/advertising during the last several years has been completely ineffective in attracting younger buyers to the car. During GM's "cookie cutter" car era of the late '70's through '80's, Buick designs were mostly boring and overly-conservative with their pillowy velour interiors, fake wood trim, and tacky wire wheel covers. (The poor quality of X-Body Skylarks and J-Body Skyhawks did nothing to sustain the marque's reputation as a builder of excellent cars.) It seems to me that these are the Buicks that the automotive press remembers when it characterizes Buicks as cars for the gray-haired set, and, unfortunately, that is the image that Buicks have among my peers. (I'm probably the only person in my circle of friends who would even consider a Buick for a next vehicle.) <P>What is to be done? As pointed out in some of the other threads, product is king, and it is critical that General Motors revamp the Buick lineup and inject some excitement into the offerings. Further, the marketing/advertising approach must be radically different to reshape Buick's image.<P>I often think back to the fall of 1964 when Buick introduced its new 1965 models. I was in the sixth grade, and the kids in the playground went nuts when the Buick salesman's wife drove up in a new LeSabre 2-door hardtop to pick up her son. The car was stunning and everyone noticed it. Can anyone remember the last time that a new Buick on the street would have generated that kind of enthusiasm?

[radionut98]

Yes, I think I can, I think the 89 Buick LaSabre Estate Wagon hit the spot back in<BR>the fall of 88 with its V-8 all Buick engine.<BR>In fact I'm looking at one Wednesday for sale<BR>for $400.00 that's on the road and ready to<BR>go. I really think however that like women<BR>beauty is in the eye of the beholder, it may<BR>not be the style etc. but what's underneath<BR>the facade that counts. My Dad always had<BR>Buicks and I remember my 1941 Buick Special<BR>that I bought with my own money right after<BR>I got our of bootcamp. It really was an ugly<BR>car (2 toned green, light olive over dark<BR>olive),) but it was a Buick. Thats really all that matters.<BR>Loren 56 Buick Century

[Guest]

Hi ,<BR> We have a 94 Buick Park Avenue and it is a beautiful car. When you tell people that the car delivers near 30 mpg on a trip, they question you. We Buick people know , though.<BR> The major weakness is not the car. In this area, the CONWAY CHEV/ BUICK PEPPERALL MASS dealership is not properly trained to diagnose computer related problems and their mechanics lack ability. <BR> The Buick was over there for near a month back and forth trying to find a bad injector wire. They tried to disconnect the battery and wiped out the positive post. ( It turns the other way, stupid) They replaced the battery with one whose cranking amps were not high enough- yep, you guessed it-the first cold day, it died. They exchanged the throttle body and did not replace the gasket resulting in an antifreeze leak. They spent hours diagnosing things they don't understand at $51.00 an hour.<BR>Today's message for those Buick people in this area, Mass/ NH line- I did you a big favor. CONWAY- STAY AWAY. <BR> Otherwise, the Buick is a great car.

[The Old Guy]

From the tone of the previous posts, it should be evident that we still love our Buicks. what was being promoted was the idea of building something fresh! Many of the other marques are building rear drive 2 Dr cars that are exciting, and Buick is still under the impression the EVERYBODY wants a front drive 4 DR I am not a youngster(69) and I still hope against hope that Buick will wake up and build, if not the <BR>Blackhawk, at least a 2 Dr with a supercharged 3800. Buick was a leader at one time ,but lately has been content to follow ,and that is costing them market share and the young customers that they can't really afford to lose. <P>Joe Taubitz<p>[ 04-08-2002: Message edited by: The Old Guy ]

[Guest]

I really like the new Regal GS, and especially like the new Regal GSX concept car...

[rocketraider]

It's not entirely Buick Division's fault. The major blame lies with GM Corporate, especially the policies put in place during the Roger Smith years, and the current idea that bringing in management from career fields that have not a damn thing to do with making automobiles is the salvation of the company. You need car people to design, build and market cars- not burned out toothpaste or detergent executives or fast-tracking MBAs who were taught that managing product is secondary to managing people.<P>When GM was comprised of relatively independent Divisions instead of "brands" and "marketing groups", they did very well. Between the current styling trends (which run from totally bizarre to totally bland) and the lackluster ad campaigns, I can't see spending the money to buy a new GM product, knowing I couldn't stand the sight of the thing until it was paid for. And slaughtering Oldsmobile while allowing that wretched Saturn to survive even after existing ten years without turning a profit- does that tell anyone what GM is about these days? They have their heads farther up their corporate arses than they've ever had since 1977, when the seeds of all this mess were sown.

[BuickNut]

I guess I'm going to stick to my guns...my comments were meant to be constructive criticism as we were asked what we wanted in light of why Buicks weren't selling all to well - and from where I'm at in wanting cars, I don't want to pretty up the picture for Buick. I will be the one to say the "Emperor has not clothes" if he doesn't. I'm "semi" in the market for a new vehicle...in going to the Buick lot there was NOTHING that excited me. The Rend, while it fits my purposes from a utilitarian point of view - still wish it were up to par with the BMW'S and Mercedes and Lexus as to styling, and not being made in Mexico (...so, why buy American if its not buying AMERICAN ???) ...no reason in the world why it shouldn't given the price. As a Buick lover and Nut, I WANT things to change at Buick....as a potential customer, I NEED it to change if they want my business. I'm more than willing to be patient with them as a customer if they're moving in the right direction - but telling them everything is rosy and bright ain't going to keep Buick around for much longer. There's nothing wrong giving Buick cudos for what they do right (Rend is a good FIRST step, keeping the GS also...), but in my book, in order to fix something, I need to know whats wrong with it and what's broken.

[Centurion]

BuickNut, you've hit the nail on the head. Like you, there is nothing I want more than to see Buick succeed in the marketplace.<P>My father-in-law passed along to me an extensive article that appeared in an issue of USA Today last week. For the first time in recent memory, here was an article that reported in very positive terms on the transformation currently underway at General Motors. The article quoted Lutz as saying that there is a tremendous reservoir of talent and "car" passion in the corporation, and stripping away some of the bureaucracy is finally allowing that talent to be utilized. If the article reflects accurately on the state of the corporation, there is hope for all of us who want Buicks in our automotive future. (Interestingly, the GM article was followed by an article about the wrath of Toyota owners who are contending with engine oil sludge problems and costly engine repairs; the competition is not invincible, and GM still has opportunity if it consistently builds a quality product.)<P>Radionut98, I hope that you acquire that Estate Wagon. These are nice cars, but you should be aware that Buick built its last V8 engine in about 1979. Most likely, the car you're looking at has an Olds 307 engine or Chev 350. These were fine engines, but not BUICK engines as we used to think of them. Also, these cars were hardly a new design in 1988 or 1989. The basic car was introduced as a 1977 model, with a facelifted front end treatment received in 1980. The car was little changed for the next ten years.<P>Permit me one more reflection on Buicks of the past. In 1969, I was a high school sophomore who was at the local gas station with a group of high school guys. A new 1969 Electra 225 coupe glided by on the street. There was an audible "wow", and when I said, "That's the car I want", there was general agreement. These cars were very striking visually, and even high school guys aspired to own a new Buick. I want it to be that way again.

[Guest]

What U.S manufacturer and model most exemplifies what you are looking for in a new car? Is it the state of the U.S. automotive industry in general or just Buick? I frankly don't see many manufacturers doing what it seems a lot of you want to see. For me I would have to say Daimler/Chrysler has done the best job of captilizing on the retro styling trend, but has it done a lot for their bottom line? I feel like at GM the leader in innovation right now is Cadillac with the new CTS and the new XLR roadster planned for 2003. I like everybody else on here would love to see the Blackhawk produced. It often puzzles me why they don't produce any/many of the concept cars that they had to have put a lot of money and expense into. You know that there would be a waiting list for the Blackhawk and it would generate excitement for the brand. Chrysler is the only one who is willing or smart enough to understand this.

[Guest]

concept and retro cars are great for image and publicity, but don't sell enough to help the bottom line. For all those who like them, how many actually put their money down? There has to be a solid more conventional line to take advantage of the halo effect.<P>The US manufacturer who has it together best right now is Nissan. Not the answer you expected? They are French owned but are making cars in Tennessee. New Maxima - 260 HP, new Sentra, new Z coming. Good quality and highest plant productivity. Weak point -if Maxima is supposed to move upmarket it should be RWD.<P>Of traditional Detroit(hmm, Nissan R&D is in Farmington Hills, Toyota R&D in Ann Arbor), Ford has the right spread of platforms but has quality issues. DCX likewise,and their recent quality issues have been on big items (powertrain). Is it solved? Although no rwd except Viper. This will change with Crossfire and the borrowed MB platform. GM still has too much sharing of major parts. Cadillac has new powertrains, but personally I hate the fat butt/big nose look they are using. The "roadster" (it's a convertible coupe)based on Evoq is basically a Corvette.(Which is not all bad anymore). It will take some time for Cadillac to improve their image, which is terrible. I still find their quality details erratic. Best bet of the group? - DCX if they can ever get the Chrysler designers and the MB production people to work together. Big if.

[Guest Shaffer]

Centurion, you are 100% right about the 307 V8. It is not a Buick engine, but rather it is a Oldsmobile engine and it the same engine that is in my 1989 Pontiac Safari (Pontiac version of the Buick LeSabre/Electra Estate wagon). My old 1983 Oldsmobile Ninety-Eight and 1981 Oldsmobile Toronado had the 307. They are very reliable engines, but in later years, and on the wagons especially, they are very, very slow. The low horsepower and the heavy wagon weight is the cause for this. My car is fast enough for me, as I drive it easy anyway, but I guess if it was loaded, with all 9-passengers and luggage on the top, it would be extremely slow. Power is the biggest complaint on these wagons. The engine was acceptable on the lighter Ninety-Eight and Toronado. I think this engine was also in the full-size Electra up until 1984, which was basically a Oldsmobile Ninety-Eight. 1977 was the first year for these cars and the Oldsmobile and Buick version sedans/coupes was dropped in 1985. Caprice sedan carried this design until 1990, and I think Pontiac dropped it in sedan form in 1987. Another interesting note, Pontiac dropped the wagon in 1989, but Chevrolet, Oldsmobile and Buick went on until 1990, until they was redesigned in 1991, then the Pontiac never returned in the aerodynamic body style, but Oldsmobile did, but only with wagon body and even it was dropped in 1992, and the Chevrolet and Buick was dropped in 1996. <P>This brings back the discussion about the car designs of today. I think a BIG mistake GM did was dropping the rear-wheel drive full-size car. In 1996, they dropped the RWD Caprice and Roadmaster. I would like to see GM bring out another full-size RWD car. I think that now Ford Motor Company is the only American car company to have V-8, RWD cars. Ford even offers a V-8 in the mid-size Taurus SHO. Oldsmobile will soon be gone and Plymouth faded away and was gone before anyone even knew it. Which American car company is next to go? None I hope. I think that the current GM car that is making the nicest style cars is Cadillac and Pontiac. With the exception of the Chevrolet Impala, Chevrolet's cars are outdated in the styling dept I think. The current Cavalier has been out since 1995, but I guess they still have a few more years to keep it, as they kept the last generation Cavalier from 1982 to 1994. I think the Impala is a great looking car, but wish it was still RWD and a little bigger.<p>[ 04-08-2002: Message edited by: Shaffer ]

[Dave@Moon]

For anyone who missed it, here's a spark of what <I>can</I> happen when an "American" manufacturer tries.<P>The PT Cruiser was introduced by Chrysler after a prolonged development cycle. Numerous production details (including a transaxle that didn't fit in the body properly) were worked out very deliberately. The design was nearly 3 years old before it was released. The development cycle outlasted it's intended marque (Plymouth).<P>Chrysler chose a theme for this development cycle. It was cribbed from a magazine review of one of it's concurrent products. The theme was "The Thin Veneer of Chrysler Quality". They openly admitted (both to us and themselves) that they had quality problems in the '90s, which hurt their sales severely. Thus the losses, and the Daimler takeover just prior to the car's debut.<P>It was simply a matter or self-examination and repentance.<P>The result? In the April 2002 <I>Consumer Reports</I> you can look up all the cars that made the grade "well above average" in reliability. You'll find the ususal suspects; Toyota, Honda, Subaru, BMW, et al. And, I believe for the first time in my adult life (at least 25+ years), you'll find an "American" car in that group. The PT Cruiser.<P>(There have been between 4 and 7 "American" cars that were ranked "above average" in recent years, but I do not recall an "American" car <I>ever</I> ranking with the best of the "imports" as an equal. About 1/2 the time one of those cars was a Buick, usually the Century.)<P>I must say I never thought I'd see the day when <I>GM</I> needed to take lessons from <I>Chrysler</I> in how to build reliable cars. We can hem and haw all we want about dated designs and a limited model range, Buick will go nowhere with the youth market until it's name stands for what it once did in terms of build quality and reliability.<P><I>When better cars are built, Buick <B>will</B> build them!</I> Or else.

[86 2dr.ltd]

Hi guys, As some here know I have had a few things to say on the bashing of Buicks built since 86 and sometimes since 71-73.As well as Oldsmobiles. Then I myself have critized the styling of 77-85-87 as well as the current balloon shaping or the robot appearance of some current GM products. This just represents my own disappointment with the styling changes of the late 70's and again now. However now there is 2 late 70's LeSabre coupes in this area being driven and I love seeing them and feel like stopping to try to talk the owners into saving them rather then running them until they drop. I guess I too have been insensitive.<P>The one thing that really got my goat and I really made myself bite my tongue but will mention it here now is - about a week ago or so was a comment from a main person in a club chapter in reference to a relatives lifetime Buicks. Went something like - after an early 60's Buick the others werent worth mentioning because they were assembled from GM parts bins. I just sat here thinking wow,why do I come here? I'm not really a legitimate Buick owner? even though I have two. Then I thought thats what I get for bashing the 77-85 era, so I let it go.<P>On the Bengal I stated that I thought they could do a little more with the front end and questioned whether it would sell enough to pay for the development but was disappointed when they cut it. Buick does need pasazz but across the board.<P>I hope those Buick designers that were sent back to the drawing board are going to excell and come up with a great line of cars that we with all our preferences will find exciting and exceptable even if they dont all have V8's and RWD.<P>Finally , for crying out loud wheres the next RIVIERA !

[Bill Stoneberg]

Just a note on the PT cruiser: <P>Dealers are starting to give $ 1,000 rebates on them to try to push more sales.<P>On Buicks, I wish any modern car had half the character that my 1947 has. The swooping lines, chromed everything and the plush interior is a car should be like.

[Guest]

Not to gravitate away from the original discussion, but the PT Cruiser is Taco Bell (American Mexican) It is great. the wife drives one and If the right one comes along we will buy a second to trick out.

[BuickNut]

I see the same theme here as in the other thread that was alleged to bashing Buick. It seems mostly, the writers without exception REALLY want to buy the new cars, want to get excieted about them, and want Buick (all true US makes for that matter...) to succeed. I also note that it would seem largely across the board constructive criticisms about the other car companies as well - and disgust that "our" companies know better - but don't DO better. Hopefully, there are enough "car guys" in the industry that genuinly have passion about the automobile to help push things along in the right direction. I'm not naieve though......I think we have all spent enough time under, in, around, etc our cars and have cussed out the engineers/designers for their lack of forthrough (how's THAT statement for being politically correct and kinder and gentler...)even on the old ones. That being said, at least the older stuff was easier to fix and cheaper to even do the parts swapping style of being a mechanic. Guess I really want to see the styling do better, and the mechanics and gizmo's become less complicated. I still hate to think that I can't keep a newer car for more than 7-8 years for fear that the "modules/assemblies" will have the simple $25 stuff break that will require the entire $500 assembly to be replaced - if I can figure out what acutally needs replacing !..but I guess I digress again...

[Guest]

I agree that there is alot of critisizm of the new buick, but it is constuctive critisizm. As far as buick using GM parts, thats been going on for years. Just check out any old parts books. Usually certian items fits all GM cars. Nothing new,just good business sense. Now, as far as rear wheel drives go we my never see them again. It seems that our government is hell bent on mandating fleet mileage on fuel consumption, so as long as Joe public keeps buying the the SUV's and 4-wheel drive trucks, which in my opinion only, is more "status que" than needed, the fleet mileage must be meet with smaller, lighter, more fuel effecant models which means no rear wheel drive or big cars and wagons and this is why all cars are ero-dynamic and all look alike.<BR>Further, there has to be cars out there that the young peaple can afford. Now enter the small to mid size front wheel drive 4 door models and even these they have to lease to keep their payments low.<BR>This leads me to why cars cost so musch as one fellow put it the "taco bells". As with many other business, GM builds these plant in other countries for one reason only. COST!! and i do not mean labor!!! it is the cost of doing bussiness in this country. Here it cost bussiness alot of money for envromental standards to build and update plants. also businesses do not have to pay, unemployment, workmens compensation, and cover liability for law suits. As long as other countries allow business to do this, and until they bring up their standards, businesses will continue to move out of this country. Countries bid on these jobs in much the same manner as a city would offer tax abatements.(which i feel is a form of corporate blackmail by saying we will only do bussiness with you if you give us this)<BR>This leads us to the tax stucture in our country. bussiness is hit heavy in taxes for inventory and such and they do not get as many tax breaks on capital equipment,as we may think they do anymore. So they move out of our country for better tax advantages or get these JOINT VENTURES with other countries going.<BR>Now do not misunderstand me, i am not bashing the good ole USA, what i am bashing is these countrys that draw in the busineses for the above reasons without much reguard to the workforce and peaple in their counties.<BR>So now about designing of cars, in cost cutting efferts, which was started by roger smith and then the others followed and up to this very day, it is cheaper to hire a NEW degree than to hire or pay experiance, so this is the engeneering and design we get in todays cars.<BR>Sorry i am long winded with this but it always feels better to get it of my chest and my phylosiphy is untill we change, nothing changes.<BR>thanks<BR>camman.8<BR>58 buick century 66r<BR>60 stude wagon

[Guest]

What does RWD have to do with fuel economy? <BR>There may be a slight advantage from a more compact drivetrain and the ability to use a primitive rear swing axle, but weight, not drive wheel, is the issue. Any number of light RWD sports cars get excellent fuel mileage.<P>And CAFE as currently written in fact subsidizes trucks with poor fuel economy - how is that legislating for higher mileage?

[Dave@Moon]

Detroit has exactly the CAFE standards they want. They're set-up (probably deliberately at this point) to push sales into the truck market, where profit margins are <I>huge</I> relative to cars. <P>Any effort (and there have <B>many!</B>) to rationalize CAFE standards have been met with a triple whammy: the Detroit lobby, the oil lobby, and <I>very</I> friendly ears on the strong side of the aisle in Congress and today's White House. <P><I>So just keep jonesin' for those them big cube engines, Boys!</I> <P>see note below!

[Guest Dans 77 Limited]

I dont see anything from <B>ANY</B> car manufacturer that excites me right now . Sorry I just cant get excited about driving a 4 wheeled blob. Its bad enough that all newer cars seem to be coming from a cookie cutter , but does it have to be an ugly cookie cutter? I mean there are guys in this post talking about the lack of style in the late 70s GMs. My 77 Electra looks like a styling masterpiece compared to whats on the market today. So until the stylist quit copying each others latest blob, Ill keep patching up my 79 4x4 truck. Which by the way is NOT a symbol of my "status" unless my status is .....poor redneck !<P>Dan

[Reatta Man]

Talking about what to buy and stylist copying each other, here's an honest gut-level reaction to today's car scene. <P>Hyundai (yes, Hyundai) seems to be at least trying to break out of the mold somewhat. They have come out with some nice lines and attractive colors. Add their price and WARRANTY and you at least have to give them a second look. You can also get a bright color or pearl white on their $12,000 car, but you can't get anything brighter than dull gray, brown, tan or silver on a $35,000 Rendezvous. <P>When the new Hyundai plant opens in Montgomery, Alabama, I'll probably be more likely to buy an $18,000 Hyundai made by Americans in Alabama than I ever would a $35,000 Buick made in Mexico by people making $2 per hour. <P>I can't believe I would EVER think this way, but at least I could look at the Hyundai in my driveway and know that I helped a few Americans keep their jobs, will have protection beyond three years or 36,000 miles, and kept several thousand dollars in my bank account to probably spend on another collectible Buick. <P>HOPE SOMEONE AT BUICK READS THIS AND GETS THE HINT!!!

[Guest]

"Yes, I think I can, I think the 89 Buick LaSabre Estate Wagon hit the spot back in<BR>the fall of 88 with its V-8 all Buick engine."<P>Just like to keep facts straight here. The Esate wagons had an OLDS 307, nothing Buick about it. And not a very good engine in my opinion. The Last Buick V8 was built in 80.(81 in Canada)<P>And of course I'm a huge Buick fan. I own four Buicks right now.

[86 2dr.ltd]

I travel 60 miles,120 total per day. Most on I88 and I90 and I've been really trying to see what model cars are prevalent and all though I cant identify all the Japenese models what I'm finding is a very even mix of all makes and models.Sizes and styles. Though GM may not be selling as many cars as they would like they are selling cars. Its just that everyone is selling cars but then most familys have 2 and then a third if there is a teenager around.<P>I say GM has shown weekness by amputing limbs. Nature and history has shown that the first sign of weekness is the first sign of the end. GM has lost respect for killing divisions and historic models as well as not putting anything new and exciting up, unless you consider a black plastic fendered, robot faced converta truck exciting.Oops! that was bashing, but then that is what I see.<P>Then theres the problem of needing 1/2 to a full litre of extra displacement to acheave comparable performance. Poorer handling and braking. No transmission options, no coupes, no sports sedans, no RWD options. People are big on handling these days and thats something you can feel when you drive a car even at legal road speeds,you dont need to read a road test to know which car handles the best. <P>Then their making cars "out of town" while the competition can make em' here?. Humm? Why dont I have any friends?<P>Once again I'll say that greed at the top is the problem. Taking the money and running instead of putting it back into improved product and high quality. Investing in other companys instead of striding forward with the ones you have. Playing games instead of getting to work with the matters at hand.<P>Has anyone ever considered that the hands of the designers, engineers and general workforce may be tied by the wheelers and dealers?

[Guest Skyking]

Findly, there's someone out there that agrees with me.....Dans77...ALL these new cars are ugly, imports & American. I can't imagine paying a note on a new car. People think nothing of spending 20 to 30 grand on these irons.........

[Guest Skyking]

What I see on the roads are tons of Toyota Camrys and Honda Accords...tons. I think people in general will never buy American cars again, once they own these. I'm not saying that these cars are not good cars, but the styling isn't any different than a Buick Century. In fact there was a time where you couldn't buy a V6 Camry, and they still out sold us. So for a company like Buick to retool and spend alot of money trying to compete, it is just hopeless. What happened here years ago is that the playing ground was not fair. Both Germany & Japan limited the number of imports into their country, and that was a very low number. I'm quite sure that still remains the same today. Here in the USA anything goes. I was watching C-Span in 1992, when the big wigs from the Big Three were in front of congress trying to stop all the imports being sold here. One senator asked why we didn't make cars with right hand drive. He said maybe if you built cars with right hand drive, Japan will buy our cars. The person from GM said it will cost us millions to retool to build the car and the Japanese still won't buy any of our cars. Now that the Japenese are building the cars here we will never catch up.

[BuickNut]

I saw an article in the Detroit New yesterday in which the UAW is starting (to what degree totally, I'm not sure...) to put on a campaign to "buy American that's Built American". They had put a number of leaflets on the Volvo's, Jags, and certain Focus models, that Ford employees were driving - and putting forth the idea that despite these cars being "Ford", they weren't built in the US. I think the Rendevous fits in this catagory too. Its built by an American company, but in Mexico. An idea that Buick needs to follow with the additon of the design ideas that need freshening up. I've been tempted to go to a Buick dealer, get him interested that I'm interested in a Rend - then bail because its made in Mexico. Maybe he might mention that to GM that it turns off buyers ?

[Guest]

I love old cars and own several. However I have to say that in all aspects except styling todays new cars are better. They don't rust as badly as olders cars, they will give you more miles, They handle better, they are safer, they get better fuel mileage, they are quiter and ride smoother than their predescessors. For example I own two top of the line Buick cars, a 72 Electra and a 97 Park Avenue. Allow me to compare them. The Electra is by far the more distinctive looking automobile. Both drive beutifully but the Park Avenue handles better with a tighter and more responsive steering feel. The Park Avenue is quieter with less wind noise. I feel safe in both cars but for different reasons. The Park Av. because of the crumple zones and airbags. The Electra because of the considerable mass compared to what I might hit. The Electra has much more power but the weight diminishes the acceleration. The Park is much lighter and is just as good in the acceleration department. The Park has several options that just plain make it a more driver friendly car. Allow me to list a few that the Electra does not have that I appreciatte. Rain sensing wipers, memory power seat and mirror position, auto non glare mirror, heated mirrors, cup holders (seems trivial but beats keeping drinks between you're legs) keyless entry, one touch drivers window, cd player, better sound system. Now don't get me wrong, when I have some spare time and want to enjoy a cruise I get out the Electra or one of my other old cars. They have more "character" and I love them like I never will a newer car. They bring me and others great enjoyment for the way they remind us of our past and give us some much needed perspective on the present. I have taken the Electra on a 9 hour trip when I could have taken the Park Avenue but I love driving the Electra. I have given much praise to the Park but I still favor the Electra. Oh yeah, the Park Avenue has 137,000 miles with no major repairs and still burns no oil and runs and looks like it was new. I guess I have been lucky with this car since a lot of people on this board say that the new Buicks are unreliable pieces of junk. I just don't understand the basis for some of the opinions on this subject. I guess it is rooted in a fondness for the past, and a contempt for change. Thanks for the opportunity to give my opinion. I love this forum and the dialog it fosters.<BR>[ 04-12-2002: Message edited by: 72 electra fan ]<P>--------------------<P>1972 Buick Electra 4 dr.<BR>1965 Cadillac Eldorado Convt.<BR>1966 Cadillac 75 series Limo.<BR>1972 Cadillac sedan Deville <P><BR>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>Posts: 146 | From: mountain city TN | IP: Logged

[BuickNut]

Glad that you like your Buicks . Seeing what is happening within GM with their styling, the demise of Oldsmobile, etc. - I hope the discussions have not been in vain, and that Buick DOES look at what its loyal followers have to say. I'm glad you took the attitude you have, and have listened to why Buick was being "trashed". From the perspective of reliability and rust prevention - the newer cars definately have it over the older ones. However, I still am in the process of working on some of my older cars to make them as reliable as the new ones - with the caveat that some of the "reliability" will be that if it does go out/break - its much easier and cheaper to repair than the newer cars, and thus worth that bit of "unreliability" factored in to driving the older car all the time. Only problem with my area (Detroit Michigan) is all the salt and icy roads during the winter precludes me from driving it all 4 seasons. Keep on keepin on with them Buicks !

[86 2dr.ltd]

Right on 72 Electra fan. I love them old cars too and I've got really fed up with arguing over the newer reliability issue. It was like I was living in the twilight zone. We got nearly the same mileage out of our 86 Buick as our old VW Rabbit. The old cars is where the idea that if its got 80,000 on it stay away from it came from. That is part of the problem with selling used cars today. At 120,000 their still looking good but no one will touch them because of the odometer reading.

[Guest]

I have an entire website devoted entirely to Buicks. You don't have to convince me. If you love your Buick submit photos and a short story to <A HREF="http://www.buickstreet.com" TARGET=_blank>http://www.buickstreet.com</A> and let the love flow freely!<P>Bill <A HREF="http://www.buickstreet.com" TARGET=_blank>www.buickstreet.com</A>

[Guest Skyking]

BuickNut, I see where the UAW is changing their way of thinking? I seem to remember some years back (and really not that long ago)where a news agency did a story on the UAW. The agency claimed that they were in the parking lots of the UAW taking photographs of the vehicles the auto builders were driving to work. The lot was full of Toyotas and Hondas. What was the matter back then? They couldn't trust their own cars they were building?? Well, this is the 21st Century, it's kind of late to think that way, THEY MISSED THE BOAT.........

[ranchero]

SkyKing: You've pegged a problem - uaw/caw union workmanship. After experience with careless assembly on a 2000 model year American corporate/American built car, for the next one we went German. Not only are Buick offerings fairly boring now, you've got uaw workmanship to deal with. Foreign brands, built abroad or in the non-union south, seem an attractive solution. Yup, the unions did it to themselves.

[Guest Shaffer]

My biggest complaint with the newer cars (newer than about 1980), is that they are almost impossible to work on, or it takes a lot more time, even to do small repairs. On my old 1972 Buick Electra and 1971 Chevrolet Caprice, any job was fairly easy. Changing spark plugs on some of these newer cars are impossible. This evening, I was checking under the hood of my 1994 Chevrolet Lumina sedan and I noticed a few odd things. The distributor cap is way down low on the front of the engine. The battery is under the windshield washer tank and I would have to look at the owners manual to figure out how to remove it, if I had to install a new battery. The oil change looks like it is easy, but I take my cars to have the oil changed. Everything is crowded under the hood, but not as bad as some cars I have seen. On some of these newest cars, when you look under the hood, all you see it a huge plastic cover and nothing else there. There is so many computers on cars today. I guess I like cars of about 1968-1975 the best, because you have a mix of safety (several saftey features made standard on cars starting in 1968), well-built and there is a absence of big computers, like on cars today.<p>[ 04-21-2002: Message edited by: Shaffer ]

[Guest Skyking]

Ranchero, one thing puzzles me. Today the auto workers seem to be conscientious in their working habits when working for a foreign owned company here in the states, as before they could care less at what they turned out during the day working for a US company. I always remembered people saying, "don't buy a car that was built on a monday or friday". Maybe all the computered robots have alot to do with todays quality......

[BuickNut]

I know both are contributors to the workmanship of the cars and the notorious apathy of the American Autoworker...and yet as pointed out, the Japanese and German transplants here in the states (as well as Saturn..so I've heard.....) make quality cars when considering workmanship. They work together and don't knife each other when the other's not looking....that's why they can do without the unions in the southern transplants. <P> The UAW shoots itself in the foot when the pull all the baloney they do in the plants in the name of "job security". I've had first hand experience with that from an Engineers point of view. However, the car companies/auto supppliers also shoot themselves in the foot when they pull all the baloney with trying to cut costs at the expense of the workers, contract shennanigans......etc. If they would both work together, the resultant customer being shot in the foot wouldn't occur ! There are definate problems on both sides of the fence that need to be addressed if the US company's are to finally get rid of the old bugaboo about "American Built" being inferior.