LaCrosse Super in NY 3/28/06

[BUICK RACER]

web page

I just saw the tail end of the real thing in the truck this afternoon!

[Guest my3buicks]

Great news, but can the name, yuck

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Great news, but can the name, yuck </div></div>

I can only imagine what our Canadian friends are now thinking!

[Guest my3buicks]

OMG

[Philippe Racicot]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Great news, but can the name, yuck </div></div>

I can only imagine what our Canadian friends are now thinking! </div></div>

LaCrosse Super Allure Super sounds strange too! Maybe they'll call it "Super Allure" here!

As I already mentioned on GMI, I don't understand how Buick (or should I say GM?) could consider the name "Super" for a higher performance version. The Buick Super was more related to it's "Super capacity" (like washing machines!) than anything like a supercar!

Roberta, can you tell us how it looks-like compared to the current model and Chinese model?

[BUICK RACER]

Not really it was up top in the front of the truck so all I could see was the tailpanel and chrome exhaust. I guess we'll have to wait till Tuesday!

[serb]

Roberta,

Is there a chance of getting a photo(s) to post? Since the car will be on display, it should not pose a great problem, maybe we can get a sneak peek.

If this follows along with the design of the Velite, it should be a car to create interest. Is htis car to be offered as a 4 door, 2 door , conv or?

Thanks.

Stevo

[Guest my3buicks]

I actually liked the Velite name, but this may be a great oppurtunity to bring back the Wildcat or Riviera name.

[Guest Skyking]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I actually liked the Velite name, but this may be a great oppurtunity to bring back the Wildcat or Riviera name. </div></div>

<span style="font-weight: bold">"INVICTA"</span>

[jscheib]

If it not the NY auto show, what is the venue or event where the car will be displayed? Does anyone know?

John

[JohnD1956]

According to my 56 manual, only the Special had a lower powered engine in 1956. The century, Super and Roadmaster all had the exact same drive train. Considering the Century has less weight from it's smaller dimension, it would naturally be the fastest, but the Super and Roadie ought to perform exactly the same. For that matter, if you subscribe to lighter cars ought to go faster, the super ought to out perform a Roadie.

BTW, I like my Super, and I don't consider it to be a large capacity washer. But I do agree that naming a version of the LACROSSE a Super is a mistake.

JD

[Guest my3buicks]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I actually liked the Velite name, but this may be a great oppurtunity to bring back the Wildcat or Riviera name. </div></div>

<span style="font-weight: bold">"INVICTA"</span> </div></div>

I still think the Invicta name has a good ring even in todays market - I think even though it wasn't top of the line in it's day, the Invicta name would be a good Flagship car name in the Buick Lineup - Someone mentioned a model to go up against the Chrysler 300 - the invicta name would be a perfect fit.

[BUICK RACER]

This event on Tuesday is a Press Release for the LaCrosse Super. Was not able to see the entire car in the truck. The Lucerne, Enclave will also be on display in NY on Tuesday, more info as available.

[Philippe Racicot]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">According to my 56 manual, only the Special had a lower powered engine in 1956. The century, Super and Roadmaster all had the exact same drive train. Considering the Century has less weight from it's smaller dimension, it would naturally be the fastest, but the Super and Roadie ought to perform exactly the same. For that matter, if you subscribe to lighter cars ought to go faster, the super ought to out perform a Roadie. JD </div></div>

That's right, the exceptions were the 55-58 Supers as they got the same engine as the Roadmaster and weighted less. The 1940-52 models had smaller and less powerful engines than Roadmaster (the same engines as the smaller Special) while the 53-54 models had the same engine displacement as the Roadmaster and Century models but with a 2 barrel carburator and lower compression.

[NTX5467]

Skyking, I concur that "INVICTA" would have been a worthy nameplate to put up against the Chrysler 300. Only problem is that the "metal" does not seem very willing (the Lucerne) or worthy of such a flashy name as "Invicta", with all due respect.

Now, after I sat at work and pondered how to spiff up the Lucerne . . . (don't gasp too loud!) . . . there are some body lines that with some of the chrome (probably it would need to be "satin nickle" now) trim of yestercentury, there are a couple of possibilities for two-toning ala 1961 Invictas. Unfortunately, it would take more to get rid of the side mouldings and make a SweepSpear side motif ala Boat Tail Rivs or something akin to a 1956 Buick. Seems strange that the Lucerne has body side mouldings in the way and the Cadillac STS has none to start with! Even a simple single pinstripe on the Lucerne makes it look better!

One of my work associates also believes that the Lucerne needs a chrome strip down the middle of the hood, with a stand-up hood ornament so the "typical Buick owners" can tell where the front end of the car is. Might give it a more upscale touch of class too!

I've been looking at tape stripes for the LaCrosse too. Have it almost figured out. A modified SweepSpear of sorts to follow the existing body lines.

I'm not sure about "Super" and "LaCrosse" together. But it amounts to "smaller and lighter car" and "big engine". Now, while the horsepower figure has been mentioned, considering that OHV motors are allegely "pa-saaaayyyyy" in that price class, might the V-8 in the LaCrosse Super be the NorthStar rather than the LS1 as is in the 2006 Impala SS and Pontiac Grand Prix GXP? Be glad that platinum-tip spark plugs are now standard!!!

I'll check some of the newspapers in the morning for possibly pictures of all three.

Just some thoughts . . .

NTX5467

[Philippe Racicot]

No news today?

[BUICK RACER]

The Press Release was a 4PM EST at a design studio in NYC, I haven't found any info on the web as of yet. It may not hit till morning, I was told.

[jscheib]

Still no news?

John

[page2171]

[Guest Straight eight]

You asked for it!

[Guest Straight eight]

Don't you wish this was it?

[Centurion]

Straight eight, I would not assume that the photo you posted is the LaCrosse Super. I do not expect, however, that there will be substantial appearance changes compared to the existing LaCrosse, which is not yet near the end of its styling cycle.

[Guest electralacrosse]

Has anyone seen this car?

[jscheib]

Never mind seeing the car or a photo. Has anyone seen anything written about the car since we were first alerted to its presentation in NY on 3/28. Did the truck wreck on the way from Detriot to NY?

I hope we hear soon.

John

[BUICK RACER]

No, Nothing, the truck did not wreck, apparently this was a pre-release session, and we may not see the car til the Buick Open in Grand Blanc, MI in July 2006!

[jscheib]

Roberta,

Thanks so much for the update. I guess we grasp for every straw about Buick these days. I guess we will just have to wait and see it later. We are a litle more sensitive here in CT since Buick and the PGA decided to drop the golf tournament after this year.

Let us know when we can see more.

John

[NTX5467]

Other than cosmetic issues, I suspect the "Super" will be an adaptation of chassis hardware first seen on the Grand Prix GXP and then on the Impala SS--with a few exceptions.

The GXP, being from Pontiac, had many "go fast/stop fast" items on the chassis. Brembo calipers (although the calipers on the 2004 GP redesign were already stengthened), slotted and drilled rotors, larger front tires/wheels than on the rear, special chassis calibrations. Then came the Impala SS with the same 5.3L V-8 (with Displacement-On-Demand and a instrument panel readout to indicate when that was happening), but with upgraded normal brakes and 4 tires of the same size--aka things that would make the basic Impala V-8 "agreeable" to fleet use AND be more user-friendly by the general public, but with speed rated tires. I suspect the "Super" will be more along the lines of the Impala SS -- chassis equipment wise -- but could also have Magnetic Ride Control (as the Lucerne CXS has) and some other high-tech items.

The one question I might pose would be which engine will be in the car (all that's been mentioned is horsepower, not engine size or source? It would be easy to do the 5.3L V-8 (or the larger version from the Corvettes, 5.7 or 6.0), but being that Buick's price point supposedly means "more tech", then what about the possibility of it having a normally-aspirated NorthStar? In the days of the Oldsmobile Speciality Vehicles group, there were NorthStar Intrigues as "development vehicles", by the reports I heard back then, so maybe that stuff will finally surface in a LaCrosse/Allure Super?

Thanks for the information, Roberta!

Enjoy!

NTX5467

[OldCarPosters]

NTX ... here are my two nominations for an appropriate powerplant for the new LaCrosse Super:

http://www.vivipix.com/46buic13.htm

http://www.vivipix.com/63buic15.htm

[Guest imported_Thriller]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No, Nothing, the truck did not wreck, apparently this was a pre-release session, and we may not see the car til the Buick Open in Grand Blanc, MI in July 2006! </div></div>

The Buick Open? Not the BCA National in Rochester? Sigh.

[Guest electralacrosse]

Does anybody know why they brought the LaCrosse super to NY?

[Philippe Racicot]

Is it this car?

http://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_65635-Buick-LaCrosse.html

[BUICK RACER]

No, I don't think so that is just a LaCrosse, search of the web says they will make it with a 300 HP V8 and different interior than the regular LaCrosse. We know they are working on it, and that's about it. Hopefully, Lutz wants it right before we get to see it. They did the same thing with Enclave, changed some things after it's debut a the North American International Auto show in Detroit in January. The Enclave is getting rave reviews already. See below:

GM Seeks Quiet Riot for Enclave

The Detroit News

By Sharon Terlep

Nov. 10, 2006

MILFORD, Mich. ? General Motors Corp. will employ an arsenal of soundproofing technology in hopes of making its upcoming Buick Enclave crossover one of the quietest rides on the road.

Buick officials said Thursday that the brand will face off with the likes of Lexus and Mercedes-Benz when the five-door luxury crossover debuts next year as a 2008 model. The Enclave will be built at GM's new $1 billion plant in Delta Township near Lansing.

GM hopes a sleek exterior, laminated steel and perforated leather seats that absorb sound will quiet critics and sell the Enclave to a younger, more affluent crowd. The features are the latest incarnation of Buick's QuietTuning technology, used in such models as the Lucerne and LaCrosse sedans.

"This technology is very powerful and very simple," Buick general manager Steve Shannon said Thursday at the GM Proving Grounds, where the Enclave underwent sound testing in high-tech wind tunnels and on low-tech bumpy roads. "This is basically a luxury car that just happens to seat seven or eight people."

A quiet ride is not a perk, but an expectation in the luxury market, and it's an area where Buick has fallen short in the past, said Brian Moody, road test editor for Edmunds.com. "People who are purchasing luxury vehicles expect a certain serenity or quietness with a vehicle," Moody said. "If they don't get that, it seems cheap."

GM has been on a mission to reincarnate Buick as an American version of Lexus, Toyota Motor Co.'s popular luxury line.

Buick, while still profitable, has continued to lose longtime customers. U.S. sales dropped 15 percent in the first 10 months of 2006 from the same period last year.

Among the Enclave's soundproofing features:

Acoustically laminated windshield glass that sandwiches a sound-absorbing glass panel between inner and outer panels.

Soundproofing foam in 28 places that expands to seal openings that could let noise in.

Tires with specially designed tread to avoid the noise associated with larger tires.

A team of engineers worked to ensure the Enclave absorbs sounds, reduces noise made by the vehicle and drowns out noise from the outside. One person's full-time job, for example, was to create the most pleasing sounds for functions such as shutting a door or rolling down a window, said Roger Barlow, a noise vibration team leader at Buick. "We're talking about excruciating detail," he said.

Edmund's Moody said the QuietTuning technology should help the Enclave compete when it goes on sale next summer, but it won't be enough to sell the vehicle in the crowded luxury market.

"There's more to a car," he said, "than making it sound quiet."

[Guest imported_Thriller]

Reading that last bit is just like reading the material we got with Ruby last year.

On a semi-related note, I've seen quite a few more Allures around lately...this past week I saw one with an infant seat in the back. There was also a good review...I forget if it was the Allure or Lucerne...in some Canadian papers last weekend. It wasn't a road test type of article, but it was a generally positive piece about some of the features of the car.

Build it and they will come. If the right type of vehicle and appropriate variants are in the Buick stable (I'm thinking convertible and a 2 door coupe a la Riviera), sales could definitely turn around.

On that point, I'm not particularly pleased that Buick will go to two car models and an SUV/crossover, while Saturn currently has 7 models including a convertible...if 3 models is going to be good enough for Buick, perhaps it should be so for all GM lines...then perhaps the tall foreheads would get it.

Anyway, it definitely looks like the products Buick has are very good...if they keep it up, then there will always be a demographic that will want Buicks.

[JohnD1956]

Buicks have always been the car for me, so the following comments are biased, BUT!!!! our new LaCrosse is really a wonderful car. Many will think this is absurd, but I consider it to be a real Buick in that it is powered by the 3800, and I do mean powered. This car moves off the line with confidence, and has more than enough power to cruise with the others no matter the speed of traffic. The car rides great, The suspension has enough give yet has a sporty feel. The interior is very comfortable. Seats are firm and supportive. The Steering wheel has Tilt and Telescopic for endless positions. The stock radio is great, with balance and power to blast your socks off. Lighting is good, guages are sufficient but do leave a bit to be desired.

So even though the "Super" will have a 300 HP V8, I would venture to say the LaCrosse is already "super" and I am very happy to have one.

JD

[Guest sintid58]

If their going to use the Lacrosse name why not use the name used for Buick muscle in the 60's and 70's, GS or maybe just call the thing Gran Sport period.

[NTX5467]

Having seen the Enclave at the Dallas International New Car Show, I can wholeheartedly say that the Enclave has something that the others do not. That "something" is STYLE! It was also one of the GM concept/show cars on display that was not painted the "standard" silver color, but more of a Dark Bronzemist Metallic that did a better job of showing the curves and contours of the body. It also made a nice contrast to the luxurious interior. It might have been the top trim level, but it looked nice enough to impress those crowded around the display--of which I was probably the oldest one (which is a good sign when younger families with strollers are there rather than, with all due respect, the kids' grandparents with the strollers).

When looking at the "competition" of Mercedes and Lexus, each of those vehicles has a base of loyal buyers that seem to go ga-ga over anything those companies might produce, but these brands are also considered "aspirational"--an area that Buicks might not have been (in the eyes of the general public, which CAN be somewhat fickle) in more recent prior times. I feel that when they might venture out to look at the Buicks, they'll find luxury they might not have in their own vehicles. Hopefully, they will look past how their M or Lexus will look in the driveway or parking spot at work (where many people might be keyed to look for the Mercedes star or "L" in the grille) and look at the vehicle itself. IF they'll do that, plus purchase prices, then Buick can be "The BETTER BUY".

There are two ways to look at the lower number of Buick platforms, when contrasted against what other GM carlines might have. Having all GM platforms available to all GM division, as happened more in the past than in the present, especially with current sales levels, might not be such a good thing to do at this time. For example, the "little" Mercedes coupes and sedans that I see around look to me to be comical--"They spent $30K for a Mercedes the size of a Chevy Malibu, which takes a "Kompressor" to make it run good?" Especially the little coupes, which probably will not carry that much more than a Pontiac Solstice (passengers or luggage). In that respect, at least in the USA, it appears that Mercedes has had limited success with those smaller models--for other than those enamoured with the Mercedes star on the grille.

With all of the "contraction" in the current USA-brand automotive world, it could be hard to make a valid business case for expanding use of existing platforms to all GM vehicle lines. The "critics" would look at potential production and sales volumes (without rebates) and probably deem the added investment costs (research and design, plus "after sale" inventory costs of spare parts at GM warehouses and at dealerships (which would not be a "factory cost" until the parts would be returned when they didn't sell in the future) could well firm-up their case.

At this time, for example, putting a Buick "twist" to the Pontiac Solstice/Satury SKY/Opel GT could well take the "sporty" out of the mix and possible customers' minds. Kind of hard to make something with that short of a wheelbase have a luxurious ride, without some expensive technology that could take it out of the price point area it would need to be in. To make a Buick out of it would add weight, length, and hopefully a little width to the basic body, which would also necessitate more power and related emissions certifications related to a different engine/powertrain package.

On the other side of things, adding more product into existing production facilities could well expand GM's sales base and better pay for the plants, AND with expanded sales, reduce the "per vehicle burden" of many of GM's "overhead" costs. Therefore, it becomes "expanding the sales base" with more product (+) or generating profits from cutting things (-) that eventually will result less total sales and continuing the downward spiral of GM's market penetration. FEW of the current financial people consider that when GM was at its best, it had the most products and more diversity in "other industries" which could even out the gaps between high-vehicle-sales years. It seems that every time they get the "focus on the core business" orientation to justify selling something off, future operations generally decline too. Still if the "sale" was necessary to pay other obligations, it might be questioned as to why that other entity was not doing as good as it should have been.

Of course, the famous "badge engineering" comments could also result from the expansion of platform availability. Something the imports seem to allegedly be immune to, but something that seems to only apply to USA-brand vehicles--according to some press "experts". When done as it was implemented in the 1960s and 1970s, it worked as each GM division still had enough differentiation to please the marketplace (but not, in all probability the corporate financial people)--the same product differentiation that is finally returning.

But when the later 1980s got here, with common powertrains and such, the "badge engineering" orientation could have been more justified in some areas. If the customer perceives that the Buick or Cadillac they just bought (at a premium price) has actual content that is not much better than a more common Chevrolet, the upper brands suffer in the marketplace. The Cadillac Cimmaron is probably the best example of this--a car that a modest amount of consumers wanted and a car that NOBODY wants on the used car lot or in their repair shop. To many current consumers, that grew up in those more clouded days of the USA auto markets, those things are still in their minds, so they migrate toward import brands that didn't seem to have those problems back then (as if the same things still exist today--kind of like orientation that Jim Wangers mentioned when he noted to that to many current younger consumers, "Pontiac" means "Aztec" rather than "Grand Prix" or "GTO").

It used to be that "luxury" had a common definition of fine materials, higher levels of sound control, "better" sounds of "quality", smoooooth ride, bigger engines for more power, and STYLE (when this definition was more operative, there was more Brand Identity from every American car than there has been in more recent "aerodynamic" times). Fit, paint finishes, and build quality were usually better too.

Now, luxury is still supposed to mean these things, but with higher degrees of execution and what we used to deem "power everything" just won't do it anymore. But, in this same situation, it seems that unless you are a "super-techie" (with all due respect), there are many allegedly desireable features that a customer will never use (kind of like we might have joked "I'll bet that owner never has used the '4 barrel', and if they did, it might scare them.", in prior decades). Still, when a current luxury-type vehicle is designed, it must include many advanced electronics which will be desired by the 2nd purchaser of that vehicle, which could mean definitely looking a good deal into the future and predict what the next big "desireable" item might be. Who, 10 years ago, would have suspected that we'd now have harddrives in cars, which can store downloaded music, but they are on the dealers' lots NOW. Of course, these would be an outgrowth of the DVD navigation systems and expanding related capabilities. Yet many current buyers just don't need those things and some probably don't like to have to pay for them either (one reason the more basic import brands might be replacing domestics in some market demographics??). HOPEFULLY, the marketing types can figure out a way around this issue with a base model vehicle (in the two lower trim level models) that can be easily upgraded with options (NOT option packages per se, which include waaayyyy tooooo much stuff for an even higher price!). Plus getting the dealers to order them that way too, rather than try to load the options on for whatever reason.

As for using older model names and designations (which many in here would better identify with!), we have to be aware that although we might like to see some of the older names, the more glamourous Buick names, return, younger potential buyers might consider the much-improved new versions of the vehicles those names are attached to be simple "rehashes" of what those same nameplates were attached to say, 20 years ago (when they first learned of them). One of those "point of reference" issues, again, unfortunately. Chrysler has seemed to be able to successfully pull those things off, same with Ford, but GM hasn't been able to reach the same level of success (which, hopefully, the new CAMARO will remedy!!!).

Also, with the new names, it allegedly gives the potential customer a reason to come back into the Buick showrooms to check out "The New _________". A valid orientation, but one that could just as well apply to an older nameplate with a vastly new vehicle it's attached to--which is highly dependent upon marketing promotions and changing the public's perception of how a particular corporate entity is changing/upgrading its operations/products to be better competitive in today's marketplace.

Still, "heritage" issues can be effectively handled by motivated marketing operatives that have REAL knowledge of what those models were in prior times and how they relate to modern times. The word/orientation of "Retro" went from "in" to "out" in a few years as it was not marketed correctly, but "retro" now reflects something other than desireable in anyone's market portfolio, yet prior model orientations and such are still desired by an ever-growing number of potential buyers who (unlike many of the younger people now making key product and marketing decisions, seemingly).

In the recent successes of this sort, the current Chrysler 300 was designed by a younger designer that seemed to really know the essence of former Chrysler products. The younger chief designer of the current Ford Mustang was a Mustang enthusiast from his early youth. They knew what their passions were and were able to be fortunate enough to be able to unleash them on the product drawing boards (and computer screens) to get them sucessfully transformed into sheet metal and rolling down the streets as "desired" vehicles.

The problem is that, seemingly, once these great performances are orchestrated and the respective operatives are promoted to higher-level jobs, the "magic" seems to be greatly diminished or they get high enough in the organization that it's harder to infuse this same enthusiasm into the places they used to be (of which others are now in charge). But this is a problem in any business environment, by observation--lack of continuity of the chain of command to continue prior "best practices" with those that follow (who also want to infuse their own orientations/agendas into the mix and make a name for themselves).

Perhaps the advancing technology of industry is the reason that it seems to become easier to "re-chassis" earlier bodies with more modern chassis under them? Plus the allegedly more affluent enthisast base? Former style and size combined with modern suspension technology for a totally better product, it seems. Probably something that the OEMs could be doing themselves if they had not got off on the many tangents of federal regulations over the past decades? But even so, things would have had to progress as they have (product, design, build quality execution, environmental issues, safety issues) to make the totally better products we now have.

Perhaps we can thank all of these various OEM-environmental-issues (regulations) for increasing the awareness of the rise of the vintage vehicle hobby and related values of such vehicles in the future? Back then having power windows and a search-tuner radio were visible indicators of having an upscale luxury automobile or a fancier lower-level brand vehicle. Back when . . . if one heater core was good, then having TWO of them was better and not under the front seat. And don't forget about those whitewall tires!

Just some thoughts,

NTX5467

[Philippe Racicot]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If their going to use the Lacrosse name why not use the name used for Buick muscle in the 60's and 70's, GS or maybe just call the thing Gran Sport period. </div></div>

Maybe Buick is keeping that name for their soon-to-be released RWD muscle car?! Not likely I guess <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />