The entire autoblogosphere is abuzz over the new Buick LaCrosse. And not just in the pre-show preview, “check this out” kind of way. Or even in the sniggering “guess what the name means in Quebec” way. No, full-service pimping of GM’s latest mid-sized sedan is clearly the order of the day. And a single thread runs through all the breathless commentary, namely the alleged youthful, modern appeal of the new LaCrosse. The message is loud and clear: this is not your father’s Buick. Or, as The DetNews‘s Scott Burgess puts it (in hopes of avoiding the painful Olds legacy), “this is not your grandfather’s Buick.” The Freep opens its paean to the LaCrosse by pointing out that it was designed by “twenty- and thirty-somethings.” “No More Blue Hair!” screams the headline at Jalopnik, who also parrot the “not your grandfather’s Buick” line. But, like the infamous “not your father’s Oldsmobile” ads everyone keeps referencing, all this sound and fury merely cements long-standing brand perceptions in the minds of consumers. And hastens the long-overdue death of Buick
GM’s Susan Docherty reveals to Automotive News [sub] that Buick’s youthful reinvention is not being kicked off by LaCrosse. “With the introduction of the Enclave, we have broken through the perception that Buick was just a brand for old people,” says the Pontiac Buick GMC VP. “The Enclave started a transformation of the brand that has only just begun.”
Oh really? So the DetN’s Burgess wasn’t kidding. This really is about repositioning Buick as “your father’s” brand instead of “your grandfather’s.” And with an average buyer age of 63, that may not be a bad goal. But if Enclave buyers were still well into their 50s, how far are these claims of youthful reinvention really going to carry the Buick brand?
Not far. Not only will this LaCrosse fail to appreciably bring down the average Buick customer age (for reasons explored later), the entire marketing effort sends the clear message that its core buyers are an embarrassment to the brand.
As does the car itself, which is loaded with techno-gizmos and has optional all-wheel drive. Why? To tempt the youthful hordes from their “near-luxury” Toyota Avalons, Acuras TLs and the like. And further convince their core market that Buick’s are no longer senior-friendly havens of low-tech in a world gone mad.
Compared to the last few decades of Buicks, the design is understated and elegant. But that’s like bragging about attracting 50-year-old customers instead of 60-year-olds. From some angles the new car looks suitably Lexus-like, echoing the current LS at the rear and first-generation GS from the side. From the front its splashy waterfall grille is subtle in comparison only to Mercury’s chrome-bauble bling.
From the vantage point of online press pictures, the interior does look undeniably decent. Unfortunately, it also does away with the sense of spaciousness and simplicity that defined Buick’s appeal even when its styling and performance was at its worst.
Even if the new LaCrosse is the best Buick made in years (and it probably is), it does nothing to rescue the brand. The relentless emphasis on customer age in marketing and media coverage shows deep insecurity on GM’s part about Buick’s appeal.
Buick is one of the most traditional symbols of middle class achievement, an image that over the last few decades has appealed to fewer, older customers. That image has been successful in China, where a young emerging middle class hold many of the values that once made Buick a success here.
As a well-qualified youngster in the car-buying demographic I feel confident in arguing that America’s aspiring 20 and 30-somethings are generally striving for individuality and expression, not suburban comfort, conformity and subtlety.
As a brand as steeped in tradition, Buick needs to reinvent itself in a way that builds on its past and broadens its appeal without alienating long-term fans. Something along the lines of Canadian Club’s “damn right your dad drank it,” campaign. When brands outlive their historical moment, only some sense of irony or humor can keep their core values relevant. If trying to keep Buick relevant even makes any sense at this point. Which it probably doesn’t.
GM has had a hard enough time updating Cadillac’s staid image in a way that doesn’t completely alienate traditionalists. Attempting this balance with Buick does little besides create the brand engineering and cannibalism that destroyed both brands in the first place.
Me? I actually want one of my father’s favorite Buicks, the 1963 Riviera. Which was actually marketed to people like his father. In terms of recapturing the immediate yet timeless appeal of Buick’s heyday models, the new LaCrosse comes up well short.
Looks to be yet another extremely desirable automobile from GM.
looks pretty good to me. certainly better than, say, a current gen camry, maybe even current accord (which i happen to drive) and others i could name. car styling is one of the most subjective things out there, and if you want to flame it that’s certainly your right, but a lot of what i’m reading here and elsewhere seems to be based on GM/buick-hating (which is, again, certainly your right). handling and quality remain to be seen, but i just don’t see a reason for so much hate directed towards this lacrosse before it’s even out of the gate. just in terms of styling, i’d take it over the camry, fusion, malibu, probably some others.
Young people will line up none deep for it. If they want plush cars they already know they can ge a superior plush car from Acura, Lexus and even Hyundai now.
Our grandparents will like it though and judging by the success of the Enclave in AZ’s various retirement communities, they will be the only ones buying it.
If GM really wants young people to buy a Buick then they’d best set about coming up with a Gran Sport, Grand National, GNX or Riviera that captures the style, performance and class that are part of the brand’s heritage (and not present in any of it’s current vehicles) and bring it into the 21st century.
Cool hopefully I can check it out in the spring at the NY auto show
If I didn’t feel like my kids have been forced into paying for two of these already, I might have bought one.
With all the positive that is being talked about with this car and deservedly so, this site finds something negative. What a bloody surprise. It doesn’t matter what GM does, you’ll find a reason to hate it. They could build a car that’s leaps and bounds ahead of the competition at half the price and you’d hate it. I used to hate GM to, when they built ugly, terrible cars. But I’m not so blind that I can’t change my opinion as GM’s cars get better and better. The fact that you can’t see that is quite sad.
I get sick of seeing “GM, Ford and Chrysler Deathwatch #whatever” day in and day out. Enough, we get it, you hate domestics.
But, you’re entitled to your opinion, and I’m entitled to not read it.
I’m done with this blog.
Bye.
Isn’t this designed by the Chinese arm of GM?
I’m 24, and I actually like Canadian Club. I don’t buy it myself, but when I visit my grandfather we’ll crack open a bottle of 10-year blend.
As for Buicks, I think they would have been much better off with something along the lines of the Acura “Advance” commercials. The ones narrated by the Boston Legal guy, something about “Advance generation to generation blah blah”.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ernHGtKzCyQ
The idea fits much better with the Buick brand, which actually has several generations, than with Acura, which been around for less than a single generation.
If this isn’t meant to appeal to the boomer generation and their parents, who is its target market? Are twenty and thirty somethings really looking for a floaty luxobarge? If this isn’t going to fill that description what makes it a Buick? If they are going to reinvent the brand how much more is it going to step on all of GM’s other brands toes?
GM constantly complains about the perception gap and how they’re still paying the price for 20 year old sins, so how is it exactly that they plan to attract an entirely new demographic to this geriatric brand with one new model? If anything Buick should embrace their roots and make vehicles that appeal exclusively to the elderly, who will continue to be a huge market.
The problem is NOT a lack of youthful styling or features. The problem is getting younger buyers to bet the farm on a manufacturer with a horrendous track record.
Back the car with a solid no-BS warranty, good service, and depreciation insurance (guarantee a minimum buy back price). Otherwise, all the “styling” in the world looks just like lipstick on a pig.
At least this is how this buyer views it.
I’m not a domestic fan in general, but I like Buick and would consider buying the right one (Hey, for full disclosure, I’m 53, so I’m in the demographic anyhow). Buick has according to the stats anyhow, good quality and good customer service.
I like the look of this Buick as well. Having said that, I’m not likely to trade my 3 series for one.
Now to my question. For those who say that Buick can’t see THIS car to younger buyers, what foreign car model could you rebadge as a Buick and get younger customers to come buy?
DavidM123 :
January 8th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
With all the positive that is being talked about with this car and deservedly so, this site finds something negative. What a bloody surprise. It doesn’t matter what GM does, you’ll find a reason to hate it. They could build a car that’s leaps and bounds ahead of the competition at half the price and you’d hate it. I used to hate GM to, when they built ugly, terrible cars. But I’m not so blind that I can’t change my opinion as GM’s cars get better and better. The fact that you can’t see that is quite sad.
I get sick of seeing “GM, Ford and Chrysler Deathwatch #whatever” day in and day out. Enough, we get it, you hate domestics.
But, you’re entitled to your opinion, and I’m entitled to not read it.
I’m done with this blog.
Bye.
You’ll be back.
I’d just like to say that the focus of the critique isn’t the car itself. My personal opinion is, other than the ugly chrome nugget on the trunklid connected to the overly large badge, it’s a great looking car. The problem is, Buick is going about it all wrong just the way they did with Oldsmobile. Buick stands for something, and instead of focusing on that they’re succumbing to the marketing idea that younger is better. What happened to older, established people with lots of money to spend? And why can’t anything be sold to them? They have all that money, they need to spend it on something… Toyota doesn’t target the Avalon at NYC clubbers. It still sells a few. Probably more to retail customers than with the current LaCrosse and Lucerne.
The point is, a strong brand is built on its strengths. Whatever they may be. Look at Hyundai. You can’t change that stuff overnight, and you can’t completely retarget a brand, especially one with a 100+ year history, in a single lineup changeover. GM’s marketing people are flunking this one up, not the product. And I think that’s the obvious point made by the editorial.
This is a good-looking car that could definitely lower the average customer’s age by 10 years or so, and the drivetrain technology is finally at par with its competitors, but… what’s with the weight gain?
Edmunds reports that the base car comes in at almost 4000 LBS! There goes all the potential zip from the 255 hp base engine. This car shouldn’t start any heavier than the current Lacrosse (~3500 lbs), but in the grand automotive tradition of late, it went ahead and porked up anyway.
Also, it may not be practically possible to reposition Buick successfully. GM has so many brands, all vying for a piece of the same pie. Cadillac was semi-successfully repositioned. Chevrolet’s position is set. Pontiac, even though it has a discernible distinction from the rest of the brood from a marketing standpoint, has had massive troubles being noticed, even with great product. The point simply boils down to: GM needs to cut brands. As it always does.
A semi-sporty, AWD midsize sedan with tech features could conceivably replace the Saturn Aura, or Pontiac G6, or Chevrolet Impala (better yet, just add a trim level above the Malibu LTZ and be done with it). A different car (RWD?) with identical pricing could be added to Cadillac’s range. A few more features, a $10 grand bump in price, and an ignition on the console puts it into a Saab showroom.
See what I just did? I proved that GM has too many brands. If a single, run-of-the-mill family sedan could, with $100 in changes, fit into any of your brands that sell cars, you have a branding problem.
The brand is too stigmatized for younger (under 60) people to buy. Besides, it doesn’t offer anything that can’t be found at Chevy or Cadillac. If you want premium, buy a Cadillac. If you want value, go to the Chevy dealer. I they need to have something to keep the Buick and Pontiac dealers alive, then go with the Opel Brand and strip away the GM logos.
GM needs to understand that it would be embarrassing for most people to buy a Buick. I can just imagine the “did it come with a case of depends” or “does it come with a special version of onstar that guides you to early bird specials” remarks from friends that would be inevitable.
“A Cadillac CTS-encroaching price tag of $26k to $33k”
I wish this were true. However, in my experience, the current CTS with reasonable options is well into the 40s.
If they sit on the lot for a year and are liquidated at 35% I’m sure a Youthful would gladly make the purchase.
I also don’t think the car looks that bad. It looks heavy from the photos, but it looks well equipped and far from horrendous. If it is based on the Cadillac it should drive pretty well too I would hope, look forward to some comparative reviews for that.
I agree that IF (big IF) Buick could be repositioned as old-school cool it might work. The problem with the Canadian Club analogy is that CC is the SAME drink. So if you see an old photo of the Rat Pack drinking it, you can get some of that mojo your self by drinking it (or so the idea goes.)
With Buick, they have to make NEW products that appeal to a younger crowd, but with the old label. Much tougher sell. Imagine if Canadian Club instead tried marketing CC Vanilla, CC Citron, CC Chocolate, etc. You get the point.
Now, if Buick actually MADE a brand-new ’63 Riviera we’d have a whole new ball game!
Bye David!
Agreed KalapanaBlack…just as the Intrigue and Aurora were wonderful cars and well-recieved by the press. I don’t know whether it was the start of an SUV-crazed market, that they were GM products (and innovative products at that), or that it just wasn’t the sedan for the right target.
People in the 25-40 range (realistically those that may be able to afford it), whom want a $30k entry-luxury sedan want something with a cutting edge badge on the vehicle; Audi, Acura, Lexus, Infiniti, even Mazda or Nissan. Something that says we like a bit of luxury, with sporty pretensions and styling that says that, and also offer some techno-bits.
Buick was originally designed as the upper-mid market car and has been marketed that way since Sloan was in charge. You can’t change that overnight with one product. Is the LaCrosse going to represent the same demise as those two vehicles did for Olds?
The recent question about what makes a Caddy a Caddy…flash, room, smooth ride. Only vehicle that truly fullfills the mission of what Cadillac has always stood for: the Escalade (sadly). And that is why it sells well. Chevy offers cars to people that want something basic and reliable, and you don’t see many LTZ Cobalts and Malibus (heck, I hardly see any of them in the Pac NW). Pontiac and Buick offer nothing that really sets them apart in the market.
The LaCrosse will be another outstanding vehicle from GM, but the marketers and dealers won’t know how to sell it. Doesn’t matter what badge is on there. Maybe GM should have taken their idea of putting their logo on all GM products, but dump the excess or overlap and just call them GM. GM car, GM truck, GM SUV…in different sizes. Ehh, probably still have the same results.
This porker weighs 4000 lbs + so I doubt that it will be a canyon carver but it will probably drive no worse than an ES350 and will probably be aimed at the same demographic. However, GM should probably have invested that R&D money into producing one outstanding mid-size FWD sedan rather than having so much redundancy and overlap between Saturn, Chevy and Buick.
I don’t really understand why a brand that has strong appeal in a certain market segment would want to go out of its way to alienate them while chasing another market segment. Especially when it’s one of several brands at the same company, and the other brands are already better suited to target that segment. Why not keep Buick as a brand that targets older buyers who want a simple and comfortable car? At least you know you have customers that way.
hey c’mon, this car actually looks kind of slick. And If it’s competing with the Avalon and the ES line then the apparent combo of rear biased all wheel drive, direct injection engine and recently developed GM suspension should frankly blow them out of the water (along with more expensive cars). Let’s not forget, GM is getting very good at setting up sedans that handle (or at least that’s what I’ve seen in recent reviews), and that interior looks competitive.
I usually piss and moan about Toyota on this site, but my objection to the type of boring and poor handling cars they make was entirely informed by early experiences with oldmobiles and buicks. I hated those cars and by extension, the company as a whole. Still, I am more than willing to take my hat off to GM for, finally, getting the job done.
So, flame GM for mismanagement, but for christ’s sake leave the good product out of it.
If the target for this car would be a younger buyer who may not normally even glance at a Buick, then I think it really misses the mark.
Let’s say I’m a 40 yr old looking for a entry luxury car. I’m not a Brand snob, so I’m willing to look past M-B, BMW, and Lexus. I’ll look at the Genesis, Avalon, 300, and CTS. All of these cars, save for the 300, have considerably more style, substance, and appeal than this Buick.
So they’ve completely missed their target. The only way Buick could make anyone other than a 60 yr old look at their showroom would be to bring in a updated Gran National. A car with history and appeal for a younger buyer.
The base 3.0L engine only has 211 lb.-ft. of torque. That seems a bit low for the mid-level Buick, especially if GM doesn’t get the gearing right.
“A Cadillac CTS-encroaching price tag of $26k to $33k”
I wish this were true. However, in my experience, the current CTS with reasonable options is well into the 40s.
That’s what I was thinking. The CTS base price is about $36,000. It seems like the LaCrosse will be quite a bit less expensive…
I like the new LaCrosse. I’ll reserve full judgment until I see it in person and read more about it, but I could see owning it.
It’s a striking design, yes, but what’s with the chromed vents on the edge of the hood?
I once owned an 84 Skylark; and it wasn’t the best Buick ever produced. There were a lot of shortcuts taken: alignments always needed a hard to find part; the engine was a rat’s nest of vacuum hoses; in the space of one year, the shifter cable snapped, the A/C compressor failed, the torque converter stalled the engine when slowing (until I disconnected it), and the heater core sprung a leak; the entire front bench was one piece so if a short driver needed to pull forward to reach the pedals, woe to the long-legged passenger.
I now drive an 11-year old Infiniti that is as reliable as the Buick was unreliable. It will take a miracle for me to consider a Buick, or for that matter, a car produced by a near-bankrupt manufacturer, bailout or no.
Whats wrong with being the brand for prosperous older people? They have lots of money.
I’d like a brand that went for the older set. The only trick is to make sure you recruit the new old people, which is really a trick every brand has to pull off if they don’t want to go the way of slap bracelets.
DavidM123:
I for one think this is a damn sharp looking car. You’re always going to get the nay sayers and the “I would think about buying it, but…” people, especially here. Unfortunately that is what Buick (and GM in general) is up against, and like it or not they’ve earned it. If the can bring out more cars like this, but less models overall, and can survive the storm, they just might starting winning some people back. A bad rep takes a while to earn and it takes a while to shake.
If this car is BETTER than others in it’s class and price, it will sell. It’s got to have something to draw people in, as I didn’t see any lines at the Buick dealership the other day.
Hyundai used a warranty to get past the shitbox perception. It took a while and it’s worked. Their products are also much better.
Can GM do the same? So far, no.
I prefer old people’s cars – simple, large, and comfortable. If they have old school design and styling, then I’m all over it.
If Ford drops the Panther, and GM ruins Buick further, there is nothing left to buy. Detroit has already abandoned old school styling and design in the interest of mainstream blandness on 90% of their product, and now they are doing it with the final 10 percent.
The last real Buick was the Roadmaster.
With all the positive that is being talked about with this car and deservedly so, this site finds something negative. What a bloody surprise. It doesn’t matter what GM does, you’ll find a reason to hate it. They could build a car that’s leaps and bounds ahead of the competition at half the price and you’d hate it.
I didn’t read HATE of Buick or GM in Mr. Niedermeyer’s blog above. What I read was the stupidity of GM’s marketing and design departments.
GM is in trouble. Along with Mr. Niedermeyer I feel GM needs excitement. The new Buick seems to be a decent car but it certainly isn’t exciting like the introduction of the Citroen ID 19s and 21s were back about 1970.
GM’s marketing the Buick to 20 year olds seems to be really dumb. Why market a car to out of work 20 year olds when there is an enormous and growing population of older people like me who have good retirements (because we didn’t use credit cards or believe in 5 year financing schemes) and now want some comfort?
GM Buick should be marketing to those who might actually want their products.
Telling someone they are stupid is not the same as hating them:-)
The brand is too stigmatized for younger (under 60) people to buy.
I don’t think that’s really the problem. Young people aren’t avoiding Buick in the sense that they might avoid a Toyota Camry. They aren’t thinking about Buick at all.
Buick has no brand equity. None. Outside of repeat buyers who are old by consequence (they started buying Buicks forty years ago and they’ll keep doing it) there’s no new traffic into the stores. It’s similar to Lincoln’s problem, and to the problem that Saab, Acura and Volvo will have soon, if they’re not careful. There is no reason for new buyers to look at these cars. No Cadillac-ish avant-garde styling, no Lexus faultless quality, no Hyundai value, no VW image, no BMW dynamics. Nothing. Buick is actually worse-off than Lincoln if for no other reason than at least Lincoln isn’t being actively cannibalized by other Ford divisions.
I’m sure people will reply, saying how they’re interested, but they need to realize that they’re not the average buyer. The average public is going to skip right by this car, in it’s current price range. They might buy it discounted or used, but then they’re not buying a Buick, they’re buying a nice car on the cheap. That it’s a Buick will only occur to them if it breaks and they need warranty service. Otherwise, it’s a car.
Trying to retarget Buick is hopeless at this time. This should be a token refresh to keep the faithful from defecting (to Lincoln?). GM does not have the money to throw marketing muscle behind Buick, not when Chevy needs all the help it can get.
If you want to sell cars to young people, make Saturn a viable competitor to either VW/Mazda or Kia (pick one), price Saab lower, or fix Chevrolet. Young people want cheap, versatile, fun and reliable: check the median age of buyers of, say, the VW Jetta, Mazda 3, most Scions or the Kia Rondo. They do not want, and will not buy, a luxury sedan from an American marque at this time,
My comment came late…I see that this argument is about branding. My take…so long as they don’t make the suspension too stiff then all it represents is a better looking Buick with a luxury interior and a drivetrain that everyone can consider the new-hotness in it’s class. I haven’t seen them market it with nurburgring times or with drift videos so let’s just assume they’ll stick to the buick brand formula on marketing. In this case they’ve got a car that will win comparison tests and won’t leave owners feeling inadequate and defensive.
I buried this in my rambling post so I’ll ask again:
What foreign car model could you rebadge as a Buick and get younger customers to come buy?
Would a Buick TSX bring ’em in? Could you sell the G35 Coupe as a Buick?
“I’d like a brand that went for the older set. The only trick is to make sure you recruit the new old people”
toxic: the only problem I see with this is that the new old people grew up with the last 35 years of Detroit garbage. And with so many of them having spent all that time in imports, it’s a really hard sell. Add to all that the fact that a lot of old people don’t like to be reminded they are old, especially by their car, every time they read the badge.
Lokki: The answer is NONE. The problem is not the car (many of the die-hard cynics here even agree it seems like a good car) it’s the BRAND.
Buick is a toxic brand, in the US anyway.
It means bad things to people who don’t already own and buy Buicks. The brand cannot pull buyers from other makes. I don’t think a Ferrari re-branded as a Buick would do the trick. Why would GM try another Caddy makeover – total-restyle, go racing with it, etc? They already have Caddilac. There’s no hope in making a brand targeted at old people because very few old people want to be branded as old!…
Buick’s burying their history and image in pursuit of sales. They need a younger set to replace the dying breed of old GM-loving grandpas.
They need to reinvent themselves. They can’t stay the same. If Cadillac were to stay true to its “branding” they’d be making V12 luxo-barges, but selling none of them. That’s why they’re making DI V6 CUVs based on Saturns.
Brand betrayal, yes. Shunning traditional customers to chase imaginary (which is to say non-existent) younger buyers, yes. LaCrosse does both of these.
But it’d certainly sell better than the “traditional” Buick. Either way, chasing younger buyers is kind of dumb. Taking a Scion and putting a Buick badge on it might draw in some young people, but it’d destroy a brand.
The LaCrosse isn’t that bad, I think. It’s just a mid-sized luxury car for cheap. Not too far off from Buick brand. And btw, I don’t think 26-33k is intruding on CTS pricing. They’re 36-40k typically equipped. :p
Lokki –
I agree. The new LaCrosse’s interior looks a lot like the current TSX’s, only better.
Acura:
https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2009-acura-tsx-review/09tsx_detail_017jpg/
Buick:
http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/gallery/data/574/medium/lx9.jpg
I’m still not convinced it’s enough to entice younger buyers, but it looks like a good car. However unfair, it will take years of products like this before young people consider buying one.
“I’d like a brand that went for the older set. The only trick is to make sure you recruit the new old people, which is really a trick every brand has to pull off if they don’t want to go the way of slap bracelets.”
I’ve started to notice a trend where some of the older set are migrating to smaller cars. They like them because they’re easier to drive and maneuver. Not to mention better economy. The new “in” car for the older set seems to be the Corolla and there are a lot of older MINI drivers out there as well.
I’m 27. I won’t hate. It is a nice looking car. Still wouldn’t buy it though. That new Lincoln is nice looking, too. Wouldn’t buy that one either. There are just better cars out there for the same money. Period.
I skimmed the press release. I understand what’s under the skin, but it doesn’t blow up the skirt to be quite honest. Yeah, its going to be competent, but its not going to do anything to make me change my notions of the brand. That coupled with the Buick stigma gives me no cause to be interested. None.
Really. Why am I going buy this instead of an Infiniti, Acura, Lexus or, yes, Hyundai?
I mention Hyundai because they had the luck (or bad luck depending on your point of view) of having their C/D review posited maybe 3-4 pages ahead of the new Lincoln review, which made for an easy impromptu reader initiated comparo. And it did not look good for the Lincoln. Not at all.
Buick and Lincoln need a “killer app”. A halo. Something to get people really interested in the brand that would be emblematic for the rest of the line. I’m not saying they should make some sort of Buick “GT-R”. (Although, if they made a GNX to take the GT-R to task that would help. Please don’t mention Corvette. Even though they’re statistical competitors they really are two different kinds of car.) I’m talking about the Lexus LS. That is the Lexus halo. Those are the customers Buick and Lincoln should be after. When I’m older I wouldn’t mind owning something like that.
These two need a technological powerhouse…and this isn’t it. Or, at least, it doesn’t look that way.
_______________________
Buick stands for something, and instead of focusing on that they’re succumbing to the marketing idea that younger is better.
It’s not an idea. It’s the truth! How does Porsche do sooo well? Why are the majority of Scion buyers not of Scion’s intended demo? Young people don’t want to buy an old person’s car and old people don’t want to buy an old person’s car.
As an under 35 person I won’t be driving a Buick.
I would like to meet the “aspiring 20-30 year olds” who are going to spend BMW money (or any of their money) on a LaCrap.
Honest to god, the Toyota Corolla has more “Street cred” with 20-30 year olds then any Buick model. GM better stop wasting tax payer money trying remodel a brand into something it isn’t. I want a small car (with a chevy badge) that destroys the foreign competition in every single aspect.
I just got back from a week in Florida spent behind the wheel of a rented Lucerne. Let’s get the bad out of the way first: It was floaty with over-boosted steering and didn’t seem to track a perfectly straight line at highway speeds. But it had many very nice qualities. It seemed to be exceptionally-well screwed together. It was very comfortable and quiet. I could find nothing wrong with the car, down to the smallest detail. The 3.6 is a very nice motor for this application: smooth and quiet with adequate torque and horsepower. The Interior was very nicely done, functional and handsome with mostly correct ergonomics.
I kept saying to myself that if it could be had in a non-floaty, better-steering version that I could certainly see myself owning one.
For those who say that Buick has no brand identity, I would say that you haven’t been looking at the JD Power reports where Buick has been consistently near the very top of the ratings. They can really run with this, I think.
I will *definitely* check out the new LaCrosse with the sport packages as it seems to address my concerns about the Lucerne.
Disclaimer: I’m 53 and currently drive a first-gen CTS.
Oh yeah, I also play guitar and sing lead in a rock band and ride a sport-touring motorcycle. Old is not necessarily bad. And young is often ignorant.
“The problem is, Buick is going about it all wrong just the way they did with Oldsmobile. Buick stands for something, and instead of focusing on that they’re succumbing to the marketing idea that younger is better. What happened to older, established people with lots of money to spend? And why can’t anything be sold to them? They have all that money, they need to spend it on something… Toyota doesn’t target the Avalon at NYC clubbers.”
I don’t see how this new LaCrosse wouldn’t appeal to older, more established people. For all the noise being made about how it was designed by 20 or 30-somethings, its design appears to target the same demographic that the Avalon does – which is hardly a bad thing.
Fortunately, GM appears to at least have gotten a few things right on this car. The interior is a big advance over most of what the company had been offering a few years ago; as far as I’m concerned, it’s at least as good as the CTS/Malibu interiors, which is a solid achievement. What I’m not so crazy about is the exterior, which has a bloated/”hefty” appearance and an awfully high cowl.
Public notice: DaveM123 is in no way related to me.
Anyway I agree with the comments about Buick being a dead brand. Buick should be aiming for Audi and Acura – sporty luxury – at 80% of the price. Light, tossable. The Enclave I feel was a major move forward, but it’s too big and heavy for the targeted market.
A smaller, lighter sedan, a wagon version, and a lighter Enclave. That’s all they need. They will never approach the sales figures they enjoyed even 10-15 years ago.
Here’s my two cents. I’m 32, and I dig this car. Let me tell you why. A few weeks ago, my girlfriend came to own a Volvo 740 wagon, which (though gutless) is a smooth riding, dead reliable car with solid construction and bags of personality. As something of a sports car nut, I never imagined anything like this appealing to me. And yet, it does. Maybe it’s the way you sink down into the comfortable seat, or how the long wheelbase and soft suspension soaks up the road. Maybe it’s the fact that the car is so mechanically simple that I’m pretty sure I could fix anything on it in my driveway during a snow storm. I got to wondering why nobody else seems to make something like the 740 these days – a big, understated, comfortable car that’s not exactly cheap, but may be around and in decent running order for many decades. Modern Buicks are kind of similar, in that they are comfortable, and of decent quality. They tend to run forever. I don’t always buy into JD Powers, Consumer Reports, etc, but they all agree that Buicks tend to be pretty reliable cars. I’ve had friends that have owned aged Buicks growing up, and some of those had 200K on the clock. Add this solidity and laid back nature to a comely interior and exterior, and I could see myself with one, provided I get to keep the sports car for the weekend. I do appreciate decent handling and the like, but when stuck in traffic or driving to work barely awake in the mornings, a strong dose of comfort does matter. It takes a different perspective to see the appeal. And, if being 32 and owning a new Buick isn’t a statement about individuality, then what is?
The problem is NOT a lack of youthful styling or features. The problem is getting younger buyers to bet the farm on a manufacturer with a horrendous track record.
It seems somewhat contradictory to see the terms “younger buyers” and “track record” in the same sentence. Younger buyers are basing their decisions on 10 or 15 year old cars that their parents owned, not on any of their own experience. They certainly don’t have personal experience with decades of Detroit crap. They also have no experience with Japanese rust buckets in the 1970s and 1980s.
The negative consumer opinion about Buick or other American brands held by 25 year olds who throw out their old iPod when it’s too expensive to fix and replace it with a much cooler model that plays videos is, no doubt, based in reality.
I am not easily impressed and this car re-affirms that. The exterior looks dumpy, plain and ill-proportioned, the back end looks like a Lexus and the front is ok save for the weird location of the portholes where you can’t see them from the side. But that is the current fad, removing every conceivable piece of trim, cladding, molding etc from the sides of the vehicle for that oh so plain boring look. If it wasn’t for the exaggerated character line, I really would not know what I was looking at if the badge and grille was covered up. Exterior aside, the interior looks promising if you spring for the most expensive model. The base CX gray interior is very uninspired. Kudos for offering AWD finally but it is restricted to the mid level and base 3.0 liter V6 only. Speaking of V6’s the new Di engines have decent HP figures but the torque on the 3.0 liter is only 211 which is 19 short of the old 3800 V6 and gas mileage seems to have suffered yet again. The 3.0 is rated for 18/27 and the 3.6 is good for only 17/26 according to press coverage. You would think that with such a big displacement difference, DI, 6 speed automatic and a newer more aerodynamic design that Buick could have at least matched last years 3800 mileage of 18/28. Press coverage pegged the FWD CXS at 4016 lbs or in reality a 500 lb increase over a 2008 LaCrosse CXS. Now I haven’t seen all the specs for interior measurements or trunk space but this car is not much bigger in overall length than the current car. On the positive side, GM is finally getting serious about keeping competitive with other automakers with bluetooth, NAV screen option, USB ports, rear camaras and the like and i’m sure this thing rides with the typical Buick tomb like quietness. If only they could think outside the Lexus/BMW box and give us something modern but Buick looking at the same time. And hasn’t the whole “we are aiming at the younger audience” thing been done to death by the big 3. Kids will rarely ever drive bland Buick mid size sedans just as old people will seldom drive Subaru WRX’s. It’s just the way it is, deal with it. And I really find the whole negativity in todays youth with the 50 and 60 something generation amusing. Newsflash- old folks buy cars too and more than likely have a lot more $$$ than kids out of college.
Absolutely a dead brand. With so much competition in this segment, developing and nurturing a model for a brand that sells about 4 units per dealer per month is just a waste of money. Why not use those funds to keep improving and promoting an actual hit like the Malibu?
As for targeted audiences, manufacturers can do their best but the results are not always what you would expect. The Matrix and Element were early attempts to get those young folks, but they ended up being snatched by the middle aged and over crowd.
I might give Buick a shot if I saw someone like Tiger Woods behind the wheel……….
(I kid, I kid!)
“Buick should be aiming for Audi and Acura – sporty luxury – at 80% of the price. Light, tossable.”
I think you might be surprised at how both Audi and Acura define “Light, tossable” these days. They’re both porky, as is everything else these days. Again, we’re operating with perceptions formed over 15 years ago.
I’m almost 51 and if I see a car in the distance doing 20 MPH under the speed limit I tell my wife “It’s an old guy in a hat driving a Buick” 9 time out of 10 I’m right (unless it’s an Oldsmobile). If they are trying to target me then bring back a Muscle Car version of this and I may look at it.
The Buick brand is so damaged that it almost doesn’t matter anymore how good or youthful their latest effort is. It will probably do well in China though.
@ Mike Stevens: the old Volvo 7-series are great cars. My 760 Turbo still drives well, rides well, performs rather well if boost has kicked in and the AC is off(!), and is solid. However, it’s suspension (ride comfort and handling) is ages better than a comparable domestic of the same vintage on it’s original 24 year old Bilstiens.
The steering is direct and not overly assisted.
Nobody makes a car like this because they wouldn’t sell new cars, but the closest you’ll get is a Subaru Legacy/Outback. Which, like everyone else in the Pac NW, may be the most legitimate replacement for my Mazda3 wagon when kiddo #2 comes along…as the Volvo is still good to go being a second car.
I can’t imagine Buick’s make any money for GM. Volume is minuscule, and designing semi-unique vehicles and marketing them surely eats up way more money than they generate. So, does keeping Buick make any business sense? Is it a halo brand? Is it a loss leader that gets people looking at high profit vehicles in the showroom? No, and no.
The ONLY thing keeping Buick alive is nostalgia. The same whiny, soft-focus, backward-looking, we-did-it-like-this-yesterday-so-we-are-doing-it-like-this-tomorrow ignorance that has killed GM.
Look how long, and how much effort, it took to pull Cadillac out of the Cimarron ditch – 20 years? And it ONLY required radically re-designing every single vehicle, the whole marketing campaign, even the logo, AND winning Sebring 1-2 with a pair of snarling, jet black 500HP CTS-V’s!!
What foreign car model could you rebadge as a Buick and get younger customers to come buy?
It would be interesting to see what the reaction would be to the same car if it came with a Lexus or Infiniti badge. Brand affects perception.
I felt the exact same way when I read that headline on Jalopnik and posted as such. Why would you want to piss off your ONLY buyers?? Nobody under 50 is going to buy a Buick. Nobody. It would take 10-20 years of subtle marketing to build up a younger market base. That could be done, but in that way that you mentioned. “Damn right your grandad drove a Buick!” And as for “younger buyers not caring about what their parents drove”, umm that is their only frame of reference. Everybody who is 20 something can remember the crap-mobiles their parents drove in the 80s and 90s, unless their parents were driving foreign cars. For instance, my friend’s mom drives a 90 something Buick. You should see the dashboard, it looks like an industrial extruder had an accident an shat out a huge slab of malformed plastic. I’ve driven it, and it actually drives pretty well. But I can’t imagine looking at that dash day in and day out.
Maybe it’s just the photo and angle but it sure looks like they just put a new grille on a Malibu.
If these geniuses are marketing this car as “not your fathers Buick”, can anyone here answer for me why the _uck this new LaCrosse has those ugly fake portholes.
I already know pinheaded idiots are making the decisions at the General so that answer doesn’t count. Are there any other reasons this car has those _ucking ugly dirt catchers(portholes).
As does the car itself, which is loaded with techno-gizmos and has optional all-wheel drive. Why? To tempt the youthful hordes from their “near-luxury” Toyota Avalons, Acuras TLs and the like.
You had me until this statement, i.e. youthful hordes and Avalons.
It looks good now but wait till you see it on the road. Like all other GM cars, they will offer cheaper versions with 16inch steel wheels, ugly fat rubber and no chrome. No cool body moulding and lame colors. People who want a “luxury” car but can’t afford one will buy the cheapie and people who can afford the good looking Lacrosse in all the press shots will buy an Audi. The only ones you will see on the road are the cheap looking ones and that will sully the image of the car.
Thats one of the many things that Luxury car makers understand that GM does not. Every single Audi on the road looks good. The cheapest Lexus 250 looks good so it will never tarnish the image of a fully loaded 350. Ever seen a base Caddy CTS? Ugly because of the little things GM cheaped out on to get it in a certain price range. Sure, fully loaded its gorgeous, but all I think is “Gee, I saw a CTS the other day…man were the 16inch rims lame.”
GM should make less, and make them all look good.
I’ll say it’s not your grandfather’s Buick. I love my grandfather’s Buick, and Oldsmobile, etc. I hate the new GM crap. Downsized, overpriced, and small front seats. Give me the old land yachts with the rear-wheel drive, V-8, and front bench seat.
I’ll be keeping my 2008 Mercury Grand Marquis, Buick, thank you very much. I’m NOT an old geezer either.
Where to begin?
First, why would anyone want a car designed by twenty-somethings? Go design a skateboard, then work your way up to lawn mowers, then someday we may let you work on car designs. Thirty-somethings, maybe, if they’re working alongside older, more experienced designers.
Why the obsession with selling to youth? Youth are not a majority in this country, and they don’t have a lot of money. When, in the entire history of Buick were there lots of Twenty-somethings buying brand new Buicks? Even Thirty-somethings, how many Buick buyers in this age group? And I don’t mean today, I mean, in 1957, how many 30-somethings were buying new Buicks? 1927 ? 1977 ?
How many 20-somthings have 26K-34K to spend on a car? Yeah, that’s what I thought. How many 30-somethings? Yeah, not many of them either.
If Buick is trying to get the demographic down from the early 60s to the early 50s, I think they’re on the right track. That makes sense. Going any younger is foolishness.
This car would be an embarrassment for a 20-something, but not for me – I’m 52. I don’t hang around with skateboarders, and I’m unconcerned with their view of the LaCrosse. I’ve been thinking about an Acura, but frankly that brand has too much of a boy-racer image for me. This Buick might be just the thing.
bunkie :
January 8th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
I just got back from a week in Florida spent behind the wheel of a rented Lucerne. Let’s get the bad out of the way first: It was floaty with over-boosted steering and didn’t seem to track a perfectly straight line at highway speeds. But it had many very nice qualities. It seemed to be exceptionally-well screwed together. It was very comfortable and quiet. I could find nothing wrong with the car, down to the smallest detail. The 3.6 is a very nice motor for this application: smooth and quiet with adequate torque and horsepower. The Interior was very nicely done, functional and handsome with mostly correct ergonomics.
The Lucerne has the old 3.8L OHV V6. The 3.6 DOHC is only currently available in the LaCrosse CXS and Enclave.
For what it’s worth, I’ve been in a million Lucernes (I work in rental cars), and although I think the Northstar-powered CXS model is a nice car overall, the ergonomics are crap. The seats don’t adjust like they should, they’re uncomfortably flat even for highway driving, the steering wheel not only doesn’t telescope but has the old GM 3-position tilt feature (none of which are useable for any human yet born), the gauges are too high and hidden in the dash, and the interior overall is tiny for such a barge. I’d buy a CXS on the cheap in a heartbeat (the Deville/DTS, Seville, Olds Aurora, and Park Avenue are some of my odd dream cars – all K- and G-Body sedans), but the interior has nothing on the competition in terms of design.
I’ve been in many with glaring quality defects, too. I’m talking headliners falling away from the roof at 5,000 miles, dash air vents that couldn’t withstand 10,000 miles of highway driving, and more. The power seats seem to have lots of trouble – an absurdly large percentage of Lucernes I’ve been in are missing one or more axes of power adjustment on the driver seat. And don’t even get me started on the Lucerne with a defective wiring harness connector from the factory that I had to deal with a few months back. On installation at the Hamtramck plant, the $33,000 CXL V8’s main harness connector had a prong bent that was contacting with something else, triggering reduced engine power and all manner of warning lights and chimes. After four “fixes” and about two months spent sitting at the Buick garage, we gave up. GM told us it had been flooded, that the engine had been swapped, that there was frame damage (there was not) from a front end wreck, and other lies blaming us. 30 seconds w/ a Hertz technician and a pair of needle-nose pliers fixed it after finally getting it back from the dealer (who put in a new ECM under warranty, but when that didn’t fix the problem, tried to charge us $2400 for the parts and labor).
I know Buick has improving quality, and high initial quality according to Power surveys. But these experiences lead me to believe the Lucerne is a relic from the 1990s-era GM cheap times.
Further, with regards to some comments about it competing with the ES350 and Avalon, that doesn’t fly. The ES350 sells because it’s a Lexus-branded Camry (i.e. reliable boredom). ES buyers are purchasing a badge with exceptional interior quality. They couldn’t care less how it looks or handles, trust me. And Toyota has even admitted that the Avalon is past its prime. 2009 is the last year for that nameplate, to supposedly be replaced eventually by a long wheelbase vehicle in the Camry name family.
Who is this new Buick going to sell to again?
The first problem most younger people are going to have is the name Buick. Say it out loud. Without thinking about barfing. Can’t do it can you?
Well, getting past that bit of marketing mud, let’s move on to the vehicle itself. I won’t repeat what I said in another post about the wheels, GM’s fascination with dated chrome wheels, and Buick not even getting the name LaCrosse right on their own website.
The car itself looks pretty damn good to me. Too much brightwork on the rear, unnecessary chrome vents on the hood, lackluster wheels (oops), but those are fairly minor in the scheme of this thing. This thing being a very nicely done American sedan. The over-hyped Malibu didn’t cut it. This one looks to move up a few notches and get more right.
The question is whether the in-person appeal and the details are there. If GM skimps on materials or falls down on build quality, game over. Hopefully they’ll continue the quality that Buick seems to have been achieving lately.
I’m not sure why they insist on two V-6s with such similar specs. I’ll have to look into it further, but I heard one at 260 HP and the other at 280 HP. Why bother? GM’s doing the same thing with the CTS. I can see it with the Accord having a four and a six, but not these guys with two sixes that close. Or maybe one is a coarse-sounding, dog of an engine and the other is average.
I’d like to know how this really differs from the CTS inside and out. I know the platforms are different, but are they really that far apart to require both?
I guarantee you that the little things won’t be right on this or any other GM car that I’ve had experience with (or Ford, or Chrysler). There will be sharp edges, mismatched trim, garish trim, and on and on. It shouldn’t be that way. If GM would concentrate on fewer choices, maybe they can begin to get those details right. I’ll have to take a look at this one in person to tell.
Regarding the dealership experience mentioned above or elsewhere about the domestics… well, Honda and some other imports have terrible sales and so-so service for the most part. We’re willing to put up with it for the right car. Just like I was willing to put up with Chevrolet to get the Corvette. Thank God they didn’t put that big, gold Chevy badge on it. :-)
For those who say that Buick has no brand identity, I would say that you haven’t been looking at the JD Power reports where Buick has been consistently near the very top of the ratings. They can really run with this, I think.
Which survey? Initial quality? That’s the old W-Body, which this is not based on. Not even made at the same plant.
Customer satisfaction? Deceptive: existing Buick buyers are indeed sticking with Buicks and even buying new ones, but few buyers are coming into the brand. Buick is off the radar.
If GM wanted to chase the young, they’ve done a hell of a bad job of it at Saturn. In it’s heyday, Saturn had buyer ages on par with Kia and Mitsubishi. Five years younger than Saturn, and ten to fifteen years younger than Chevy and Pontiac. Almost half the age of Buick or Olds. What GM ought to have done is given people buying Saturns somewhere to go when they outgrew their S-Series. Instead, they ground out more and more mediocre cars, coming late to the small SUV party with the Vue, and giving Saturn buyers with growing families their first option in the Relay.
If they wanted well-off young people, they had Saab for that. Saab was cool, quirky. The 9-3 was credibly comparable to the Jetta; the new one especially so. And then they went BMW-chasing with (and asked BMW money for) a front-drive Opel Vectra. Oh, and they rebadged a Subaru and a Trailblazer. No hybrids, no Jetta competitor, no small crossover.
And now they’re trying to lower Buick’s age and make into a kind of domestic Acura? Are they on drugs at GM marketing?
Kudos to the author for finding a way to cast a negative spin on what appears to be yet another in GM’s recent string of attractive new vehicles.
It will indeed be a shame if this car fails to appeal to twenty-somethings as Mr. Niedermeyer surmises. That’s got to be a loss of tens or even dozens of potential buyers in the mid-size boring entry luxury market now dominated by the ES350.
As to Buick having broken through with the rest of the not yet assisted living crowd with the Enclave, it’s hard to argue with the writer’s trenchant “Oh really?” How tragic if Buick is left with only fiftyish consumers for the LaCrosse. But for the fact that it is middle aged accountants who actually can and do buy cars like this, the absence of young and beautiful drivers behind the wheel would be almost unbearable.
Mike Stevens,
Steven Lang has mentioned the 700/900 series bricks as good used car buys and I second that opinion. My 760 Turbo was a great car. Comfortable, predictable handling, just posh enough. Swedish heat and heated seats were nice for Michigan winters too.
At least Acura and Audi generally have pretty nice dealers. I’m not about to step into a Pontiac-Buick-GMC zoo, or worse, the old-school, old-style standalone Buick showrooms.
So we will have on the Epsilon/Epsilon II platform, in the US, the:
Buick LaCrosse
Chevy Malibu
Pontiac G6
Saab 9-5
Saturn Aura
Jeez, Cadillac, GMC and Hummer are going to feel left out.
There is only one cool Buick, the only way to get it is to buy a Pontiac G8 and then put the badges, grille, bumper covers, lights, etc. from the Chinese market Park Avenue on it.
Regarding the dealership experience mentioned above or elsewhere about the domestics… well, Honda and some other imports have terrible sales and so-so service for the most part. We’re willing to put up with it for the right car. Just like I was willing to put up with Chevrolet to get the Corvette. Thank God they didn’t put that big, gold Chevy badge on it. :-)
Perhaps, but I’ve never had worse dealings than with domestic dealers. Every one of them I’ve ever personally dealt with. Literally not one notably good experience to balance the many bad ones. It’s a wonder they ever do the bare minimum. My mother’s been charged by a Cadillac dealer for recall repairs on her Aurora. The rental company has been blamed for a Cobalt’s engine suddenly seizing for no apparent reason. We had a woman run over something in a G6 and do some front end damage. Four times, the Pontiac dealer called us to tell us the car was ready to be picked up and paid for. All four times, we arrived to see it sitting in the same spot, covered in collected dirt, with the corner of the front bumper still hanging off and the coolant overflow tank still in the passenger seat (an independent body shop did the work – for $1000 less than the $2600 est. by Pontiac).
Meanwhile, I got a free $250 dollar chip-equipped ignition key from a Mitsu dealer for my ’02 Diamante. They’ve never held anything back, never failed to answer a question. Recall work was done without incident. I was only every charged what I should have been or less. When I had the Galant, they gave me a free trans fluid change because I bought the stuff and did it myself, and then accidentally drained it out instead of the oil during an oil change a couple hundred miles later (too much beer). Nissan treated me well with my ’98 Maxima, too. My stepmom’s ’02 CR-V blew its a/c compressor at 10x,xxx miles, waaaay out of warranty. Honda footed the $2000+ bill.
Meanwhile, the local Chrysler dealer took a week to discover the mystery dash light problem on a rental Sebring sedan was a missing 20a fuse in the underhood fusebox. They then charged us $15 for the fuse an a full hour of labor (@ $72) to replace it because, despite the car having less than 10,000 miles on it, “fuses aren’t warranty items and we already did the work.”
Sure, fully loaded its gorgeous, but all I think is “Gee, I saw a CTS the other day…man were the 16inch rims lame.”
Some of us think there’s more to a car than oversize rims. When I see big rims I think, “hmmm, what does that do to unsprung weight?”.
Buicks have to have portholes. Like haunches on a Jaguar. Portholes on Buicks make way more sense than all those fender gills that have proliferated.
+ 1,000,000 to any and all who agreed in regards to Buick (GM) attempting to move away from their core buyer demographics! What in HELL is wrong with targeting folks who actually have money to spend on a car? Now that the credit crunch is on, they’ll be the few remaining that can buy a car. And now GM wants to alienate them? Damn stupid, if you ask me. I’m personally getting very tired of manufacturers attempting to grab onto the “youth” market. You want to sell cars to the young’ens? Fine..market a killer Chevy (can anyone say “Beat?”). I still see a role for Buick if properly cultivated, which means it’s destined to fail miserably because GM is determined to screw it up. Solid, middle-class folk who are financially secure (maybe not independantly wealthy, but you might be surprised) deserve to be catered to as much (actually more..they’ve “earned” it, in terms of the famous commercials of yore) as the 20-somethings that have virtually no expendable income and can’t buy a new car right now to save their lives.
The new Lacrosse appears to be a decent and respectable car…while in Hell can’t GM accept that it’s alright (and, gasp…profitable) to target more than just folks coming out of their acne-bearing years? I’m only 38, but can see a time in my life where a nice, comfortable (and relatively uncomplicated) vehicle would fit the bill. Buick used to occupy that role quite nicely…thanks, GM…for completely f-ing it up!
First I really like this car and think it will be a hit for Buick and GM.
I do think that once again however GM is showing just how completely inept they are at marketing. Generally, telling any age group what they should like doesn’t work too well. For some reason many in that group don’t agree (see Scion Xb). It also is sure to realy piss off all those not in that group.
I like my 07 Lucerne CXS. It was my very first ever Buick and I would consider buying another. I traded my second A6 to buy it as I was fed up with $700 brake jobs and $350 power window motors. You see some people do actually buy a Buick for the first time. At 50,000 miles it has had 4 oil changes, two tires and I still like the sound of the Northstar. (It still has all the original brake pads something an Audi owner can’t even fathom I am sure.)
As a potential repeat customer why are they telling me (57) I am an undesirable idiot they regret ever liked one of their cars?
Just build the cars and tell the dealers to not assume who will be interested in buying one (do tell them they lose the franchise if a phony fabric convertible top is ever installed on one)
By the way it has been discovered that most people age. Sooner or later aren’t they all potential Buick owners? Lexus seems to be banking on that.
KalapanaBlack: “Four times, the Pontiac dealer called us to tell us the car was ready to be picked up and paid for. All four times, we arrived to see it sitting in the same spot, covered in collected dirt, with the corner of the front bumper still hanging off and the coolant overflow tank still in the passenger seat”
I’m pretty sure that dealer was an admirer of the old Monty Python “dead parrot” skit.
In view of your wealth of experience with all sorts of cars, I hope you’ll be posting often at TTAC.
Now, as for that Buick: it’s obvious GM is continuing to burn its bridges with traditional Buick buyers. The Century, LeSabre and Park Avenue sold a helluva lot better than LaCrosse and Lucerne. Did anyone ever bother to ask those owners what they liked about their Buicks? I wonder what Buickman would say.
“Some of us think there’s more to a car than oversize rims. When I see big rims I think, ‘hmmm, what does that do to unsprung weight?’.”
Exactly. That why Luxury manufacturers use alloy rims with wider, low profile tires. Better handling and much lighter than good old USA steel.
It seems like Buick is marketing (and pricing) it as an alternative to the Acura TL and Lexus ES350, and it just doesn’t seem like it measures up. It seems more like a very fancy and pricey Malibu.
In a historical context it seems more a like a replacement for the last front-wheel-drive Skylark than for the last LaCrosse.
Seems like a decent car. I would consider it if they offered a manual transmission. Seems to be getting harder and harder to find a car with 3 pedals.
I need to replace my Accord V6 6M in March. Any suggestions?
Why the obsession with selling to youth? Youth are not a majority in this country, and they don’t have a lot of money.
Youth will not always be young. They’ll earn more money, have children, grow in earning power. They have fifty or more years of consuming ahead of them. They’ve a much wider demographic footprint. Someone in their fifties has half that, maybe less. Someone in their seventies or older has much less, often much less.
There’s a reason why the Drug Dealer’s Motto is “Get’em while they’re young”
Now, that said, Buick should be the last stop on the GM Customer Experience Train for non-premium buyers because it fits the role so well. There’s no shame in that, but GM Marketing seems to think that every brand has to have a car for every buyer. I’m fully expecting a Cadillac Cruze and Saab GMT900 to follow.
I have a feeling that this car will be a redux of the Oldsmobile Aurora. By that, I mean it will be a beautifully designed, well put together car that will fail to light up the sales charts and will fail to rejuvenate its brand.
“Exactly. That why Luxury manufacturers use alloy rims with wider, low profile tires. Better handling and much lighter than good old USA steel.”
Sorry frizz, can’t let this one go. In almost every case (not counting exotic lightweight racing wheels) a smaller steel wheel will be lighter than a larger alloy one, even though it may seem counter-intuitive. As for handling, well, yes in some cases the lower aspect ratio tire will provide crisper turn-in, but at a significant sacrifice in ride quality.
I agree that good looking wheels are crucial to making a good looking car, but the big wheel/low profile tire thing is just fashion, and in fact for most daily driving is anti-functional.
Buick is done, finished, kaput, there is no resurrecting it even if they gave them away. Like many others said, this is a good-looking swan song for the brand ala Aurora.
I am not a brand snob but am brand conscious. I would never consider a Buick no matter what but can easily see myself in a CTS with 18″ wheels. GM should put its resources where they can actually achieve something not waste it on Buicks so that grandmas can drive to their graves in style, no effence to grams intended.
frizzlefry:
“‘Some of us think there’s more to a car than oversize rims. When I see big rims I think, ‘hmmm, what does that do to unsprung weight?’.
Exactly. That why Luxury manufacturers use alloy rims with wider, low profile tires. Better handling and much lighter than good old USA steel.”
BMWs and Mercedes in Germany come with steel wheels. Most likely cheap Russian steel. They put alloy rims on their base models in this country to appease American tastes. Large aluminum wheels are extremely overrated. Some police departments will not take cars on aluminum wheels because of durability issues.
My 240SX handled damn well on 15″ steel rims, and once I drove home about 2 miles with a flat (a mix of lazy, below zero weather and a tire replacement guarantee) and didn’t have any wheel damage.
I am 18 years old and I drive a Buick. The reason I got it was that the 3800 engine is great and the deprecation was enough that I could afford it. It is bad news for GM because I would never buy one new because I could get this car almost half off in a year. By the way this is a nice looking car.
Eighty comments and nobody has yet picked up on the plain, simple unavoidable fact which follows:
YOU ALWAYS MARKET “TO” PEOPLE WHO ARE YOUNGER, WEALTHIER, BETTER-LOOKING, HIPPER, AND COOLER THAN YOUR ACTUAL BUYERS!!!!!!!
Ever seen a Toyota ad where some feckless fifty-one-year-old butch lesbian is “surfing” a Camry up a concrete parking block?
Ever heard Acura talk about how “we’re pitching to people whose parents were too timid, cheap, or new to this country to own an actual luxury car, thus preventing our customers from recognizing actual luxury?”
Ever heard BMW say, “Our target audience is 95% people who would end up in the first barrier possible on any racetrack?”
Ever heard Bentley say, “Our target audience is hedge-fund managers who look like hairy trolls but want the reflected glitter of rap stars and landed gentry?”
The answer to all the above is NO. So why would Buick say,
“We’re marketing to fifty-year-olds who want their car to have a slightly more youthful air.”
Don’t be naive, people. Buick doesn’t expect a single 25-year-old to buy a LaCrosse. What they expect is that a fifty-year-old won’t think it’s a car for sixty-year-olds. Plain. And. Simple.
Jack Baruth:
That was absolutely priceless! I’m cracking up as we speak.
50merc:
Working 2.5+ years in rental cars while in college has helped me experience far more with regards to cars and dealers than the average 22 year old. I’m also the son of a compulsive car trader (my dad has owned at least 50 cars in his years of driving, he’s 61 now), and I’ve owned four already myself. I certainly don’t claim to know all, but I can speak from numerous experiences with cars, many current models in low mileage rental roles.
Lokki :
“I like the look of this Buick as well. Having said that, I’m not likely to trade my 3 series for one.
Now to my question. For those who say that Buick can’t see THIS car to younger buyers, what foreign car model could you rebadge as a Buick and get younger customers to come buy?”
The Holden Statesman (a long wheelbase Commodore/Pontiac G8). It sells well as a Buick Park Avenue in China. I would call it the Roadmaster in the US market.
I still believe in reduction to Chevrolet and Cadillac, but as long as all eight brands still exist they should at least sell something interesting.
There’s an ad for the ’67 GS400 or something. The tagline is:
Your Father Never Told You There’d Be Buicks Like This.
“Sorry frizz, can’t let this one go. In almost every case (not counting exotic lightweight racing wheels) a smaller steel wheel will be lighter than a larger alloy one, even though it may seem counter-intuitive. As for handling, well, yes in some cases the lower aspect ratio tire will provide crisper turn-in, but at a significant sacrifice in ride quality.
I agree that good looking wheels are crucial to making a good looking car, but the big wheel/low profile tire thing is just fashion, and in fact for most daily driving is anti-functional.”
Of course its pretty hard to justify 20 inch rims on anything. Or even 19s. But I would say that mid-sized performance sedans(luxury sedans = performance sedans nowadays) benafit from 17 or 18 inch rims. Especially when performance is a key goal. Given the curb weight of said sedans these days, wider, low profile tires are really required to get the most of of a tuned suspension when you are throwing 3800 pounds into a corner. Plus, if you only have a 16inch steel wheel, you can’t fit a decent performance brake kit. My near 4000 pound ’04 A6 S-Line has stock 18 inch wheels. Looks great and accomidates the larger S-Line brake disks than the base A6 17 inch rim would allow. Yes ride suffers but that road feedback is required when driving more toward the sport end of the spectrum.
Granted, perhaps GM has no desire to make sport sedans. But the luxury market is what they are claiming to be gunning for with some of these cars. And the luxury market is sport sedans. At least the press shots of their cars make them look like sport sedans :) But if you can actually fit a steel 16 inch wheel over the brakes…sorry, a sports sedan it is not.
YOU ALWAYS MARKET “TO” PEOPLE WHO ARE YOUNGER, WEALTHIER, BETTER-LOOKING, HIPPER, AND COOLER THAN YOUR ACTUAL BUYERS!!!!!!!
That’s a good rant. But it’s missing one key point.
The products need to match the brand. If the goal is to sell urbane and dignified, then they can’t expect the customers to show up when what they have to offer is a dull rental.
There seems to be an ongoing illusion in Michigan that presumes that branding is mere hype that can be manipulated with an ad campaign. In fact, branding is a culmination of product and service that is tangible and earned. Good brands exceed expectations and build trust and confidence.
Buick does none of these things. It shouldn’t shock anyone that sales are as poor as they are, when the promise is unclear and the results are disappointing.
Our current two term Prime Minister once said he was travelling across the country, but his poor French led to him saying he was coming all over the country. If he can get elected, twice, I’m sure they can sell a Buick Masturbation here.
KalapanaBlack…that is an awful laundry list of screw-ups. I’ve never had to get a GM car dealer serviced, so I couldn’t comment on that, but I can vouch for the total lack of product knowledge their salesmen show. I was pricing out a bunch of roadsters for a family member (solstice, used S2000, miata, used MR-2), none of which ended up getting bought although great fun was had, when the GM salesman condescendingly informed me that the G6 was a “great little sports car.” I puked a little inside my mouth, and informed him that, thanks, but the buyer is really looking for a rear wheel drive car…I didn’t need to hurt the guy’s feelings. He then asked me why I was looking at a FRONT WHEEL DRIVE Solstice. So I stood there, wondering if I should be angry for his attempted hustle or feel pity for his complete ignorance…but I couldn’t come up with a response.
Went back upstate that weekend and told my 69 year old mother what I had found (hey, she’s plucky for her age), and even she could tell at a glance, despite her complete ignorance regarding modern cars, that the car was RWD. She decided not to buy the Solstice simply on the basis of that dealer’s complete ignorance, nothing to do with the car. Instead she’ll soon be pushing a new Miata as the long overdue replacement for her childhood austin healey.
I was looking at an old 1970’s era Oldsmobile tv ad on Youtube, and they were using the catchphrase “youngmobile” throughout, so even back then GM was trying to shake an old geezer image. If everyone builds cars for young whippersnappers, what are us old geezers supposed to drive?
I am 39 and will never go into Buick to look at the new LaCrosse. Why would I walk into a dealer to look at just one car in their lineup – I like to browse my options a little? Even if I did, I wouldn’t want to wait two weeks for a color other than tan…
Highlighting this new focus on younger buyers and placing such an emphasis on it only points out this stigma to the new buyers – this results in a contradiction in the end, turn the ad campaign in circles.
——
By the way, why do other people here state that Buick has such great quality? Why would GM chose to produce one line with better quality than other brands? I would think their Quality system would be company wide.
“As a well-qualified youngster in the car-buying demographic I feel confident in arguing that America’s aspiring 20 and 30-somethings are generally striving for individuality and expression, not suburban comfort, conformity and subtlety.”
Completely irrelevant to the car’s target market. Aiming a car at 50 year olds is a sensible move. We have the money. Pimply faced youths can buy what they want, but we don’t want the same things.
As to the car itself, it is too big a compromise between the pimply faced youth market and the 50 year olds, but that isn’t what is implied by the above statement.
Not sure even trying to “Market” to any particular age group would be required if the car was desirable to begin with. I’m not so sure that Audi, BMW, Lexus, Mercedes even market like that even more. All their ads are about the car and its performance these days. The only Euro luxury cars I see as being aimed at an age group are the E-Class and A8L….mainly because no person under 40 is likely to be able to shell out the cash…but they sure would if they could.
Looks good in a lot of ways. Too much bling though. I’m 24 and its too shiny. It hurts to look at it. Its still a bit better than the old Lacrosse which was better then a lot of other cars. So its still in win in my book. A great interior I think also. I don’t think the engine will be a problem either. Still not my first choice, but not too bad.
Who gives a crap about what young buyers want – about 56 million if the WSJ is correct? Last year alone 86 million of us baby boomers turned 62 and, EXCUSE ME, we don’t necessilary want what “young buyers” want. Good handling, attractive functional interior, (who wants to use a f—ing computer to adjust the seats AUDI?), good performance/efficiency ratio, and it doesn’t cost an arm and a leg. TTAC is licking their chops for GM to collapse, ’cause it would give them the chance to use their favorite line: “I told you so.” (Here’s looking at you, RF.) Sometimes it feels like I’m listening (reading) a bunch of 13 year old girls dissing. Now to the LaCrosse, it is definitely a good looking profile, but how it handles, rides and functions is yet to be determined. A lot of you folks need to take a chill pill.
at LEAST it isn’t a TOYOTA!
This thread is going over 100 comments! Who woulda thunk there’d be so much interest in the next Buick? (Or as I prefer to call it, the upscale Malibu.)
JEC: “Our current two term Prime Minister once said he was travelling across the country, but his poor French led to him saying he was coming all over the country.”
When George McGovern was running for president, he and his wife Eleanor appeared at a big rally. The crowd was so enthusiastic, the beaming candidate exclaimed, “This is the greatest coming together Eleanor and I have ever experienced!”
I like it. It will sell in China like mu-shu.
Aesthetically I have always found Buicks much more appealing than almost any other brand, even long before I became part of their target demographic. Yet, every time I test drove one (or when I rented one), I was dismayed by poor, wallowy handling and grossly overboosted steering that wouldn’t hold the line.
From my point of view, what Buick needs is not a new ad campaign or a redesign. It needs better engineering at a very basic level, and its sales could take off. It wouldn’t be a huge investment either. Just minor fixes. That’s all we ask (the supposed target demographic).
Exactly. That why Luxury manufacturers use alloy rims with wider, low profile tires. Better handling and much lighter than good old USA steel.
Aluminum weighs more than rubber. While the lower aspect ratio can help with handling, the increased unsprung weight (big rim + low profile tire = weight > small rim + higher profile tire) may take away more than what the low aspect tires give.
There seems to be an ongoing illusion in Michigan that presumes that branding is mere hype that can be manipulated with an ad campaign.
Kellogg’s seems to have a handle on branding. Perhaps Battle Creek is no longer in Michigan. Or perhaps your stereotypes need some recalibration.
She decided not to buy the Solstice simply on the basis of that dealer’s complete ignorance, nothing to do with the car.
Would she skip over a SubZero because the appliance salesman was an idiot? Would she buy a Kenmore over a KitchenAid because a salesman didn’t know that a KitchenAid is a Hobart with consumer graphics?
Ronnie Schreiber:
She might. But I would.
Kellogg’s seems to have a handle on branding. Perhaps Battle Creek is no longer in Michigan.
This actually proves my point.
Kellogg’s has a handle on branding food products that cost $3. GM is trying to use similar techniques to brand the second most expensive thing that people will buy.
The gimmickry that works for the cheap product does not work for the costly one. You can fool a lot of kids with a cartoon character, but you cannot fool most grownups with a bit of chrome. If it was such a great idea, the market share would not have tanked as it has.
Ronnie Schreiber: Would she buy a Kenmore over a KitchenAid because a salesman didn’t know that a KitchenAid is a Hobart with consumer graphics?
Kitchen Aid appliances are made by a number of different manufacturers. And the same company that makes Kitchen Aid disposals also makes Kenmore disposals. There’s been a lot of consolidation in the appliance business. It gives a likely glimpse into the future of the car business.
Ronnie Schreiber….yeah, she would and did. I do her shopping b/c she hates slimy car dealers, I know more about cars and I’m not the slightest bit guilty feeling about the odd test drive. All she wants in return is a rear wheel drive car and a dealer who won’t rip her off. The salesman was either lying to me to try to push the car he had too many of (probably) or just an idiot who isn’t competent to provide good customer service in the future. She certainly would not have an advocate for fair maintenance work. Keep in mind, this woman is 69 years old and drives a cream white magnum r/t, when she walks into a showroom the scramble for a rip-off sale resembles a prison yard scene from OZ. She made the right call.
Besides…the miata is so much better as a car.
and it’s the only small coupe with a hard top (folding) that can carry either a cello or her 120lb. dog.
Hey Nutbags….
How about a Subaru Legacy GT 5-Speed. Check it out. My wife has a 2008 Forester Sport 5-Speed I absolutely love driving.
Spyder
tedward,
I’m 65, in good health, reasonably looking and financially secure………….does your Mom need a boyfriend?
Spyder
63CorvairSpyder: I suppose I should have seen that one coming…no, she’s doing quite alright.
I rather like this Buick, something I’d never imagine saying about any car the brand makes. I’m sure Lexus ES buyers will give the new Lacrosse a closer look before heading to the Lexus dealer for a 3-peat on an ES lease.
Edward,
I disagree with your conclusions on the Buick brand and how it is being marketed.
Buick should not be building near-luxury models for aspiring 20 or 30 somethings. That space is best left to other brands in the GM portfolio (when they get around to defining themselves).
It should not be a car for 40 somethings who are looking for a luxury/performance ride. That space should be left to Cadillac. Buicks should be built to appeal to an older, greying audience who are looking for a vehicle with traditional luxury as its calling.
The Boomer generation is still the biggest core demographic in the US and (although they would be loath to admit it)they aren’t getting any younger. While many have shifted to Toyota and Lexus, they may consider a Buick provided it meets their needs and expectations.
Remember: Old Farts need cars too… and they can afford them.
63CorvairSpyder : “My wife has a 2008 Forester Sport 5-Speed I absolutely love driving.”
63CorvairSpyder : “does your Mom need a boyfriend?”
Hmmm, makes me wonder if your wife reads TTAC :).
“By the way, why do other people here state that Buick has such great quality? Why would GM chose to produce one line with better quality than other brands? I would think their Quality system would be company wide.”
That is the delusion that most people have. The quality of all General Motors vehicles is truly excellent. No bull. It is “popular” to spew otherwise in some circles.
If they want younger buyers, why don’t they make the Buick emblems very very very small and sell it as the LaCrosse with “By Buick” in very very very small letters? Younger buyers who don’t know much about cars might not care as much.
A while back, one editorial on TTAC suggested a more “botique” style approach to selling Buicks, much like how Hyundai is currently selling the Genesis. I figure if GM was able to bring Cadillac back in just a few short years, they could do it with Buick too.
“…the ergonomics are crap. The seats don’t adjust like they should, they’re uncomfortably flat even for highway driving, the steering wheel not only doesn’t telescope but has the old GM 3-position tilt feature (none of which are useable for any human yet born), the gauges are too high and hidden in the dash, and the interior overall is tiny for such a barge.”
You’re certainly entitled to your opinion. But you make the mistake that your expertise somehow transforms that opinion into fact. I found the car to be roomy, comfortable and, strangely, I must be from some other planet as I had no problem with the steering wheel tilt. By way of contrast, I have never been in a Honda or an Acura that did not not make me feel really wedged-in. And, no, I’m not fat. I’m tall and long-legged. I had no trouble finding a decent seating position. That was backed up by the 600 miles I spent behind the wheel in 5 days.
I will say that the stereo really was sub-par. The first thing I’d do would be to replace all the speakers. The Bose system in my CTS is pretty awful as well.
I do, however, stand corrected in that I was mistaken in thinking that the Lucerne had the 3.6 intead of the 3.8.
What did GM learn from the Escalade? If you want young people to buy their parents label, you’ve got to make something Hip Hop artists would drive. When a major label rapper buys one, and features it in a video or two, then you’ll sell’em to the youth. Till then, the blue-hairs will love it!
Ronnie Schreiber:
“It seems somewhat contradictory to see the terms “younger buyers” and “track record” in the same sentence. Younger buyers are basing their decisions on 10 or 15 year old cars that their parents owned, not on any of their own experience. They certainly don’t have personal experience with decades of Detroit crap. They also have no experience with Japanese rust buckets in the 1970s and 1980s.
Ronnie, I have to disagree. I’m one of the 25 year-olds that you speak of. I grew up watching my dad dump thousands of dollars on pure-crap Fords from the 80s and 90s. To say that it wasn’t any of my experience is quite an oversight.
First of all, as a Kansan (at the time) I was driving some of these particular cars when I was 14 (on my learner’s permit, with an adult passenger). Secondly, my parents were not wealthy – everyone in the family endured the financial setbacks brought about by unreliable vehicles that were depended upon to get to school, work, and errands.
Think about that.
As a youngster, my dad owned a late ’70s Mazda pickup. Reliable? Yes. Rustbucket? Oh my yes!
So you’re completely wrong on both counts.
…you continue:
The negative consumer opinion about Buick or other American brands held by 25 year olds who throw out their old iPod when it’s too expensive to fix and replace it with a much cooler model that plays videos is, no doubt, based in reality.”
Also, as a 25 year old professional who prides himself in fiscal responsibility and common sense, I don’t like being lumped in with this iPod crowd you speak of. It’s not that I debate the existence of said spoiled punks – just that I happen to be, and know, plenty of 25ish year olds that defy that description.
—————————————-
That said, I want to like this Buick. Crazy, I know, especially if you’ve noticed any of my other comments. I definitely fall in to the ‘highly critical’ camp regarding the D2.8. And, further defying logic, I do notice the reliability ratings. In a few years I could absolutely see myself getting a larger, luxurious sedan – deep down inside that’s the kind of ride I’m looking for.
I agree with the others that question the brand identity and overlap issues that plague GM. I also wonder if GM will even exist when I look to settle into a luxo sedan some day. Oh well, I’ll just get the M45 I’ve always wanted…
> The new Buick seems to be a decent car but it certainly isn’t exciting like the introduction of the Citroen ID
Perhaps if they installed a giant mechanical arm on the roof, that’d be sufficiently exciting? What about a fifth wheel in the middle of the cabin?
> the new Di engines have decent HP figures but the torque on the 3.0 liter is only 211 which is 19 short of the old 3800 V6
BMW’s top 3.0L I6 from just three years ago had nearly identical specifications, and that was in a car that stickered for over $40K. The engine was universally lauded. And yet, when GM puts the same thing in a base model that’s over $10K less, you complain. I’ll bet if they’d installed the Corvette engine, you’d call it old-fashioned. I’d prefer a nuclear generator myself.
> Like all other GM cars, they will offer cheaper versions with 16inch steel wheels, ugly fat rubber and no chrome.
Oh, stripped like the V6 G8? The one that’s all but identical to the V8 GT?
It’s not as if the base model Avalon is any better. It has the same tiny, ugly rims. So what? You don’t like them, buy bigger ones. And since the people here have been complaining about GM’s chrome since this site’s inception, I’m a little surprised to see someone ask for more.
> First, why would anyone want a car designed by twenty-somethings? Go design a skateboard, then work your way up to lawn mowers
Ah, some good old-fashioned ageism. Personally, I wonder why anyone would listen to a person over the age of 30. They’re all so mentally lethargic, it’s a miracle they find time to achieve anything at all.
Redefine “youth” as 40 and this car will make a lot more sense. This Buick is not for 20-somethings. These arguments about how kids would prefer Corollas are so wide of the mark as to miss it completely.
> Don’t be naive, people. Buick doesn’t expect a single 25-year-old to buy a LaCrosse. What they expect is that a fifty-year-old won’t think it’s a car for sixty-year-olds.
Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you.
> Buick is a toxic brand, in the US anyway.
Is it? I’d buy a Buick immediately if the product was what I wanted and the price was right. Say, a sporty coupe with a V8.
The pity of it is that GM is arriving with these marvelous, large, imposing, stylish and upscale family cars at a time when the market seems to be rapidly downsizing. The Malibu, the Camry, the Accord, and this Buick –they’re all too large.
> Maybe it’s the way you sink down into the comfortable seat, or how the long wheelbase and soft suspension soaks up the road.
You’re getting old. So am I. At 25, I can already feel the desire to own a car with track-tuned suspension creeping away. There’s something to be said for a soft and cushy isolation chamber.
> Kudos to the author for finding a way to cast a negative spin on what appears to be yet another in GM’s recent string of attractive new vehicles
It is impressive, no?
Having said all of the above, I do have a few bones to pick with this car. The rear and the side profile were pulled wholesale from the ES 350.
http://robson.m3rlin.org/cars/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/lexus_es_350-1-copy.jpg
http://www.autoblog.com/photos/2010-buick-lacrosse-live/1265375/
That’s damn similar. And while the high beltline gives a secluded sort of luxury presence, it also makes the interior appear a bit claustrophobic. Especially the back seat:
http://www.autoblog.com/photos/2010-buick-lacrosse-live/1265370/
More than a few kids won’t even be able to clear the window. Moving to the front, I find the mess of buttons that comprise the navigation console to be intimidating. This, from a person whose afternoon project was to build a multi-terabyte home server.
http://www.autoblog.com/photos/2010-buick-lacrosse-live/1265384/
That thing in the middle looks too much like an I-Drive knob for comfort.
The problem is, Buick is going about it all wrong just the way they did with Oldsmobile. Buick stands for something, and instead of focusing on that they’re succumbing to the marketing idea that younger is better. What happened to older, established people with lots of money to spend? And why can’t anything be sold to them?
Precisely.
Do not for a second think the Buick brand needs to be dead.
While overall Buick dealers are doing poorly, in Madison, Wisconsin – that’d be Berkley East to those of you not acquainted with it’s Prius loving population – the brand sells very well, especially the Lucerne. In this town, the dealer knows how to sell and how to keep customers. That same dealer owns just about very German car store in town, but they also move one heck of a lot of Buicks.
They don’t sell them to the youngsters, of course. But, the population is getting older and there are a lot of people who have been at that dealership for years.
GM needs to realize that Buick is a brand that has a significant value, as it did with Cadillac. The new car barely acknowledges that, with the faint sweep spear line. That particular retro reference is too old for even most of the old folks to remember, dating back, as it does to the fifties. (And, it was an ugly line, even then.)
Buick can be distilled down to one simple concept: the Roadmaster/Electra 225. TV sets for the kids in the back seat are not the essence of the brand.
Though the car isn’t bad looking, it isn’t anything that we haven’t seen before, multiple times. That they did it very well doesn’t make it fresh.
We need a Buick.
One suspects that when better Buicks are built, they’ll be as tepid as this one.
> The new Buick seems to be a decent car but it certainly isn’t exciting like the introduction of the Citroen ID
Perhaps if they installed a giant mechanical arm on the roof, that’d be sufficiently exciting? What about a fifth wheel in the middle of the cabin?
> the new Di engines have decent HP figures but the torque on the 3.0 liter is only 211 which is 19 short of the old 3800 V6
BMW’s top 3.0L I6 from just three years ago had nearly identical specifications, and that was in a car that stickered for over $40K. The engine was universally lauded. And yet, when GM puts the same thing in a base model that’s over $10K less, you complain. I’ll bet if they’d installed the Corvette engine, you’d call it old-fashioned. I’d prefer a nuclear generator myself.
> Like all other GM cars, they will offer cheaper versions with 16inch steel wheels, ugly fat rubber and no chrome.
Oh, stripped like the V6 G8? The one that’s all but identical to the V8 GT?
It’s not as if the base model Avalon is any better. It has the same tiny, ugly rims. So what? You don’t like them, buy bigger ones. And since the people here have been complaining about GM’s chrome since this site’s inception, I’m a little surprised to see someone ask for more.
> First, why would anyone want a car designed by twenty-somethings? Go design a skateboard, then work your way up to lawn mowers
Ah, some good old-fashioned ageism. Personally, I wonder why anyone would listen to a person over the age of 30. They’re all so mentally lethargic, it’s a miracle they find time to achieve anything at all.
Redefine “youth” as 40 and this car will make a lot more sense. This Buick is not for 20-somethings. These arguments about how kids would prefer Corollas are so wide of the mark as to miss it completely.
> Don’t be naive, people. Buick doesn’t expect a single 25-year-old to buy a LaCrosse. What they expect is that a fifty-year-old won’t think it’s a car for sixty-year-olds.
Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you.
> Buick is a toxic brand, in the US anyway.
Is it? I’d buy a Buick immediately if the product was what I wanted and the price was right. Say, a sporty coupe with a V8.
The pity of it is that GM is arriving with these marvelous, large, imposing, stylish and upscale family cars at a time when the market seems to be rapidly downsizing. The Malibu, the Camry, the Accord, and this Buick –they’re all too large.
> Maybe it’s the way you sink down into the comfortable seat, or how the long wheelbase and soft suspension soaks up the road.
You’re getting old. So am I. At 25, I can already feel the desire to own a car with track-tuned suspension creeping away. There’s something to be said for a soft and cushy isolation chamber.
> Kudos to the author for finding a way to cast a negative spin on what appears to be yet another in GM’s recent string of attractive new vehicles
It is impressive, no?
Having said all of the above, I do have a few bones to pick with this car. The rear and the side profile were pulled wholesale from the ES 350.
http://robson. m3rlin.org/cars/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/lexus_es_350-1-copy.jpg
http://www.auto blog.com/photos/2010-buick-lacrosse-live/1265375/
That’s damn similar. And while the high beltline gives a secluded sort of luxury presence, it also makes the interior appear a bit claustrophobic. Especially the back seat:
http://www.auto blog.com/photos/2010-buick-lacrosse-live/1265370/
More than a few kids won’t even be able to clear the window. Moving to the front, I find the mess of buttons that comprise the navigation console to be intimidating. This, from a person whose afternoon project was to build a multi-terabyte home server.
http://www.auto blog.com/photos/2010-buick-lacrosse-live/1265384/
That thing in the middle looks too much like an I-Drive knob for comfort.
I hate to be a dick here, but… who cares?
I don’t think I’ve ever even seen one of the last-gen “LaCrosses” on the road. Who on earth would buy one of these things? And why?
I’m not trying to Detroit-bash here (I’d much rather own a CTS), but this car is the height of irrelevancy.
PG wrote:
I hate to be a dick here, but… who cares?
Judging from 100+ comments before yours, quite a few people.
Hey, old people need cars too, and some old people won’t be drawn in to the sort of car Cadillac has to make in order to compete with BMW.
> I can’t imagine Buick’s make any money for GM. Volume is minuscule, and designing semi-unique vehicles and marketing them surely eats up way more money than they generate. So, does keeping Buick make any business sense? Is it a halo brand? Is it a loss leader that gets people looking at high profit vehicles in the showroom? No, and no.
Actually volume at Caddy isn’t really much better than at Buick, yet no one ever says Caddy shouldn’t have semi-unique vehicles. Caddy and Buick are, respectively, numbers 5 and 6 in GM sales by division.
That said, Buick is in trouble in large part because Caddy has invaded traditional Buick territory. Caddy has come down market, and there is nowhere for Buick to go w/o running into Chevrolet.
Well, rather than argue about old vs young buyers, let’s see whose share of the market will likely be taken by the new Lacrosse:
BMW 3: No – BMW is the ultimate driving machine, and this Buick decidedly isn’t. Buick name also doesn’t have squat on the BMW brand.
Mercedes C class: Maybe – C class appeals to a similar (older) demographic. Not likely though, Mercedes folks are usually pretty loyal. Again, Buick is not an upgrade for a Merc person.
Infiniti G35 – Maybe, but probably not. Infinitis are RWD and in general pretty sporty. Lacrosse, again, is not.
Acura TSX – No. TSX (despite the new one’s unfortunate looks) still looks like a car for younger people. It’s modern. Lacrosse, though – chrome all over? wood trim? portholes? Not even in the same ballpark. TSX also has a great 6-speed manual transmission at no extra cost, plus still handles decently for a FWD car and gets pretty kickass gas mileage. Lacrosse? None of the above.
Audi A4 – Hahaha
Lexus ES – They’re also driven by old people. Well, those are probably the same old people that used to drive American cars and then one of those fell apart on the highway and they bought a Camry and gosh it’s so wonderful would you believe that they have been buying nothing but Toyotas ever since. Okay, scratch that then.
Cadillac CTS – Yeah, actually. CTS costs more and not everyone likes its styling. A cheaper, if slightly less powerful American luxury car could be a good alternative for some folks. Sucks for GM though, as its their own market share.
Lincoln Pointless and Forgettable Mix of Arbitrary Letters – Same as Cadillac, sans the market share part. Lacrosse and the MKZ(MKS? MKT? whatever that new sedan is? who even knows) even look similar.
Chrysler 300C – there it is! The new Buick is way more “gangsta” than the 300C. Pricing is very similar. And Buick would beat 300C in interior quality and comfort, while still being a more desirable nameplate than Chrysler.
Saab something or other – I don’t think anyone buys these. Is that a luxury brand even?
Mercury Milan – The last person that bought one of these did so on accident in 2006 and promptly returned it the next day
I’m 32 now, I bought a Honda CR-V 2 years ago and plan on keeping it for the next 7 years. GM/Ford/Chrysler aren’t even within a light year of consideration.
KnightRT: “More than a few kids won’t even be able to clear the window.”
Didn’t you mean, “grandkids?”
IMO, the only reason this is a Buick is to placate dealers. This should have been the new Chevy Impala. Buick should have been put out to pasture.
By the way, why do other people here state that Buick has such great quality? Why would GM chose to produce one line with better quality than other brands? I would think their Quality system would be company wide.
It isn’t. The classic example of this is/was the Grand Prix. Same W-Body chassis as the Impala and Regal/Century/Lacrosse, but the quality was always worse until assembly moved from Kansas to Oshawa.
Quality is a function of three aspects: sustainable design (where the Europeans fail), quality components (where the Americans fail) and quality assembly (where the Europeans sometimes make up for it, though not enough to overcome design blunders as the car ages). Toyota, when it screws up, usually does so in design or component sourcing. Hardly anyone screws up assembly too much, but some plants have much better QA processes than others. GM Oshawa was one of these.
Buick’s quality ranking are almost exclusively on the back of the Oshawa-built Regal/Century/Lacrosse, which coincidentally makes up most of their sales. Their other models aren’t nearly so impressive (and some, like the older G-Bodies, the Terazza and the Ranier, are terrible), but the sales numbers are small enough to hide it. With assembly moving away from Oshawa, I’m wondering how well they’ll do. The Malibu has been decent enough (the other Epsilons not so much), but not near the W-Body’s levels.
Actually volume at Caddy isn’t really much better than at Buick, yet no one ever says Caddy shouldn’t have semi-unique vehicles. Caddy and Buick are, respectively, numbers 5 and 6 in GM sales by division.
Cadillac makes margin on it’s sales. Buick sells dressed-up Impalas (well, Malibus, now) at a huge discount. Cadillac did have some models that didn’t move (STS, DTS, XLR), but the prime movers (CTS, Escalade) did so for a pretty penny. Buick’s bulk seller (Lacrosse, sometimes the Lucerne) weren’t going for anything remotely near that kind of margin.
That’s the difference.
@ F8:
Ha! Nice observations. However, I would make light of a couple points.
BMW being the “ultimate driving machine”. Not your fault as it is Bimmer marketing speak, but there are a number of other manufactures that make cars closer to being the ultimate driving machine than BMW. I won’t get into that here. I will agree that while there are a HUGE number of BMW customers that are in Buick’s intended demo, they have no shot at these people. None.
Infiniti G owners. You say maybe, I say no shot either. IMO, these are people who either:
A) Couldn’t swing a 335i or simply don’t believe in BMW pricing or…
B) Recognize that this car is an upscale 350…er…370Z in coupe and sedan flavors. I’m this camp. The car is a riot.
Even the AWD drive G will run circles are this pig probably. If you had said Infiniti M I could go with the maybe, but not the G. Buick has no shot with these people.
As for Acura. Yeah. TSX customers would not give this car a second look. TL owners, maybe. The styling direction of the new TL has made the old car an instant classic. I’m sure it has made loyal TL owners shopping consider low mileage TL Type-Ss for a replacement instead of buying new. Buick may be able to convert a few who are running away from the new TL. The few that don’t run to Infiniti or Lexus.
@ Jack Baruth:
You hit the nail on the head. I thought I had mentioned it earlier, but I guess it didn’t resonate. There is a reason why my boss, pushing 57 years, has the latest 4000^3 terabyte Ipod and I’m still working out with my 5 year-old Sandisk 500MB player.
“There is a reason why my boss, pushing 57 years, has the latest 4000^3 terabyte Ipod”
I like having all my music collection with me which (after almost 50 years of listening) is substantial. Sometimes I’m just in the mood to listen to, say, Burnt Weenie Sandwich.
As for Acura. Yeah. TSX customers would not give this car a second look. TL owners, maybe. The styling direction of the new TL has made the old car an instant classic.
Have you seen the Lincoln MKS? Other than the Hyundai XG350 tail lights, the resemblance to the prior-generation TL is uncanny.
The MKS really is a very handsome car, taillights notwithstanding. Much less chrome-festooned than most of it’s competition (eg, this Buick)
Who cares if Buick is a brand for old people? Old people frequently have lots of money to buy new cars. The key is to bring in slightly younger old people when the previous generation of old people die off. Buick isn’t really doing that. They are one brand that has sales going down 20% or so every year for a decade or so. Even so, their paring with Pontaic and GMC at the dealer level probably makes them safe, unless both Pontiac and GMC also die (which will eliminate so many sales that GM overall would immediately follow).
Who cares if Buick is a brand for old people?
GM should. Getting young buyers into the brand and keeping them is far more lucrative than is earning the sales of those who have few purchases left to make. They earn less on a sale to an older customer than to a younger one, because the brand loyalty of a younger customer leads to more future business.
Young people won’t buy an old man’s car, but older people are often happy to buy a young man’s car. The idea is to promote to younger people, while selling to everyone.
As of now, there isn’t much of a market for grandpa’s rental car. That isn’t a niche, that’s a trap.
Pch101 wrote:
Getting young buyers into the brand and keeping them is far more lucrative than is earning the sales of those who have few purchases left to make. They earn less on a sale to an older customer than to a younger one, because the brand loyalty of a younger customer leads to more future business.
Future sales, oh, the ultimate pie in the sky that never seems to materialize for GM. In the meantime they’re doing whatever they can to abandon their traditional buyers and cut the branch they’re sitting on. Sorry, that does not strike me as a sensible marketing strategy. Had it been such a brilliant move, after the “That’s not your father’s Oldsmobile” that particular division should have been raking it in, huh?
Future sales, oh, the ultimate pie in the sky that never seems to materialize for GM.
Yes, because GM is incompetent at implementing the strategy. The problem isn’t with the concept, it’s with the execution.
The products have to match the brand. Toyota promises reliability and delivers it. BMW promises a good driving experience and delivers it.
Buick promises Tiger Woods, but delivers a nursing home patient. It’s not enough to make a promise, the promise has to be kept. Advertising in the absence of product is not enough.
Old people frequently have lots of money to buy new cars
Yes, but they’ll only buy one or two. A twenty-year old buying an Aveo will come back in a few years for a Malibu, Uplander (shudder) or Traverse. Then they might move up to a Tahoe, or over to a Lacrosse or CTS. Or buy a Solstice or Corvette as a toy.
That someone in their late fifties or early sixties is probably buying their last, or at least penultimate, car.
By offering the Aveo, or god-awful late-90s used iron as the entry point, GM is effectively ensuring that the buyer is probably heading to Honda or Toyota when they’re going to upsize.
All this dooming and glooming over how Buick is pushing older buyers away dosen’t make sense to me. Someone mentioned how this car looks similar to the ES line, I agree, but I also think it looks somewhat similar to the newest LS, both of which do just fine with old folks, so I don’t think styling is really an issue (for the record I think this car looks better than both, but I’m 28 so who cares). It’s a barge for sure, but isn’t that the #1 old person requirement? And with that drivetrain it WILL destroy the ES in perceived quality and performance given a test drive.
There was some talk about big rims = punishing ride, and that may be the case, but there are also a couple of high end sedans out there who pull this off (Jaguar) without loosing the (admitedly lazy) plot, so why assume the worst?
I think Pch101 is entirely right in their marketing aims. No one wants a geezer car, so if they pretend 40-50yr olds will want it, they can try to remove the stigma that Buick has held for so long, and which Toyota seems hell bent on taking from them.
I prefer a 15″ or 16″ wheeel and a 70-series tire because I don’t live on some car magazine’s skid pad; I live in the real world of politicians’ skimping on road maintenance to fund unneeded sports arenas.
The roads are full of crap, and not all of it is avoidable. 35-through60- series tires don’t cushion the rim when they go flat.
In just the time it takes to get over to the shoulder, many of these huge alloy rims are severely damaged if not ruined. And little is left of the tires but the beads.The last two flats I experienced with 70-series tires resulted in zero damage to aluminum rims. Since one of the flats came as the result of a cut sidewall,it needed replacement, but the one with a chunk of wire through the tread just needed a patch despite my having to travel a tenth of a mile or so to get it off the road safely.
And the huge price tags these “dub” wheels and tires carry!
Even if suspension tweaks can nullify the bad effect these buckboard wheels and skimpy-sided tires have on ride quality, would not these super-shocks and cutting-edge material bushings cost hugely more than more-conventional stuff to replace?
Finally, having “dinky” wheels allows room for snow/slush/mud to flow more easily through the fender wells. We don’t all live where precipitation is rare.
zenith…yeah, you’re right. I was just trying to point out that they can (given expensive suspension components, which this car has) create a smooth ride. Rim damage, snow traction and pothole are all very good reasons not to go big. Styling though…bigger is definitely better (too big is easy to do I might add), so long as the total diameter dosen’t go up.
Buick promises Tiger Woods
But that’s the very problem. Why the heck is it promising Tiger Woods? That’s a stupid campaign. As someone has mentioned earlier, brand identity does not start with advertising, it starts with design and engineering. Buick is not a Tiger Woods car (whatever that means). Buick is a car for over-the-50 crowd, and it should be consistent in advertising that. Also, I am sorry, but I will call baloney on “that’s their last car”. What are we, in the XII century? We don’t die en masse at 55 these days. After 50 people still will buy many cars, and that demographic tends to be a lot more loyal than a 20-year old.
This car is sold in China as a Buick Regal, and in Germany as an Opel Insignia, presumably to an older and more affluent market demographic. It is definitely not a sports car, nor it is an entry-level vehicle. I will definitely check it out at the Detroit North American International Auto Show next weekend.
Buick is a car for over-the-50 crowd, and it should be consistent in advertising that.
It isn’t. It’s a car for retirees, which is the problem.
If the market for fuddyduddymobiles was worth serving, Buick would be rolling in dough right now. Buick obviously isn’t doing well at all, so there is a problem with this concept and it needs to be dumped.
If Buick wishes to be a luxury car, then it should be positioned as a luxury car that reaches the younger end of the luxury demographic. The older folks will be happy to be associated with the younger crowd, and the younger crowd will be happy to buy them. A car associated with the oldsters will be purchased only by them, and they are literally a dying market.
But that positioning requires changing the cars to serve the audience. This new car has a winning interior, but otherwise doesn’t go the distance. It’s better, but it isn’t enough.
If Buick wishes to be a luxury car, then it should be positioned as a luxury car that reaches the younger end of the luxury demographic.
Again, it is not “positioning”. Once it is designed and produced, it’s too late for “positioning”.
The older folks will be happy to be associated with the younger crowd
What gave you that idea? I certainly do not want to. I’ve earned my stripes and the respect that comes with it. Most of the younger crowd around here is a bunch of dumbasses with fartcans on their Civics.
and the younger crowd will be happy to buy them.
Younger crowd will buy Buicks because of different market positioning? Heh.
Let me go a step further. The fact that GM even tries to market Buick to a young audience shows a complete lack of understanding of the role of marketing. The product is designed and built with a specific audience in mind. Once that is done, all that marketing can do is bring this audience to the table. It is too late to change the target audience. It makes no sense.
Imagine Remington designing a new, improved version of the 700. Imagine then some marketing genius deciding that in California he is going to have a much greater success by marketing it not to hunters but to the Berkeley-style whiny moveon.org/peta types because that market is bigger. Wouldn’t that be brilliant? Guaranteed sales success, huh?
As I said in a much earlier post, GM should stop screwing around with marketing like it was a magic bullet. They have to improve Buick, and I mean engineering. It has to handle better, it has to have a better steering feel, the wallow has to go. Once the car handles like a Honda Accord, they can stop marketing it altogether, and it will still sell. Is that too much to ask?
Once it is designed and produced, it’s too late for “positioning”.
Which is why the product needs to be changed.
The problem is that the product serves a non-existent market. There is no place for it. It shouldn’t be built like this at all.
The product is designed and built with a specific audience in mind.
This product is designed to serve a small, dying audience. Stop building it, already!
I wish the Big 3 would stop trying to make clones of European and Japanese cars, thinking that’s what we want. Some of us do not want that, but traditional American style and comfort. It’s particulary sad what’s happened to Cadillac and Lincoln. I must be in the minority if most prefer the new models over the type they used to make, meaning bigger, roomier, and distinctive styling. At least Buick isn’t naming their cars stupid 3 letter names like Cadillac and Lincoln are doing……at least not yet.
ionosphere, you’re not the only one. As far as I am concerned, Town Car is the last Lincoln left, and even that is not what it used to be before 1998.
Once the panther platform is over, there will no more good cars left ;-(.
Once the panther platform is over, there will no more good cars left ;-(.
Thank god.
No, seriously. That kind of car does not sell, and the sales numbers of the Panthers should be evidence of that.
If Buick is no longer interested in selling me a car, because my soon to be 60 year old money is not the sort of money that Buick wants, perhaps Lexus, for instance, will not be so embarassed to have me in their showroom, or purchasing their products.
I really don’t know why I keep posting on this forum….
This Buick is really neat.
and the Lincoln MKS too.
Most of you don’t ‘get it’
American cars are just that!
AMERICAN
Not bland,not European,not Japanese…not what everyone else is selling,and I’m glad!
I plan on purchasing an AMERICAN car soon!
and ill bet you that I will get more positive feedback from my enthusiast friends than if i would have bought the same old shit by the foreign competitors…..
Now….
American is DIFFERENT!
What I don’t get out of this article is why chasing the baby boomers 45-65 is such a bad idea given that it is the biggest part of the market out there. ??
And, how a quote from Susan Docherty in Automotive News lays out the entire marketing campaign for this car. When Auto Exec’s talk to Automotive News they assume that the audience is their Dealers. The author has taken a single point and assumed a direction, and we all know what happens when you assume.
@John Horner:
I was just goofing with “ted ward”, his Mom sounds like a cool lady…. Plus, if my wife catches me flirting with other girls she won’t let me drive her car.
Screw marketing, positioning, etc.
Build a GOOD car, then customers of all ages will buy it.
You see all kinds of people in a Honda Accord – 20s to 70s.
I’m in my early 30s and will be getting an AWD sedan for my next drive, so I will test drive this car. If it impresses me and the price is good, I will buy it.