As we know, the once-glorious Buick has two objectives today: To sell GM products to Chinese people, and to sell Opels to North American people. Of the five Buick models in the US, three (Verano, Regal and Encore) are badge-engineered Opels or at least have their Opel twins. And fourth, the Cascade convertible, is coming soon.
It thus makes sense to look at Opels as potential Buicks. It even works the other way, as many Opels feel a bit like Buicks. With their visual bulk, hard-to-see extremities and hefty weight, they seem much bigger than they really are. In fact, they feel more American than Euro Fords.
So when I got my hands on an Opel Mariva for a week, I tried to see it as a Buick. When you look at it, with its minivan-like profile and weird shoulder line, it doesn’t look like one. But it turns out it would make for a terrific Buick.
Why? Because Buicks are cars for old people. And while the Meriva is supposed to be exact opposite, it actually does the job even better than any of the current Buicks.
The Meriva was conceived as a car for a young family, or maybe a second family car to replace the wife’s supermini. With its reasonable price and small footprint – it’s actually half a foot shorter than Astra hatchback – it can replace a small hatchback, while being much more adept at hauling kids and stuff. But the same things that make it good at this make it even better as a car for old folks.
There is a few things old people usually want in a car. Buicks used to offer all of them – in about 1955. Old people like high seating for easy ingress and egress. They like good visibility and real windows instead of gun slits you find on most new cars (especially Buickpels). And they prefer plush, comfortable suspension to anything “sporty”.
Meriva offers all of this, and some more. The seats are high and provide lots comfort. There is also Opel’s typical wide range of adjustment of everything, from steering wheel reach to seat height. Almost anyone, regardless of body shape, should be able to find a great driving position.
High bodywork also brings airy, roomy interiror and big windows. And with you sitting quite high above window sills, you have great outlook from the car, much unlike other Opels/Buicks, such as Astra or Verano.
Then there’s the biggest surprise: the suspension. For a relatively small, high car on 17” wheels, it is great at filtering ruts and potholes. Actually, in some evironments, it was even a bit plusher than the paragon of old folks’ car – the ’98 Town Car I used as my daily driver. I admit that the ’98, with its stiffer front springs, isn’t the most comfortable of Panthers, but still – for a compact MPV, Town Car is quite a benchmark to beat.
And since we’re talking Lincolns, we should also mention the Meriva’s last party trick. The suicide doors, exactly like those on the classic Continental. They do not just look cool – they have practical advantages as well. Their main raison d’être is probably to make stuffing children into their seats easier, but in reality, they are much better for stuffing stuff in the rear seats.
Coats, briefcases, maybe shopping bags or even canes or walkers. The stuff that would normally require you to take at least few steps around the car to open the rear door (which, especially in case of canes and walkers, can be annoying) can be thrown to the rear seats easily, after just cracking open the rear doors from where you’re standing when getting inside the car. It may not sound like much, but it’s supremely comfortable even for young guy like myself.
Similarly, the suicide doors can be quite convenient for putting kids in the back. There’s a “but”, though. The kids have to be at least toddlers, i.e. suitable for bigger, forward facing child seats (in which case, they’re probably quite able to climb there themselves). For transporting infants in rear facing seats, the doors are quite useless and actually even worse than normal doors.
I know it, because I borrowed some kids to use as guinea pigs. While the almost 3-year old toddler just climbed there, not seeming to give a damn about the way the door opened, putting an infant into the rear facing seat meant standing exactly where the opened door are, which is a bit uncomfortable. Also, there’s not quite enough space for the rear-facing seat. To even fit it there, the rear seat had to be slid in rearmost position and front passenger’s seat so far forward that it would be useless even for modest-sized adult for any trip longer than half and hour. Rear-facing seat behind the driver? No way. And with the rear seats all the way back, forget about going shopping – you’ll either cram a stroller in the trunk, or the shopping, but not both.
Even with the rear seats all the way forward, the trunk is in no way cavernous. It’s about the same size as Golf’s. That’s enough for mother with two children to go shopping, but certainly not enough for a family trip. Customers looking for affordable family vehicle are thus still much better off looking at wagons, which offer much more trunk space at slight expense of worse rear-seat access.
But for older folks, who typicaly need much less trunk space, but haul their friends time from time, the Meriva is perfectly sized. Even the rear seats are wonderfully accessible, offer great visibility and are comfortable. In fact, the only thing that the Buicks of yore had and this hasn’t, is the looks. Buicks used to be long, massive and regal. The Meriva has all the grace and elegance of a hamster with a mouthful of grain. But then, today’s elderly folks tend to buy cars like Honda Fit or Kia Soul lately, so it seems that this shouldn’t be such a problem. I think Derek’s granma would love it.
At least if she bought it with gasoline engine and automatic transmission. The “downsized” 1.6 CDTI diesel, offering the power of a two-liter in a 1.6 package, may be powerful and effective, but it still lacks refinement (althought it’s better than the older Opel diesels). And, as all small diesels, it woefully lacks grunt in low revs. It’s so bad that you will probably stall it regularly for quite some time – I did at least half a dozen times, as did everyone who I let behind the wheel. Once, I even stalled it on the move. And most intended customers don’t even drive enough annual miles to make the diesel worthwhile. On the other hand, the 1.4 Turbo I have driven few years ago, is really nice and even the economy difference isn’t that terrible.
The Verdict
Great city runabout and great car for old folks. Less great for soccer moms and hardly useable as family vehicle. Comfortable and easy to drive. A perfect vehicle to replace your Buick Park Avenue.
@VojtaDobes is motoring journalist from Czech Republic, who previously worked for local editions of Autocar and TopGear magazines. Today, he runs his own website, www.Autickar.cz and serves as editor-in-chief at www.USmotors.cz. After a failed adventure with importing classic American cars to Europe, he is utterly broke, so he drives a ratty Chrysler LHS. His previous cars included a 1988 Caprice in NYC Taxi livery, a hot-rodded Opel Diplomat, two Dodge Coronets, a Simca, a Fiat 600 and Austin Maestro. He has never owned a diesel, manual wagon.
You must have a very peculiar way of putting small infants in a baby seat I have to say. In a car with normal doors the child goes in “around the corner” of the back door aperture – a highly uncomfortable reach where you have to twist your body to do this. Whereas in the Meriva you do this in a straight line with no bending around corners to strap said child in. I honestly think you have really not thought through what you said above or have any idea about how or why these doors are design the way they are.
http://s1.cdn.autoevolution.com/images/gallery/OPEL-Meriva-5241_1.jpg
I could see suicide doors being moderately more challenging for rear-facing seats. You’d have to plop the child in over the seat.
Putting a child in the normal seat is wonderfully easy with suicide doors. But when you have rear-facing child seat? You’re screwed.
they get a slow one handed clap for the suicide doors
too Lincoln didnt do it on a real car
I could really see those suicide doors making a big hit with seniors. My wife’s grandfather traded a like-new Grand Marquis for a Challenger in order to facilitate stashing folded up walkers in the back seat when entering/exiting the car. I doubt that he would go for the styling, tho. I tried to suggest an xB or Element to my father-in-law several years ago when he was replacing his Town Car, based on the greater ease of entry. He went with an Avalon and mocked my suggestion for years, even tho within 3 years he could barely get in and out of it due to back pain and general inflexibility.
Agreed. I went with the first generation xB to take care of my then-invalid wife, as it was about the easiest car I could find to get her in and out and haul her wheel chair and walker; but suicide rear doors would have made it a lot easier. And saved me a lot of fast running around the car, as one of the unexpected effects of her stroke was to leave her with a complete lack of patience with giving me time to get her out of the car. If she tried it solo, the results were variably disastrous.
Being able to block her in her seat while reaching for the equipment would have been greatly appreciated.
Oh dear, the styling at the sides needs a little help, doesn’t it. That rear window dip just throws it all off.
Kudos to them for thinking visual continuity, and putting a gloss matching trim strip between the doors.
This car would seem the equivalent to a suicide-doored Golf. I think it would be too small/low for old people, who would much rather have a CRV to replace their aged Park Ave.
Or, if they’re really stuck with their American-made Park Avenue – Toyota offers one today called the Avalon, which actually has more American made parts (and manufactured in Kentucky) than any other car in the US.
The Encore is basically this car in a trendy CUV wrapper.
Popular mini family car in Norway. There’s a woman who has her kids in the same kindergarten as ours and the suicide doors do get commented on. Neat feature! Removing the b-pillar would be a practical and gorgeous improvement – if probably a safety desaster, too.
Removing B-pillar can be done while retaining safety. See Ford B-Max.
It’s reviews like this that give me great sympathy for Buick. No matter how many new designs they market that have absolutely nothing in common with the LeSabre or Park Avenue, they’re going to get the inevitable reviewer who insists on clamping his “Buick=old folk’s car” blinders on tightly and only seeing the reviewed car in that light.
It strikes me that a whole lot of those “old folks” attributes are mere examples of good design. Maybe you have to get past 50 to appreciate a well designed car?
You don’t. You can appreciate a well-designed, old folk’s car even when young.
I’m 30 and I just replaced a Town Car with Chrysler LHS – mostly for financial reasons, otherwise I would get another TC or a 300C. Old folk’s cars are the best for daily driver duties.
Which model year of LHS?
Oh jeez I hope he did his research!
But switching RWD Panther for FWX LX? I dunnoooo.
So the LHS was a New Yorker with a floor mount shifter. What was the Concorde then?
28: The first one, ’94.
Corey: I didn’t need any research to know that LH-platform Chryslers are junk.
But to pay-off the Town Car would cost something like $4,000.
The LHS was $500, including a parts car that previous owner bought for the same price, with recent service to the tune of $1,000.
In other words, I bought some spare parts for it. The car was free.
My mistake, LH not LX. LX is newer.
But, wasn’t the Town Car in rather average condition, and had high miles etc? I’m curious how it cost you so much to get? I thought it was a good deal and such, as you had reported in your story of it!
Corey: The TC was in average condition, with need of some additional repairs and some paperwork sorted out (individually imported USDM car). At about $4,000 + the repairs and stuff, it was a fair price. A really nice, 2003+ one would cost upwards of $10,000 in Europe.
But the problem wasn’t the price of said Town Car as much as the state of my bank account. Basically, the LHS is all the car I can afford right now. And it has no paperwork problems and actually needs less work at the moment than the TC.
Also, after a year with the Town Car, I enjoyed it enough to check it off my list, and I was ready to move on. If I have an opportunity to get into the 2003+ model in the future, I may do it. But I’m not lusting after one anymore. There’s a lot of other cars on the list :)
@Vojta
The LH gen 1 (3.3 IIRC) was/is a surprisingly good platform. I have seen examples in very rough but running condition north of 200K with either the 3.3 or 3.5, as a matter of fact I see more gen 1 LHs still around these parts than the 97+ gen 2 LH. The MY94 LHS and New Yorker run the 3.5 SOHC V6, EGE variant. Evidently the 3.5 uses a timing chain but the 3.3 uses a belt, I didn’t know.
“Introduced for the 1994 model year, the Chrysler LHS was the top of the line model for the division, as well as the most expensive of the LH platform cars.[3] The all the LH series shared a 113.0-inch (2,870 mm) wheelbase and were developed using Chrysler’s new computer drafting system.[4]
The car was differentiated from the division’s New Yorker sedan by its bucket leather seats (the New Yorker had a bench seat) and standard features such as alloy wheels that were options on the New Yorker.[5]
The five-passenger Chrysler LHS was differentiated its New Yorker counterpart, by a floor console and shifter, five-passenger seating, lack of chrome trim, an upgraded interior and a sportier image. For the 1997 model year the New Yorker was dropped in favor of a six-passenger option on the 1997 LHS. The LHS received a minor face change in 1995 when the corporate wide pentastar emblem was replaced with the revived Chrysler brand emblem.
Standard features of the LHS included a 3.5 L EGE 24-valve 214 hp (160 kW; 217 PS) V6 engine, body-colored grille, side mirrors and trim, traction control, aluminum wheels, integrated fog lights, 8-way power adjustable front seats, premium sound systems with amplifiers, and automatic temperature control. Unlike the New Yorker, leather seats were standard.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_LHS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_SOHC_V6_engine
28_Cars: I will do a review of the LHS in a near future. It fascinates me in many ways. The most interesting about it is how much MORE modern it feels compared to a ’98 Town Car.
This is simply anecdotal but I seem to recall the LHs occasionally having tranny issues. Check your fluid color to see if has ever been changed.
You recall that right. Transmission is, together with front suspension and electrics, the most trouble-prone area of the LH-platform.
Fortunately, mine seems to be shifting fine, save from occasional shudder when downshifting (which seems to be more a bad bushing than a real tranny problem), and the fluid is red as it should be.
Also, I have another transmission from the parts cars (which was fully drivable until a slight accident written it off).
Wow, I had no idea suicide door cars are still being made. They got some unusual stuff down there.
Now, now Vojta. I’ve had seat time in a ’55 Buick.
The front seat was 56 inches wide and set low with no adjustment for height. You got to stare at the top of an enormous bakelite steering wheel right in your field of view. Small women drivers simply disappeared from view.
But at least you only had to press the gas pedal to operate the starter motor. After that the nailhead V8 burst to life, and Dynaflow beckoned for the open road as you sawed away at the disconnected steering.
Not like this weird Meriva pipsqueak at all. Not in your wildest fantasies.
I’ve driven a ’53 Pontiac not long before the Meriva (review also coming at TTAC). I guess the ’55 Buick’s gotta be kind of similar.
Regular doors no good for general use, suicide doors no good for loading infants. Solution? GULLWINGS.
Good review!
This is actually a nice vehicle and I think it should do well here as a Buick, or a Chevy if they had not tried to bring in the inferior Trax.
I´d like to address some of the comments about Buick and “old people´s cars” in general. First, it is true that if you design a car that can accommodate the reduced physical capabilities of older people (the over 55s) you will get a car that is super easy for every one else to use. Ford used this thinking, called Inclusive Design, for the Focus and this car was accepted by all user groups as being extremely good to drive and to operate. BMW are addressing the needs of older users by making all those raised versions of their cars. The GT3 and GT5 plus their off-roaders are intended to bring the BMW driving experience to people who prefer not to fall into a car and who appreciate a raised H-point.
In particular, I would like to say that it´s far from true that only old people like Buick. I´ve been a fan since I was 22 and that´s despite my Buick experience involving a 1984 Century. I think that some people prefer a laid-back drive and Buick at their best really deliver on this score. It would be helpful if car journalists refrained from assessing all cars through the lens of track day excellence. Typically they might say something like “the x is a good car with some nice features, good economy and a spacious cabing but we feel that it´s not so exciting to drive….” This formula is routinely offered and is not really appropriate. If I reverse the formula you can see how silly it is “ the x is a good car with commendable grip and high-speed handling and super acceleration but we feel that it´s not spacious, has a small boot and it only seats two people plus the ride is harsh”. Buick generally set out to provide a few expected qualities and they deliver these: nice ride, plush interiors, useful performance and ease-of-use. If you want speed and acceleration shop elsewhere but don´t criticise comfort-orientated cars for delivering comfort. That´s as silly as picking at an Elise for its tiny boot and crap ride.
If you want to find out more about Inclusive Design Google the Inclusive Design Toolkit. Sooner or later we all get old and it´s great someone is thinking of our future selves when we want to drive or use some product.