Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Automotive News & Views The Rebirth of Buick.........
421 messages, Last post on Nov 27, 2009 at 3:10 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
|
|---|---|
|
Replying to: lemko (Sep 26, 2008 4:56 am) I bought 3 Audis out of my last 6 vehicles. Despite the fact that Buicks are aimed right at my demographic group, I never even test drove one. I wanted to drive a CTS, but the dealer treated me like an idiot and I left. I ended up choosing a car that cost $10,000 more than the comparable Buick. This is why... 1. I like a performance car. Oh, I don't drag race any more and I let my SCCA membership lapse, but I still like a car I can Drive with a capital D. 2. Every time I get in one of my Audis, I marvel at the quality and comfort of the interior. The newer one has better ergonomics, but I have an 18 year old V8 Quattro with Connelly hides, walnut trim and Wilton wool carpets that still looks near perfect. 3. Driving an Audi is satisfying. I'm glad everything works so smoothly and so well. I'm glad I own a car that can be driven out of almost any emergency situation. I'm glad I don't have to do the Corvette Crawl through small towns. Audis are stealthy. I'm glad that I drive a luxury/performance car that gets decent gas mileage. Last, but not least, I'm glad that I've never been stuck while driving on ice or snow. None of this makes Buick a bad car. Buick makes perfectly adequate executive cars. But there is nothing outstanding about them. I made some comparisons below. (2008 numbers) Audi A6 -V6-6-speed auto-FWD-250HP-21/29 MPG-3,858lbs Lucerne CXL-V6-4-speed auto-FWD-197HP-16/25 MPG-3,869lbs Audi A6 V8-6-speed auto-AWD-350HP-18/25 MPG-4.222lbs Lucerne Super-V8-4-speed auto-FWD-292HP-15/22 MPG-4,004lbs Buicks, once again proving that good enough isn't good enough. Many Thanks Jim |
|
|
|
|
You make some excellent points in your A6-Lucerne comparisons, especially since both manufacturers use similar adjectives to describe their cars. Without diminishing your points, I would add that, for many car buyers, the price difference between the A6 and the Lucerne means that these cars really don't compete. Each car appeals to a different niche. I realize that price is one factor, but it's a significant one for most motorists. |
|
|
Replying to: jwbrothers (Sep 27, 2008 11:19 pm) Repair and service costs are also significantly more than an Audi. I'd have to take the A6 to an Audi specialist whereas the guy on the corner could service and repair a Lucerne. Those fuel economy figures seem off for the Lucerne V-6. I do much better than that in my 1988 Park Avenue and slightly better with my V-8 Cadillac DTS Performance.
|
|
|
Replying to: lemko (Sep 28, 2008 8:40 am) Lemko, that 16/25 rating for the Lucerne V-6 is for a 2008 3.8 model, and using the newer, dumbed-down EPA ratings. Using the older rating system, the Lucerne was something like 19/28. I think your Park Ave would be 19/29. As for comparing Audi to Buick, it's really a hard comparison to do directly. If you were go compare just on size, Buick doesn't even make anything as small as an A6. It's sized more like a Malibu or Aura. Yet a base A6 starts around $42K, which would probably get you the nicest Lucerne ever built. To get something Lucerne sized, you need to look to the A8. And even that's not quite cutting it...you have to move to the A8L (extended wheelbase), and at that point you're probably looking at $75K or more. Now granted, an A8 is a heckuva lot nicer car than a Buick Lucerne. At that price it better be!
|
|
|
Replying to: tlong (Sep 27, 2008 8:59 pm) Cadillac as the luxury division. This would still leave at least three different platforms, but GM has about 8 car platforms in production for the North American market, and there are additional platforms outside of North America. World wide I can see needing a small car platform, a midsized and a big car. Each platform should allow for more than one size. At a minimum then, there should be about 6 sizes of cars possible from three platforms, and I think 8 sizes is likely. One can then spread the 8 sizes out in 5 different makes in a way that makes each make different. Since GM is trying to reduce dealers to two basic groups (Chevy/Cadillac and Buick/Pontiac/GMC) the need to duplicate platforms for each make is greatly reduced. At one time the Buick, Pontiac, Oldsmobile and Chevrolet dealers all wanted compact, midsize and full sized cars. |
|
|
Replying to: andre1969 (Sep 28, 2008 9:03 am) A6 FWD is 18/27 A6 AWD V8 is 16/23 Still better than the Lucerne. But for 2009 the Lucerne with the V6 is 17/26. The V8 for the Lucerne is limited to the Super model I think. The new (for the Lucerne) V6 has more power, with up to 227 HP optional in some areas. |
|
|
Replying to: jwbrothers (Sep 27, 2008 11:19 pm)  I think when Buick was making the T-type models, they were better handling. Audi is considered by the car magazines to have the best interiors in general. I would put Audi in the same category as Mercedes, BMW and other luxury cars. Buick is what I would call a medium priced brand, more like the Chrysler and Mercury, maybe Toyota Avalon, and now the Genesis. |
|
|
|
|
"The Audi number for the A6 for 2008 are different from what was posted: A6 FWD is 18/27 A6 AWD V8 is 16/23 Still better than the Lucerne. But for 2009 the Lucerne with the V6 is 17/26." A factor to consider when comparing fuel economy is that Audis run on premium while Buicks take regular. |
|
|
Replying to: jwbrothers (Sep 27, 2008 11:19 pm) Thanks for posting. I'm really glad to see this thread getting attention. The problem with your post though is not your opinion, but where GM has put Buick right now. You show the A6 AWD as 350 hp, and Buick's V-8 (a northstar V8, I believe) as 292 hp. The reason this was done was so that the Lucerne wouldn't infringe on Cadillac, in which the same engine puts out 320 hp in the FAR more expensive STS. You said it best, it makes an excellent executive sedan. At this point however, GM hasn't set Buick up to compete in a luxury performance arena (we can only hope).
|
|
|
Replying to: cooterbfd (Sep 28, 2008 3:52 pm) No, the Buick is certainly not on par with luxury. You put it next to a new Acura TL, CTS, or even an Accord, that is very entry level, but up there, and it still falls short.I am not sure why anyone would pick any Buick, when frankly there are so many cars out there that are more better looking, fun, more bang for the buck. Even on a CTS, though fun, not sure I would want to overpay on that car either, when it is still made by GM, and many other cars that are less in cost, and offer more fun. I almost feel they didn't want to push it too far with their Buick line up, as they would be taking away from the other "million" cars they have on the road. The Buick now, feels like a basic rental. Like a nice hotel, but certainly not a suite. Sounds like I am bashing the GM name, but honestly, there are only a few cars in their line up that impress me, but even then, I am not sure I could get myself to buy the car. Ironic enough, I have an 08 Pontiac G6, Loaded, Not by choice, but I am getting new liking to the GM name, they did put some thought into it. But, I will be back to the Honda, from which I came from. |
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views The Rebirth of Buick.........
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
