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.........
417 messages, Last post on Nov 19, 2009 at 8:10 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
Replying to: steve_ (Sep 23, 2008 4:57 pm) BTW, did I mention I had an Echo in the trunk??? 
|
|
|
|
|
Am wondering why you didn't mention the LaCrosse in your message. It seems to me that if you're looking for a replacement for your LeSabre, the LaCrosse is the successor to the LeSabre, while the Lucerne replaces the Park Avenue and Park Avenue Ultra. Although the gas mileage of the LaCrosse falls short of what you're looking for, it's pretty decent for the size of the car. Also, GM is giving such good deals on Buicks these days that you could buy quite a bit of gas with the savings on the purchase. Did you overlook the LaCrosse, or did you consider and reject it?
|
|
|
Replying to: hpmctorque (Sep 23, 2008 5:25 pm) We know that a new Lacrosse will be out in 12 months, and a new Lucerne is a couple years beyond, but I wonder what else is in store for them? A mid-size or compact CUV?? Something sporty??? A convertible??? |
|
|
|
You may be correct regarding which models the La Crosse was intended to replace, but size wise, the LaCrosse is close to the Le Sabre. Maybe the LeSabre was more space efficient than the LaCrosse.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: hpmctorque (Sep 23, 2008 5:25 pm) |
|
|
|
|
I'm a past Buick owner ('92 hand-me-down LeSabre), and I have to say that Buick has major issues with its image. Others have already pointed out that there are few pre-retirement buyers - and for good reason. My experience with a Buick was that it was a solid large car, big on passenger space, comfort, and very reliable (only problems I had with a car I got with 100k+ miles on it was when the battery went, followed by the alternator). But while it had a smooth ride, it handled like a tugboat. I'm not sure there's a car out there that would give the driver a more disconnected feel for the road. Steering was vague and the car felt like it was floating - not a good feeling when changing lanes at highway speeds. This really turned me off to Buick - I quite simply can't perceive it as anything but a sofa on wheels, and styling changes (inside and out) are not enough to make me want to go back. So what's the answer? I hate to say it, but I think there is no answer. GM has not given any fresh product to Buick that is not duplicated elsewhere in the lineup. At this point, GM either needs to start from scratch or scrap the brand. The tinfoil hat-wearing cynic in me thinks GM is intentionally killing off the brand, but doing so in a manner that will get dealers to give up their franchises willingly, rather than facing an expensive axe-job like Oldsmobile.
|
|
|
|
|
You mentioned the Impala. Although that model is lower in the GM hierarchy than the LeSabre, it's roomier than the LaCrosse, in terms of hip and shoulder room, and it has considerably more trunk space. Equipped with the 3.5 engine the Impala gets one mile per gallon more (city and highway) than the LaCrosse with the 3.8. The Impala also costs less than LaCrosse. Since the Accord and Camry didn't impress you, maybe the Impala would be a good fit for your needs. I didn't mention the new Taurus, which is very roomy, because it doesn't offer six passenger seating, while the Impala does. By the way, I'm not in the car business, so I'm not trying to promote a particular brand. |
|
|
Replying to: stovebolter (Sep 23, 2008 6:20 pm) Many of us have been banging on the concept for years that GM has too many divisions and has to spread development dollars and advertising across those brands, to the detriment of all. Others have argued that it would be too expensive ($1B) to shut down Buick or other divisions like Saturn or Pontiac. But the one thing its seems Ford has going for it is some really competitive smaller product in Europe, and they don't have such a large and bloated set of brands here in North America. They can stay much more focused than GM. If GM has $21B in cash and is burning $8B a year (I believe I recently read numbers something like that), then even with their liquidity problems, spending the cost equivalent to 1/8 of a year in expenses ($1B) to shut down an entire division might be money well spent. GM for many years has seemed unwilling to make the bold and decisive moves it needs to survive. They should just admit they are way too big, downsize rapidly, and then work to build the very best product with what they have left. Sort of like the airlines - in previous recessions they tried to undercut each other and many of them went bankrupt--- but this time they're all actively downsizing to the size that will allow them to be profitable. And GM is way too big in North America to be profitable. |
|
|
Replying to: hpmctorque (Sep 23, 2008 5:42 pm) This probably isn't a concern for more average-height people, or if you never have back seat passengers, but I just find the back of the LaCrosse, and all W-bodies, for that matter, to be really cramped in the back. Put the front seat all the way back and the only way I can fit in is sideways. I think part of the problem is that the "theater height" seating raises the cushion enough that my legs need more fore-aft room, than with a lower seat. My head also hits the ceiling in back. I swear the LaCrosse feels more cramped inside than my Dad's '03 Regal, although part of it might be the higher beltline and smaller windows of the LaCrosse. Even though the LaCrosse is a bit bigger than the Century Regal, having moved from the 109" Buick/Intrigue wheelbase to the 110.5" Impala/Grand Prix wheelbase, it seemed to have adopted the Pontiac's passenger cabin, which is swoopier and more rounded, which probably cuts into interior room. As for the Lucerne, I looked at it as sort of splitting the difference between the LeSabre and the Park Ave, and trying to fill in for both at the same time. However, the cheapest Lucerne still seems more upscale than what the cheapest LeSabre was, while the top-line Lucerne seems a step above the Park Ave Ultra. I think the Park Ave's style had a bit more presence to it though. I'd consider a used Lucerne if I was in the market for another car. But like Imidazol, I want to move ahead when it comes to fuel economy, not take a step back. I just noticed that for 2009, the Lucerne V-6 is the 3.5, rather than the 3.8. It's rated at 17/26, whereas the 3.8 was 16/25. So that's a slight improvement. For comparison, the 2000 LeSabre is rated at 17/27 (the window sticker, which reflected the old rating method, was 19/30). My 2000 Intrepid is rated at 18/27 (20/29 on the window sticker). So I guess 17/26, using the old rating system, would have been around 19/28 or 19/29? In real-world driving, that might actually not be too much of a difference compared to a 2000 Intrepid or LeSabre |
|
|
|
|
"I just noticed that for 2009, the Lucerne V-6 is the 3.5, rather than the 3.8. It's rated at 17/26, whereas the 3.8 was 16/25. So that's a slight improvement." 3.5 or 3.9? How does the '09 Impala compare with the LeSabre and LaCrosse, in your opinion?
|
|
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
