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: cooterbfd (Sep 24, 2008 1:34 pm) Let's see, to address some of your points: 1. both the Accord and Camry seated four adults comfortably, size was not a limiting factor 2. both of them were automatics (boo hiss  ) 3. if I am making the correct inference, you somehow view 750 extra pounds of curb weight as a positive. I view them as a needless negative, and certainly I WOULD agree with your implication that one significant reason the Buicks do a lot worse for gas mileage is the excess weight. Really, all I was doing was calling steve out a little on his remark, and certainly if he is coming out of a minivan (which I didn't realize when I made the remark), 28 mpg must have seemed glorious. I don't in any way feel that Buicks have notably worse fuel economy than other large cars, but rather that the whole breed (large cars, that is) is needlessly gas-guzzling. Stuff a little technology under those hoods, boost fuel economy and improve driveability all in one fell swoop, where's the harm in that in what is supposed to be a "premium" or "near-lux" automobile?
|
|
|
Replying to: nippononly (Sep 24, 2008 6:21 pm) I did enjoy driving my friend's 5 speed ECHO a few times although my '82 Tercel was more fun (but that's probably just my slanted opinion since I had great luck with the Tercel).  I gotta upload the ~'61ish family Buick station wagon pic I found at my sister's house a couple of weeks ago. |
|
|
Replying to: nippononly (Sep 24, 2008 6:21 pm) While large cars may be needlessly gas-guzzling, SUV's are even worse. Perhaps the government should ban all vehicles larger than say 1000 pounds. I think using carbon fiber technology 1000 lbs would be possible.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: sls002 (Sep 25, 2008 6:51 am) You are sooo right! The ironic thing is we have mostly managed to kill the breed of truck-based large SUVs, only to replace them with car-based large crossovers that weigh just as much or more! The Enclave is a VERY good example of this.
|
|
|
Replying to: nippononly (Sep 25, 2008 7:00 am) What I think is needed is new body technology, carbon fiber can greatly reduce the weight, and with electric drive technology, vehicles can be designed for far greater efficiency.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: sls002 (Sep 25, 2008 7:08 am)
|
|
|
Replying to: nippononly (Sep 25, 2008 7:23 am) |
|
|
|
| Don't you think the auto makers will substitute these materials, where it's cost effective? Your messages seem to imply that, somehow, they're missing some great bets because they're asleep at the switch. I don't think that's the case. Sure, some manufacturers are more capable than others, but make no mistake, they all get it. It's that certain materials and technologies that weren't economically justifiable at $2/gallon are now. Therefore, they'll be adopted. | |
|
|
|
They could use more than they are using today, that's for sure, especially when it comes to aluminum. The CTS weighs about 3600 pounds, a few hundred too many to be sure, but makes very little use of aluminum outside the suspension, as far as I know. The A8 is an AWD vehicle. It would weigh hardly any more than the CTS, despite being a larger car, if it were 2WD. And in such a case, it would weigh significantly less than its main competition today. hpmctorque's point about cost is the real culprit here - among smaller and medium size cars, cost is a top priority, especially among the American carmakers who already struggle to make a profit in car-building. I never meant to imply that anyone was asleep at the switch, hpm, so please don't construe that from what I said. I am aware there are cost issues, but when we are talking about BUICK, a make that is supposed to be near-lux or at least "premium", whatever that means, cost should be less of an issue IMO. Plug in $1000 worth of better, lighter materials, and you might just make substantial gains in mpg AND sales. Question: can we really view Buick as a premium brand while Lacrosse remains in the line-up?
|
|
|
While it (rebirth) might be good for some folks in Flint and/or some UAW types - how in the world can one reasonably anticipate anything good from a product line that is nothing but regurgitated, rebadged, and certainly unremarkable products. As long as GM is going to do what GM seems to do best - find the cheapest 'solution' to any problem - and lose gargantuan sums of money doing it - Buick, unfortunately, will be a stillborn. GM would be better served to send Buick the way of Oldsmobile - except, of course, in Bejing where the customers apparently don't know any better... |
|
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
