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
|
|
|---|---|
|
I tried to find Buick's mission statement, but couldn't. In the past, though, I read descriptions that use some of the adjectives lemko used. In fairness to Buick, there hasn't been much time to recalibrate that brand's mission statement since gasoline prices went from moderate to ~$4. As the products are redesigned to reflect the reality of expensive oil, Buick will have to modify its mission statement, even as its positioning in the marketplace, above Chevy, Pontiac and Saturn, and a notch below Cadillac, remains the same. It seems to me that, price-wise (but not market niche-wise), Buick competes with Saab in the GM hierarchy. It'll be difficult for GM to keep all of its brands.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: hpmctorque (Sep 26, 2008 9:26 am) Mercury is at death's door, everyone but Ford seems to know this. It's less clear how much money could potentially be saved by letting it go to its grave naturally. Chrysler is more of a mixed bag, but that is an extremely troubled automaker overall. It seems to me you could have some swish trim lines of the larger cars and crossovers in the Chevy line, and eliminate Buick without much fuss. Having a whole separate brand for this narrow piece of the automotive spectrum is weighing down GM with extra costs it really doesn't need to have. |
|
|
Replying to: nippononly (Sep 26, 2008 9:02 am) |
|
|
Replying to: nippononly (Sep 26, 2008 9:02 am) Now??? Not really. I think if we rewind about 10 years to see where Buick was you'll find that they had 4 solid pre luxury sedans, and a personal luxury coupe. As Olds got phased out, Buick picked up their minivan and SUV, plus picked up an Aztek based CUV. Eventually, they consolidated their 4 sedans to the 2 we see today, and 2 "SUV"s to 1, and dropped the minivan. The biggest problem is, the 2 sedans are based on the old W and G archetecture, while everybody else in the GM lineup gets the new latin named archetectures. THAT probably has more to do with the sales slides than anything. Can Buick survive??? I see no reason why not, ESPECIALLY when married with the Pontiac and GMC nameplates, provided the finished product is as good as the Enclave is. Let's take the mid sized GM sedans for example: Malibu, G6, Lacrosse, Aura, and CTS. Now, if we take the Aura and aim it towards imports like the Passat that puts it in a slightly different category. Next, line up the sedans in order of price: Malibu, $18-24K. G6, $20-26K Lacrosse, $23-30K, and CTS, $30-38K. Then, based on the materials used, HP outputs, options available, etc., you could have 4 viable sedans that are priced accordingly yet don't step on one another toes. For example, leather (or at least a high quality cloth) could be standard on the Buick. Not as high quality as Caddy, but better that that in a high end Malibu. If you want to gear the Chevy and Pontiac towards younger buyers, how about free OnStar for qualifying college students while in college??? I don't mean to stereotype, but the same could be offered in Caddys for say AARP members. Maybe a built in mp-3 player standard in the Chevy and Pontiac, but a built in 6 disc player in the Buick and Caddy. The bottom line is, whatever they do, IF the products coming forward are likeable like the Malibu and CTS are, and are marketed well, they will do fine.
|
|
|
Check out the retail prices for these USED Enclaves, some with as many as 22,000 miles: http://www.cars.com/go/search/search_results.jsp?ct=564&tracktype=usedcc&searchT- ype=21&cid=&dlid=&dgid=&amid=&cname=&mdnm=Enclave&mknm=Buick&rd=10000&ddrd=&zc=0- 2809&makeid=7&modelid=8771&pageNumber=&numResultsPerPage=50&largeNumResultsPerPa- ge=0&sortorder=descending&sortfield=PRICE%20descending&certifiedOnly=false&crite- ria=K-|E-|M-_7_|D-_8771_|N-N|R-10000|I-1,7|P-PRICE%20descending|Q-descending|Z-0- 2809&aff=national |
|
| http://www.edmunds.com/apps/nvc/edmunds/VehicleComparison?styleid=101035082&styl- eid=101006933&styleid=101037439&styleid=100975629&maxvehicles=5&refid=&op=3&tab=- specs | |
|
Replying to: nippononly (Sep 26, 2008 9:02 am) |
|
|
Replying to: cooterbfd (Sep 26, 2008 1:35 pm) Next, line up the sedans in order of price: Malibu, $18-24K. G6, $20-26K Lacrosse, $23-30K, and CTS, $30-38K. Then, based on the materials used, HP outputs, options available, etc., you could have 4 viable sedans that are priced accordingly yet don't step on one another toes. I'd still argue that this is too fine a slicing of the market to support the overhead of all the brands. Yet still, all of those brands just *might* work, except that IMHO GM has messed it all up. As an example, although I've not driven the new Malibu, it looks like it has gone upscale somewhat in the interior (good). I did drive a rental G6 and it was in no way impressive inside. My sense (can somebody confirm this?) is that the Malibu is a nicer car inside than the G6. OK, you say, perhaps the G6 is slanted toward sportiness. Well my rental, while reasonably decent, was in no way particularly sporty. So why is the G6 more expensive than the Malibu as indicated in your sample prices? GM's market segmentation between brands doesn't make any sense. It's muddled in a big way, as if the patient has been drunk for about a decade. If there was any hope in supporting all of these brands, there should be a clear theme/slogan/market target for each of them that is distinctly different. The fact that all of us in this forum, who know a lot more about cars than the average Joe, discuss and argue about each brand and what it stands for, makes my point. The whole potential advantage of "branding" has been pretty much screwed up at GM and they are paying for the overhead of all the brands without a good reason to justify them with any sensible differentiation. Why is the Corvette a Chevy if Pontiac is the sporty division? Why does Pontiac have a crossover SUV just like Chevy and GMC? Why does Pontiac have a rebadged Cobalt as the G5? Why is Pontiac getting a rebadged Aveo as a G3? If Saturn is competing for the foreign crowd, why is their crossover the same as at 2-4 other divisions? Is this really fooling anybody? It feels like too little product being spread all over the place to give all these brands enough vehicles to sell. But they're not selling many of them anyway.
|
|
|
Replying to: tlong (Sep 27, 2008 12:04 am) I've noticed that too, about the Malibu versus the G6. I think part of the problem is that nowadays they seem to redesign these cars in waves, rather than all at once. If this was the 60's, 70's, or 80's, we would have seen an all-new Malibu, G6, and Aura debut all at the same time. At some point though, all that broke down. We got a new, much-improved (if rather homely) Malibu for 2004. Then for 2005, I think, the G6 debuted, which was a big improvement over the Grand Am it replaced. I wouldn't say it was any better than the Malibu though, when it came to interior quality. Then the Aura came out as a 2007 model, and seemed to be a big improvement over the Malibu and G6, as well as the L-series it had replaced directly. Then suddenly, we get a new Malibu for 2008. GM really put a lot of effort into this car, and it shows. But suddenly, it eclipses the G6. And I don't even see a real difference in prestige between it and the Aura. I like the Aura's style a little better, it seems a little sportier, but it's not like the old days when a Pontiac, Olds, or Buick seemed a clear step up from a Chevy. Why is the Corvette a Chevy if Pontiac is the sporty division? Why does Pontiac have a crossover SUV just like Chevy and GMC? When the Corvette first came out, way back in 1953, Pontiac hadn't yet been established as a sporty division. In fact, I don't think the concept of a sporty division had even been thought of yet. In 1953 they still had clear hierarchies set in place, so it was hard for one car to become too nice, lest it outshine the next division up the corporate ladder. If you wanted performance (not to be confused with sportiness, as back in those days it just meant going fast in a straight line) you bought a Buick Century or Chrysler Saratoga...progenitors of the muscle car, where they just took the smallest, lightest model they offered and fitted it with the biggest engine. Pontiac was actually viewed as an old people's car. A car for retired doctors and such. Buicks and Oldsmobiles were considered fairly sporty cars for that time. Upscale cars with some power, that younger people weren't afraid to buy...if they could afford them. Chevy was by far the biggest seller though, so it probably just made sense to give it the Corvette, as that would have given it the widest market coverage. Pontiac really wouldn't begin its transformation to the performance division until 1957, with the introduction of the fuel-injected Bonneville convertible, and a heavily facelifted lineup that did its best to give some flash to the otherwise dowdy 1955-56 body. Why does Pontiac have a rebadged Cobalt as the G5? Why is Pontiac getting a rebadged Aveo as a G3? If Saturn is competing for the foreign crowd, why is their crossover the same as at 2-4 other divisions? Is this really fooling anybody? I think this kind of stuff is just a holdover from the glorious expansion days of the 1960's and early 1970's, when GM got so big that each division tried to be everything to everybody. The divisions all got too big, with too many dealers. Once small cars started becoming popular, Pontiac, Olds, and Buick dealers started complaining that they didn't have anything to draw buyers in, so they started rebadging Vegas and Monzas and Novas and such. Pontiac got the G5 and G3 to woo those types of buyers into the showroom, buyers who otherwise would have gone to a Chevy, Ford, Mopar, or foreign dealership. Ditto, once the SUV craze and crossover craze caught on, every dealership wanted to get in on the action. Now that Pontiac, Buick, and GMC products usually share the same showroom, that should eliminate some of the redundancy, you'd think. For instance, hopefully there won't be a Buick-badged Aveo or Cobalt! |
|
|
Replying to: tlong (Sep 27, 2008 12:04 am) Time and space constraints keep me from making my point all in one post. Andre hit the nail on the head though. In 1968, for example, GM redid the A bodies, and a new Malibu, Lemans, Cutlass, and Skylark all debuted the same year (as well as the Special and Tempest). Today, that wasn't the case. IF, in 2010, GM came out with a redesigned Malibu, G6, Lacrosse, and CTS, my feeling is that as good as the materials are in the Malibu, they should be BETTER, or at least on par with, in the G6. If they are the same, then you still justify the price increase based on a stiffer riding, better handling, slightly more optioned ( bigger wheels, fender flares, small wing on the back, throatier exaust, nothing outragious though) G6. Now, if the Malibu LTZ and G6GTP are optioned with leather, The base Lacrosse should get that quality leather as standard, with a better quality leather offered in the CXL version. Then the CTS gets the better leather as standard, and maybe an even better leather as an option. Now, I'm not saying that any of these models can't be sporty or luxurious IN THEIR OWN RIGHT, but basically the Malibu is the everyman's car, the G6 is for someone who wants sporty performance, Lacrosse is understated luxury, and CTS is for the person "who has arrived". To take a tangent, seeing as how there is a CTS-V, you could have high performance coupes come out as the Chevelle SS, GTO,GS,and CTS-V. they may not be high sellers, but they sure will get asses in the showroom. |
|
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
