The entire autoblogosphere is abuzz over the new Buick LaCrosse. And not just in the pre-show preview, “check this out” kind of way. Or even in the sniggering “guess what the name means in Quebec” way. No, full-service pimping of GM’s latest mid-sized sedan is clearly the order of the day. And a single thread runs through all the breathless commentary, namely the alleged youthful, modern appeal of the new LaCrosse. The message is loud and clear: this is not your father’s Buick. Or, as The DetNews’s Scott Burgess puts it (in hopes of avoiding the painful Olds legacy), “this is not your grandfather’s Buick.” The Freep opens its paean to the LaCrosse by pointing out that it was designed by “twenty- and thirty-somethings.” “No More Blue Hair!” screams the headline at Jalopnik, who also parrot the “not your grandfather’s Buick” line. But, like the infamous “not your father’s Oldsmobile” ads everyone keeps referencing, all this sound and fury merely cements long-standing brand perceptions in the minds of consumers. And hastens the long-overdue death of Buick
GM’s Susan Docherty reveals to Automotive News [sub] that Buick’s youthful reinvention is not being kicked off by LaCrosse. “With the introduction of the Enclave, we have broken through the perception that Buick was just a brand for old people,” says the Pontiac Buick GMC VP. “The Enclave started a transformation of the brand that has only just begun.”
Oh really? So the DetN’s Burgess wasn’t kidding. This really is about repositioning Buick as “your father’s” brand instead of “your grandfather’s.” And with an average buyer age of 63, that may not be a bad goal. But if Enclave buyers were still well into their 50s, how far are these claims of youthful reinvention really going to carry the Buick brand?
Not far. Not only will this LaCrosse fail to appreciably bring down the average Buick customer age (for reasons explored later), the entire marketing effort sends the clear message that its core buyers are an embarrassment to the brand.
As does the car itself, which is loaded with techno-gizmos and has optional all-wheel drive. Why? To tempt the youthful hordes from their “near-luxury” Toyota Avalons, Acuras TLs and the like. And further convince their core market that Buick’s are no longer senior-friendly havens of low-tech in a world gone mad.
Compared to the last few decades of Buicks, the design is understated and elegant. But that’s like bragging about attracting 50-year-old customers instead of 60-year-olds. From some angles the new car looks suitably Lexus-like, echoing the current LS at the rear and first-generation GS from the side. From the front its splashy waterfall grille is subtle in comparison only to Mercury’s chrome-bauble bling.
From the vantage point of online press pictures, the interior does look undeniably decent. Unfortunately, it also does away with the sense of spaciousness and simplicity that defined Buick’s appeal even when its styling and performance was at its worst.
Even if the new LaCrosse is the best Buick made in years (and it probably is), it does nothing to rescue the brand. The relentless emphasis on customer age in marketing and media coverage shows deep insecurity on GM’s part about Buick’s appeal.
Buick is one of the most traditional symbols of middle class achievement, an image that over the last few decades has appealed to fewer, older customers. That image has been successful in China, where a young emerging middle class hold many of the values that once made Buick a success here.
As a well-qualified youngster in the car-buying demographic I feel confident in arguing that America’s aspiring 20 and 30-somethings are generally striving for individuality and expression, not suburban comfort, conformity and subtlety.
As a brand as steeped in tradition, Buick needs to reinvent itself in a way that builds on its past and broadens its appeal without alienating long-term fans. Something along the lines of Canadian Club’s “damn right your dad drank it,” campaign. When brands outlive their historical moment, only some sense of irony or humor can keep their core values relevant. If trying to keep Buick relevant even makes any sense at this point. Which it probably doesn’t.
GM has had a hard enough time updating Cadillac’s staid image in a way that doesn’t completely alienate traditionalists. Attempting this balance with Buick does little besides create the brand engineering and cannibalism that destroyed both brands in the first place.
Me? I actually want one of my father’s favorite Buicks, the 1963 Riviera. Which was actually marketed to people like his father. In terms of recapturing the immediate yet timeless appeal of Buick’s heyday models, the new LaCrosse comes up well short.
161 Comments on “Editorial: This Is Not Your Father’s Buick...”
Back to TopLeave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You can also login using Facebook Connect.
Looks to be yet another extremely desirable automobile from GM.
looks pretty good to me. certainly better than, say, a current gen camry, maybe even current accord (which i happen to drive) and others i could name. car styling is one of the most subjective things out there, and if you want to flame it that’s certainly your right, but a lot of what i’m reading here and elsewhere seems to be based on GM/buick-hating (which is, again, certainly your right). handling and quality remain to be seen, but i just don’t see a reason for so much hate directed towards this lacrosse before it’s even out of the gate. just in terms of styling, i’d take it over the camry, fusion, malibu, probably some others.
Young people will line up none deep for it. If they want plush cars they already know they can ge a superior plush car from Acura, Lexus and even Hyundai now.
Our grandparents will like it though and judging by the success of the Enclave in AZ’s various retirement communities, they will be the only ones buying it.
If GM really wants young people to buy a Buick then they’d best set about coming up with a Gran Sport, Grand National, GNX or Riviera that captures the style, performance and class that are part of the brand’s heritage (and not present in any of it’s current vehicles) and bring it into the 21st century.
Cool hopefully I can check it out in the spring at the NY auto show
If I didn’t feel like my kids have been forced into paying for two of these already, I might have bought one.
With all the positive that is being talked about with this car and deservedly so, this site finds something negative. What a bloody surprise. It doesn’t matter what GM does, you’ll find a reason to hate it. They could build a car that’s leaps and bounds ahead of the competition at half the price and you’d hate it. I used to hate GM to, when they built ugly, terrible cars. But I’m not so blind that I can’t change my opinion as GM’s cars get better and better. The fact that you can’t see that is quite sad.
I get sick of seeing “GM, Ford and Chrysler Deathwatch #whatever” day in and day out. Enough, we get it, you hate domestics.
But, you’re entitled to your opinion, and I’m entitled to not read it.
I’m done with this blog.
Bye.
Isn’t this designed by the Chinese arm of GM?
I’m 24, and I actually like Canadian Club. I don’t buy it myself, but when I visit my grandfather we’ll crack open a bottle of 10-year blend.
As for Buicks, I think they would have been much better off with something along the lines of the Acura “Advance” commercials. The ones narrated by the Boston Legal guy, something about “Advance generation to generation blah blah”.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ernHGtKzCyQ
The idea fits much better with the Buick brand, which actually has several generations, than with Acura, which been around for less than a single generation.
If this isn’t meant to appeal to the boomer generation and their parents, who is its target market? Are twenty and thirty somethings really looking for a floaty luxobarge? If this isn’t going to fill that description what makes it a Buick? If they are going to reinvent the brand how much more is it going to step on all of GM’s other brands toes?
GM constantly complains about the perception gap and how they’re still paying the price for 20 year old sins, so how is it exactly that they plan to attract an entirely new demographic to this geriatric brand with one new model? If anything Buick should embrace their roots and make vehicles that appeal exclusively to the elderly, who will continue to be a huge market.
The problem is NOT a lack of youthful styling or features. The problem is getting younger buyers to bet the farm on a manufacturer with a horrendous track record.
Back the car with a solid no-BS warranty, good service, and depreciation insurance (guarantee a minimum buy back price). Otherwise, all the “styling” in the world looks just like lipstick on a pig.
At least this is how this buyer views it.
I’m not a domestic fan in general, but I like Buick and would consider buying the right one (Hey, for full disclosure, I’m 53, so I’m in the demographic anyhow). Buick has according to the stats anyhow, good quality and good customer service.
I like the look of this Buick as well. Having said that, I’m not likely to trade my 3 series for one.
Now to my question. For those who say that Buick can’t see THIS car to younger buyers, what foreign car model could you rebadge as a Buick and get younger customers to come buy?
DavidM123 :
January 8th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
With all the positive that is being talked about with this car and deservedly so, this site finds something negative. What a bloody surprise. It doesn’t matter what GM does, you’ll find a reason to hate it. They could build a car that’s leaps and bounds ahead of the competition at half the price and you’d hate it. I used to hate GM to, when they built ugly, terrible cars. But I’m not so blind that I can’t change my opinion as GM’s cars get better and better. The fact that you can’t see that is quite sad.
I get sick of seeing “GM, Ford and Chrysler Deathwatch #whatever” day in and day out. Enough, we get it, you hate domestics.
But, you’re entitled to your opinion, and I’m entitled to not read it.
I’m done with this blog.
Bye.
You’ll be back.
I’d just like to say that the focus of the critique isn’t the car itself. My personal opinion is, other than the ugly chrome nugget on the trunklid connected to the overly large badge, it’s a great looking car. The problem is, Buick is going about it all wrong just the way they did with Oldsmobile. Buick stands for something, and instead of focusing on that they’re succumbing to the marketing idea that younger is better. What happened to older, established people with lots of money to spend? And why can’t anything be sold to them? They have all that money, they need to spend it on something… Toyota doesn’t target the Avalon at NYC clubbers. It still sells a few. Probably more to retail customers than with the current LaCrosse and Lucerne.
The point is, a strong brand is built on its strengths. Whatever they may be. Look at Hyundai. You can’t change that stuff overnight, and you can’t completely retarget a brand, especially one with a 100+ year history, in a single lineup changeover. GM’s marketing people are flunking this one up, not the product. And I think that’s the obvious point made by the editorial.
This is a good-looking car that could definitely lower the average customer’s age by 10 years or so, and the drivetrain technology is finally at par with its competitors, but… what’s with the weight gain?
Edmunds reports that the base car comes in at almost 4000 LBS! There goes all the potential zip from the 255 hp base engine. This car shouldn’t start any heavier than the current Lacrosse (~3500 lbs), but in the grand automotive tradition of late, it went ahead and porked up anyway.
Also, it may not be practically possible to reposition Buick successfully. GM has so many brands, all vying for a piece of the same pie. Cadillac was semi-successfully repositioned. Chevrolet’s position is set. Pontiac, even though it has a discernible distinction from the rest of the brood from a marketing standpoint, has had massive troubles being noticed, even with great product. The point simply boils down to: GM needs to cut brands. As it always does.
A semi-sporty, AWD midsize sedan with tech features could conceivably replace the Saturn Aura, or Pontiac G6, or Chevrolet Impala (better yet, just add a trim level above the Malibu LTZ and be done with it). A different car (RWD?) with identical pricing could be added to Cadillac’s range. A few more features, a $10 grand bump in price, and an ignition on the console puts it into a Saab showroom.
See what I just did? I proved that GM has too many brands. If a single, run-of-the-mill family sedan could, with $100 in changes, fit into any of your brands that sell cars, you have a branding problem.
The brand is too stigmatized for younger (under 60) people to buy. Besides, it doesn’t offer anything that can’t be found at Chevy or Cadillac. If you want premium, buy a Cadillac. If you want value, go to the Chevy dealer. I they need to have something to keep the Buick and Pontiac dealers alive, then go with the Opel Brand and strip away the GM logos.
GM needs to understand that it would be embarrassing for most people to buy a Buick. I can just imagine the “did it come with a case of depends” or “does it come with a special version of onstar that guides you to early bird specials” remarks from friends that would be inevitable.
“A Cadillac CTS-encroaching price tag of $26k to $33k”
I wish this were true. However, in my experience, the current CTS with reasonable options is well into the 40s.
If they sit on the lot for a year and are liquidated at 35% I’m sure a Youthful would gladly make the purchase.
I also don’t think the car looks that bad. It looks heavy from the photos, but it looks well equipped and far from horrendous. If it is based on the Cadillac it should drive pretty well too I would hope, look forward to some comparative reviews for that.
I agree that IF (big IF) Buick could be repositioned as old-school cool it might work. The problem with the Canadian Club analogy is that CC is the SAME drink. So if you see an old photo of the Rat Pack drinking it, you can get some of that mojo your self by drinking it (or so the idea goes.)
With Buick, they have to make NEW products that appeal to a younger crowd, but with the old label. Much tougher sell. Imagine if Canadian Club instead tried marketing CC Vanilla, CC Citron, CC Chocolate, etc. You get the point.
Now, if Buick actually MADE a brand-new ‘63 Riviera we’d have a whole new ball game!
Bye David!
Agreed KalapanaBlack…just as the Intrigue and Aurora were wonderful cars and well-recieved by the press. I don’t know whether it was the start of an SUV-crazed market, that they were GM products (and innovative products at that), or that it just wasn’t the sedan for the right target.
People in the 25-40 range (realistically those that may be able to afford it), whom want a $30k entry-luxury sedan want something with a cutting edge badge on the vehicle; Audi, Acura, Lexus, Infiniti, even Mazda or Nissan. Something that says we like a bit of luxury, with sporty pretensions and styling that says that, and also offer some techno-bits.
Buick was originally designed as the upper-mid market car and has been marketed that way since Sloan was in charge. You can’t change that overnight with one product. Is the LaCrosse going to represent the same demise as those two vehicles did for Olds?
The recent question about what makes a Caddy a Caddy…flash, room, smooth ride. Only vehicle that truly fullfills the mission of what Cadillac has always stood for: the Escalade (sadly). And that is why it sells well. Chevy offers cars to people that want something basic and reliable, and you don’t see many LTZ Cobalts and Malibus (heck, I hardly see any of them in the Pac NW). Pontiac and Buick offer nothing that really sets them apart in the market.
The LaCrosse will be another outstanding vehicle from GM, but the marketers and dealers won’t know how to sell it. Doesn’t matter what badge is on there. Maybe GM should have taken their idea of putting their logo on all GM products, but dump the excess or overlap and just call them GM. GM car, GM truck, GM SUV…in different sizes. Ehh, probably still have the same results.
This porker weighs 4000 lbs + so I doubt that it will be a canyon carver but it will probably drive no worse than an ES350 and will probably be aimed at the same demographic. However, GM should probably have invested that R&D money into producing one outstanding mid-size FWD sedan rather than having so much redundancy and overlap between Saturn, Chevy and Buick.
I don’t really understand why a brand that has strong appeal in a certain market segment would want to go out of its way to alienate them while chasing another market segment. Especially when it’s one of several brands at the same company, and the other brands are already better suited to target that segment. Why not keep Buick as a brand that targets older buyers who want a simple and comfortable car? At least you know you have customers that way.
hey c’mon, this car actually looks kind of slick. And If it’s competing with the Avalon and the ES line then the apparent combo of rear biased all wheel drive, direct injection engine and recently developed GM suspension should frankly blow them out of the water (along with more expensive cars). Let’s not forget, GM is getting very good at setting up sedans that handle (or at least that’s what I’ve seen in recent reviews), and that interior looks competitive.
I usually piss and moan about Toyota on this site, but my objection to the type of boring and poor handling cars they make was entirely informed by early experiences with oldmobiles and buicks. I hated those cars and by extension, the company as a whole. Still, I am more than willing to take my hat off to GM for, finally, getting the job done.
So, flame GM for mismanagement, but for christ’s sake leave the good product out of it.
If the target for this car would be a younger buyer who may not normally even glance at a Buick, then I think it really misses the mark.
Let’s say I’m a 40 yr old looking for a entry luxury car. I’m not a Brand snob, so I’m willing to look past M-B, BMW, and Lexus. I’ll look at the Genesis, Avalon, 300, and CTS. All of these cars, save for the 300, have considerably more style, substance, and appeal than this Buick.
So they’ve completely missed their target. The only way Buick could make anyone other than a 60 yr old look at their showroom would be to bring in a updated Gran National. A car with history and appeal for a younger buyer.
The base 3.0L engine only has 211 lb.-ft. of torque. That seems a bit low for the mid-level Buick, especially if GM doesn’t get the gearing right.
“A Cadillac CTS-encroaching price tag of $26k to $33k”
I wish this were true. However, in my experience, the current CTS with reasonable options is well into the 40s.
That’s what I was thinking. The CTS base price is about $36,000. It seems like the LaCrosse will be quite a bit less expensive…
I like the new LaCrosse. I’ll reserve full judgment until I see it in person and read more about it, but I could see owning it.
It’s a striking design, yes, but what’s with the chromed vents on the edge of the hood?
I once owned an 84 Skylark; and it wasn’t the best Buick ever produced. There were a lot of shortcuts taken: alignments always needed a hard to find part; the engine was a rat’s nest of vacuum hoses; in the space of one year, the shifter cable snapped, the A/C compressor failed, the torque converter stalled the engine when slowing (until I disconnected it), and the heater core sprung a leak; the entire front bench was one piece so if a short driver needed to pull forward to reach the pedals, woe to the long-legged passenger.
I now drive an 11-year old Infiniti that is as reliable as the Buick was unreliable. It will take a miracle for me to consider a Buick, or for that matter, a car produced by a near-bankrupt manufacturer, bailout or no.
Whats wrong with being the brand for prosperous older people? They have lots of money.
I’d like a brand that went for the older set. The only trick is to make sure you recruit the new old people, which is really a trick every brand has to pull off if they don’t want to go the way of slap bracelets.
DavidM123:
I for one think this is a damn sharp looking car. You’re always going to get the nay sayers and the “I would think about buying it, but…” people, especially here. Unfortunately that is what Buick (and GM in general) is up against, and like it or not they’ve earned it. If the can bring out more cars like this, but less models overall, and can survive the storm, they just might starting winning some people back. A bad rep takes a while to earn and it takes a while to shake.
If this car is BETTER than others in it’s class and price, it will sell. It’s got to have something to draw people in, as I didn’t see any lines at the Buick dealership the other day.
Hyundai used a warranty to get past the shitbox perception. It took a while and it’s worked. Their products are also much better.
Can GM do the same? So far, no.
I prefer old people’s cars – simple, large, and comfortable. If they have old school design and styling, then I’m all over it.
If Ford drops the Panther, and GM ruins Buick further, there is nothing left to buy. Detroit has already abandoned old school styling and design in the interest of mainstream blandness on 90% of their product, and now they are doing it with the final 10 percent.
The last real Buick was the Roadmaster.
With all the positive that is being talked about with this car and deservedly so, this site finds something negative. What a bloody surprise. It doesn’t matter what GM does, you’ll find a reason to hate it. They could build a car that’s leaps and bounds ahead of the competition at half the price and you’d hate it.
I didn’t read HATE of Buick or GM in Mr. Niedermeyer’s blog above. What I read was the stupidity of GM’s marketing and design departments.
GM is in trouble. Along with Mr. Niedermeyer I feel GM needs excitement. The new Buick seems to be a decent car but it certainly isn’t exciting like the introduction of the Citroen ID 19s and 21s were back about 1970.
GM’s marketing the Buick to 20 year olds seems to be really dumb. Why market a car to out of work 20 year olds when there is an enormous and growing population of older people like me who have good retirements (because we didn’t use credit cards or believe in 5 year financing schemes) and now want some comfort?
GM Buick should be marketing to those who might actually want their products.
Telling someone they are stupid is not the same as hating them:-)
The brand is too stigmatized for younger (under 60) people to buy.
I don’t think that’s really the problem. Young people aren’t avoiding Buick in the sense that they might avoid a Toyota Camry. They aren’t thinking about Buick at all.
Buick has no brand equity. None. Outside of repeat buyers who are old by consequence (they started buying Buicks forty years ago and they’ll keep doing it) there’s no new traffic into the stores. It’s similar to Lincoln’s problem, and to the problem that Saab, Acura and Volvo will have soon, if they’re not careful. There is no reason for new buyers to look at these cars. No Cadillac-ish avant-garde styling, no Lexus faultless quality, no Hyundai value, no VW image, no BMW dynamics. Nothing. Buick is actually worse-off than Lincoln if for no other reason than at least Lincoln isn’t being actively cannibalized by other Ford divisions.
I’m sure people will reply, saying how they’re interested, but they need to realize that they’re not the average buyer. The average public is going to skip right by this car, in it’s current price range. They might buy it discounted or used, but then they’re not buying a Buick, they’re buying a nice car on the cheap. That it’s a Buick will only occur to them if it breaks and they need warranty service. Otherwise, it’s a car.
Trying to retarget Buick is hopeless at this time. This should be a token refresh to keep the faithful from defecting (to Lincoln?). GM does not have the money to throw marketing muscle behind Buick, not when Chevy needs all the help it can get.
If you want to sell cars to young people, make Saturn a viable competitor to either VW/Mazda or Kia (pick one), price Saab lower, or fix Chevrolet. Young people want cheap, versatile, fun and reliable: check the median age of buyers of, say, the VW Jetta, Mazda 3, most Scions or the Kia Rondo. They do not want, and will not buy, a luxury sedan from an American marque at this time,
My comment came late…I see that this argument is about branding. My take…so long as they don’t make the suspension too stiff then all it represents is a better looking Buick with a luxury interior and a drivetrain that everyone can consider the new-hotness in it’s class. I haven’t seen them market it with nurburgring times or with drift videos so let’s just assume they’ll stick to the buick brand formula on marketing. In this case they’ve got a car that will win comparison tests and won’t leave owners feeling inadequate and defensive.
I buried this in my rambling post so I’ll ask again:
What foreign car model could you rebadge as a Buick and get younger customers to come buy?
Would a Buick TSX bring ‘em in? Could you sell the G35 Coupe as a Buick?
“I’d like a brand that went for the older set. The only trick is to make sure you recruit the new old people”
toxic: the only problem I see with this is that the new old people grew up with the last 35 years of Detroit garbage. And with so many of them having spent all that time in imports, it’s a really hard sell. Add to all that the fact that a lot of old people don’t like to be reminded they are old, especially by their car, every time they read the badge.
Lokki: The answer is NONE. The problem is not the car (many of the die-hard cynics here even agree it seems like a good car) it’s the BRAND.
Buick is a toxic brand, in the US anyway.
It means bad things to people who don’t already own and buy Buicks. The brand cannot pull buyers from other makes. I don’t think a Ferrari re-branded as a Buick would do the trick. Why would GM try another Caddy makeover – total-restyle, go racing with it, etc? They already have Caddilac. There’s no hope in making a brand targeted at old people because very few old people want to be branded as old!…
Buick’s burying their history and image in pursuit of sales. They need a younger set to replace the dying breed of old GM-loving grandpas.
They need to reinvent themselves. They can’t stay the same. If Cadillac were to stay true to its “branding” they’d be making V12 luxo-barges, but selling none of them. That’s why they’re making DI V6 CUVs based on Saturns.
Brand betrayal, yes. Shunning traditional customers to chase imaginary (which is to say non-existent) younger buyers, yes. LaCrosse does both of these.
But it’d certainly sell better than the “traditional” Buick. Either way, chasing younger buyers is kind of dumb. Taking a Scion and putting a Buick badge on it might draw in some young people, but it’d destroy a brand.
The LaCrosse isn’t that bad, I think. It’s just a mid-sized luxury car for cheap. Not too far off from Buick brand. And btw, I don’t think 26-33k is intruding on CTS pricing. They’re 36-40k typically equipped. :p
Lokki –
I agree. The new LaCrosse’s interior looks a lot like the current TSX’s, only better.
Acura:
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2009-acura-tsx-review/09tsx_detail_017jpg/
Buick:
http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/gallery/data/574/medium/lx9.jpg
I’m still not convinced it’s enough to entice younger buyers, but it looks like a good car. However unfair, it will take years of products like this before young people consider buying one.
“I’d like a brand that went for the older set. The only trick is to make sure you recruit the new old people, which is really a trick every brand has to pull off if they don’t want to go the way of slap bracelets.”
I’ve started to notice a trend where some of the older set are migrating to smaller cars. They like them because they’re easier to drive and maneuver. Not to mention better economy. The new “in” car for the older set seems to be the Corolla and there are a lot of older MINI drivers out there as well.
I’m 27. I won’t hate. It is a nice looking car. Still wouldn’t buy it though. That new Lincoln is nice looking, too. Wouldn’t buy that one either. There are just better cars out there for the same money. Period.
I skimmed the press release. I understand what’s under the skin, but it doesn’t blow up the skirt to be quite honest. Yeah, its going to be competent, but its not going to do anything to make me change my notions of the brand. That coupled with the Buick stigma gives me no cause to be interested. None.
Really. Why am I going buy this instead of an Infiniti, Acura, Lexus or, yes, Hyundai?
I mention Hyundai because they had the luck (or bad luck depending on your point of view) of having their C/D review posited maybe 3-4 pages ahead of the new Lincoln review, which made for an easy impromptu reader initiated comparo. And it did not look good for the Lincoln. Not at all.
Buick and Lincoln need a “killer app”. A halo. Something to get people really interested in the brand that would be emblematic for the rest of the line. I’m not saying they should make some sort of Buick “GT-R”. (Although, if they made a GNX to take the GT-R to task that would help. Please don’t mention Corvette. Even though they’re statistical competitors they really are two different kinds of car.) I’m talking about the Lexus LS. That is the Lexus halo. Those are the customers Buick and Lincoln should be after. When I’m older I wouldn’t mind owning something like that.
These two need a technological powerhouse…and this isn’t it. Or, at least, it doesn’t look that way.
_______________________
Buick stands for something, and instead of focusing on that they’re succumbing to the marketing idea that younger is better.
It’s not an idea. It’s the truth! How does Porsche do sooo well? Why are the majority of Scion buyers not of Scion’s intended demo? Young people don’t want to buy an old person’s car and old people don’t want to buy an old person’s car.
As an under 35 person I won’t be driving a Buick.
I would like to meet the “aspiring 20-30 year olds” who are going to spend BMW money (or any of their money) on a LaCrap.
Honest to god, the Toyota Corolla has more “Street cred” with 20-30 year olds then any Buick model. GM better stop wasting tax payer money trying remodel a brand into something it isn’t. I want a small car (with a chevy badge) that destroys the foreign competition in every single aspect.
I just got back from a week in Florida spent behind the wheel of a rented Lucerne. Let’s get the bad out of the way first: It was floaty with over-boosted steering and didn’t seem to track a perfectly straight line at highway speeds. But it had many very nice qualities. It seemed to be exceptionally-well screwed together. It was very comfortable and quiet. I could find nothing wrong with the car, down to the smallest detail. The 3.6 is a very nice motor for this application: smooth and quiet with adequate torque and horsepower. The Interior was very nicely done, functional and handsome with mostly correct ergonomics.
I kept saying to myself that if it could be had in a non-floaty, better-steering version that I could certainly see myself owning one.
For those who say that Buick has no brand identity, I would say that you haven’t been looking at the JD Power reports where Buick has been consistently near the very top of the ratings. They can really run with this, I think.
I will *definitely* check out the new LaCrosse with the sport packages as it seems to address my concerns about the Lucerne.
Disclaimer: I’m 53 and currently drive a first-gen CTS.
Oh yeah, I also play guitar and sing lead in a rock band and ride a sport-touring motorcycle. Old is not necessarily bad. And young is often ignorant.
“The problem is, Buick is going about it all wrong just the way they did with Oldsmobile. Buick stands for something, and instead of focusing on that they’re succumbing to the marketing idea that younger is better. What happened to older, established people with lots of money to spend? And why can’t anything be sold to them? They have all that money, they need to spend it on something… Toyota doesn’t target the Avalon at NYC clubbers.”
I don’t see how this new LaCrosse wouldn’t appeal to older, more established people. For all the noise being made about how it was designed by 20 or 30-somethings, its design appears to target the same demographic that the Avalon does – which is hardly a bad thing.
Fortunately, GM appears to at least have gotten a few things right on this car. The interior is a big advance over most of what the company had been offering a few years ago; as far as I’m concerned, it’s at least as good as the CTS/Malibu interiors, which is a solid achievement. What I’m not so crazy about is the exterior, which has a bloated/”hefty” appearance and an awfully high cowl.
Public notice: DaveM123 is in no way related to me.
Anyway I agree with the comments about Buick being a dead brand. Buick should be aiming for Audi and Acura – sporty luxury – at 80% of the price. Light, tossable. The Enclave I feel was a major move forward, but it’s too big and heavy for the targeted market.
A smaller, lighter sedan, a wagon version, and a lighter Enclave. That’s all they need. They will never approach the sales figures they enjoyed even 10-15 years ago.
Here’s my two cents. I’m 32, and I dig this car. Let me tell you why. A few weeks ago, my girlfriend came to own a Volvo 740 wagon, which (though gutless) is a smooth riding, dead reliable car with solid construction and bags of personality. As something of a sports car nut, I never imagined anything like this appealing to me. And yet, it does. Maybe it’s the way you sink down into the comfortable seat, or how the long wheelbase and soft suspension soaks up the road. Maybe it’s the fact that the car is so mechanically simple that I’m pretty sure I could fix anything on it in my driveway during a snow storm. I got to wondering why nobody else seems to make something like the 740 these days – a big, understated, comfortable car that’s not exactly cheap, but may be around and in decent running order for many decades. Modern Buicks are kind of similar, in that they are comfortable, and of decent quality. They tend to run forever. I don’t always buy into JD Powers, Consumer Reports, etc, but they all agree that Buicks tend to be pretty reliable cars. I’ve had friends that have owned aged Buicks growing up, and some of those had 200K on the clock. Add this solidity and laid back nature to a comely interior and exterior, and I could see myself with one, provided I get to keep the sports car for the weekend. I do appreciate decent handling and the like, but when stuck in traffic or driving to work barely awake in the mornings, a strong dose of comfort does matter. It takes a different perspective to see the appeal. And, if being 32 and owning a new Buick isn’t a statement about individuality, then what is?
The problem is NOT a lack of youthful styling or features. The problem is getting younger buyers to bet the farm on a manufacturer with a horrendous track record.
It seems somewhat contradictory to see the terms “younger buyers” and “track record” in the same sentence. Younger buyers are basing their decisions on 10 or 15 year old cars that their parents owned, not on any of their own experience. They certainly don’t have personal experience with decades of Detroit crap. They also have no experience with Japanese rust buckets in the 1970s and 1980s.
The negative consumer opinion about Buick or other American brands held by 25 year olds who throw out their old iPod when it’s too expensive to fix and replace it with a much cooler model that plays videos is, no doubt, based in reality.
I am not easily impressed and this car re-affirms that. The exterior looks dumpy, plain and ill-proportioned, the back end looks like a Lexus and the front is ok save for the weird location of the portholes where you can’t see them from the side. But that is the current fad, removing every conceivable piece of trim, cladding, molding etc from the sides of the vehicle for that oh so plain boring look. If it wasn’t for the exaggerated character line, I really would not know what I was looking at if the badge and grille was covered up. Exterior aside, the interior looks promising if you spring for the most expensive model. The base CX gray interior is very uninspired. Kudos for offering AWD finally but it is restricted to the mid level and base 3.0 liter V6 only. Speaking of V6’s the new Di engines have decent HP figures but the torque on the 3.0 liter is only 211 which is 19 short of the old 3800 V6 and gas mileage seems to have suffered yet again. The 3.0 is rated for 18/27 and the 3.6 is good for only 17/26 according to press coverage. You would think that with such a big displacement difference, DI, 6 speed automatic and a newer more aerodynamic design that Buick could have at least matched last years 3800 mileage of 18/28. Press coverage pegged the FWD CXS at 4016 lbs or in reality a 500 lb increase over a 2008 LaCrosse CXS. Now I haven’t seen all the specs for interior measurements or trunk space but this car is not much bigger in overall length than the current car. On the positive side, GM is finally getting serious about keeping competitive with other automakers with bluetooth, NAV screen option, USB ports, rear camaras and the like and i’m sure this thing rides with the typical Buick tomb like quietness. If only they could think outside the Lexus/BMW box and give us something modern but Buick looking at the same time. And hasn’t the whole “we are aiming at the younger audience” thing been done to death by the big 3. Kids will rarely ever drive bland Buick mid size sedans just as old people will seldom drive Subaru WRX’s. It’s just the way it is, deal with it. And I really find the whole negativity in todays youth with the 50 and 60 something generation amusing. Newsflash- old folks buy cars too and more than likely have a lot more $$$ than kids out of college.
Absolutely a dead brand. With so much competition in this segment, developing and nurturing a model for a brand that sells about 4 units per dealer per month is just a waste of money. Why not use those funds to keep improving and promoting an actual hit like the Malibu?
As for targeted audiences, manufacturers can do their best but the results are not always what you would expect. The Matrix and Element were early attempts to get those young folks, but they ended up being snatched by the middle aged and over crowd.
I might give Buick a shot if I saw someone like Tiger Woods behind the wheel……….
(I kid, I kid!)
“Buick should be aiming for Audi and Acura – sporty luxury – at 80% of the price. Light, tossable.”
I think you might be surprised at how both Audi and Acura define “Light, tossable” these days. They’re both porky, as is everything else these days. Again, we’re operating with perceptions formed over 15 years ago.