Croc

And I'm asking, "Why the hell not?" Why couldn't Buick sell a rebadged S-class at $40k? A 1986 Skylark Limited sold for today's equivalent of just a hair under 20k BASE. A 1988 T-type Electra based at today's equivalent of 30k. A 1988 Reatta would cost almost 45k in today's dollars. And with features/content going up every year, there's no doubt Buick could push past 40k on some models.

Slightly disagree. I think the CTS should base no lower than 40, preferably around 42.5...but all lesser-equipped trims than that should be dropped. In other words, same equipment per price, but knock out the lower models that don't do anything but cheapen the brand and its image. What does it say when your pretentious, upwardly-mobile acquaintance drives up in a brand new CTS, you get inside a Cadillac for the first time, and see how poorly-equipped it is? It certainly doesn't make you think "man, I REALLY want one of these."

Absolutely. If Alpha becomes a reality, I'd love to see both Pontiac and Cadillac vehicles on it. I'd price this entry-level Cadillac at 35k+, in current dollars, and that would be the base price. Most would sell equipped in the 40-45k range. As OC has said in many posts, most CTSs are equipped and priced around the 42-45k mark. IMO this should be the new base price for a CTS, 42.5k with current equipment levels and in 2008 dollars. The sub-40 models aren't nice enough IMO to wear the wreath and crest. "Oh, but he said Cadillac shouldn't be under 40k a few posts back! omg omg wtf liar..." Yea, with the current lineup. Add in a hypothetical vehicle that's smaller and ACTUALLY competes with a 3-series, then we have something else to talk about. I still maintain that every Cadillac should come standard with certain levels of amenities, so this hypothetical Alpha platform car should adhere to that, and with current levels of equipment and corresponding prices across the industry, I'd say 35k is a good base price, maybe 32.5k as an absolute stripper model. Again, Cadillac built its mythology on being the Standard of the World, of being the best, to such an extent that calling something a "Cadillac" meant it was the top of the line. As a result, I feel there should be a certain threshold to own one new. An "admission price" if you will. Cadillac is NOT a volume brand. It is well documented that their troubles arose in the late 1970s and early 1980s when they started chasing volume. It cheapened what a Cadillac is. And please note, that as much of an enthusiast as I am, I would rather Cadillac be successful, prestigious, and coveted than to be something I could ever afford to drive in the next decade. Cadillacs used to be the car one bought when one had "arrived," and Buick was more the mass-luxury, premium brand.

I think EVERYONE knows what a "Crown Vic" is...the ubiquitous cop car. Same with "Vette." Pretty much anything else though is just lame, and I will judge you for your lameness if you use non-standard nicknames for your car. Though I think I wouldn't give a second thought if someone said "little bitch" because I know 3 people who call their Cavalier that.

Wow! Great job on the pricing GM...maybe someone does read my posts occasionally...

I nominate this for best post of 2008.

Wow, I can see why you've gained a reputation for being a troll. This site isn't Fox News--by that I mean you don't "win" by talking over and repeating your claim in increasingly shrill pitches. On this site we debate ideas. So if you want to keep responding like clockwork to my posts, great, but if you don't start responding with anything of substance, it'll be a very quick trip to being ignored.

Sorry Paulie, but when he was honking the horn with his ass I immediately thought of a story you posted on here many years ago...

...and if GM grouped the sales channels such that similar brands were under the same sales channels, dealerships could be tightly focused AND be ensured volume. Right now, GM has Chevrolet, Saturn, SAAB, Cadillac, and the "catchall" of B-P-GMC. Let's try something that makes sense, plays to the divisions' strengths, and gets GM to stop competing with itself. I'm also going to keep every current division, even HUMMER. Chevrolet & Saturn Pontiac, SAAB & HUMMER Buick, Cadillac & GMC The logic: Chevrolet and Saturn are both family-oriented brands. If Saturn retains uplevel Opel models, it no longer needs entry vehicles and can essentially be a premium version of Chevrolet, car-wise. Think VW compared to Honda or Toyota. Same type of buyer, different income bracket. Pontiac SAAB and HUMMER would be the "enthusiast" grouping. Pontiac for raw performance, SAAB for refined euro performance, and HUMMER for offroad performance. Remember how HUMMER dealerships all got those offroad test courses? Add an inner ring and slalom for the Pontiac and SAAB prospectives to test the limits of those cars. Buick, Cadillac & GMC are the premium brands, or are at least marketed as such. Rescued from the Misfit Group, GMC no longer has to be a clone of Chevy and could essentially be the Denali trim levels of appointment. Higher profit margins than current. Buick gets to grow and actually BE premium, instead of just marketed as such. Buick used to be the American Jaguar, and now it can be this again, emphasizing luxury and comfort, while Cadillac tackles luxury and performance. Buick, Jaguar, AUDI and Lexus, versus Cadillac, Mercedes, BMW and Infiniti. Also, with these groupings, Chevrolet dealerships still get their volume, as well as some premium product so Chevrolet division isn't so bipolar since Chevrolet likes having one of everything. Pontiac SAAB and HUMMER get entries in nearly every product segment and price, so no pointless rebadges to placate dealerships needing/wanting more volume, and a unified focus on performance--all three brands are somewhat unified vs. the current B-P-GMC grouping. Buick Cadillac and GMC are all premium, so no more internal politics and competition. Cadillac and GMC are in the same dealership, so the competition that resulted in BOTH a GMC Denali and an Escalade never would have happened. GMC can have uplevel product, while the ultra premium product can be sold as a Denali trim, or under the Escalade lineup. But GM can pick and choose what works and resonates with consumers instead of mindlessly duplicating across the sales channels. Cadillac and Buick dealerships are the same, so both divisions can get product without the dealerships engaging in infighting and corporate sabotage. Win, win, win, win, win, win, win, f@#king win.

G's are on their way out, and they are also different size classes. They do not compete. That's the point. Move Buick upmarket so Cadillac can move upmarket. Right now Cadillac makes the wonderful CTS, but it's playing dual roles, trying to compete with the 5-series, by the specs, but with the 3-series on price because GM needs an entry lux car. Let Buick be entry lux...you know, like it used to be back in the Sloane days when the divisional structure functioned and they didn't compete with each other anywhere near the extent they do now. Also, as I have proposed in other previous threads, GM should structure their dealerships by division focus. Buick and Cadillac, both being luxury/near luxury marques, should be paired together. If Buick is to be remotely premium, why should those customers have to put up with the same type of service and volume-seller sales tactics at a Pontiac and GMC dealership use? It doesn't make sense. And then Cadillac dealers don't have a problem with a more premium Buick. Why should GM even build the Regal if it competes internally? Malibu and AURA...two cars at the same price range, same platform. GM doesn't need to compete with itself.

Progressives don't have a problem with Pelosi...the House has been doing their job thus far...it's more Harry Reid and the Senate that have produced criticism.

Because Pelosi is a Democrat, and D's never try to save a company and fat cat executives while screwing the wage-earners. That's the flip answer. The long one is that there would be no fast, clean bankruptcy, that so many people are tied to the Big 3 in the US that a bankruptcy would almost certainly send us into another Great Depression, if for nothing else than the domino effect on other auto companies. The union didn't design the Aztek, the union didn't choose to produce vehicles with substandard interiors, and the union didn't decide that using loose factory build tolerances would reduce costs even if $h! gets asembled with glaring misalignments. The union therefore should not pay the price for GM's poor foresight.

Even better would be to go "honey, you got a dribble on your cheek."

...Everyone plays off that phrase. It's getting so annoying now...

Yup. I think the state, if it chooses to pursue it, could have a real case against these parents for child abuse. I hope they rot in hell for what they're selfishly doing to those poor children.

Received mine the other day.

No, it is just you. GMC is virtually the only time GM has succeeded at "brand management" marketing; research shows that consumers, particularly women, perceive GMC as premium to Chevrolet, and that not as many people cross-shop the two brands as one might think. Because GMC required virtually no development costs, its sales are nearly pure profit. Just like when GM shuttered Oldsmobile, and buyers didn't flock to other GM divisions, GM would be crazy to shutter its pure profit divisison.

Bingo. If GM is serious anout Buick, they need to actually sell premium vehicles through it. As is, it's like they think Buicks are "premium" by virtue of the badge and that association hasn't held true since the mid-1970s.

What do you mean "cannot...nor should it be"? Buick has to move upmarket eventually. Buick has to give the other remaining brands some breathing room. You can't run a successful company with every brand save Cadillac competing almost entirely in the 15-35k price range. Buick is a luxury brand, and regardless of what happens to SAAB, Buick should duplicate its pricing model.

I give it until 2020 for "####" to be acceptable on primetime network TV.

I love pineapple, and I love Asian pears. Best pizza: CPK's pear & gorgonzola salad pizza

Thanks for clarifying what you meant by better leathers and more colors. Therefore, you have no problem with the interior. My point was getting people to admit that, in whatever way, they found some aspect of this interior lacking. Note the changes the others mentioned: too much gray/not enough two-tone, different woodgrain, better woodgrain, some satin nickel accents, fewer buttons, etc. Given that woodgrain was mentioned twice, as were interior colors, I'd say that is one area this needs improvement. By the way, here are my answers: No. Not today, and certainly not in 2011. Now? No more than 22k. In 2011, no more than 18k in today's dollars. $28k-$45k Camry, Accord, Azera, Jetta Genesis, TL, TSX, Passat, G sedan, ES330 Not at all. Buicks should be something to aspire to own, something with a profit margin. 2001 Oldsmobile Aurora 3.5, 2001 ML320

Let me clarify something. As-is means as-is. That means no extra two-tone, no added/different woodgrain, no different button layout, nothing. Look at the picture, and answer based on the picture please. The reason I'm saying this, is that every single one of you who said "yes" to the question, actually answered "no," with the possible exception of Oldsmoboi, who just said he wants to see more than one color and nicer leathers (than...what? I'm not sure). NOBODY has so far argued (except, again, maybe Oldsmoboi), that this interior, as is is something they are perfectly happy with. ...and yet this interior is still 3 years out. Just saying...

I have a few questions and I'd really appreciate brutal honesty on this: a) Do you think this interior, as-is, is acceptable for a new Regal? b) How much would you pay for a vehicle with this interior? c) In what price range should a new Regal be priced? d) What vehicles do you see the Regal competing with? e) What vehicles SHOULD the Regal compete with? f) Would it bother you if the Regal is out of your financial reach? g) What are your current household vehicles? I await your responses...I'll post mine in a little bit.

D) None of the above. "Great news, babe; I was just trying to figure out if I had time to catch up with ___ (insert name of ex) over some coffee. She's in a really rough place right now. ...Totally kidding, be there in 60." Humor does well to diffuse the stress of a situation.