enzl

I'm not sure if they're selling or the inventory is being fleshed out with the production figures quoted.... I can tell you my place is selling them quickly, but demand hasn't been overwhelming. I don't know if there's a natural market for more than 100k/yr. Also, while I am not this vehicles biggest fan, I propose a reason for the success so far: people who thought the PT was a great idea but couldn't stomach buying a Chrysler product?

This IS the TT, with an experimental roof treatment to test the waters for a Cayman/SLT 3 door/Z4 coupe competitor.... Image the current roofline with a gentler curve and you've got the next TT

As a new, modern take on the 'Thing'. (maybe a 4 dr. Yeti?) I can see this concept with 4 drs and VW design cues (Beetlesque or 1st Gen Golf) as a perfect entry level vehicle that would be considered a bargain at 22k...where else would you find a practical machine that is also a 'vert. Can anyone chop this???

I did notice you earned your revenue from GM when I did post but it does not change the fact that when most people say anything about Buick the first thing they have to say is always negative, always ignoring anything positive. I'm only spirited in my defense because the LaCrosse isn't a bad car, but you're right- it doesn't lead in anything. We do agree for the most part, but from what the Regal was to what the LaCrosse is to what the LaCrosse replacement should be I have no problem with the LaCrosse how it is now so long as they get a little more... interesting with the next version of the LaCrosse. Buick was heavily damaged in the last decade with the lack of care GM gave it... and the LaCrosse and Lucerne is no $3 billion worth of Buick product (what ever happened to that) but its the first time Buick has been able to lift up from the slow downward spiral they were taking. Giving the LaCrosse a million different options and types and extroverted chancy styling could've killed Buick-- like Oldsmobile. For what Buick is climbing out of it will be a slow journey because GM needs to recognize this company they've let alone and forgotten about for so long needs attention too. The LaCrosse was the first real step towards that and I'm proud of what Buick could do with it. It's important to know that even though the LaCrosse doesnt lead in class in any particular thing, it has more than most every other car out there at the same time. The conservative styling and lack of excitement are its only real downpoints. [post="11917"][/post] [/quote] If it makes you feel any better, I/ve got plenty of negative things to say about a bunch of products out there...Buick does tend to get picked on, but it is the victim of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. If Hyundai can become synonymous with thrifty quality in a matter of 5 years (ever sat in/driven a 2000 or earlier product of theirs? Avoid if possible.), I'm pretty sure Buick can get her mojo back.

Enzl- I don't drink GM kool-aid and if GM cuts Buick I will never by a GM again. That's a fact. I believe in my Buicks and trust in my Buicks and its a shame anytime GM needs to interfere with their quality, build, and style to save cash- because thats all GM is there to do is save cash. If you notice I almost post on no other GM thread. It's not that I don't like some GM vehicles outside of Buick- I do... but I also like other vehicles outside of GM- I've been impressed with Chryslers styling lately with the 300, Crossfire, and even the Pacifica, I also am a big fan of Nissan's styling with all their vehicles. But as you can read above our Buicks have been trustworthy, and they are unique vehicles that hit a part of the market I like. They're classy and they're not a dime-a-dozen. You can always expect quality with every Buick (aside from perhaps some of the late 80s/early 90s low end models such as the Skylark). I'm a Buick fan through and through for their quality, unique unabandoned history, and afforadability. GM can fuck themselves every time they deny Buick styling and power freedom. I'm sorry your best defense for the Accords interior is because it feels and looks more "right" but if you're basically telling me your opinion weighs more than mine you can stop drinking your high-horse kool-aid because that is getting to your head. Don't give me anything about bringing up the Accord being a "moot point," he compared the 2 in the first place, I just took it farther. And I agree Buick needs to innovate, not imitate- Buick was best at that in the past... but with the chokehold GM is putting on Buick right now making sure it's not too sporty for Pontiac, and doesn't cross into Saturn's new position taking over Oldsmobile, and giving Chevys as much options as Buicks, and making sure Buick doesn't compete in luxury or power with Cadillac leaves them in a pretty tight place. Buick should be allowed to show up any of those companies if they can't stay ahead, and Buick used to be allowed to if they so desired. Today it's all about not stepping on anyone elses toes under the GM umbrella... only it seems that nobody seems to care if the rest step on Buick's toes. [post="11646"][/post] [/quote] First, I wholeheartedly agree that you are entitled to your opinion...that's what makes this board fun...however, I was not taking the Accord's 'side' (in fact, if you read my post carefully for ALL of its content, you would notice that I work for a co. that sells GM product!) Now that that's out of the way...it seems we basically agree. Buick's product is not what is should or could be. I concede that many of the improvements have made the LaCrosse a vastly better car than its predecessor. I don't speak as a hater. I've been a car nut my whole life, I've owned or lived with 100's of vehicles, most used and from every manufacturer. I get a different car every 2 weeks from work, so I've literally seen it all. GM, Ford, Nissan, Chrysler, Hyundai and many others have some products that are sub-par: fit and finish, mechanical issues at low mileage, poor design and function, etc... The LaCrosse is better than average in many areas: reliability (if past experience is a guide), good ride (if you're not pushing the car) and decent workmanship. But it leads its class in zero categories and is not roomy for its size (as an old architecture, it needs more room for tech, safety and structure to meet or exceed new standards), nor is the Taurus meets Sonata (old) meets Jag design fresh or interesting (although it is unoffensive). Again, while your spirited defense of Buick is well intended (and respected on my part) it fails to acknowlege that the competition has moved on. The game is competitive and GM is just not getting it done. They wasted Billions on side projects and foreign jobs...it should have gone to a Buick equivalent of the Sigma architecture of Caddy or any one of a number of projects that would pull GM ahead of the pack instead of following the leader.

Couple of comments: 1. Stop drinking the GM kool-aid. It's affecting your judgement. If you've ever been inside an Accord, its just a simple,,logical fact that the look, feel and design of the basics are more 'right' than the Buick LaCrosse. If you want to state that the Buick is a huge leap from where GM was before, I'd buy that. If you simply analyzed it from the perspective of the average buyer, comparing vehicles based on MSRP (as most consumers do), you will find that your LaCrosse ends up being compared with vehicles in a different class than the Accord anyway, so, even if you're right about the relative merit of the interior and exterior fit, finish and design, it ends up being a moot point. My livelihood depends upon GM producing decent products (although, to be honest, we sell other makes as well, though not in the same volume) and they are still not there...maybe the next generation, but as of right now, its just not there. I know this is something the other posters get upset about, but, unfortunately, its true. Vast improvements over their predecessors, absolutely. First rate and world class...no. That crown has been taken by others, so its time to buckle down, see the reality of a tough marketplace and be creative and bold. Rehashes of yesterday's product, no matter how good, are still behind the curve. Buick needs to innovate, not imitate, and a cut-rate Lexus won't do! It's just not going to work, regardless of the apologists who stick their heads in the sand.

While you're 100% correct, there's nothing that would prevent Jeep from explointing all of DCX's resources to get Diesels, hybrids and 6/7 speed trannys, so performance and economy are not mutually exclusive. I think too many people on this board are stuck in the mindset of a different era...DCX, GM & Ford are facing a host of problems and, unlike other timeperiods, they do not have the bottomless well of resources to correct all of them. Would a new Camaro, an exclusively trail-rated Jeep line-up or a world-class Lincoln be awesome? Absolutely... ...However, the reality is that GM didn't think enough of the Camaro to continue it. (& they contractually obligated themselves to building it in Canada or not at all)...The Jeep Liberty is a 4000lb. compact truck due to safety regs and the burden of being 'trail rated' and Lincoln's future was mortgaged to save and then resave Jaguar, LR and AM...hindsight being 20/20, its easy to criticize all of these moves, but here we are. If a soft-roader Jeep really bothers you that much, you're just not a real car nut...if these co's don't survive, our choices get narrowed and you'll all be driving Toyota's next snooze mobile...so lighten up on DCX.

Aren't they doing exactly what you suggest??? I've heard the Gladiator, in some form, has been greenlighted...and I'll assume that non-SRT versions of the Patriot and Compass will have some off-road ability. I don't think having a couple of soft roaders will hurt...didn't the same argument about dilution of brand get BMW into bed with Rover (and look what that got them)...even Porsche has an SUV now and is developing a sedan! I agree with your feelings about Ferrari, but I don't think Jeep has the same stellar image as an SUV maker that Ferrari has as a performance brand-apples to oranges. Jeep will never be a full line-up...sedans and coupes and economy cars will never be in a Jeep showroom (unless its pared with Chrysler or Dodge, of course!)

Isn't the whole idea of these vehicles to expand Jeep's market reach? I'm assuming that even those who do not believe these are 'true' Jeeps may have a need for a different type of vehicle in everyday use. Why not keep them at the local Jeep store while they're at it? I have a feeling alot of Jeeps have been traded in down at the local japanese import store on an RX300, a Murano, a Highlander, Tribute, whatever...why shouldn't Jeep have a shot at these people too?

I'm of the opinion that the new Suzuki Swift being sold in Europe would make a great entry-level Suzuki product, plus it would build on Suzuki's motorcycyle performance image as a cut-rate Mini... Anyone know the plan? I'd rather see these here than the Daewoo's now in showrooms.

Nail on the head.

It's not a Theta, rather a mesh of off the shelf and unique components...my guess is that GM rationalized the cost by planning other versions for build in 3rd World Markets.

On what basis can you make this claim? GM is, according to this very Board, struggling to patch together a RWD program for volume vehicles, so how is this logically consistent? Also, consider that the Charger is getting up to speed, competes on many showroom floors with the 300 and the Employee Discount did not apply to these vehicles at all.

100% accurate. New FWD premium was one of GM's 'gifts' to Fiat b4 the breakup... was going to be new 9-5 and an Opel/Vauxhall or two as well...

The Corolla comes in many different flavors throughout the world...the Euro Corolla is not the same as the US model... interiors are better in Europe, but not in the models sold in the 3rd world.... I'll take the bait anyway: If the economies of scale are the excuse, than its still an excuse. Ex. GM recently woke up and realized its global epsilon architecture didn't lend itself to having multiple lines built in the same plant! Think about it. The Saab 9-3 'vert and the Pontiac G6 'vert couldn't use the same structure, which required a reengineering of the chassis, which delayed this desperately needed product even further. That's not economies of scale, that's just plain stupid. Back to the topic: Again, GM hasn't attempted to sell the Delta elsewhere...instead it overpaid dramatically for Suzuki shares and Isuzu shares. It purchased Daewoo and is paying the same 3rd world wages Kia pays to S. Koreans, not Americans! What has the Daewoo tie-up benefitted any of GM's US employees...Zero. In fact, it makes it more likely that they'll lose their jobs! The next Theta is designed in Korea (BTW-engineering jobs =good$). The current Theta uses a CHINESE motor. These savings have clearly not been passed on to the US consumer and, clearly, have not been spent on interior pieces for the Cobalt. If you take the $ GM has flushed down the toilet on its acquisitions of non-automotive co.'s, plus: Saab (which has now lost $ the last 19/20 years), Isuzu, Suzuki, the Fiat fiasco ($4Billion and counting) and the fleecing they got the last time they negotiated Union contracts, you's have EXACTLY the amount of $ to improve the interior of Cobalt, build EVERY proposed Zeta model and, to top it off, you might have built a world-class Delta that could be sold everywhere! While the interior of the Cobalt is low on the scale of GM's problems, it is a emblematic of the greater issues facing the company. So, let Toyota build the same product everywhere...the bottom line is, it shouldn't matter because GM should be making better products! (And, economies of scale would explain Toyota selling the Corolla for less than the Cobalt, but I guarantee the average transaction price for the Corolla is higher than the Cobalt, probably by $1,000 or more!)

[quote name='BrewSwillis' date='Aug 26 2005, 01:51 PM'] The reason that these small, inexpensive, Asian cars have nicer interiors, is becasue they are premium midsze vehicles in their country of origin. When you make a ton of these things in a country with crowded streets, this size vehicle becomes a premium vehicle in that country, and therefore requires a premium interior. Well, they can send a few to the US as a cheap small car, and people in the US are happy to buy anything that's the cheapest they can get.....even if it is produced with 3rd world labor. So therefore, the Asian subcompact has a very large volume of global sales, and GM has to deal with their low volume US sales, and maybe some Chinese sales. You can't really plan a very nice interior for a car with low volumes (comparatively speaking to global sales of Asian subcompacts), and still keep the price anywhere near what a 3rd world produced car is going to cost. It might be different if Japan, Korea, India, etc were buying Cobalts, but they wouldn't even think of it......and their governments probably wouldn't allow it. How do you expect GM to put a nice (directly translate to : expensive) interior in car, and have it compete with a car that's built with 3rd world labor, and has a ton more global sales? Except, GM markets the Delta everywhere...as a Vauxhall/Opel in Europe, a Cobalt/Pursuit/Ion in NA...so I would expect the volume of those models equals or exceeds Kia's volume on any car it makes! Why should it matter where it's sold? Wouldn't 3rd world buyers be LESS picky about interior bits and pieces, if your reasoning is accurate. Small cars can & should have decent interiors, period. If Honda can build the Civic in the states and Toyota can build the Corolla with US labor, why can't GM do the same. It just defies logic to apply different standards. Also, GMDAT sells lots of cars to all of the places you mention above (other than Japan, but that's what the investments in Suzuki, Isuzu and Subaru were supposed to provide)...I believe that the Daewoo investment is paying off handsomely for GM. That's why Delta isn't seen in those countries. You're rehashing excuses, not giving solid reasons. (Yes, I know, its a GM forum, so facts never get in the way of a good argument.)