buyacargetacheck

I wonder if GM made a mistake by lumping Buick in with Pontiac and GMC with its channel strategy instead of pairing it with Cadillac? I certainly understand GM's desire to make and keep Cadillac something special (and I understand the focus on Cadillac's renaissance at the time the channel decision was made), but it seems that Buick's solid entry-lux offerings (especially the ones coming like Enclave) would mesh nicely with Cadillac's more expensive offerings. Maybe there were far too many Buick dealers compared to Cadillac dealers to make it workable?

Nice looking ride, but I would have preferred a 2nd generation design base. The 1970 Camaro flat out made the 67-69 look positively old in comparison. I guess Chevy's looking to sell the new one to Boomers.

Camry and Accord don't offer six passenger seating. With the fold down rear seat, this is a great alternative to a guzzling SUV. Quiet and a good value too (especially if you keep cars more than a few years).

Much of what Buickman is recommending is dealer-oriented. And that's good because GM's greatest strength is probably its vast dealer body and distribution system. It's curious why GM management hasn't implemented at least some of the ideas? After all, one of the first things a marketer does when reevaluating a plan is SWOT analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats). Little of what GM does, it seems, is directed to improve the dealer experience. If GM can't be known for the absolute best vehicles, surely its dealers could gain that distinction as a whole? By the way, the lack of good "dealer experience" is a huge negative for Toyota (based on my own experience and Power surveys). Sounds like an opportunity to me Buickman.

Olds Guy, where is that building you're parked in front of that reads "Oldsmobile" at the top? I presume Lansing? Is the Oldsmobile name still there? The script looks very 1960s.

I wonder if "Global Epsilon" or "Zeta" will accomodate a column shifter and a front bench???

I'd like to see fewer guages. Tachometers are interesting to look at but completely useless in a car. No one I know including myself (and I drive a stick) uses a tach to shift. Cars are so reliable now that there's no reason other than looks to have anything but a digital speedometer and a fuel guage. Warning lights can handle the rest.

I'll hold off judging McCann's new effort until I've seen the commercials, but I'm skeptical. Buick has a great quality reputation and they should not hide that advantage. But "precision" is the price of entry in this world of meticulously screwed together $15000 Corollas. Has McCann, Buick, GM forgotten what sells??? Buick is about understated flash (sex) wrapped around quiet comfort. These people should remember the line "Wouldn't You Really Rather Have a Buick" and work backwards from there.

Well, I'll admit I haven't driven one let alone sat in one yet. But the concept and the pictures look pretty good. Especially the dressed up '06 versions. Does anyone here actually own a Malibu Maxx? I would like to hear your impressions.

This is a great idea. If the durability is good and it makes the car less expensive for the customer then great. What's not to like? GM used to do this with success with the "honeycomb" Pontiac wheels from the early to mid 1970s.

Good job Buick! It's a real differentiator to offer a soft, quiet ride with a claustrophobic-fighting column shifter and cloth bench front seat. Regarding the comment about the CX's smaller wheels and how much better the car looks with larger wheels and tires. First, the CX's wheels don't look "terrible." Next, forget how things "look" for second and think about how things "work." Those smaller wheels and tires will yield a better quieter ride and much longer lasting rubber (better economy and less hassle for the customer). Trust me, I've bought wheel/tire packages that looked great only to regret the decision several thousand miles down the road. Put down your Car and Drivel for a minute and think about it. By the way, this car looks terrific in charcoal gray. This car has real presence and demands a darker color for best effect (black and Ming Blue are great).

It's about time someone wrote an article like this. It's absolutely true that the various press have unthoughtfully placed at-the-limit handling ahead of ride comfort to the detriment of the buying public. The result is that, if one isn't careful, he could easily buy a car with the favored low profile tires and big wheels (because they look cool) with the "sport seats" and find himself relegated to 60 payments of hell on wheels. It's no wonder that the better selling "base" cars are most always the ones that ride better and that make better day-to-day companions. This goes for cars made anywhere in the world including the German make that I own.

I am having trouble remembering seeing the new commercials. They should have kept the "Sex Machine" spots showing all those pistons pumping and wheels turning. "Fuel for the Soul" was kinda lame though.

"Enclave" sucks. It may sound uppity to GM marketers, but it sounds "fearful" to me. Then again, "fearful" is exactly what many Americans are nowadays. What do you think big SUVs with women drivers, gated suburban communities, and a "back yard focus" to most new homes built today say at a subconscious level??? It says that we are partly a nation of hedonistic ninnies. So, the positive sounding "Rendezvous" is out, while the martial sounding (reminds me of the killing in Nagorno-Karabakh) "Enclave" is in. If GM was marketing sushi they would call it "cold dead fish." Anyway, at the least the car itself looks to be a winner. people will get past the name (especially the ninnies).

By the way, the "Malibu" name really fits the Maxx given how much beach stuff you can pack in. Hey, I should know because when I go to the beach, I usually go to one of the beaches in Malibu.

Is there a more perfect family vehicle than the Maxx? You get everything: power, fuel economy, quality fit and finish, and ROOM. I need something that will carry kid surfboards (70 inches) while getting excellent fuel economy year round. I'm deciding between a Toyota Matrix with a stick (i like to shift myself) or the Maxx (no stick, but a serene drive experience instead). I don't have the inside scoop on GM's Epsilon strategy. Maybe they aren't making money on this one division bodystyle? Maybe the product planning people don't know what they're doing? Seems like Chevy has done this before (the Nova hatchback didn't last, the Citation did better but not immediately carried through to the Corsica, then the Corsica hatch didn't last long).

This is all true. Although necessary in the short term, keeping plants open just to keep the losses from becoming even larger than they already are during the hottest sales years ever is not sustainable. This is especially true considering the level of debt that has been tapped just to keep people buying coupled with interest rates heading higher. It seems that yesterday's UAW agreement on health benefits will merely postpone GM's day of reckoning. They'll give it one more go with the new products on tap, and when that doesn't work, they'll find themselves necessarily in bankruptcy. That, thankfully, won't mean the end of GM. It'll mean the beginning of much better times where the company can finally get ahead of the curve.

As much as I like Buick, I wonder if it wouldn't make more sense, at least from a manufacturing and marketing cost standpoint, to phase out Buick and have Chevy offer a Caprice to go head to head with Avalon in the near-luxury big car market (what Buick has always been about). If GM could keep the dealers alive by just offering the Lucerne that would be an alternative. But I don't think it is. Right now, in this market where big near-luxury coupes don't sell well (a la Riviera), the Lucerne is the one car that defines what a Buick is. Unfortunately, it isn't enough. The same with Pontiac (a schizophrenic basketcase off and on since the 1950s). Don't get me wrong. They are mostly good Chevies. Nothing wrong with that. But the GTO (rebadge it as the Camaro - better than nothing) and Solstice (which could easily just as well make a great Chevy) are not enough to justify making expensive alterations to other platforms and then spending lots of money to promote them big at the start and then let them languish for the remaining lifecycle (Bonneville, Grand Prix, G6, many others). Saturn is mostly a failed experiment, and these new cars coming up will do well for while but not well enough to justify the franchise long-term. Saab is not worth another distribution channel for the Epsilon platform. Cadillac could start offering the BLS instead and sell many more times what the 9-3 could ever do. GMC could do well on it's own. It's so obvious to me that GM's distribution plan is being run on a mix of tradition, weak hope that old brands will reignite a fire, and the threat of massive legal hell from dealers whose livelihoods might have to be sacrificed. GM's best hope if it wants to thrive and maybe grow one day is to bite the bullet and start focusing on GM's STRONGEST BRANDS: Chevrolet and Cadillac exclusively.

Lutz's comment about Buick being a competitor to Lexus is not helpful to Buick. It's a mistake to even think that way. Firstly because GM has its hands full with Cadillac competing in that space and price point. There's no way GM will ever be able to take its Chevy platforms and legacy dealer organization and make a real competitor to Lexus. Secondly, why should Buick want to be Lexus? This mindset damages Buick's great heritage: Buick should just be what it has always been - beautifully styled, quiet, comfortable. Enough buyers will take that formula (no matter if it's RWD or FWD, V8 or V6 - Buick customers don't care). Buick buyers want American comfort, quiet, and styling at an un-German price. My concern is whether or not the LaCrosse will be able to keep its momentum another 3 or 4 years until Epsilon II. The lack of space in that W backseat is un-Buick.

I voted before reading the criteria. I based my answer on which brand has the most coherent image. So, I chose Buick. Just about anyone you ask will say Buick is an old persons car or they'll say it's elegant and comfortable depending on the age of the respondent. I'm not sure enough people know what a Saab is. Saturn used to be well-known for entry-level cars. Now, there's not much of any image (yet). Pontiac limped along for a long time on the back of the Trans Am (We Build Excitement) which everyone remembered from the movies and TV. The average joe probably doesn't think much of anything (rightly or wrongly) about Pontiac. Maybe that will change soon. Buick has the most solid image (even if the ad guys aren't thrilled with it).

ehaase, having the trucks, SUVs, crossovers and vans badged as "GMC" makes the most sense because GMC sells trucks (or truck-like vehicles) and it has the best image of all 3 nampleates within PBG. A GMC grill on the vans would look 100% better than what they've done with the Terraza. Expanding GMC will make $$$ for GM. And, I agree, Buick selling more luxurious Chevys is the right and probably only choice GM has right now. What's wrong with that? It's what GM has been doing for 50 years anyway to one degree or another. LaCrosse should move to the next Epsilon (good riddance to the excellent W with its lousy back seat) and Impala should share "G" (or Chi or whatever they're going to call it) with Lucerne and DTS. The difference (as it always has) lies with 3 things for Buick: styling, quiet, comfort.

As was shown with Oldsmobile and Plymouth, buyers won't automatically go to sister nameplates. So, closing down GMC (or Pontiac or Buick) will lower GM's overall sales, market share and profitability (in the case of GMC) and not keep it stable. There WOULD be a case for closing down a nameplate if it was consistently unprofitable. That may happen with Saturn if sales don't increase substantially after it gets a fully developed lineup.

The answer is that Pontiac/GMC/Buick dealers provide just that many more sales outlets to sell cars and trucks for GM. It's really just that simple. Even if Pontiacs were straight rebadges of Chevys with no differences, people would still buy them because of the miriad of reasons why they find good value at the local PGB dealer (better price, good service, the salesman knows his stuff, whatever). It's a matter of more distribution of production. Remember in 1984 and 1985, peak years for Olds and Buick, there wasn't much difference in how the cars drove, how they were priced, or how they were equipped. The difference was that Olds and Buick A, B, C, E, G, J and N-bodies were sold at (mostly) different dealers. This is an old practice that's been harder to keep up mainly because GM's offerings while not bad haven't been good enough to stem Toyota and Honda's onslaught.

Have we lost ninetyeightregency from Houston, TX or is he still around? Always enjoyed his enthusiasm.

The US should get the Pursuit. I know, I know. Pontiac isn't about economy, it's about performance. Hear me out. The problem is that the US and rest of world are about to enter a permanent geology-driven energy crisis that will make the political energy crises of 1973 and 1979 look like blips on the radar screens. Google "peak oil" for further explanation. Within a year, Pontiac/Buick/GMC dealers will be howling for a low-priced, high mileage sedan as buyers get more practical. SUV and V-8 sales (even with DOD) will stagnate. GM should be working on getting a 1.8L (or smaller) engine available for the Pursuit (and Cobalt) that will get at least 30mpg in the city. P/B/G dealers will be grateful to have such an offering much like Buick dealers were to have Opels to sell in 1974. Speaking of Buick, this energy crisis may be the catalyst that finally kills Buick. Buick has neither enough prestige to attract the truly wealthy buyers whose buying patterns will be least affected nor the economical choices for the rest of us still buying cars.