With the reliability of my 3800 Regal, I am concerned that it will still be running when I truly am a blue hair in 50 yrs...b/c I might still be driving it. Oh well, at least people will call it a relic by then.
Buick Lucerne vs VW Phaeton
- Thread starter G-MAN
- Start date
- Status
If GM keeps inproving, they'll probably nearly match Hyundai's quality in a few years. On a more serious note, I recently read in one of the auto rags that Porsche bought a 30% stake in VW. That's a serious infusion of money - is a takeover in progress?
C'mon!!! Everybody sing along with that old old advertising song!!!!
"Wouldn't you really rather have a Buick, a Buick, a Buick. Wouldn't you rather have a Buick...."
And a whole bunch of other lyrics to the song that my decrepit dysfunctional brain can not belch forth from the deep inner recesses behind the cobwebs.
"Wouldn't you really rather have a Buick, a Buick, a Buick. Wouldn't you rather have a Buick...."
And a whole bunch of other lyrics to the song that my decrepit dysfunctional brain can not belch forth from the deep inner recesses behind the cobwebs.
This may be of interest relating to this topic. What do American buyers really want? Cheap fuel and SUV's, from The Detroit News; http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060320/AUTO02/603200379/1121/AUTO
I would like to add this to the discussion on Buick. Anyone ever own or drive or owned a 1986-87 Grand National? I was ready to buy one, but didn't, too fast, too easy, no drivers license quick! Not an old mans car. I still have my Mother's 1976 Electra 225 with a 455V8, I was in my 20's, when she bought it. It's 30 years old been to the 4 corners of the USA with it. It's one of the best machines for durability and drivability in a normal everyday use, that I have owned! I would use it daily if I could afford and justify the fuel costs. Fuel cost about 50 Cents a gallon, back in 1976, here in MI. 30 years old and just over 100000 miles. Engine and trans never opened up for repairs, only maintenance. The cruise-control still works. Still drives smooth and is a powerful road car with all that usable torque from the 455V8. As pleasant to drive as my BMW 7 Series.
I better stop this, as I think this is was, not now or future...
I would like to add this to the discussion on Buick. Anyone ever own or drive or owned a 1986-87 Grand National? I was ready to buy one, but didn't, too fast, too easy, no drivers license quick! Not an old mans car. I still have my Mother's 1976 Electra 225 with a 455V8, I was in my 20's, when she bought it. It's 30 years old been to the 4 corners of the USA with it. It's one of the best machines for durability and drivability in a normal everyday use, that I have owned! I would use it daily if I could afford and justify the fuel costs. Fuel cost about 50 Cents a gallon, back in 1976, here in MI. 30 years old and just over 100000 miles. Engine and trans never opened up for repairs, only maintenance. The cruise-control still works. Still drives smooth and is a powerful road car with all that usable torque from the 455V8. As pleasant to drive as my BMW 7 Series.
I better stop this, as I think this is was, not now or future...
I may not have been very serious when I posted the above, but I found an interesting bit of news at the Kelly Blue Book site:
KBB
"Buick's pages saw the largest percentage increase in visits of all the makes during February, driven by a large increase in searches for its new sedan, the Lucerne."
At the least, we should give GM credit for making a strong effort to transform Buick into a more appealing product for mainstream buyers. KBB's news seems to indicate some success in that effort.
I would never buy a $75k VW.
I am obviously not the only one who feels this way.
I would, however, consider a $75k Phaeton.
(GMan II)
That Microbus design would sell like crazy in my neighborhood.
The Lucerne is a nice looking car. I saw a brand new one driving down the road the other day with 22" wheels, the front seats nearly fully reclined, and the driver did NOT have blue hair.
If GM markets it as a "Bling" car with power, for a reasonable price. It will have plenty of buyers.
I am obviously not the only one who feels this way.
I would, however, consider a $75k Phaeton.
That Microbus design would sell like crazy in my neighborhood.
The Lucerne is a nice looking car. I saw a brand new one driving down the road the other day with 22" wheels, the front seats nearly fully reclined, and the driver did NOT have blue hair.
If GM markets it as a "Bling" car with power, for a reasonable price. It will have plenty of buyers.
Mustang_Cougar,
My only real gripe with the Crown Vic/Marquis is styling. I grew up in the '60s, and the Galaxie 500s and XLs (the coupe, I think) were dynamite-looking cars, as was the original LTD. I like formal rooflines and a little crisper edge to the sheet metal, is all. That, and an auto shift lever on the floor, instead of the steering column. Though I've actually seen an MM or CV with the floor console setup, so they must exist.
Believe me, I've thought about going that route. I'll bet I could strike a pretty good deal. And if you've ever driven in New Orleans or Louisiana in general, you know that "complete and utter detachment" -- read: deliverance from crashing and banging your way over the Third-World-quality roads here -- would be a very good thing!
The Lucerne might be intended for 70-mph cruising, but it doesn't *have* to be driven that way. . . .
-- Paul W.
My only real gripe with the Crown Vic/Marquis is styling. I grew up in the '60s, and the Galaxie 500s and XLs (the coupe, I think) were dynamite-looking cars, as was the original LTD. I like formal rooflines and a little crisper edge to the sheet metal, is all. That, and an auto shift lever on the floor, instead of the steering column. Though I've actually seen an MM or CV with the floor console setup, so they must exist.
Believe me, I've thought about going that route. I'll bet I could strike a pretty good deal. And if you've ever driven in New Orleans or Louisiana in general, you know that "complete and utter detachment" -- read: deliverance from crashing and banging your way over the Third-World-quality roads here -- would be a very good thing!
The Lucerne might be intended for 70-mph cruising, but it doesn't *have* to be driven that way. . . .
-- Paul W.
"If GM markets it as a "Bling" car with power, for a reasonable price. It will have plenty of buyers."
Cadillac is GM's "bling division." Changing the marketing demographic will suck sales from them and drive even more traditional Buick buyers to Chrysler (see the 300M).
Put it out to pasture already.
Cadillac is GM's "bling division." Changing the marketing demographic will suck sales from them and drive even more traditional Buick buyers to Chrysler (see the 300M).
Put it out to pasture already.
Yes, Caddy is tops for bling. However, that does not eliminate a market for someone that wants some bling but cant afford the caddy. The old "GM Way". Caddy, Olds, Buick, Chevy.
I remember shopping with my parents when they bought a '77 Olds 98. The Chevy was truly spartan, the Buick was pretty nice, the Olds had nice "fluffy" seat cushions and more fake wood on the dash to make it look more spiffy, the Caddy was all leather and truly plush. There was a clear identity to each brand back then. We did not look at the Pontiac(Parents were not into the "sporty" thing)
If they brand the Buick as a step down from Caddy, there still could be a market that does not draw too many away from Caddy.
I kinda like the new Lacrosse and Lucerne. Wife wants a Caddy CTS next time when she trades the gas hog (Durango) in next year or so. Actually I like the Buick better esp. the price.
Oops, my mistake. I meant the new 300, not that Eagle Vision/LHS/Whatever.
But, if the implication is that the 300 is not popular with the bluehairs, then I beg to differ. In my part of Pennsylslovakia, driving on Sunday mornings consists of dodging more than a few of these soulless, silver slabs on their way to breakfast or church.
BTW: It's still fashionable to affix a crooked "AAA" sticker on the bumper; It's my confirmation of the owner's demographic.
[ March 22, 2006, 08:08 PM: Message edited by: Mustang_Cougar ]
But, if the implication is that the 300 is not popular with the bluehairs, then I beg to differ. In my part of Pennsylslovakia, driving on Sunday mornings consists of dodging more than a few of these soulless, silver slabs on their way to breakfast or church.
BTW: It's still fashionable to affix a crooked "AAA" sticker on the bumper; It's my confirmation of the owner's demographic.
[ March 22, 2006, 08:08 PM: Message edited by: Mustang_Cougar ]
I think you guys are confusing the previous LH platform 300M (last sold in 2004) with the current boxy LX platform 300s (introduced mid 2004 as a 2005 model). There is nothing "slab" about the 300M. It's one of the sleekest designs any American car company has ever put out.
And as a member of the national 300M club I can tell you there are very few "blue hair" members. Now the Concorde and LHS (which were also LH platform cars) are more in keeping with Buick demographics. But not the 300M.
Here's the 300M:
Here's the RWD LX platform 300:
And as a member of the national 300M club I can tell you there are very few "blue hair" members. Now the Concorde and LHS (which were also LH platform cars) are more in keeping with Buick demographics. But not the 300M.
Here's the 300M:
Here's the RWD LX platform 300:
G-Man,
Yes, I was talking about the new LX ("Bentleyesque?") platform. But again, you're correct about the LHS/Concorde too.
Yes, I was talking about the new LX ("Bentleyesque?") platform. But again, you're correct about the LHS/Concorde too.
Buick has been advertising the Lucerne during Mythbusters.
Based on that, I think they are trying to attract younger buyers. (I think Mythbusters is primarily watched by people under, say, 35).
Based on that, I think they are trying to attract younger buyers. (I think Mythbusters is primarily watched by people under, say, 35).
- Status
Similar threads
