Please, no Geezer jokes. Let's discuss this objectively.

Much has recently been written in the auto press, J.D. Power, GM's own advertising, and, to a lesser extent, Consumer Reports, about the supposed quality and reliability of recent Buick models. J.D. Power recently had Buick, as a brand, essentially tied with Lexus, or perhaps even one notch above. Consumer Reports was not quite so stellar in its present ratings, but still placed the new LaCrosse and Lucerne both above average in reliability (the now-discontinued Century/Regal was well above average, essentially in Honda and Toyota territory). The Enclave is too new to have any meaningful reliability data yet (we might have an inkling by April). The Average-reliability Rondevous and Below-average Rainier were both discontinued this year to make room for the Enclave, and the dated and Well-Below-Average Terraza lingers in production but is clearly on the way out.


So, that leaves the Lucerne and Lacrosse as the new bread-and-butter vehicles, with AWD and SUV/Minivan buyers gravitating to the Enclave. The Lucerne and LaCrosse, as I mentioned (and the Century/Regal, too), have good reliablity ratings.....on paper. But...are they REALLY that good? Or is it just a case of another mee-too GM division getting an artificially high rating?

There is a reason why I bring this question up. More and more people are looking for a reason to "Buy American" these days, even though we all know that the whole car industry is global, and buying domestically does not mean what it once did, decades ago. Most of you who have followed my posts know that I have a pretty high opinion of how Consumer Reports does their reliability charts......somewhat less of an opinion for J.D. Power....and an even lower opinion of the general auto press. So I'm not going to criticize either Consumer Reports or J.D. Power for the rankings they came up with. I'm sure both companies looked at the questionnaires they sent out, evaluated them the best they could, and published the data as it turned out.

But, you have to ask......how accurate was the data that was actually put down on those mail-out forms, by actual Buick owners themselves? In my opening statement, I asked to refrain from Geezer jokes, but, like it or not (and "image" or not), even though there is no reason why younger people can't drive Buicks (I had two of them as a teen-ager) , it is an established fact that, in actual sales, it is primarily a brand for older persons.
And many of these older people, with all due respect to their lives and what they have accomplished for society over the years, simply do not have the eyesight, hearing, senses, feel, and automotive skills that they once did (I'm trying to keep mine, in my 50's, as long as possible ). So my point is that they simply may not recognize when their car has a problem, is not running properly, shimmies in the steering wheel or brakes from runout or balance problems, makes strange noises under the hood, rattles, etc..... So those problems may actually BE there in those cars and are just not getting put down on the CR and J.D. Power questionnaires because the sense-dulled people who are driving these cars simply don't recognize them. This, of course, COULD (?) give the cars an artificially good reliability record that is higher than what they deserve.

I myself have carefully reviewed and driven some new Buicks, and while they are are somewhat flashier-looking inside and quieter-running than some other GM products, and while the Lacrosse has some good trim work on the dash, by and large, they don't seem to be made of any better materials than much of the rest of the GM lineup, or assembled any more solidly (the superb new Cadillac CTS may be an exception). Even the flashy and ornate new Enclave (with a few improvements, of course) is essentially the same GM plastic with a somewhat better-looking surface coat on it than before.

What is your take on this? I don't expect there to be many Buick owners in CL, but for those of you who do own Buicks, how do you feel about this, and what has your experience been with your vehicles?

I'm not saying I'm right. Perhaps there cars ARE now reliable. But I have, in general, not been any more impresed with them than I have with any other newer GM products. The only new GM product that has really impressed me is the new Cadillac CTS....and that, like the Enclave, is too new for any reliability data. And it also does not address the reason why the Cadillac DeVille/DTS, which is also driven by an older-than-average crowd, had subpar reliability ratings for many years.

 

Aside from the new Enclave, Buick still suffers from perceive quality issues - even though they make reliable cars, that, per the numbers, don't have very many issues - they just don't give the perception of high quality when you drive them, like a Lexus does.

Perceived quality and reliability are two very different things. Example being Audi - great perceived quality, but really bad reliability. Buick is the opposite. Lexus, on the other hand, seems to have both factors nailed down.

I do believe that Buicks are as reliable, on average, and Lexus models. And on top of that they're also considerably less expensive to maintain and fix when necessary.


I know you're a big fan of consumer reports, but I've always put more stock in JD Power's numbers if for nothing else due to the fact that they don't just poll their own subscribers. When you exclusively poll a group of people who subscribes to your own publication, you are bound to have the majority of your respondents agree with your currently published results. It takes too long for real world changes in quality to be reflected in their results. And the very fact that they recently admitted that they were giving certain vehicles a "recommended" rating strictly due to their history and not due to any measure of quality of the current vehicle, is proof enough that CR's polling self-polling methods are too closed off to the real world around them.

 

Buicks are less expensive to repair and maintain; that is true. But the main question is: are they really as reliable as they are made out to be in the press, or is it just a factor of their many aged owners not recognizing problems when they do exist? I have noticed this with many older drivers.
(not trying to joke about older people....just noting a pattern, that's all).

CR usually notes when a model is all-new or extensively redesigned; when that happens, they usually (not always) refrain from giving a reliability forecast........but sometimes, when a vehicle has been extremely reliable or unreliable for many years, like the Honda Civic or Land Rover, they will go ahead and give a forecast anyway for an all new or extensively redesigned model. Apparantly CR feels that the chances of there being major reliability changes in just a year or two is pretty low....and usually they are right.

But abberations DO happen....such as with 1999-2003 Acura TL's and the well-publicized transmission issues. They were a temporary dip in Acura's generally superb reliability ratings.....one of the industry's best.

 

I'm not sure how to discount CR's ratings--they are quantitative. I have filled out the survey myself. It asks, category by category, whether you have had a repair for that items.

On the other hand, I do not know what the JD Power survey asks. The JD Power "Initial Quality" survey gets a lot of press--BFD. Even the worst cars should not have problems in the first year of life. The JD Power survey I'm most curious about is the "Satisfaction" survey. I'm of the belief that the "typical" Buick buyer is more easily "satisfied" than the buyer of a Lexus, BMW, Benz, Audi, etc. I'm envisioning someone who has been buying American for years--and if American cars are better built than ever, wouldn't the Buick buyer be more satisfied? It would be great if there was a poll that measure the satisfaction of Buick owners that came out of a Lexus.

 

Well..

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the average Lexus owner over the age of 50? That would put Lexus in the same boat as Buick to be honest. I know that here on these boards we have a minority of young people running around in expensive cars. We being enthusiasts tend to be more aware of our vehicles.

I totally agree that Buick definately caters to the older crowd but so does Lexus. With the Buick Enclave I think they have hit it right on the head, and a younger crowd.. I'd say late mid to late 30s are going to take notice. The majority of people I see buying and or driving these cars tend to be in that age group. But like you suggest I suppose we'll have to wait and see after a few years since these are newer models.

Honestly, before I owned a Lexus I always thought they got such high rankings because older people drove them.

 

Yeah... I think the average Lexus buyer age is lower than Buick, but not by very much. If you attribute Buick's good rankings to their buyer's age then that doesn't speak well for Lexus either - look just a short ways down the chart of top ranking companies and you'll Mercury and Honda trailing closely behind, and I can assure you they have a much younger average buyer age than either Lexus or Buick.

 

Is the question "reliability" or "fit and finish"? Buicks have always been reliable cars when it comes to starting and getting you where you wanted to go. Only very recently have they even been in the Japanese ballpark when it comes to being screwed together perfectly.

My first new car was a Buick, one of the first of the 1980 X-cars. Based on the Chevy and Pontiac 4cyl. iterations these had a horrible reputation but our Skylark V6 was a true gem. My wife and I drove it daily for eight years with no mechanical troubles at all-but the "fit and finish" was fairly bad compared to modern cars in general, much less a Lexus.

One of my uncles,he's really old, just bought a new Lucerne. My impression of this car is a qualified WOW. Put on a Lexus badge and you could fool most folks. Only fault I found was the enormous size-but the quality is clearly there.

 

I drove a number of Buicks as company cars - as well as Chevy's, Fords, and even a Chrysler product or two. My Buicks were almost completely trouble-free, and they were subjected to a lot of miles on some less-than-perfect roads. I would regard their reliability as similar to my Lexus. While dealer commitment varied widely, I had relatively good service from a couple of dealerships - and a couple I would never visit again. I pointed these discrepancies out to the local zone office, and evidently I was not alone.

Although often maligned as an "old man's car", Buick was positioned in the GM hierarchy as "the poor man's Cadillac" - and it probably carried a better reputation for reliability. With a little judicious use of the order forms, you could build an economical cruiser for about the cost of a mid-price Chevy - or a full-boat luxury sedan for a few thou less than a Caddy. While Chevy and Cadillac were stuck with some pretty severe market limits at the high and low ends of the GM product line, Buick offered a wide range of vehicles - they just did a rather poor job of advertising them.

In today's product lineup, Chevys have suffered a bit from decontenting and their lack of style has made them practically invisible, while Ponitac's overwrought styling has badly damaged a once proud marque. Cadillac is badly overpriced in its segment, but Buick offers, to my mind, the best compromise of quality and economy in the line. Their rather bland styling has hurt them, but at least they didn't go over the falls like Pontiac in recent years. I suppose that represents success. If they would go back to their styling roots from the days of Harley Earl, where they shared a platform and many components with the GM flagship, not to mention a reputation for quality, they could once again become a market force to be reckoned with.

Chevrolet has all but slipped off the radar screen, and Pontiac is known to build some cheap, if overdone styling exercises. Cadillac has done well in its move upscale, but its reputation has not supported its new-found flair. Buick, the rather plain sister that nobody talks about is in an excellent position to break into the thirty-to-forty-something market with a real marketing coup.

 

You guys bring up some good points. which is what I wanted and asked for when I opened the thread.....some good input. I myself (right or wrong) had tended to think that maybe Buick's good reputation today was due to some of its owners not spotting problems that did exist, but your comparison to other brands that are also driven by older-than-average crowds is a valid point. Perhaps Buicks (at least the Lucerne and LaCrosse) are a step above other GM products in reliability despite the mee-too GM plasticky hardware.

One of my neighbors has a new Enclave and loves it...two tone Pearl White/Light Gray. His request....and that of a couple of CL members...was the reason I reviewed one. I liked its roadability and refinement, general overall looks, trim, but not the hardware.

 

What model years were those Buicks, Lil? In my experience, the 60's vintage Buicks were superb up to about '70 or so (72 for the Skylark), though they tended to eat water pumps, and had the typical, early-fade GM acrylic lacquer paint of the era. By the early-to-mid 70's they started a slow decline that intensified in the 80's into the early 90's, and then began a slow recovery in the mid-late 90's that has continued till today, except for their cheap interiors. Perhaps the worst ones, overall, were the front-drivers of the 1980's.

 

I drove a series of Buick LeSabres (the last of the "full size" RWD models) through 1985. It was only coincidence that the week after my new '86 (FWD) was delivered, I left the company. It was great for a week - and after I turned it in, the Chairman wound up driving it for the next two years. My other options in those years included a Ford Crown Vic (w/ tiny engine), a Pontiac, and an Olds 88. I drove each of them for a month or so as hand-me-downs while waiting for my new cars and I believe the Buick was the better choice - at least with a few options I sneaked in. A few poor souls ordered Olds Cutlass' and Pontiac LeMans with the V6 - both were OK in town, but disintegrated under heavy highway service.

At home I kept a new Suburban (4WD) and an Opel Coupe fun car - just to keep me entertained.

 

My friend had a '97 Le Sabre. His dad had a '97 too. His had sunroof problems, but thats really it. His dad's engine blew.


My two cent: Im dissapointed that this brand has more SUVs that sedans nowdays. What happened to the automanufacturer that made the Road Master and Grand National?

 

It seems as though the Rainer and Rendevous are now discontinued. Buick is down to 3 vehicles. Hmmmm.....

 

yeah the GNX was a seemingly cool car wrapped in a somewhat austere body...my parents had two Buicks at one time (Regal Estate wagon and Century sedan, 83 and 84 IIRC). The two cars actually held up decently, but obviously they don't compare to a Toyota (I think the Camrys at that time didn't offer the type of luxury Buick did)...however, we were fortunate that the cars didn't have the notorious GM problems of the 80s (the Century was leased for three years, then turned in when the Taurus came out, and the Regal was traded in for a Volvo after 4 years).

 

And here's where the distinction comes in regarding the age of the Buick buyer. A fifty year old loyal Buick buyer is less likely to quibble about plastic interior, if s/he merely replaces each Buick with another. The fifty year old Lexus buyer, converted from Buick, may now rent a Buick on a trip and be extremely disappointed with the Buick.

At the Philly Auto Show earlier this year, I was amazed at the difference in the feel of the leather in the Lexus as compared to pretty much every other car on the floor--BMW, MB and Audi included.