Wow, that's some reasoning for the decline of Olds, amazing or at least amusing.

I don't agree, the cars were crap (including the underpinnings, engines, bodies and interiors).

Fortunately Buick is trying to appeal to a broader more lucrative base than the shrinking population approaching expiration or loss of license.

 

What I stated was not a spin or an opinion, but a fact. Olds sales declined drastically with the demise of the 88 and 98, even more so than with the Toronado. It was an enormous marketing error that the company never recovered from. John Rock, Olds CEO at the time, later admitted as such.

Yes, here, you have a point....their cars had more than just one fault. Olds, in the 1990s, produced vehicles with a ridiculous pattern of dozens of small, identical dash buttons (I'm sure you remember them, as I do). Many people had trouble deciphering and using them.....just as they do BMW's I-Drive.

Although Buicks do have a rather high median buyers' age, even traditional soft, plush Buicks appeal to more than just geezers. Don't fall for that old.....and inaccurate......stereotype that they are just an old person's car. That's nonsense.

 

The high median age of Buick sedan buyers isn't a stereotype - It's a fact. Maybe the new LaCrosse will lower that in the U.S., but until/unless it does, the average age of Buick buyers will be one of the highest.

I will look at the LaCrosse after it's been on the market at least a year, but sadly I won't help to lower that average age a bit!

 

I really like the looks of this car. One of the better looking cars I've seen from GM.

 

Yes, that is the true demographic data, not some meaningless stereotype.

And successful companies like Toyota are very aware of this type of buyer data. For example, Toyota made significant improvements to lastest Avalon in the hope of appealing to a wider/younger group of buyers because the previous gen Avalon buyers had an average age of 62.

 

You misinterpreted what I said. Of course Buick has a high median average-age buyer.....that indeed is a fact. But the stereotype (and it is an inaccurate one) is that it is rare to find younger people driving them. In fact it is not, particularly for the Enclave. I myself had two Buicks before the age of 20, in addition to a Plymouth Barracuda ponycar.

 

See my response to LexBob2......I'll repeat it here:


You misinterpreted what I said. Of course Buick has a high median average-age buyer.....that indeed is a fact. But the stereotype (and it is an inaccurate one) is that it is rare to find younger people driving them. In fact it is not, particularly for the Enclave. I myself had two Buicks before the age of 20, in addition to a Plymouth Barracuda ponycar.

 

If Toyota is so smart, then why did it drop all of its sports cars and sport-coupes from the American market? The Scion tC was marketed under a different nameplate, and it wasn't really a true sports car or sports-coupe to start with. Though a coupe, it is a redone Toyota sedan from the overseas market not sold here.

It's only now....some 4-5 years after the last Celica and MR2 was sold here.....that Toyota is getting around to desiging a true sports-coupe with Subaru.

Tha Avalon doesn't NEED to "appeal" to younger people. Like Buick, it has its core of somewhat older but faithful customers. Try and make it a BMW and Toyota will lose that core.

There's an old saying...."If it ain't broke, DON'T fix it." Avalons and Buicks aren't broke, and don't need fixing. Even in GM's bankrupcy, Buick has been one of GM's most successful divisions, because they know their customers. And, in China, they REALLY appreciate Buicks.

 

Well, Buicks were broke... Thats why God created Lexus

In all seriousness though, I dont know much about 60ies and 70ies buicks, but I know that Buicks of the late 80ies, 90ies and 00 were miserable heaps of junk, just like pretty much every other American car. And its not because they were comfortable and unsporty, but because they ugly, terribly built, used crappy materials, are just induced vomiting reflect in most people.

Seriously, compare a mid 90 Avalon to a mid 90ies Park Avenue. Is there even a comparison?

2000 Park Avenue 84,712 miles







vs

1997 Avalon 76,132 miles

 

Lexus actually competed more with Cadillac than with Buick. But Lexus' real target, when it was first introduced in 1990, was Mercedes. In fact, Mercedes, after Lexus was introduced, was never the same company again. They were forced to cut costs, and it started showing up in their products.

60's-vintage Buicks were great.....I grew up with them, and the other American cars of the period.

But, after that, I agree with you. 80's vintage Buicks were garbage, quality-wise, but they maintained the smooth, quiet ride that their buyers wanted. They started improving in the late 90's, though, and, by the end of the decade, and into the new century (no pun intended) , they had become (once again) one of the most reliable American nameplates. The Lucerne, LaCrosse, and Enclave also reversed the cheap-looking interiors of their 90's-vintage predecessors.

 

We all got a little off-topic (yes, me included).


We were discussing the latest 2010 La Crosse with the turbo 4.

 

Right, my "God invented Lexus" comment was a joke attempt. However Avalon and even decently equipped Camry were far better than their Buicks competitors. The 92 Camry in particular was simply awesome.



Well, it is debatable whether Buicks became reliable in the late 90ies. Most of them used GM's 3800 OHV engine which leaked like a pig after 60k miles and GM's transmissions weren't the most reliable units either. Not to mention that GM's electronics of that era were horrible as well - failed speedos, gas gauges, etc are all too common.

As far as comfort and smooth ride goes, well Buicks were smooth, but they were doing it wrong. Lets see egronomic interiors of Japanese cars with quality hardware, vs spacious yet poorly laid out Bucks interior with horrible hardware. Comfortable, yet sophisticated seats vs overpadded, unsupportive seats. Comfortable, sophisticated independant suspension vs floaty flex beam suspension. Refined, efficient and economical SOHC engine vs low output OHV that sounds like a bucket of bolts. The list goes on and on.

 

Good one, which company is smarter GM or Toyota? Which company is bankrupt? Which company makes highly regarded luxury cars like the Lexus? Which company generated profits for most years in the last decade? Nobody needs to ask that question, except maybe you...

The Scion brand is considered a success (and yes it was part of Toyota's plan to attract younger buyers, since the average of a Toyota buyer in 2002 was about 42). The end result is that Scion is a profitable and reasonably high volume line of cars that appeals to young and not so young buyers.

Yep a lot of companies don't want to slog in out selling chintzy sports coupes, because they have such a short life span, hot one day and dead the next. Not the most lucrative market, premium sport coupes are better addressed by BMW.

 

We noticed you really enjoy telling us about great old Buicks and great plastic body Saturns.
Yes, many of us are old enough to remember this junk, including me.

Reality check, today is June 10, 2009.

 

Not to mention Buick's poor braking and poor handling, resulting in poor active safety performance. The poor fuel economy and low output of the crude OHV engines just added to the misery.