And we can both agree that the new LaCrosse (the thread topic) represents a good ride/handling combination (actually one of the best I've seen outside of classic German sedans).

I don't neceesarily agree with the long-term rule. Although it obviously doesn't hurt, one does not necessarily need to own a car for months to get a good idea of what they are like. My test-drives average around 25-30 minutes.....in my area, with a lot of varying road surfaces and traffic conditions, that can tell you a lot.

When I bought my Outback, for example, I knew after just 10 minutes or so behind the wheel (and a general quick overview) that it was the car for me. After nearly 5 years, I haven't changed my mind one bit.....time has only reinforced what I knew then.

I also knew, when I first drove the 1987 Hyundai Excel over 20 years ago, that it was a piece of junk....that was evident before I had even gone a couple of blocks.

 

Yes, agreed (on-topic) being realistic might help with better decisions going forward.

 

I don't think it's necessary to get hung up on the long term rule, it's more a matter of driving it extensively for a few days/couple hundred miles/all weather conditions/road types/speed ranges/traffic conditions, etc. I won't comment on the Outback and Excel remarks, NA.

And that's where the CL posters here add value, since they have owned (or do own) just about every relevant car currently available.

At that was mentioned in (2.) when I mentioned the differences of driving in VA versus CA, NV, AZ for example.

But back on topic, the new LaCrosse certainly reflects a competitive attempt by Buick with the kind of ride/handling expected in this price range today.

 

In November the best selling Buick vehicle in US was the LaCrosse at 3400 units.

 

That seems like a pretty good number. It will be interesting to see if sales hold up in December. My guess is that it will, but who knows.

 

I also think another point that deserves consideration, which they briefly touched upon in th article is depreciation when it comes time to sell the vehicle. The ES has a historical track record of having fairly good resale value. It doesn't make much sense to save $1,000 on the front end, just to lose 5 or 6,000 after 3 years. Aside from Corvettes, and maybe the Escalade and a couple others, GM vehicles generally depreciate a fair bit more. Can a vehicle branded with at best, a semi-premium GM badge compete in this category with a brand name like Lexus, which in the USA, is recognized as one of the most premium brands in the industry?

 

I think this discussion of brands is beside the point of looking at both vehicles and evaluating them on their own merits. The article compared the cars based on design and performance and left out brand cache and resale (and rightly so). Those are issues for the consumer to decide.

I find it entirely possible that Buick could build a car which is completely equal or superior to the ES. It's not as if the ES is the most cutting edge car around.

 

imo for Buick to contend with Lexus they need to beat them on price to appeal to customers. At the current price setting many consumers feel like they are paying Lexus prices for the new kid on the block. That Lexus track record is worth the extra money, especially when its only $1100 on a 40k car. Buick may have done a decent job of getting their cars in the same playing field as Lexus but they need to do better to beat the class gold standard/ benchmark

 

I don't think Buick wants to compete with Lexus. I think they want to compete with the ES and RX

 

[QUOTE=I8ABMR;5103457. That Lexus track record is worth the extra money, especially when its only $1100 on a 40k car. [/QUOTE]

You are so right about this....with Toyota or Lexus track record, they usually are worth the extra money.

 

Good point. That's where the volume is.