Large hulking sedans do not help brands push younger buyers.
Lexus went a whole new direction with their sedans.

sales are up 8% worldwide....new younger gen do not see sedans as a flagship or something that represents a brand

 

When I was 25, I wore Rockport shoes, I liked them. I remember someone in b school saying to me why do you wear old man shoes? lol I'm not 100% sure but I think back then they were made in USA and extremely comfortable. As I made my way up the ranks, I switched to Clarks, which were made in England at the time. If I were brand loyal, and some are, maybe I would still wear Clarks today. I think they're still good but I do know they're mainstream as they had stores in malls when malls still existed. Nowadays I get Mephisto online. During the pandemic, I got running shoes from a NYC shop, at a too good to be true price--$43 for top of the line 1 gen old (Nimbus 21). Usually the way it goes--shoes $150, then drop to $120, then to $90 when a new gen is out.

But as far as cars go, the only brand with which I had the same brand more than 1X, is Volvo. Had 3 (all used 10+ y.o., one lasted 8 years) from age 19 until I got my first new car. Wasn't the avg. age of a Lexus buyer once 57? This is pre-leasing. The avg. age of a BMW 3 series owner was 41, male, and median income $140k. Pre leasing. Today? I bet the median income is 1/3 of that--thanks to leasing. And the age is way down too.

So it would seem I am brand loyal to Asics--but that's only because of the fit, seems to fit the best. Just like guitars--Martins play the best to me. But one would say Taylor is much more popular today. It's not easy to build a brand and get repeat buyers. If I'm not mistaken, Buick reduced the warranty by a year. Premium cars should have a 4/50 bumper to bumper imho, because with our Buick, we used it right up to the 48 mo (we did supposedly 3 days after expiration because they never wrote it up but honored it).

edit the above is still irritating lol best to simply avoid, meaning don't wait until last minute but in a sense we can't decide when things break

 

Hey MM, I decided to check and looks like Bilstein only makes the rear shocks for the Encore. Not sure if I'd want different ones on each axle....probably not.

I tend to gravitate to genuine GM OE which is often made by ACDelco. They always had 3 grades, before OE, Professional, and Advantage, now OE, Gold, Silver, so I decided to buy a cabin filter, one OE, and one Professional. What I found was interesting--same ACDelco package, one had a GM hologram, the other did not. Then, there's this concept of "problem solver, " where aftermarket claims to fix a defect in a factory part. So it's not easy to decide--when I did my wife's water pump, I used OE even though the original failed in the low 80's. Because it came with the bolts and was hoping the defect was eliminated by now (2011 v. 2019). It was made in Canada which is a good thing! I decided to use an OE front motor mount, it comes with the rubber cover in the box (so what lol), and cost significantly more than aftermarket, but what the heck (on YouTube many used aftermarket).

On the cars and demographics, I think some people do care about looks and cool factor. Buick seems to imho have looks, the same way Hyundai always seemed to have that down. Back to 2008, I think the Enclave was good looking--took a boring platform and added lines to it. Not to mention the same cargo capacity as a Tahoe, but in a crossover. Just the other day a new Explorer was parked next to us, which I truly like on paper esp. the sport model (RWD platform and cop car technology in the unibody). But the lines were boring. maybe that's what Lincoln's for lol

 

Have you checked out the interior of the new Explorer? I found it disappointing and cheaply-done in a number of ways.

 

I agree with both of you. The new Explorer is a near-ideal CUV on paper, given the RWD-based Mustang underpinnings. But the execution leaves much to be desired, and is overall a disappointment.

 

I'm not being rude. Plenty of people have expressed opinions about what I drive and buy, it is what it is. You said that you can't pan the small engines in that car, and my response was that I can and I do. I think those tiny engines in a car made by Buick at that price point are insulting to buyers.

And those would be cars I would accept having a small 3 cyl engine, not a $30k Buick.

 

I'm not a big fan of three-bangers either, but, in this case, what's built around the three-banger, IMO at least, is quite impressive for the money, in a number of ways.

The real problem is, like it or not, unless one goes with a full BEV (mostly Teslas as of now, but some other brands as well), we're simply going to have to get used to smaller ICEs in future new vehicles. There may be a few exceptions, but, for the most part, it's not even a debatable subject any more, but a fact. Vehicles that formerly got V8s are now getting V6s or turbo V6s; Vehicles that formerly got V6s are getting in-line fours or turbo-fours, and at least some vehicles that formerly got in-line fours are getting turbo-threes....primarily at Ford and GM. There are several reasons why....some of them we can openly discuss on CL; some we can't, because of politics. But to say it's not going to happen, or wishing, or opiniating (however honest the intent) that it is not going to happen, is simply Pie-in-the-Sky stuff. In fact, not only will it happen, but is happening, right now, under our noses, as we speak.


And I have never panned anything you bought or leased. True, the Pacifica is not the most reliable vehicle on the road (and, believe me, as one who owned several of the late-70s/early-80s Chrysler/GM junk, I know what unreliable vehicles are). But the Pacifica, by minivan standards, is an impressive vehicle. Chrysler was the company that invented the FWD minivans, and probably knows more about their design than anyone else, and, when not being repaired, they obviously do the job for you and your family...your wife didn't fall in love with Pacificas for nothing.

 

We all know about the trend to smaller turbo charged engines. If you are happy going from a V6 with good power to a 3-cylinder, then be happy about it. It's your prerogative; but it's not for everyone.

 

Because my family has an engineering background, my grandfather was explaining to me how V6's are imbalanced. I was probably 6 y.o. Then, he told me he made a mistake getting a V6 on his '64 Skylark. Apparently, and it's supported by Wikipedia lol, they actually could have a V6 or a I6 on that very same car! I went on to own a '70 LeMans with a 250 I6 when it was 20 y.o. Smooth as silk.

The entire planet seems to have accepted FWD and V6s somewhere in the mid 90s. But they vibrate like all heck, they lack primary balance. That's just physics.

Proof is my wife's 3.6. A week ago sunday, I changed the top torque strut (it's a 4th engine mount). Still problems but a tiny bit better. Then I researched and found cars as low as 40-50k got that replaced, as well as the front engine mount. Nobody got the rear or trans mount replaced under warranty, and a YouTube guy showed both the front and rear. Front shot, and rear fine. A Meineke YouTube said the same thing. So it's funny that people might think a V6 is a smooth design. A V12 is. A I6 is. And a V8 though lacking in primary balance, is effectively smooth. So I hope people aren't thinking a 3 cyl is not balanced but a 4 is. A 4 is not. my .02, and our household has 2 V6's, a V8, and a I6. The I6 and the V8 are smooth.

Whomever pushed the V6 transverse mounteds, to the general public, as being good, really did a great job selling the sizzle!

 

You are correct, but the comparison with a V6 is a comparison to a V8. Sure I6s are smoother, but an I6 in a transverse layout would be very difficult. If you want 6 cyl power in a transverse FWD vehicle it really has to be a V6.

Technology has also compensated for that lack of balance very well. There are many very smooth V6s out there today.

The issue with the 3 cyl isnt balance, its just overall feel and power.

 

Actually, I believe it was Buick that pushed the 2.8 & 3.8 V-6 FWD vehicles in the late 70s & early 80s. Anyone remember the Regal V-6? That was supposedly a technological breakthrough back then.

If anyone wants to experience a buttery smooth i6, look at GM’s new 3.0 Duramax turbo diesel. OMG, that engine has fantastic, ultra low-end torque & its smooth as butter. If you didn’t know it was a diesel, you would guess it was a fuel injected V-8. I’ve had a V-6 turbo diesel & it was noisy & not very smooth. The downside to any i6 is the length of the engine block. It takes up a large area in one line.

 

What you may (?) be forgetting, though, is that cylinder-angle makes a big difference in V6s. The original 3.8L Buick V6 of the early 1960s was made by simply lopping off the outer two cylinders of a standard 90-degree V-8. Well, from a refinement point of view, that just didn't work, and took years of engineering-devices to and refinement to overcome that natural imbalance. Modern V6s are done at a 60-degree bank-angle, which makes things much smoother to start with.

 

Probably not, my 1998 Nissan VQ is 60 degrees, and it's hardly smooth, when compared to a V8 or I6. It's the quietest of the stable, at idle, but take it to 4500 rpm + and it's got more shaking than Paul Newman in HUD riding a bronco. I think what it is, is that when people become used to something, they accept it. FWD, transverse mounted, V6, is so prevalent, it's the "standard." But there's no overcoming physics. Like putting the 3.6 in a Camaro, a Cadillac, and a Traverse. Same engine, different horsepower (off the top of my head maybe a 35+ HP spread), same torque. That's selling the sizzle!

example--when I was given that 2016 328i for was it 4.5 mos, my buddy at work said try launch mode before you return it. It only was willing to do it 2X. But that car must have done 0-60 in mid to high 5's, very impressive for a 4 cyl. But, also a racket. Some people are about numbers, and back then to get 250 HP out of a tiny 4 cyl is impressive. It's the execution that's not very good.

 

Wouldn't mind trying that. I get that some people are getting Explorers and Silverados with 4 cyls and Mustangs too, but it simply isn't the same on paper, as in execution....

I know nothing about the 3 cyl GM engines, but most likely, they are trying to provide only what's needed in the interest of efficiency? for example, when one changes a motor mount, one doesn't jack the engine up as high as they can, that will break things, one is trying to find that spot where the engine is lifted as little as possible, but still allows the mount to come out and be replaced. So the Encore likely doesn't need a 4 cyl turbo, a 3 will do. Aren't iconic motorcycles 2 cyl?

 

Engines don't exist in a vacuum, its not that universally any V6 will have more vibration than any V8. I have had extremely smooth V6 cars and V8 cars that weren't so smooth. For instance the old pushrod V8s in the GM SUVs aren't particularly smooth feeling (even the new ones). The V6s in my Lexus ES cars for instance were very smooth.

The real difference between a V6 and a NA 4cyl is obviously power. Cars that have both, the V6 feels so much better. When you start talking about a Turbo 4 then the power becomes less the issue, and its more sound and feel.

Its cheap, plain and simple. When you buy a car thats not an economy car, whats "just good enough" just doesnt appeal to me.