RichardJensen Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 (edited) From this week's AE rant: Having accompanied Ed on a tour of the GM Design headquarters recently, I can safely say that the current and future design language of Buick - as expressed by the incredible talent at work in GM studios in the U.S., China, Australia and other points around the world - is absolutely riveting, and it will not only forever change any hoary preconceived notions that may have defined the brand in the past, it will establish Buick as a global design leader and propel it into an entirely new stratosphere of respectability. Not likely folks...... 'forever change.....stratosphere of respectability' My goodness, Pete, if that was penned by anyone else, you'd come up with any of a number of hack phrases about Kool-Aid consumption (BTW: Jim Jones' followers drank Flavor-Aide--at gunpoint.) Edited July 1, 2009 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted July 1, 2009 Author Share Posted July 1, 2009 Pete D. also gives Hyundai a thumbs up for retreading Chrysler's failed 'gas price guarantee' incentive. Gee, Pete, if it's a good idea now, why wasn't it a good idea when Chrysler came up with it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ovaltine Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 (edited) One must admit though.... the 2010 Lacrosse looks pretty sweet! Buick design is (at the least) on a major upswing! -Ovaltine Edited July 1, 2009 by Ovaltine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old_fairmont_wagon Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 I'll admit that Buick design is improving, and I like the way that their concepts of the last two years of shows have been going, but, it's going to be a cold day in hell that a Buick design turns the industry on its ear and makes a majority of the market rethink their notions of what a car could/should look like. Frankly, with the intense focus on fuel economy in evidence in the industry, there is a real limit on what can be done with car design. Most are going to look like some sort of pancaked egg with bulges for the wheels and cabin. Its the trim and character lines that really seems to seperate cars these days. Here's a good example. From a distance, would you be able to accurately tell the difference between a new malibu/aura, a new taurus/mks, a new lacross, a new accord, a new camry and a new passat without a good reference for scale, no trim evident, dulled out character lines and no emblems? It would take you a while and you'd wind up using headlights and trunk shape to tell them apart. This is because, for the most part, they start from platform structures that are very similar in overall shape and an ideal airflow model, meld the two, and then try to give it character lines. Now that's a gross simplification of a very complex process, but, in essence, that's what happens. Just look at the picture above. Put an MKS/new taurus next to it. There are very real similarities. This doesn't mean that one copied the other. It means that they are both covering vehicles of similar size with an aerodynamic skin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 One must admit though.... the 2010 Lacrosse looks pretty sweet! Buick design is (at the least) on a major upswing! -Ovaltine It looks nice, but it's definitely evolutionary, not revolutionary. It's not like you take a look at it and say "That's really a Buick??" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IMSA-XJR9 Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 It looks nice, but it's definitely evolutionary, not revolutionary. It's not like you take a look at it and say "That's really a Buick??" I think non-car people will say exactly that . . "That's really a Buick??" And I still think Buick should take the now defunct G8 and create a "new" GNX! :yup: :burnout: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macattak1 Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 I think non-car people will say exactly that . . "That's really a Buick??" And I still think Buick should take the now defunct G8 and create a "new" GNX! :yup: :burnout: GNX GNX GNX!!! I to think that buick looks pretty sweet from the perspective of a fairly large looking and large feeling sedan. OFW - I also am not sold on aerodynamics and body shapes being forced into like molds. I think that is shapes that they 'think' people want, or are 'safe' enough to use. But look at the flex or even the escape. Neither looks amazingly aerodynamic. However, both actually get great mpg for their size and weight. The Flex especially so. So once again I think it is more about playing it safe. Peace and Blessings Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
97 F350 Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 My goodness, Pete, if that was penned by anyone else, you'd come up with any of a number of hack phrases about Kool-Aid consumption (BTW: Jim Jones' followers drank Flavor-Aide--at gunpoint.) Well since Pontiac is going buh-bye, he has to have a GM brand to fawn over. Wasn't it just a couple of months ago that he had a rant about some tuner's Firebird concept based on the Camero that was going to save Pontiac and thus bring GM back from the brink? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ford Jellymoulds Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 Gotta say the antenna on the roof is absolutely outrageous man, how did the little rebel get it past GM's Quality Control. Did GM find the little tinker who done it, l hope they found the rogue GM designer and had it sent to GM's robotic souless cars design teams malfunction repair room and had the chip replaced or reset on the rogue robot. Gotta say l would prefer it if every cars was shaped like a Mondeo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goingincirclez Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 (edited) Pete D. also gives Hyundai a thumbs up for retreading Chrysler's failed 'gas price guarantee' incentive. Gee, Pete, if it's a good idea now, why wasn't it a good idea when Chrysler came up with it? I think the difference with Hyundai's price guarantee is it truly sets the price at an artificial low that nobody expects a return to, so it really does have value. Chrysler's was what, $2.99? Even when paying $4 or $5 for gas at the time, most people knew/hoped the real cost of gas would come down closer to $3 at some point anyway. Yet I don't know or a single reasonable person who expects gas to consistently stay under $2 for any length of time. Plus the promotion seems to fit in with Hyundai's tricks of adding value other than cash on the hood. I dare say if Chrysler used similar language and presentation "for these hard economic times" - which if you recall were being roundly denied in 2008 - they'd look just as brilliant. As for Buick? Feh. Show me one person under 30, under 40, maybe even 50, who has the slightest esteem for anything other than that fluke 20-year-old tuner G-body. IMHO GM killed the wrong brand. Call them Buicks in China if you must, but why keep that casketeer badge here? Edited July 1, 2009 by goingincirclez Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 (edited) I think non-car people will say exactly that . . "That's really a Buick??" I don't. I mean there's nothing about the design details that say anything other than Buick. Is it a nice looking Buick? Sure. Does it stray entirely from the design details that have defined the recognizable traits of a Buick over the past several years? Not really. Frankly, this is really what Buick already should have been. And then the whole other question: If these new Buicks are so much better and more upscale and "hip", what then is the purpose of Cadillac? One of the two should have been axed in my opinion. Edited July 1, 2009 by NickF1011 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IMSA-XJR9 Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 I don't. I mean there's nothing about the design details that say anything other than Buick. Is it a nice looking Buick? Sure. Does it stray entirely from the design details that have defined the recognizable traits of a Buick over the past several years? Not really. Frankly, this is really what Buick already should have been. And then the whole other question: If these new Buicks are so much better and more upscale and "hip", what then is the purpose of Cadillac? One of the two should have been axed in my opinion. And that's fair, but the portion of your quote I underlined and placed in bold is the basis for my opinion as well as showing some of the "newer" Buicks to friends and family (who aren't car people) to which have asked if the car really was a Buick. And as far as your last sentence, would you say the same for Mercury and Lincoln? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 And that's fair, but the portion of your quote I underlined and placed in bold is the basis for my opinion as well as showing some of the "newer" Buicks to friends and family (who aren't car people) to which have asked if the car really was a Buick. Fair enough. And as far as your last sentence, would you say the same for Mercury and Lincoln? If Ford ends up trying to push Mercury upmarket again, then I would say the same. There isn't enough market out there for both of them to compete in the same area (especially since they share dealers). We will see whatever comes of Ford's not-long-ago announcement about Mercury focusing on smaller cars though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 One must admit though.... the 2010 Lacrosse looks pretty sweet! Buick design is (at the least) on a major upswing! -Ovaltine +1....stunning car....but will it have 365hp and AWD........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IMSA-XJR9 Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 Fair enough. If Ford ends up trying to push Mercury upmarket again, then I would say the same. There isn't enough market out there for both of them to compete in the same area (especially since they share dealers). We will see whatever comes of Ford's not-long-ago announcement about Mercury focusing on smaller cars though. Agreed! (And I should have qualified the responses from people I have shown the new Buicks usually include the usual follow up comment . . . "It looks like (fill in Brand, usually Lexus.)) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex D. Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 (edited) While it looks nice, and is certainly a step in the right direction for the brand, I can't help but see a Mazda 6 rear-end, and Lincoln-esqe front-end with very BMW-like headlights. Much like the current model, which just seems to be a mesh of different styling elements from different brands (especially the GS-300 style headlights). And then there's that loathsome GM badge on the side of the car... Edited July 2, 2009 by Alex D. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 It looks nice, but it's definitely evolutionary, not revolutionary. It's not like you take a look at it and say "That's really a Buick??" ....bububu....Buick's new ads tell me to "take a look at it now".... Gotta say the antenna on the roof is absolutely outrageous man, how did the little rebel get it past GM's Quality Control. Did GM find the little tinker who done it, l hope they found the rogue GM designer and had it sent to GM's robotic souless cars design teams malfunction repair room and had the chip replaced or reset on the rogue robot. Gotta say l would prefer it if every cars was shaped like a Mondeo What did any of that mean? Agreed! (And I should have qualified the responses from people I have shown the new Buicks usually include the usual follow up comment . . . "It looks like (fill in Brand, usually Lexus.)) From the rear, I see a lot of different vehicle cues in the new LaCrosse. -5-series in the taillights -Lexus GS in the greenhouse/roof shape -a bit of Infiniti G37 in the greenhouse -MKS in the chrome strip over the license plate -Lexus LS in the exhaust pipes It does have it's own character, though, by not copying any one vehicle too much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7Mary3 Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 Gotta say the antenna on the roof is absolutely outrageous man, how did the little rebel get it past GM's Quality Control. Did GM find the little tinker who done it, l hope they found the rogue GM designer and had it sent to GM's robotic souless cars design teams malfunction repair room and had the chip replaced or reset on the rogue robot. Gotta say l would prefer it if every cars was shaped like a Mondeo That's an OnStar antenna. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7Mary3 Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 You know, that is a good looking car. I like the beltline dip, reminds me of a '55 Century. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-150 Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 I may disagree with Peter D at times, but the fact remains, he does know more than the average internet armchair CEO. And he has been right more than he has been wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retro-man Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 (edited) You know, that is a good looking car. I like the beltline dip, reminds me of a '55 Century. You're right! My grandpa had one of those! Ok, so here's the deal: when one of my kids has kids, maybe I'll have another look at GM. Wonder if I can get my wife to wear little gloves and one of those pill box hats with the mesh on the side...... + = I think I'm tapping into the soul of Buick here. Do you think they could fit that Lacrosse with aftermarket portholes and chrome tits? Edited July 3, 2009 by retro-man Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted July 4, 2009 Author Share Posted July 4, 2009 And he has been right more than he has been wrong. Have you seen a study that establishes that? Or are you basing your opinion off his habitual self-promotion? You know, where he'll tell you about something he got right 850 years ago in a former life, but won't mention his prediction that Pontiac's goose wasn't cooked earlier this year...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-150 Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 Have you seen a study that establishes that? Or are you basing your opinion off his habitual self-promotion? You know, where he'll tell you about something he got right 850 years ago in a former life, but won't mention his prediction that Pontiac's goose wasn't cooked earlier this year...... you can read his historical columns to check how well he prognosticates as far as Pontiac, 12 months ago not too many thought they would be killed off Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted July 4, 2009 Author Share Posted July 4, 2009 I'm not saying that Pete D. doesn't know his stuff. I will, however, say that he has a tendency to go overboard. Regarding his prediction that Pontiac was still viable, that column came AFTER GM has all but pulled the plug, publicly. He quoted some insider as saying that Pontiac 'still had a future' and totally went to town with that in his typical yards and yards of prose style. I read DeLorenzo's stuff----as much of it as I can handle---every week because he DOES know the biz. But he can, and DOES, frequently go off on some spectacularly bizarre tangents... A side-effect of drinking his own Flavor-aide, I suppose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-150 Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 I'm not saying that Pete D. doesn't know his stuff. I will, however, say that he has a tendency to go overboard. Regarding his prediction that Pontiac was still viable, that column came AFTER GM has all but pulled the plug, publicly. He quoted some insider as saying that Pontiac 'still had a future' and totally went to town with that in his typical yards and yards of prose style. I read DeLorenzo's stuff----as much of it as I can handle---every week because he DOES know the biz. But he can, and DOES, frequently go off on some spectacularly bizarre tangents... A side-effect of drinking his own Flavor-aide, I suppose. oh I do agree that he is his own biggest fan. he's a typical copywriter. All copywriters and art directors have that same self-importance and arrrogance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.