Buick Enclave Video Discussion Thread

[dado]

what engines will buick enclave have? V8 (ultra, northstar) new v6 with DI?

[Paolino]

what engines will buick enclave have? V8 (ultra, northstar) new v6 with DI?

202689[/snapback]

At the start, just the 3.6L HF V6. The Northstar will not fit, but there is talk that a next gen V8 will go under the hood in time.

[dado]

i know that northstar isn't small engine (like ls 7) but i don't think that ultra v8 will be much smaller (it's v8 probably with bigger displacement but i don't know if it is going to be 90° or 60° between banks) so they could put northstar until ultra comes

[Drew Dowdell]

just because it's not the newest fad doesn't mean it's cost cutting.

199838[/snapback]

truth!

[Tailfin61]

I thought I read or heard somewhere that in a few years all cars will be required to have LED's. Does anyone know if that's true?

[sciguy_0504]

Some could say not having navigation or video systems in this segment, as well as others, would be a cost cutting move, even though they are fads. Same thing with Xenons or back-up sensors, smart cruise control, etc.

[Drew Dowdell]

Some could say not having navigation or video systems in this segment, as well as others, would be a cost cutting move, even though they are fads.  Same thing with Xenons or back-up sensors, smart cruise control, etc.

203033[/snapback]

Sort of....those options are high profit areas for vehicles like this, not offering them is leaving money on the table....

[turbo200]

Some could say not having navigation or video systems in this segment, as well as others, would be a cost cutting move, even though they are fads.  Same thing with Xenons or back-up sensors, smart cruise control, etc.

203033[/snapback]

It shows cost-cutting because GM/or whatever company, did not devote the money and resources to develop the significant technologies needed for this class of vehicles to market to the upscale.

Not having LEDS does not hurt the potential of the Enclave in the grand scheme of things. It is like pushrod technology or 4 spd automatics, however, and it will contribute negatively to cheapen the essence of GM vehicles. Why can't they have the most modern of technologies available at all levels? Why do they insist on this Sloanian crap of filtering technologies? I guess the whole reason is because marketers still don't see the Acadia and Enclave as attracting different consumer bases. That is too bad, but sacrificing the features that modern consumers expect on thier expensive cars makes no sense.

Not adopting LEDs ultimately does not make sense but isn't a deal breaker. The Enclave looks to be a great vehicle, but the wheels from the concept need to be made for production, exactly.

[zete]

You drive a VERY expensive CTS?  So you have a CTS-V??  Probably not, because if you did, you wouldn't worry about reading lamps and handles.  You'd be having a blast smoking all the guys that have reading lamps and handles....

Dude, if you don't like the CTS, then why did you buy it?  I see you made your point about the reading lamps and the handle thing and a glovebox light??? But what about the etc, etc, etc...is there anything substantially wrong with the car?  I think you're ASSuming too much by saying that people are going to think Buick "cheapened out" by not having LED taillights.

199736[/snapback]

Your dig was inappropriate, but I'll ignore your capitalized childishness.

The CTS is not a V as my wife and daughter drive it, too, and GM in their stupidity didn't provide the V with an auto so I couldn't buy it. Plus, I refuse to row a car anymore. GM should put a SMG-like tranny into these cars, like BMW and Audi. Give us the option. With me they got me into a CTS but I would've bought the V with an SMG.

As for whether I like the CTS or not, I do -- that's a given since I own one! And since I own it I figure I can bitch about the stupid shortcomings that shouldn't be on the car in the first place. BTW, I'm not doing the reading. It's my kids in the backseat that are doing the reading. Furthermore, according to your "logic" I can't complain about the car because I bought it? Or is it that if I complain it means I don't like it? It has shortcomings and I'm pointing them out. How is GM supposed to know that certain things have POed their PAYING customers! Only if they comment on it.

The fact is, the small things annoy. I bought the CTS because I loved the lines. The interior was a near deal-breaker for me. But in the end I just liked the overall lines too much. And I also spoke with Cadillac about it as they called me after I bought the car. The grab handle in front is not that big a deal, the light in the globe box on a night drive is a pain when your passenger has to rummage around in the dark and it's definitely not "luxury" handing him or her a flashlight. I could provide a list of cheapness issues with the CTS, but it would be huge and GM already has it and has told me it would be fixed with the next CTS. I'll see.

So, will people think Buick cheapened out? Generally, I don't know. What I do know is it looks that way to me. If people see something on a competitor they'll wonder why the GM is lacking the feature. People are like that.

Then again, I've gone back and taken a look at the concept shots. Sure enough, no LEDs. So, me culpa in that regard. I obviously never noticed, but then I never saw it drive out onto the stage and have its brake lights on, so I can be forgiven. And from the commentary a lot of folks also thought it had LEDs.

Finally, and had you thought about this for, oh, a nanosecond, you'd realize that the reason I'm looking at an Enclave is because I have a growing family. That was quite obvious from my prior comments. If it was just me we'd not be having this conversation as I'd be getting a Z06. But I have a family and need something practical. Plus, I'll be the one putting $40+k down on this. Will you? And I think, as a potential customer I have the right to nitpick. It is a lot of money and I want GM to give me a very good reason not to buy a competitor's product.

BTW, I hope you're not a salesman as I'd never buy a car from you.

[zete]

The point is crystal clear here...and that is that some folks think Buick is being cheap by not using LED taillights.  I disagree. 

The point of my comments regarding zete's very expensive CTS, is that if a fella has so many gripes about a vehicle..why purchase it?  My '93 Chevrolet pickup has a glovebox light, so it's peculiar to me why a CTS, especially a very expensive CTS wouldn't have one.  I understand wanting the reading lamps, the handle thing, etc, and zete's Caddy should have them.  I grant you that it looks like GM was being cheap by the absence of those items.  But to me those things don't have anything to do with Buick not using LED taillights.  As has been shown by Cananopie and others, the concept didn't even have them, so why all of a sudden does the production car have to have them???  It is a double edged sword though...how many times does mercedes or bmw get criticized for being so expensive?  And and I guess we can attibute that to them not ever cutting any corners to save $$.

199949[/snapback]

I'll say one last thing about LEDs: I think they would make the car look more expensive. It has little do with reality, it's just a perception thing. And, after all, isn't the thing GM is trying to fix is their perception in the marketplace? If the lack of LEDs is truly a design decision because it makes the car look better I can live with that, too, even though I think LEDs would make it look more expensive and work to GM's advantage.

As to the rest of the comment, a quick point. The reason someone buys a particular car is that a) they need one and b) it's better than the competition. Before I purchased the CTS I had a shortlist of cars: CTS, 330, 525, E Class, Audi A4, Lexus GS, Acura TL, and G35. I wanted RWD or maybe AWD. The STS wasn't out when I needed to buy so the CTS was the one, but in the end it didn't matter as the STS wasn't that much bigger so it didn't matter.

After a lot of discussion with folks I know who own the various cars the Mercedes and the BMWs fell off the list; their quality was iffy. My wife hated the G35s styling. The Audi was fairly nice, but way too small. And the A6 just felt too big and handled awkwardly. The Lexus was nice, very nice. But the styling was bland. The Acura was interesting but it just didn't handle like the others and I'd rather drive a BMW than an Acura, and so off the list it went. That left the CTS. It was RWD, handled wonderfully, was reasonably large -- my family was smaller then, my kids have shot up faster than expected (my YOUNGEST (13) is 6' tall, for example) -- and the new 3.6l was a great engine, though a tad underpowered, IMO, for the weight of the CTS. However, it handled in the realm of the 3 and 5 series.

So, looking for a luxury car in that range with an auto or SMG I bought a fully loaded CTS. As I've mentioned before, the V was an option but without an auto it wasn't going to happen.

Does that excuse GM from the shortcomings? No. They overcame them with me because of a variety of reasons. I would've loved the Audi interior in the CTS. But, you see, you just can't rip the interior out of the Audi and dump it into the CTS -- wish though I could.

So car purchases are based on tradeoffs. And I felt that there were a slew of stupid tradeoffs that GM did. It diminished a very good car. I believe the next CTS will be great.

And when I trade in the CTS for, most probably, an Enclave it will be sorely missed. However, the Enclave will probably be my last family car. The kids are getting older. The Enclave should last me for quite a while and then I can go pick up a nice Screaming Yellow Z06 and my wife and I can enjoy the next phase of our life. But I need to live this phase out first.

As I said, buying a car is based on tradeoffs. But so is life.

[Intrepidation]

Since it didn't have it as a concept...who gives a flying f@#k? After all, the design looks nice anyway...if a bit like one of Mazda's designs.

[turbo200]

Your dig was inappropriate, but I'll ignore your capitalized childishness.

The CTS is not a V as my wife and daughter drive it, too, and GM in their stupidity didn't provide the V with an auto so I couldn't buy it. Plus, I refuse to row a car anymore. GM should put a SMG-like tranny into these cars, like BMW and Audi. Give us the option. With me they got me into a CTS but I would've bought the V with an SMG.

As for whether I like the CTS or not, I do -- that's a given since I own one! And since I own it I figure I can bitch about the stupid shortcomings that shouldn't be on the car in the first place. BTW, I'm not doing the reading. It's my kids in the backseat that are doing the reading. Furthermore, according to your "logic" I can't complain about the car because I bought it? Or is it that if I complain it means I don't like it? It has shortcomings and I'm pointing them out. How is GM supposed to know that certain things have POed their PAYING customers! Only if they comment on it.

The fact is, the small things annoy. I bought the CTS because I loved the lines. The interior was a near deal-breaker for me. But in the end I just liked the overall lines too much. And I also spoke with Cadillac about it as they called me after I bought the car. The grab handle in front is not that big a deal, the light in the globe box on a night drive is a pain when your passenger has to rummage around in the dark and it's definitely not "luxury" handing him or her a flashlight. I could provide a list of cheapness issues with the CTS, but it would be huge and GM already has it and has told me it would be fixed with the next CTS. I'll see.

So, will people think Buick cheapened out? Generally, I don't know. What I do know is it looks that way to me. If people see something on a competitor they'll wonder why the GM is lacking the feature. People are like that.

Then again, I've gone back and taken a look at the concept shots. Sure enough, no LEDs. So, me culpa in that regard. I obviously never noticed, but then I never saw it drive out onto the stage and have its brake lights on, so I can be forgiven. And from the commentary a lot of folks also thought it had LEDs.

Finally, and had you thought about this for, oh, a nanosecond, you'd realize that the reason I'm looking at an Enclave is because I have a growing family. That was quite obvious from my prior comments. If it was just me we'd not be having this conversation as I'd be getting a Z06. But I have a family and need something practical. Plus, I'll be the one putting $40+k down on this. Will you? And I think, as a potential customer I have the right to nitpick. It is a lot of money and I want GM to give me a very good reason not to buy a competitor's product.

BTW, I hope you're not a salesman as I'd never buy a car from you.

203143[/snapback]

Blatant example of GM cheaping out highlighted. It would be relatively easy to license the tech from BMW, after all BMW bought trannies from GM for years, I don't see why the flip wouldn't be possible.

You have every right to nitpick, groan, moan, and especially since you are the demographic GM wants to keep, a paying customer!!!, you need to share your opinions.

In keeping the faith, GM has let me down, I think every single person on this site could agree with that statement. It's the rays of brilliance that allow me to keep the faith.