New Buick to be called LaCrosse, has been butchered.

[vonVeezelsnider]

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/hot_li..._spied/(page)/1

Great. They broke the concept. And the LaCrosse name lives. Why? Oh well, on to see the new 2013 Impala looks like... Maybe I'll be buying a used DTS after all.

[smk4565]

Looks boring, Accord style headlights with 5-series ripoff tail lights. The interior is similar shape to a Malibu LTZ but only a mild upgrade from it, the Lincoln MKZ is nicer than the new LaCrosse. Plus the new MKZ comes out before this and will have some upgrades.

[Paolino]

Don't get me wrong, I like it. But what happened to the concept? It's so warmed over...

The grille? Keep the more-aggressive chrome grille... it looked nice! the faux wood, well, damn.

[Northstar]

Aside from no chrome on the grill and smaller wheels, I'm not seeing what's so different.

The interior still looks good...

[Drew Dowdell]

tail end is very lexus like

[loki]

from that POV it looks very KIA, sadly. the hood still has the grooves and "ventiports" but does not look nearly as exciting as earlier thought.

[wildcat]

Unlike the concept images, this photo, as it is, to me doesn't look very exciting - like a refresh of a plain car, which will not help Buick at all. With that grille and those rims and wheel size, it doesn't say "luxury" or "premium" to me.

Compare the "spy" photo to the Concept Vehicle. Subtle, but very real differences (in my opinion, just like how they watered down / dumbed down the Pontiac G6.)

I thought that someone claimed it could only be called "LaCrosse" if it were built in Oshawa; the assembly plant for this vehicle has been given as Fairfax, Kansas, right?

What kind of game has GM been playing then, when Rick Wagoner referred to this as an (unnamed) Buick sedan? I never read a single post asking for the LaCrosse name to be retained. Can't GM listen to the public?

So, to sum up my feelings at the moment:

Edited August 9, 2008 by wildcat

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

WOW!!!

What an ugly, generic looking S.O.B.

But hey, what else would one expect from GME?

Man alive... Did they just bolt the ass of an Avalon/BMW on there or what? I mean, I know both the Germans and Japan Inc. had been aspiring to become Buick (even as the press ridicules Buick, yet doesn't bat an eye at the ugly, generic foreigners) but really?

That's sad... Especially since the concept was so awesome.

But alas, same GM, same mistakes.... Buick concepts have ALWAYS been show stoppers (Better than both Cadillac and Chevy) and their production cars have always benn plane-jain watered down to nothing.

Edited August 8, 2008 by FUTURE_OF_GM

[wildcat]

The more I think about it, the more that silver spy photo looks like some generic rental car...

not a premium, luxurious, stylish new Buick.

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

Looks boring, Accord style headlights with 5-series ripoff tail lights. The interior is similar shape to a Malibu LTZ but only a mild upgrade from it, the Lincoln MKZ is nicer than the new LaCrosse. Plus the new MKZ comes out before this and will have some upgrades.

Yep... Same "Accord style" headlights that can be also found on the new Cruze, the new Aura, the new Insignia and pretty much anything else from GME.

I remember when everyone (including me) bitched about how similar and BLAND the G6 and Cobalt were when they launched together. I guess history will repeat itself.

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

Aside from no chrome on the grill and smaller wheels, I'm not seeing what's so different.

The interior still looks good...

FWIW, I'm sure the higher trim levels will still have all of the 'extras' (At least I hope, since that is all that will save this car from being another Century)

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

The more I think about it, the more that silver spy photo looks like some generic rental car...

not a premium, luxurious, stylish new Buick.

Get used to it my friend...

Saturn killed Oldsmobile, and now has apparently now successfully paralyzed Pontiac to its death. Didn't any of you Buick fans realize that Buick is next in the battle of brands? CPF has already said that he has no use for the division.

MARK MY WORDS: The Saturn Aura, despite having less sales, less name recognition and less prestige (even to the average customer) will debut NICER than the Buick whatever-it-is-to-be-called. This will be for 2 reasons; 1) GM thinks it can get a higher price for the Saturn since it "has no baggage" and 2) Saturn is dieing to claim it's spot right under Cadillac as GM's middle brand.

I hate to say it, but I envision a day in which GM consists of Chevrolet, Saturn and Saab if management keeps playing the cards like this. The ONLY reason Chevrolet will survive is 1) because of its size and 2) because the 'blue bloods' at GME don't want their brands peddling Daewoo junk. Cadillac will turn into what Lincoln is today, (From the looks of product plans) except it'll be held to a higher standard, and eventually be laughed out of existence.

Edited August 8, 2008 by FUTURE_OF_GM

[Robert Hall]

Looks like a GM FWD midsize sedan... what did you all expect? It looks like a productized version of the concept.

[smk4565]

This car looks generic, much like the current Buick sedans that have almost disappeared in the market place. I bet this car bases around $25k, more than the current LaCrosse, but less than the Lucerne. $25k is a Malibu LTZ, so I'd expect a slightly better interior and a DI or turbo 4 with the V6 optional, but cheaper wheels and cloth seats standard to keep production costs down. Plus if they sell it for $26-27k, they can sell it to the rental car agencies to rent as a "premium car" like they do with Chrysler 300s.

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

The more things change...

The more...

At least the old Century had a unique wheel design.

Edited August 8, 2008 by FUTURE_OF_GM

[Robert Hall]

This car looks generic, much like the current Buick sedans that have almost disappeared in the market place. I bet this car bases around $25k, more than the current LaCrosse, but less than the Lucerne. $25k is a Malibu LTZ, so I'd expect a slightly better interior and a DI or turbo 4 with the V6 optional, but cheaper wheels and cloth seats standard to keep production costs down. Plus if they sell it for $26-27k, they can sell it to the rental car agencies to rent as a "premium car" like they do with Chrysler 300s.

Well, rental cars are one of GM's strengths. They keep Avis, Enterprise, and Alamo rolling..

[smk4565]

This is what I expected, GM makes bland sedans that compete with each other. Two years ago I thought they should kill Buick and Saab off and divert those resources to Cadillac. Now Buick and Saab sales are down 50% and Cadillac is getting models cut due to lack of funds.

GM is being stupid with Saturn. They tried to take an econo-car brand up market, and did it with products that have similar materials and features as run of the mill Chevys. Saturn was like the Kia of the 90s, and all of a sudden they think it can get a premium price? At least Hyundai with the Genesis put a lot of development into the car and made a good product, and they still have the lower end cars that they always had.

Cadillac is on the path to become Lincoln, a new Impala could replace the Buick sedans, Pontiacs and GMCs are rebadges anyway. I could see a cash strapped GM one day being Chevy-Saturn-Cadillac, much like Ford-Mercury-Lincoln. And Saturn will still suck.

[smk4565]

Well since most people cut back on rentals, except Chrysler, there is a demand for rental cars, that Pontiac and Buick seem eager to fill.

What's sad is that Century in the picture was sold until 2004. A 1994 BMW or Lexus looks more modern than that.

[siegen]

Looks like a hopelessly generic Kia/Hyundai product.

The main thing I didn't like on the concept was the side crease, which is horribly cheap looking. Even the hood vents weren't bad. The concept looked pretty damn good actually. What happened? This production vehicle carries absolutely none of the feeling that the concept did. Perhaps it is just the angle and picture, but I think not.

Did I mention the side crease looks bad? The one thing they could have changed from the concept and they didn't.

[VenSeattle]

I thought that someone claimed it could only be called "LaCrosse" if it were built in Oshawa; the assembly plant for this vehicle has been given as Fairfax, Kansas, right?

Oshawa owns the rights to Regal and Impala... not LaCrosse.

[HarleyEarl]

In a word, dumpy.

This design takes Buick in the wrong direction.

GM wows us with some great recent cars and then goes mentally insane.

[Robert Hall]

Looks like a hopelessly generic Kia/Hyundai product.

The main thing I didn't like on the concept was the side crease, which is horribly cheap looking.

Did I mention the side crease looks bad? The one thing they could have changed from the concept and they didn't.

The whole point of the side crease was to make it look Buickish (i.e. Buicks have had side creases like that in the past). Without the character line, it would like just another midsize generic.

[balthazar]

>>"They keep Avis, Enterprise, and Alamo rolling.."<<

Enterprise by me is 100% nissan & toyopet.

>>"What's sad is that Century in the picture was sold until 2004. A 1994 BMW or Lexus looks more modern than that. "<<

a 1994 bmw looks exactly like a 1968 bmw; in other words- decades older.

>>"The main thing I didn't like on the concept was the side crease, which is horribly cheap looking. "<<

How are you coping with the accord's horribly cheap looking side crease?? Or are you referring to that as a scrape or dent?

>>"Oshawa owns the rights to Regal and Impala"<<

I struggle to think of a more absurd scenario- a location owning a trademarked name instead of the legal coporation that created it.

The Buick in this awful spy shot looks awful in comparison to the awesome concept. Invisible. I do think a lot of it is the pic itself, but I'm not holding my breath on the real thing anymore.

[Robert Hall]

>>"They keep Avis, Enterprise, and Alamo rolling.."<<

Enterprise by me is 100% nissan & toyopet.

Toyopet hasn't been in the US since the '50s...they are renting old cars?

>>"What's sad is that Century in the picture was sold until 2004. A 1994 BMW or Lexus looks more modern than that. "<<

a 1994 bmw looks exactly like a 1968 bmw; in other words- decades older.

You are exaggerating. A '94 BMW has some styling cues in common with the '68, but totally different and modern.

[red]

Having seen this and the other new products around the bend, it appears that GM is sliding back into old habits, design-wise. The fun's over, I guess...

[cire]

To me, the photos are still too grainy to pass any final overall judgements about the car. I want to see some clear images from different angles before I label it as a success or failure. It do think it looks somewhat diluted from the Invicta Concept (which was to be expected), but I also think it looks much better than the current LaCrosse (which wouldn't be hard to do).

I do have some preliminary suggestions for Buick about this car based on the grainy picture:

1) The grille needs some type of metallic finish. The black finish on the grille just makes it look cheap.

2) The car needs some fog lights; it would look much more upscale with them. That is one of the major gripes I have about Buick and Cadillac; fog lights should be standard equipment on products that are supposed to be luxury vehicles.

3) Chrome door handles would also be a nice, upscale touch. Again, Buick is supposed to be a luxury brand; make it look like one.

4) Lose the dorky "LaCrosse" name. That car has essentially been a loser for the brand; why use it on a car that is supposed to signal the renaissance of the brand? Buick has a wealth of historic names that would be better suited to this car than continuing with the lame "LaCrosse" name.

Other than that, I am going to leave it alone until clearer pictures are shown that really give a better indication of the overall execution of the design.

[REDO1GPGT]

Wow it looks bloated....

[VenSeattle]

I understand a lot of people's disappointment, but this is probably a Chinese-spec lower trim level. We don't know enough about the car in the pic to know for sure. Also, the exterior front pic is of terrible quality. Combine that with a silver color that washes out all the body character lines & brightwork and you have an almost worthless, but definitely damaging, spy pic of an unreleased vehicle.

I'm not disappointed by the overall understated look of the car. It's very similar to how the Enclave is understated. If I wanted "a lot of flash" like the CTS, I'd buy a CTS.

I recommend many should wait until official pics are released (and hopefully in a different color) before bashing GM, GME, God, etc. As much as some people want to "focus" on certain things possibly wrong with the car, there are many things intact from the concept that are exactly right.

[wildcat]

[ regarding Buick ] CPF has already said that he has no use for the division.

Can you provide a citation (source) for that?

Edited August 9, 2008 by wildcat

[wildcat]

Lose the dorky "LaCrosse" name. That car has essentially been a loser for the brand; why use it on a car that is supposed to signal the renaissance of the brand? Buick has a wealth of historic names that would be better suited to this car than continuing with the lame "LaCrosse" name.

GM (or GME), are you listening?

[balthazar]

Toyopet hasn't been in the US since the '50s...they are renting old cars?

'toyopet' is what we here often call toyota, you know- in a derogatory, dismissive manner... not unlike someone who would take every single, solitary opportunity to dismiss a brand as existing solely to be whored out only as a rental. Same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over..........

You are exaggerating. A '94 BMW has some styling cues in common with the '68, but totally different and modern.

"totally different"? You must be high, sir.

1968:

1994:

Same damned, reguritated, tired, worn-out, boring, predictable, design. This is a longer design run than the '68-82 Corvette !! 4 round lights, horizontal plastic grille, pig nostrils, bland sheetmetal (actually, at least the '68 has some interest & flair to it). Even the hood emblem is in the exact same spot, twenty-five f@#king years later. It never changes (well, until it got Bangled). I hope to hell (like I care) bmw didn't pay any sort of design staff all those years, for what ??? Sure wasn't for interior design.

You still consider quad circular headlights 'modern' in 1994??

Same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over..........

Edited August 9, 2008 by balthazar

[wildcat]

Now Buick and Saab sales are down 50%

Buick sales haven't dropped 50%, but GMNA (GME?) is working on it.

[Robert Hall]

"totally different"? You must be high, sir.

Just calling out your BS..

Same damned, reguritated, tired, worn-out, boring, predictable, design. This is a longer design run than the '68-82 Corvette !! 4 round lights, horizontal plastic grille, pig nostrils, bland sheetmetal (actually, at least the '68 has some interest & flair to it). Even the hood emblem is in the exact same spot, twenty-five f@#king years later. It never changes (well, until it got Bangled). I hope to hell (like I care) bmw didn't pay any sort of design staff all those years, for what ??? Sure wasn't for interior design.

You still consider quad circular headlights 'modern' in 1994??

Same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over..........

Round headlights were certainly nicer than the ugly flush headlights that were the rage then... the grille, badging, etc are design cues carried on through time over multiple generations. The '68-82 Corvette was the same car with updates, BMW's '94 models were not updated '68s.

Mid '90s BMWs are certainly nicer and better designed than the forgettable FWD generics GM was churning out at the time. Face it, the '90s GM products were by and large forgettable crap.

[balthazar]

>>"BMW's '94 models were not updated '68s."<<

Then, that's even a more sad scenario, isn't it? Total redesigns (multiple?) to produce... the same car visually. Imagine if GM redesigned the '68 Nova multiple times in 15 years and all it came away with visually by 1994 was molded plastic bumpers ?? Oh, the knashing of teeth & the tearing of hair that would ensue !!!! Look at what we already have with the W-Body "rebadges"

>>"Face it, the '90s GM products were by and large forgettable crap."<<

The entire 1980s and 1990s were by & large forgettable crap. These era cars will never reach even a fraction of the collectibility or following or value of vintage American vehicles. Face it yourself.

Edited August 9, 2008 by balthazar

[Robert Hall]

>>"Face it, the '90s GM products were by and large forgettable crap."<<

The entire 1980s and 1990s were by & large forgettable crap. These era cars will never reach even a fraction of the collectibility or following or value of vintage American vehicles. Face it yourself.

Whatever, that's neither here nor there..what's more important is what GM is going to building in the next decade...can they overcome what 25+ years of mediocrity has done to them?

[cire]

I understand a lot of people's disappointment, but this is probably a Chinese-spec lower trim level. We don't know enough about the car in the pic to know for sure. Also, the exterior front pic is of terrible quality. Combine that with a silver color that washes out all the body character lines & brightwork and you have an almost worthless, but definitely damaging, spy pic of an unreleased vehicle.

I'm not disappointed by the overall understated look of the car. It's very similar to how the Enclave is understated. If I wanted "a lot of flash" like the CTS, I'd buy a CTS.

I recommend many should wait until official pics are released (and hopefully in a different color) before bashing GM, GME, God, etc. As much as some people want to "focus" on certain things possibly wrong with the car, there are many things intact from the concept that are exactly right.

I agree with you about a lot of items in your post. You are spot on in what you said above. I appreciate your realistic, down-to-earth viewpoints on this article.

First, the hate-fest on this car seems a little premature. It's a grainy picture without any accompanying info. Final judgements about the car need to be reserved until clearer photos and additional info becomes available. If anyone expects this car to be an exact reproduction of the Invicta Concept, then they are only fooling themselves.

Second, it's a Buick; it will not have an edgy design. That's not Buick's purpose. Buick represents casual luxury; their products are supposed to be understated and elegant (the Enclave was a perfect example). Cadillac is supposed to be the edgy luxury brand with "flashy" designs. This is what sets Buick and Cadillac apart (I would still like to see the 2 brands combined to form the luxury dealer network, but that is another issue).

[wildcat]

Those spy shots of the white NG LaCrosse (oh GM, why?) looked much better than this thing in silver. Those spy shots of the dark blue NG LaCrosse (I have to write that name twice in the same thread?) had a black grille, too, and it looked bad.

Listen to me, GM (GME)... and this is NOT nostalgia talking... Invicta is a hell-of-a-better name than LaCrosse.

[wildcat]

If anyone expects this car to be an exact reproduction of the Invicta Concept, then they are only fooling themselves.

Then don't show me a concept that GM can't or won't build.

Some use the term "understated," but Buick doesn't have to be boring. Stylish! Beautiful! Remember... "Drive Beautiful"?

[4gm]

Bob Lutz needs to go. He was good for getting some great interiors back to GM and making panel gaps smaller with sheetmetal but this man is so out of touch with what's hot design-wise, it's pathetic. And this new Lacrosse is just the latest example of that.

You know what I'd do? I'd slap a Buick grill on the new Insignia and make it the new Lacrosse. Like everyone has said, this new Lacrosse is bloated and generic.

[Robert Hall]

First, the hate-fest on this car seems a little premature. It's a grainy picture without any accompanying info. Final judgements about the car need to be reserved until clearer photos and additional info becomes available. If anyone expects this car to be an exact reproduction of the Invicta Concept, then they are only fooling themselves.

To me it looks very close to the concept...very similar grille and headlight treatment, same taillight treatment, same side sculpting...the front fascia is a bit different and the greenhouse differs wrt to window framing. The small wheels on the 'production' version in the pics are underwhelming. Aspects I don't really care for that I did notice about both the concept and the 'production' version (if that is what it is) are the stubby front and rear, and the vertical tallness/thickness of the body relative to the greenhouse size...those seem to be current design trends that many automakers use.

Edited August 9, 2008 by moltar

[wildcat]

How could GM ever delay the Insignia coming here as a Saturn because it was "too close" to the Buick (Invicta - I refuse to say LaCrosse)? Or did they mean strictly the interior, 'cause they sure couldn't mean the exterior.

Oh wait, here's a new memo...

"NG LaCrosse delayed - GM says 'Too Close to '94 Buick Century'"

[Robert Hall]

How could GM ever delay the Insignia coming here as a Saturn because it was "too close" to the Buick (Invicta - I refuse to say LaCrosse)? Or did they mean strictly the interior, 'cause they sure couldn't mean the exterior.

Oh wait, here's a new memo...

"NG LaCrosse delayed - GM says 'Too Close to '94 Buick Century'"

Yeah, I didn't see any real resemblance between the Insignia and the Buick concept other than the dimensions and a bit of a similarity in the greenhouse. The Insignia is the nicest looking of the new GM FWDers, IMHO, esp. the hatchback (why can't we get a midsize hatchback in the US??)

[wildcat]

Is it possible GM is saving the Invicta model name to use on the Lucerne replacement, whatever that may be? (If there is one?)

The names La Crosse and Lucerne... blech

[balthazar]

Yes- the same features are there in the spy shot vs. the concept, but the proportions are all different. Huge difference (based on the pics). Production car had better be 95% of the concept or just forget it.

[Intrepidation]

Sigh...from what I can see it looks like a huge disappointment, thanks GM.

[pow]

I'd much rather have an Insignia with a Buick grille. Interior looks very 1990s show car.

[thegriffon]

Looks like the concept to me, given the bad lighting. As for the name, not even C&D said GM has confirmed it will stay "LaCrosse". They are just calling it LaCrosse themselves, fair enough as GM has not announced the name of the NG sedan.

[balthazar]

I feverently hope that 'Invicta' will be earmarked for a flagship sedan, not an entry-level one.

...unless Buick is considering reissuing 'Electra'; then I'm fine with it.

[Delta Force79]

Wow, what a total letdown. After the transition the Enclave had from concept to production, I had high hopes GM was finally getting it right for Buick. The Enclave concept was a beautifully crafted crossover from front to back and it is just as beautiful in production form. So what the f@#k happened between the transition from Invicta to LaCrosse? GM pull your heads out of your asses, the truck market is dying, your cars NEED to be knockouts...this sorry sack of &#036;h&#33; is nowhere near being a knockout.

Granted the picture quality is low grade, and the interior seems to be fairly close to the concept's, but the exterior seems to have totally lost it's flair...and holy Lexus ass Batman....

Edited August 9, 2008 by Delta Force79

[CSpec]

Looks like the concept to me, given the bad lighting. As for the name, not even C&D said GM has confirmed it will stay "LaCrosse". They are just calling it LaCrosse themselves, fair enough as GM has not announced the name of the NG sedan.

I agree that it looks very similar to the concept. The photo is poor quality with the hood popped, so I would wait for more shots. This weird hating on gme is also quite strange.